The Fragility of False Freedom
There is an ongoing argument that often flares up in the cyber saloons of the Wild West Web, regarding "freedom of speech" and the idea that, if someone has their profile blocked or comment deleted by someone they are "debating" (e.g., increasingly viciously arguing) with, then their freedom of speech has been impeded upon.
This misapprehension exists because the proper definition of freedom of speech is not widely understood: freedom of speech means, the right to say what you like without being subject to censorship or punitive action from the government or similar public authority.
It does not mean the right to be a rude tw*t online with no consequences. Yes, you can behave however you like, but so can other people, so you exercise your freedom to behave like an idiot, they exercise theirs to evict you from their online endeavours. Nobody's freedom of speech rights have been impinged upon here, rather, this is essential boundary-setting to maintain our own environments as we want them.
A busy online environment with no moderation standards or conduct policy quickly becomes nothing but a deeply unpleasant brawling room, that nobody with any standards - or genuinely interesting things to say - wants to stay in for long. Indeed, I have heard many people opine that they shy away from airing their views publicly, as they don't feel able to tolerate the abusive "pile-on" that often follows, so, far from having no conduct rules encouraging free speech, it actually suppresses it, because millions of people feel coerced into silence.
This is precisely why formal debates have rules and referees, because without these, debates inevitably just descend into slanging matches, and the valuable and even enlightening contribution well-structured debates bring to society is lost.
In effect, the "freedom" to be heard and share your views in a constructive way, comes from the constraints that are imposed upon expression - e.g., you are heard out in full without being interrupted or subject to personal insults - then you afford the same courtesy (those same constraints) to the other person. That is much more conducive to ultimate freedom and progress than simply shouting over and hurling insults at each other.
I use this as an example to highlight what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the so-called "freedom movement" - e.g., what actually is freedom, because if we're not clear on that, we obviously can't have an even loosely allied movement, and will simply be consigned to endless internal conflict.
I think this conflict exists because there is the same general misunderstanding in this movement regarding "freedom", that there is regarding "freedom of speech". In my view, the "freedom" we should be fighting for is the freedom from government tyranny: the freedom from rogue states and unelected bureaucrats imposing undemocratic and illiberal restrictions on our lives, interfering with our civic and human rights.
So, that means freedom from vaccine mandates and vaccine passports; freedom from any sort of restriction of the movement of free people; freedom from state-mandated directives about how we should dress (e.g., masking requirements).
To be clear: "freedom" is freedom from government tyranny, and not a system where everyone can behave exactly as they please at all times with no rules, restrictions or curtailments on anyone's behaviour. That is not freedom - it's not even anarchy (anarchic systems have rules, just not rulers) - it's simply unmitigated chaos.
Every successful system, from the micro level, such as family homes, to the macro level, such as huge international businesses, have rules. Show me a system without clearly defined rules, and I'll show you a failed system.
Any parenting expert will tell you that, no matter how "free" one wishes to bring children up to be, children require boundaries. Well - so too do adults. Setting one's own boundaries and respecting other people's are key and non-negotiable features of being a successful adult. Having no boundaries (no rules) isn't "freedom", it's just a formless, chaotic, undefinable mess.
The social engineers have invested a lot in dramatically restructuring society's idea of what "freedom" is. Historically, it was always understood as freedom from state overreach and government tyranny, such as, freedom from religious persecution. So, some of the most conservative, traditional, and religiously observant cultures in history would describe themselves as "free", as they were free to practice their faith without state interference.
However, the modern interpretation of freedom has been cleverly manipulated, not to be freedom from the state to preserve one's culture, but freedom from one's culture to preserve the status quo.
When post-war generations have spoken of "freedom", they generally mean, freedom from their boring, stifling hometowns. Freedom from the staid, traditional values of their parents. Freedom from old-fashioned antiquity such as cultural institutions and mores, and the freedom to pursue one's "dreams" (very often inculcated into one by the system), untethered by oppressive obligations to family, community, or culture.
