The irony is that I had been preparing my own essay on the topic when I noticed his essay on his site and heard his rant on his radio show. So, to not seem as though my writings are just an extension of Neal's, I scrapped that essay.
Upon further consideration, I decided to embark upon the topic again.
James Madison wrote, in Federalist 10, a warning against what he termed the "Tyranny of the Majority". What indoctrination over the years has done is caused many Americans to falsely presume our system of government is a "democracy". It isn't. In fact, our founders detested democracy. They saw democracy as a governmental system the deprives people of their natural rights, which are individual rights.
That truth is obvious in an examination of the US Constitution. There are no provisions for any special interest group, or any particular demographic. The rights it sought to protect are all individual rights. If you need examples:
The first Amendment protects the rights of an individual to speak his mind without being censored by the government. It protects those who publish from government prosecution (or control) to inhibit their expression or perceptions of the truth (free press). That same amendment guarantees that the government cannot tell you what religion to believe. It cannot establish a "state religion" nor can it inhibit anyone from practicing their personal religious beliefs.
One tangential note on the religion clause, it is a freedom to practice a religion, not a restriction of that free practice be it in a school, a courthouse, Congress, the White House, or your own home. Demanding politicians or military to forgo their religious beliefs is a violation of the very essence of that amendment.
The Second amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to protect themselves and their property with weapons. It permits us to carry those weapons without any law infringing upon that right. This amendment serves as a necessary individual right to defend their natural rights. If you read the wording, this amendment's necessity is stated, simply, because the government has militia and police to enforce laws and their will by force, the people must be allowed proportionate means to defend against any misuse of that force for tyrannic purposes. That traces back not only to the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, and Jefferson, but the the preamble of the US Constitution as well. "We the [individual] people" rule the government, not the other way around.
The Third Amendment is a recognition that property belongs to the individual(s) and not to the government. The government cannot just walk in and take control of it, even temporarily. The specific meaning behind this amendment is that the government cannot force you to give your lands over for use of the military (or police).
The fourth acknowledges that individual right to property (pursuit of happiness) and privacy (liberty), declaring that it requires probable cause as determined by a lawfully seated judge in order for the government to search or seize your property. Property belongs to individuals, not collectives, not the government.
Continue looking through the document, especially the Bill of Rights. You will find the individual rights to trail, counsel, etc., etc., etc. In the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution goes so far as to state that any authority, right, privilege, and responsibility that is not explicitly stated within the document as reserved by the federal government is automatically considered an individual right, if not already reserved by the state in which you reside.
Our country is founded upon individual rights. The individual is the smallest minority. Our founders recognized that it is imperative to protect that smallest minority from the "Tyranny of the Majority".
Yet there are those who claim that this group, that collective, some demographic category requires special rights beyond those of others. Those very same ideologues contend that the USA has a class system. We do not. I have challenged each that has said such to show me proof. To date, none cane show me where such a system is established or addressed in the US Constitution. The same individuals love to categorize others into little collective groups. These groups tickle at certain primal needs to belong to something. However, these are false groups. They are invented based upon some described facet.
I am not the middle-class. I am me.
I am not a mix of Eastern-European and Siberian (Asian) ancestry. I am me.
I am not blue-eyed. I am me.
Do you see how this works?
Let me take an allegorical individual named Cale. You can follow along with this exercise using your own traits. Draw a Venn diagram of yourself using these ascribed traits.
First, Cale is male. So we have a mostly non-intersecting pair of spheres, male and female. The only intersection would be labeled "hermaphrodites".
Next, Cale's great-grandparents came from Sicily. So, he can claim his race/skin pigmentation as "Olive", "White", "Mixed", or "Black". Draw that circle.
Cale is a conservative. Draw that circle.
Cale has a graduate degree in applied sciences. Draw that circle.
Cale is self-employed, owns his own business. Draw that circle.
Cale makes, after overhead and payroll expenses, $50k a year. Draw that circle.
Cale gives 10% of his earnings to charity. Draw that circle.
Cale is a Deist and is a member of the Unitarian Church. Draw that circle.
Cale is straight. Draw that circle.
Cale is married with three children. Draw that circle.
Cale lives in Lebanon, KS. Draw that circle.
Cale owns his house and car. He has no outstanding debts. He pays his bills and does not purchase what he cannot afford with the money in his checking account. Draw that circle.
There are 3 people named "Cale Wrentzfulmalikson-Iammeyouidiot" in the world. Draw that circle.
By now, most likley, the intersections of all of those descriptions have rendered my fictitious "Cale" as the only one that falls fits.
If this hasn't done the same for you, then add in your parents' names. How many people with parents of those names live in your town? How many of them have your same name?
If that still isn't enough, add your address. Add your type of pet. Add your favorite breakfast food. Add your favorite TV show. Add your BMI. Add in every other trait/category/community/group/tribe into which these collectivists attempt to pigeon-hole you. In the end, you will find that you are not a "collective". You are an individual.
Their purpose for plugging you into some "community" is to take away your self-perception as an individual and replace it with a hive-mind mob mentality. They are trying to enslave you emotionally and mentally.
The purpose is to convince you to put them into power so they can "protect the special rights" of your invented "special group". In reality, you are a minority. I am a minority. Each individual is a minority. Placing you into one of these "communities" is an attempt to get you to trade your minority standing as an individual and replace it with the personality and stereotypes of that group. It is oppression. It is tyranny, pure and simple. They want to steal your voice, your rights, your free will, and replace it with the will of the "commune", which they dictate.
Then you have four wolves, two sheep, and a rabbit deciding what is for dinner. You end up with the "Tyranny of the Majority".
Tyranny and collectivism are on the left side of the political spectrum. They seek to gain power by stealing the natural rights of the individual.
There are few collectives I ascribe to myself. I am a member of my family and I am an American. Other than those, I am me.
With that, I'll leave you with one of my older poems:
MisinterpretedAngel and DevilCopyright 2005 Paul-Gregory Matuszak
both names I've been labeled
Sadist, Pessimist, Misanthropist
Stereotypes I've been libeled
but none of the above I be,
Through all the categories I've been placed,
They forgot to call me 'Me'.