: The fifty American free states live together in peace. There
: are among the citizens of these fifty states all of the
: various nationalities and races that live in the
: ever-warring nations of Europe. These Americans represent
: almost all the religions and religious sects and cults of
: the whole wide world, and yet here in North America they
: live together in peace. And all this is made possible
: because these fifty states have surrendered their
: sovereignty and have abandoned all notions of the supposed
: rights of self-determination.

Uh, no, actually; that's not accurate. The structural basis for the States United is that all rights arise from the (sovereign) people and the States, except for those expressly given to the federal "service agency" which serves the States. The de facto situation appears otherwise, but it's an appearance only and/or am imposition by force (quiet war).

The system in fact DOES NOT WORK if "all notions of the supposed rights of self-determination" are handed over to some "keepers" in D.C. BUT this does not mean the central idea of this article is incorrect. I say that it _is_ correct, though only partially understood by its writer(s).

The missing element is this: We self-determining individual human beings are ALREADY aspects of something greater than our individual selves; we are ALREADY not "separate" from one another. Rather, we are as the colors of the spectrum, which are "one" by being differentiations of "white light". Without the Source of that light, our differentiations of it are not possible and don't exist or have meaning.

The point is to come again to REMEMBER this thing that we have forgotten -- that red is not antagonistic to or even separate from green; but that both are aspects of the Source light (a point which the article's writer does indeed make along the way).

When this is remembered and integrated into living, there is no conflict or competition, because "greater" or "lesser" lose the tinge of "good" or "evil" from their meanings. The question is not "Which is better/gooder than the other?" but only "Which is the fitting element for this purpose at this time?" For "fitting" read "righteous" -- "right-use".

This is an entirely different basis for living and for making decisions-of-action in living, one that has seldom been tried in the affairs of mankind. It does not succeed if God/Source/Life is left out of the equation. But it does succeed perfectly when God/Source/Life is the point of orientation, the constant Referent for each one involved.

When this is the case, it's found there's no need to relinquish self-determination to some other supposedly higher group of human beings. Rather, self-determination is retained, fully, by each one. But it is no longer self-oriented, self-centered, self-activated in its spirit and motivation. And it soon is found that all the self-originating pieces fit together perfectly as the differentiations of the One Source light that they truly are.

Said more concisely: The reality of agreement requires that there be participants who are able and empowered to choose to agree. The experience of sovereignty requires that the sovereign individual acknowledges that all others are also sovereign, whether specific others realize it themselves yet or not. Anything less than that isn't yet sovereignty, but something else.