Those are three different words for a reason; the differences between them are subtle, but
important.
'Freedom' , according to Merriam-Webster's Reliable Book, is
the state of being 'free': not
restrained, not taxed, not priced, not attached or bound, and having
liberty or independence. It implies both
action ("winning free", "breaking free", etc.) and some
nearby hostility or threat of enslavement against which one must be watchful
and fiercely defensive.
'Liberty'
is also the state or quality of being free, with a hint of going beyond normal
limits, but its implications are more tranquil or confident. It carries no associated sense of threat, but
assumes that being free to do as you like is one's natural state, and that any attempt to restrain one's liberty is a
bizarre oddity.
'Independence'
– again, the state of being free – has wider implications: of not being
governed or bound by another, but also "not requiring or relying on
something or somebody else", and "not easily influenced" – in
other words, self-reliant.
It's historically notable that the rebels of the American
Revolution used the words 'independence' and 'liberty' more than
'freedom'. This reveals that the
colonials assumed they had already been living in 'liberty' when the British
government began trying to take it away.
They were already used to personal 'independence'; the vast majority of Americans then were at
least subsistence farmers, or had small businesses usually connected with
farming, which meant that the one tactic Britain could never use against them
was to try to starve them into submission.
The common self-reliance of the average citizen is what gave them the
capability of winning the war, as well as the attitude that made them rebel in
the first place. Americans were used to
providing necessities for themselves, and even a few luxuries (such as
silverware), and when Britain
began leeching away too much of their hard-made wealth they could reasonably
ask themselves what America
really needed Britain
for.
Independence,
being the exact opposite of interdependence, is clearly a threat to the
"Peace of Dives", which relies for its success on everybody being
indebted to, and reliant on, everybody else.
The idea of personal independence – self-reliance and freedom, right
down to the level of the individual – is anathema to the Globalist political
campaign, and to political and financial organizations supporting it. This accounts for such apparently unconnected
phenomena as NAFTA, gun-control laws, financial institutions refusing to make
small loans (or making them at outrageous interest), the EPA banning children's
lemonade stands, various governments trying to control the Internet, and
Monsanto suing small farmers into bankruptcy for even accidental possession of
"patented" food-plants. Yes,
Globalism is the attempt to create a single planetary government, with a single
world-wide economy made up of an aristocracy of giant industries, with no
individual variation allowed – all in the name of world peace.
It can't be done, of course, and even the attempt is already
creating a self-reliance backlash.
Back in the 1960s and '70s, it was politically left-wing
Hippies who struck out into the 'wilderness' (or at least the countryside) to
create independent farming and manufacturing communes. As with any new mutation or new industry, 90%
of them failed – but the few that survived managed to survive well, and have
quietly created templates for successors.
It's intriguing that the effort caused the pacifistic Hippies to take up
and seriously study the use of firearms.
In the 1980s and '90s, it was politically right-wing
Survivalists who struck out into the 'wilderness' (etc.) to create independent
'retreats' (which they would never ever call 'communes'). Besides the same market/evolutionary forces
pushing 90% of them into failure, they also faced a concerted legal and
propaganda campaign against them – culminating in the attack on the Branch
Davidian "compound" in Waco. The government in particular considered the
almost-religiously armed and business-savvy Survivalists more of a threat than
the pacifistic and naive Hippies.
Nonetheless, a few survived – sadder and wiser. Ironically, they learned of necessity to take
a serious interest in organic farming and environmental concerns.
Nowadays, in the face of a continuing Depression and the
growth of the economic aristocracy – the "1%" – the pro-independence
crowd comes from all across the political spectrum. The left-wingers don't give themselves any
particular label, which makes it hard for the media to smear them, and connect
only by personal contact or social internet links, which makes it hard for the
government to identify them. The
right-wingers tend to call themselves "preppers" – as in "preparing"
for disastrous social collapse – and even there the media has difficulty
propagandizing against them because the original "prepper"
organization, which charges its members to keep personal caches of a year's
food, is the large and powerful Mormon church.
What they all have in common is a growing trend toward
independence and self-reliance: providing their own defense, food, medicine,
communications and – thanks to the explosive growth of 3D printing –
manufacturing. All over the internet
(and other nets) one can find information on how to provide these things from
the individual level on up. With
aquaponics one can grow food in a studio apartment. With a small solar-electric or wind-generator
system a house can provide its own power.
With a print-on-demand set-up a small publisher can successfully reach
buyers anywhere in the world. With a
basic fuel-ethanol kit a small farm can create its own fuel. And with a small 3-D printer (getting cheaper
all the time) a tiny business can make anything from guns to car-parts.
All of these systems are spreading by leaps and bounds. The
last time I went to a house-party to sing, all I had to do was mention the
words "organic garden" and every guest had a success story to tell
and technical advice to give. The
self-reliance movement, for lack of a better label, is spreading faster than
any government – even with the NSA spying frantically – can keep track of, let
alone curtail.
There is a long-established tradition of independence in American culture, not to
mention 'liberty' and 'freedom', too deeply entrenched for the best efforts of
the government, the aristocracy and their obedient media to root out. This, even more than the collapsing Peace of
Dives, spells defeat for the Globalist movement and its hopeful riders. As the
global economy slides toward worldwide collapse, we'll soon see the financial
aristocracy holding all the money but none of the real production – which will
be irretrievably scattered among the
independent population. In the words of
Kipling, once again:
"So, though we had plenty of money,
There was nothing our money could buy.
And the gods of the copy-book headings
Said: 'If you don't work, you will die'."
--Leslie <;)))><