Imagine being in your own country. You decide to go to some pretty forest a lake and camp there. It’s an extraordinarily pretty place and what you’d expect to find would be more people doing the same. But you see nobody there except from police that rudely tells you you’re not allowed to camp. Why is it your own country if you cannot even camp somewhere?
Imagine having collected through fines and fares an amount of money for the ‘collective’. So you decide one day to go pick up your fair share. There are 10 people in the country and you’re one of them and you say ‘ok, I’m going to pick up 1/10 of that money and go’ but then a soldier threatens you to shoot you in the head should you dare to do so. What makes that money collective if you can’t collect your share?
Right now whether you like it or not, your country is going to borrow money in your name too to pay for previously borrowed money because of the ‘collective’. And you might as well never have any personal benefit out of that borrowed money. In fact, if you’re in the US know most of the 20 trillion dept is due to 3 wars.
Collective is a confusion. It is not free-for-all ownership. And who gains control of that? Those who create that confusion of course. They are the creators and thus the owners of that confusion too. ‘Collective’ means you take the blame if somebody happens to what is called collective, but you don’t reap the benefits. It means if there is a criminal all will be policed. It means if one borrows everybody pays; still he gets to keep the borrowed money himself or maybe give some peanuts to the rest so he’ll pretend he did otherwise.
There is no ‘collective’. There is only cause and effect. One or two or more cause something and then something happens. And if they do it in your name it doesn’t mean you did it. And if they say they do it for you (without your consent), it doesn’t mean you’ll benefit from it.
All that’s ‘wrong’ with a person is false ownership. Either something is one’s own and he is not recognising it, or it isn’t and he thinks it is, or he has some nefarious concept regarding what is his own and what is not. When somebody blames you because of your nationality, religion, or other group you might -or not- belong to (you can’t truly be a member of a group without your full consent) that’s the trick he pulls. When somebody blames you for misdeeds of his own and you have no idea what he talks about that’s the trick he pulls. And he might as well not even be aware of it himself. He might think he speaks the truth.
All the thoughts you ‘have’ that you are not in full control of are either not of your own making at all and you think they are, or they are your own and you think they aren’t, or you are too confused about that to even think about that. What is your own thought? The thought you are making yourself on your own determination. One can’t truly be the owner of something, be in control of something that is not of his own making. That laws can say otherwise is a different thing. I’m not talking about laws, I’m talking about actually being in control of something, without needing some external authority (like the police) to enforce it.
You can make your own intentions, thoughts, plans anytime and in any way you wish to. You can also ‘adopt’ others too and say they are your own. But that’s the way to trouble.
Do you wish to break free from external control? There is no external control, but you make yourself for yourself. And giving up control over yourself is a neat way to do it.