Freedom is Danger. Life is Danger. The Alternative to Danger is Death.
View this post on Hive: Freedom is Danger. Life is Danger. The Alternative to Danger is Death.
View this post on Hive: Freedom is Danger. Life is Danger. The Alternative to Danger is Death.
What training program would be necessary to teach the progeny of the freemen, in order that they, too, can exercise freedom, rather than become slaves to license? What skills would be paramount to master, in order that men remain free? What would be the pitfalls of freedom, for which those desiring to break their masters' golden chains, must be vigilant?
Truth is a weapon. Merely disseminating truth does not result in freedom, as much as distributing weapons to ill-trained mob results in them becoming an army. What indoctrination mechanism would be necessary to train freemen? How much of a sociocultural matrix does an assembly of freemen retain? To what authority will conflicts between freemen appeal? What sociopolitical means would be necessary to prevent that authority from becoming another slaver, or being marginalized as irrelevant, due to lack of power?
Can freemen live in an organization we call society? Or are freemen destined to live in the margins of a sociocultural matrix, tolerated by society, but never really being a part of society?
All men die. It is a truth that slaves and masters ought always keep a the forefront of their thoughts.
I undertook a specific program for my sons. It was similar, though improved, I hoped, to that which I lived in my own youth.
I told them the truth I knew, and allowed them to face the world and discover how it worked. My own father did the latter, but not the former. I thus discovered for myself that water is wet, fire burns, and pain hurts. I also discovered the beauty and functionality of the forest and sea of my island home, the venality and corruption of government, and the cost of not being taught by them as knew of the reasons to act according to sound and wise principles.
This is why I endeavored to do some teaching.
I remember first grade, when I was six, in Geography class. We are taught in America that there are seven continents, and I stood before a globe of the Earth, and counted six. There are six, per the definition given. Why then are we taught there are seven? I have speculated on this question all my life since, and arrived at numerous partial answers. Eurasia is one continent, and this is a key to understanding why we are taught it is two, but the best truth I arrived at from this consideration is that we are indoctrinated by those that would use us for their own purposes, kept from the truth lest we escape their power to profit from our lives and treasure.
There is no better curriculum to create a free man than to attempt to impose intolerable slavery on him.
Beyond that, each must endure what fate inflicts, and attain to such power as destiny affords.
Truth? What truth is that you teach the next generation? That all men have blood on their hands and scum on their feet? That the only difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist is matter of dates? That the capitalist/libertarian dogs and communist/socialist wolves all work for the same masters? That no one is innocent, and all are guilty? I applaud you for raising your children to accept the truth regarding this cesspool of a world without them becoming mental.
All education is indoctronation. What a priori principle did you use to indoctrinate your children? From our discussions, it is certain that you did not use God as that core principle. Is it the humanist concept of "freedom," "justice," "equality," "brotherhood," or some combination of them? These are quite the useful tools for enslaving susceptible youths to serve as cannon fodder, but I would think them useless in training those who can master themselves. What is the core principle, to which you refer when faced with the truth of this reality?
Power is the underlying principle, upon which all human societies are built. We agree that power is paramount to functioning effectively in this world. How do the freemen interact with human society, built upon master-slave dynamic, if they neither desire to be masters, nor slaves? Are they to exist only in the margins of human civilization?
Pretty much that, with a few caveats. While we are all guilty, free men determine what they will be guilty of, while slaves are guilty of every sin of their masters. Also, knowing what's really going on doesn't decrease mental stability. It is being beguiled, fooled, and corrupted that threatens a man's sanity.
Not all society is mere heirarchy. All power dynamics are matters of degree, and just as there is no absolute freedom, there is no complete control. I am incompetent to precisely delineate the point on that scale where freedom is nominal, but I also reckon that point is different for each of us.
I may be off the scale LOL.
That being said, society as a whole does not seem very healthy presently, and too much propaganda will create a backlash, IMHO, that may well do a lot of harm to good people. Withal, I am no seer, and cannot know the shape of things to come. What I can see is visible to all men, and what society will become when CRISPR, 3D printing, and the vastness of space allow every madman and saint to associate with who they will, and how, is ineffable.
What is true is that freedom is the power to determine ones actions, and every day that power of individuals to do so is increased, even though many have no clue. Enough do to make things interesting!
Absolutes of ideology does not exist in reality. Human social organization is a compromise between the luxury of liberty and the necessity of authority. Men must be subject to authority, in order that they are trained to be able to exercise the luxury of freedom. Men have differing capacities for intellect, physical prowess, shrewdness, emotional control, self-discipline, etc. Deficiency in the inherent capabilities of a man is compensated within society through external means, be it cultural obligations or juridical prohibitions, for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Some men possess the inherent capacity to learn the training necessary to be able to exercise the luxury of freedom, without becoming hazards to society. Others must be kept in chains of juridical, cultural, and religious force, lest they destroy society with their unrestrained license to vice and corruption. Freedom is too dangerous a tool, much like weapons of war, to be distributed whimsically to the undeserving and the undisciplined.
