by Jeff Thomas, International Man:
Submission to the state is a time-honoured tradition, a concept supported by governing bodies since time immemorial.
In days of yore, men submitted to whichever member of the tribe was the mightiest in battle. By doing so, they stood a better chance of succeeding in battle, thereby diminishing the likelihood of their own death or enslavement.
Later on, as tribes became more tied to the land and communities sprang up, the idea of a strong leader still made sense. Not only might he do the best job of leading the protection of the town or village, he might also travel outside the community to attack other communities, bringing back spoils for all to benefit from. (Not too civilised, maybe, but still, the reasoning behind submission to the leader made sense.)
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Later, settlements grew larger and, increasingly, many villages and towns would find themselves joined together collectively, under a national banner, with a single army to protect them. And, again, the leader would most likely be a fierce and formidable warrior. But a significant change was taking place. Whilst the warrior leader was away (sometimes for years), invading other communities, it was necessary to have leadership at home – administrative leadership. Predictably, this leadership also sought the loyalty and submission of the people.
There was a new wrinkle at this juncture as the administrative leadership did not have to prove itself repeatedly in battle to gain submission. It was expected merely due to the fact that the leaders held power over the people.
The expectation of loyalty and submission to a government simply because it is the government is an unnatural and invalid one.
Today, most leaders are primarily political rather than military, and even those who wear a military uniform almost never take part in actual battle, let alone lead the charge. For this reason, the original reason for loyalty and submission should be outmoded.
Why, then, does it persist? Well, in fact, it generally persists as long as there is prosperity and a people are prepared to tolerate dominance. However, should prosperity diminish dramatically, obeisance tends to diminish accordingly. At some point, the leaders conclude that they may be losing the submission of the people and need to reinforce it. This is done by one of two methods and, on occasion, both at the same time.
The first is force. An increased police state can create a greater assurance of submission through fear of those in uniform.
The second is inspiration. A condition of warfare often succeeds as a method of inspiring people to give up some of their rights and fall in behind a leader. Although, in the modern world, we never see a national leader actually suiting up for battle, the mere fact that he’s in charge of the fight from a safe distance often works to inspire people to be more submissive to an administrative government.
Following the English Revolution of 1688, we Britons found that our political leaders made the decision for us as to what our relationship should be to our new leaders at the time. They declared to the new joint monarchs, William and Mary, “We do most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves, our heirs and posterities, forever.”
Quite a mouthful. It certainly left no doubt as to the intent of Parliament – that the people of England were never again to question their rulers and, further, that regardless of any possible changes in policies, laws, and edicts by future kings, the people swore submission … permanently.
This did not sit well with all Englishmen – not surprisingly since they hadn’t been asked whether they wished to make such a declaration of submission. In 1774, an Englishman named Thomas Paine (on the advice of his American friend Benjamin Franklin) immigrated to the Pennsylvania colony and began writing pamphlets that dealt directly with the concept of “unquestioned loyalty and submission”, a concept with which he heartedly disagreed. Perhaps he stated it best in his book, The Rights of Man, first published in 1791:
Read More @ InternationalMan.com
