Does this sound familiar?
“...a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting...”
- George Orwell – 1984

Excellent effort, Robert.
I was just thinking yesterday that unity means failure in so many areas.
A free market is built and survives on dis-unity - competition. Competition is exactly what the elites hate, because it threatens their looting way of life. Since they cannot compete honestly, they use government to crush anyone who might compete.

"The obvious truth, which elites in both the US and Europe ignore and suppress, is that an open-arms welfare state is incompatible with welcome-mat immigration."
Yes, a hard fact to accept.

I agree with most of the claims in this article, including the hard-to-swallow ones like above. I question, however, what I understand to be the thesis: A people who have established an intrusive gov't that takes a third of what people earn are unified in how their collective money is spent is a bad thing. That means people being divided is a good thing. This is error of the inverse: A --> B therefore !A --> !B.

The producer-recipient divide, I claim, is unrelated to rejection of intrusive/expensive gov't. Some people work in things like biotech and software algorithms to manage data, i.e. the industries producing all the wealth. Then there are the recipients in the world of struggling paper mills and desperate for someone to blame or at least to make some else hurt as they hurt. The fact that they don't see the world the same way is not a rejection of big gov't, as much as I wish it were.

I wish we'd listen to those few crazed libertarians and try moving in that direction. Let people be divided over all kinds of issues: Should Madison public school teach reason and tolerance? Should schools where people want it (not here) include Bible tracts? What's the best way to stabilize the Middle East? Should women get a mammogram every year? How do we pick the next energy source to replace oil and stop contributing to global warming? They can debate it all day long as long as they can't actually do anything about it. I'm happy to send Mark Pocan, who I contribute to and respect, to Washington to argue with people representing rubes about our gender-inclusive restrooms. (I actually wish they'd focus on real issues and just leave the rednecks alone.) I just don't want send them large quarterlies or use force on people who want to live another way. Those of us sending those payments don't like it; I wish I agreed with you that that's a sign pointing to more limited gov't. The recipients still have more power, and they're running up a huge debt to keep receiving.

Thanks for the thoughtful article, esp the tough-to-swallow truths.

There are two kinds of "unity", and they are polar opposites. One end is totalitarianism, a self-destructive rigor mortis of enforced compliance, and the other is harmonious co-existence of mutual acceptance of all different elements (individualism), united by a common principle of non-aggression and non-destructiveness against their members. A hair’s breadth divides unity by unquestioning obedience and self-abnegation from voluntary cooperation for self-interest. There is the essence of domination and arrested development versus indomitable free will and the fountainhead of creative evolution. That hair’s breadth becomes visible when one side claims “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” as a virtue which the alleged defenders of rational individualism disdain. Go figure.

Competition is healthy. It gives us the biggest bang for the buck economically, and intellectual competition of ideas should work the same way. With the Democrats racing madly toward socialism/communism, there should be room for another party. That would create real, genuine political competition. Unfortunately, the Libertarian party has yet to find a dynamic personality to lead them, because they have a message that should be popular, but rarely gets heard.

Well said Robert. But for me disunity is the definition of individual liberty and the rightful meaning of a life well lived--not for the disunity, but for the liberty gained and benefit for the society of free individuals interacting on the basis of that freedom. But it does generate an envy and resentment and that was the basis of the 16th as well as the 14th.
Lincoln and the North destroyed the United States of America only "Four score and seven years" after it's founding. Any rights of the individual states to manage their own affairs to the benefit of their citizens and keep a rein on the Federal Gov't were essentially eliminated and by adding citizenship to USofA opened the door to the 16th as well as many SCOTUS rulings and definitions to follow.

Ayn Rand Essay 2.0, well done Robert! Starting this coming January we will see if the disunity really fissions the USA. If the Dimm's pull all the rods out melt-down is inevitable. I was talking to my wife what could happen in January, she stated the if the founding fathers saw what was happening they would be rolling over in their graves. She stated that the Congress as a whole are acting like a bunch of spoiled babies. I agree with her.

Divided we just get picked off one group at a time. The Jews during the Holocaust were a great example.

I think there is some utility in diversity, but that diversity has got to be in problem-solving approach - not in fundamental ideology. The thing that made America great was that we once shared a common set of principles even though we came from disparate backgrounds. Now, we come from very similar backgrounds, but our principles have wandered all over the place and given rise to identity politics.