When chains of authority loosen, the muck run rampamt, burning, looting, and raping all they see and grasp. The Western cities have regular proxysmal riots, whenever the authority of the police hesitate to bring down the iron fist upon the ill-educated, over-emotional rabble drunk giddy on success of their footballers or drunk mad on some perceived tribal insult. Can you honestly think that freedom for all, including these muck, will result in a better social organization? It is not the lack of freedom that have doomed the West, but the lack of will to use the authoritarian fist.
What you say is true.
But I do not think we, East or West, are doomed, just the same. I may be wrong, but I have no reason to even consider it, since if I am wrong and we go extinct, our words are but ripples on the pond of time. Only if I am right, if our species continues to live, does any of what we think and say matter at all.
Space is vast, far too vast to police. Ever. There are no chains that can reach psychopaths millions of miles - and years - away. Men will be free, for better or worse. For me, it will be better to be free, and I think you too. I doubt we would each maximize freedom, because that would entail abnegation of society. As you point out, society must have rules that it's members respect in order to function, and those are encumbrances on liberty.
I have lived without it, and that is not how I choose to live. However, I reckon I would choose a looser social organization than you, or most. Where I live now approaches my ideal. Last month I spent a solid week wild, in the woods. I chased Elk (Red Deer, Stag) and brought a man I am beholden to for my life on his first hunt.
He thought he wanted meat, but when he thanked me with tears in his eyes (without meat in his larder) he spoke of a spiritual experience, not food. He lives in a city, and did not know what men are, because we are not really men in cities at all, but members of this or that. He found out he was a man, and what men do.
He will learn much in the year to come, before we go again, and the adrenaline 'Buck Fever' will not confound him so when what must be done must be done. I will try not to fall down laughing next time, too. He will not underestimate the power of men with pointy sticks again either.
I came home and was nearly bewildered by the ordinary duties and cares of my friends and neighbors. A bit of a culture shock, but necessary, and good for me and those that care.
In the fullness of time, we will be able to choose what suits us. There are those that prefer to have their food delivered to them by masters, and I am sure there will be no lack of suitable overlords for them.
I do not need anyone to feed me.
May your happiness surpass your understanding.
Excellent post. I like the linking of freedom with danger and safety with slavery. We can agree that unaided humans can't fly - those are first-order effects of the natural world. Depending on your stance on mathematics then yes, 1+1=2 -> it's either Platonic or at least at least nominally true once the semantics are stripped. Second-order effects, e.g. social effects, however, can be self-fulfilling prophesies.
I have followed you because we are kindred spirits!
I totally agree and will resteem this!
Two points:
BUT, I will also remain free at any cost! I am focussing on growing my own herbal medicines right now, and moving to new country land I bought.
Be Blessed, and stay free!
:)>RepublicBroadcastingNetwork is the best place I have found to start breaking your mind from the MATRIX
Posted using Partiko Android
What is the difference between someone who says that 1+1=2 and someone who says 1+1=3? In the answer? No. The answer is only the manifestation. The difference is that one knows arithmetic and the other does not.
Because, what is the merit of knowing the answer if you don't know the why for it? Can we say that someone who does not know how to add, but knows that 1+1=2, is someone with knowledge? It is not. And in fact, there is no difference between the one who says such a thing and the one who says that the result is another, since no one knows how to add.
It does not matter to have the correct answer, it matters to have the instruments to reach it.
The one who knows how to add not only knows that 1+1=2, but if you ask him for another add he will also give you the correct answer. He who knows only the answer will not be able to answer if you ask him another question.
What instruments are these?
"If you had any knowledge of the noble things of life, you would refrain from coveting others' possessions; but for me to die for Greece is better than to be the sole ruler over the people of my race."
That was the response of a Greek when the Persian king offered him the reign of all Greece in exchange for his vassalage.
I'm sorry to have extended. Regards!
This is why I spoke of principle. It is the reason that 1+1 always equals 2 that I pointed to as the principle underlying mathematics, and compared to the principles I have discovered regarding how to live. If we just memorize the Ten Commandments, we may avoid committing murder, but we will not understand, perhaps, why murder is evil and can't be undertaken without concomitant harm to ourselves and that which really matters to us.
We may gain property by murder, but will lose what is far more valuable, though it cannot be sold, fill a bank account, or be turned into dollars. Money is of no value whatsoever. It is the things that money cannot buy that have the most value, and those things money can buy are but potentially of value if we make use of them appropriately.
Thanks!