The slave of the state. Every civil servant and politician's dream. Be a knave and dependent. Vote for more of the 'free' services and monies that is your 'human right'. Don't work, don't save, don't take care of yourself, don't pay for education, don't worry. The state is your new god, your lord, your money maker, your guardian and benevolent angel. The list of problems with such a theology is quite long indeed.

The culture wars are being fought around the most important issue in the field of battle in human existence – your role as an individual versus the demands of the collective. This is what the political-economy is essentially about. All different 'isms' are basically models, philosophies and teleologies trying to explain this relationship and how a 'proper' society from the viewpoint of the 'ism' in question, should be formed. Are you a collectivist, an individualist, a libertarian, or most likely a mixture of all these varietals ? If so what is the balance ? Indeed what is the right balance between the unknowable leviathan state and that of the individual ?

This is the right question to ask. In doing so, 'left', 'right', 'moderate' become meaningless terms used by the media to push their own culture-forming agenda, and in most cases, to demonize their opponents. Is Obama a 'leftist' ? Of course he is. He was and is a radical Marxist, another ism-variant of social communalism. But are his policies that much different than G.W. Bush, a supposed 'right wing' President? Of course not. Some details are different, but many of the directions, programs and ideas are quite similar. Bush was in essence a statist, less overtly socialist than Obama, but leading a party and administration which nonetheless expanded government power to hitherto unknown levels.

Words such as 'right' and 'left' are therefore meaningless. More important are questions such as – who controls the Congress or Parliament ? What are their belief systems ? Who elected them and why ? Who gave them money and why ? What do their supporters want ? Further we can ask the same about the never-seen civil service. Who are these union workers for life in government ? What do they want ? How do they manage politicians for their own benefit ? If term limits should apply to politicians why not to the ever expanding bureaucracy of infinite power and control ?

People should be more skeptical. The claim that you are a moderate is a laughingstock. What is a 'moderate' ? Do moderate socialists, moderate Marxists, moderate Communists and moderate Moslems exist ? Who are they and where they are ? How do you know if they are 'moderate' ? Is believing in the individual, markets, trade and wealth creation immoderate ? Is it immoderate to demand some human free-will choice in health care ? What about protecting the fetus – is that an immoderate misogynist position, or a consistent defence of life ?

All 'isms', cults and theologies are composed of individuals. There is no 'global opinion', much as international law in one corpus does not exist. There is no 'group' which is homogenous. A 'conservative' party will be made up of at least 6 different and definable types of supporters, all with different ideas, beliefs, and interests. The 'eco cult' of warm is composed of activists, parading as scientists, but even here the interest in money and power is differentiated and broken down by degree of intolerant zealotry, governance structures and issues around power and budgets.

In Socialism's long march through culture, education, economics and politics, a trek which has lasted now 160 years; the creation of the world's largest cult following has been built. Socialism replaces Christianity in the West as the new idol of worship. The state is uber alles and the culture of the state – that of dependency, and a parent-child relationship – is the main organizing principle of modern life. Communalisms always fail of course. So too will the modern socialist state.

Culture is king and when your culture is eviscerated everything else follows. Certainly the state needs to take care of those who can't manage. The truly disabled, orphaned, working poor, and mentally afflicted are legitimate wards of the state. There are also many and more productive private measures to help these people. As well, the 'poor', need access to health and education. Few argue against that. But we can also say without fear of contradiction, that much of the welfare state budget is spent on bureaucracy, corruption, and is open to fraud, graft and theft. There is no dispute that socialized programs are abused and defrauded. Only a blind fool ignores that reality. This is yet another reason, out of many, to limit government and reduce the role of the state.

If you believe that the state owes you free education, health care, a pension, a guaranteed job, and day care for your children that is not a moderate position. It is one which is merely selfish, egotistical and extremely greedy, in that you are demanding the forcible extraction of other people's wealth to pay for your own lifestyle. This is the modern system of plunder and reward. The politicians and civil servants raid one group to buy the votes of another. This is why Romney's 47% comment, in which he maintained that 47% of voters will vote for the unDemocratic party is so true [not that the Republicans govern any better]. 47% of the population do believe in statism, redistribution, handouts, guarantees and a culture of dependency. Politicians know this. So they both create and support the culture of statism.

Currently the state has the greatest preponderance of power over individuals, processes, money and culture than at any other time in modern history. The Statist cult, which finds its apogee in the clown communist Prince Obama, demands that the center and collective are your only concerns. You as an individual are only important in the manner and means that you support the cult of the State. The individual disappears into the mass. The state reigns triumphant.

The political-economic construction around an omniscient and omnipotent state center always fails. There is not one single historical example of the corrupted theology of communalism enduring for very long. Our current political economy will eventually collapse. The only debate is what we shall learn from the coming debacle ?