That's what "freedom" has come to mean in the West, because that is the type of "freedom" that best serves the ruling elites. They want everyone isolated and atomised, with no close family or community ties, and with no sustaining culture, past homogenised consumerism (hence why every high street in the country now looks identical).
The perfect "free" citizen to the ruling elites is a single, childless person who lives alone in a sprawling SMART city they are not from, and where almost all their interactions take place online where they can all be subject to surveillance. This "ideal" citizen exists only to work (preferably from home) and consume (ordering things online). They have no family, no community, and no culture - beyond what they can source on Netflix and Amazon Prime (military-grade mind-control weapons).
For many years, the system has pushed the idea that this kind of lifestyle is not just peak "freedom", but peak "independence", too. If you live alone and have money in the bank, you are, so the narrative goes, not just completely free, but completely independent, as well. You are the sole arbiter of creating and controlling your life and not at all reliant on any other human beings.
This, of course, is a cynical and deeply misleading fiction. Once someone has no meaningful ties to other people and gains everything they need - money, food, entertainment - from "the system", they are the very opposite of independent. They are completely, 100% dependent on a system they have no personal control over and that is totally controlled by the psychopathic enemies of humanity. At any time, this fake, inverted "independence" could be snatched away, simply with a power cut, or a bank freeze, or a food shortage - as we increasingly see now.
Real freedom and real independence are based on independence from the system, not from each other, and that kind of independence can only be achieved with structures and rules.
If I were to be asked, who are the most 'free' people in Western society, the most independent, I wouldn't use the metric people usually use (wealth) and say, it's well-off people with good jobs and savings who have the wherewithal to live how they like. Since, as I said, really they don't - they only have it as long as the system allows it, and as the "liberal" Canadian government demonstrated in very recent history, if you spend your money on the "wrong" things, your access to your money will simply be cut off. You could have many millions in the bank, but if you can't access it, you're in no better position than a pauper on the street.
So, in my view, the freest people in the Western world that I am aware of, are - not the relatively wealthy - but the Amish. I can imagine this declaration being met with shuddering and recoiling horror - "the AMISH?! Aren't they ultra-religious? Don't they all have 15 children? Aren't they not allowed to use technology or even drive cars?"
To which I would say, yes, they are many of these things, but they also have a direct, personal connection to the things that actually keep us alive - the production of their food and the maintenance of their shelter and heat. They grow crops and farm animals. They build their own homes, and heat them with wood they chop themselves. They make their own clothes. They don't rely on the government for childcare or elderly care.
Looked at in that context, you can see how they're a lot "freer" than the rest of us right now. The soaring utility bills haven't affected the Amish, since they never used central heating or electricity in the first place. The looming power cuts won't affect them, since they don't use that kind of power. They'll be in a very strong position if supermarket shelves start to empty, as they produce much of their own food themselves.
And, in a cost of living crisis where businesses are collapsing by the day, the Amish have no notion of "unemployment", because every member of the community is a vital asset to keeping that community going. This is why such communities have a lot of children - not because of frilly sentimentality about "just loving kids", but because in natural environments, children are a necessary asset to keep the community going once the older generation becomes too elderly and infirm to keep up with heavy farm work and running households.
I am not suggesting we all become Amish (they do take converts though...), merely highlighting how corrupted our definition of "freedom" has become. Lifestyles that facilitate real freedom - that make communities largely self-sustaining and mostly invulnerable to government threats - are stigmatised as backwards and oppressive, and rather "freedom" is presented as the lifestyle that serves the ruling elites most - detachment from family, community, and culture, and complete dependence on the system.
It may sound paradoxical, but if you want to be really free (not the bastardised modern interpretation of it), you have to have rules and constraints, because otherwise, that freedom is so easily lost. The Amish have many such rules, not to inhibit anyone's freedom, but to protect it.
I've spent a lot of time studying them, and none of their rules are irrational, based on their ultimate aims and values - e.g., to remain as free and independent from the system as possible. With the tsunami of constant threats to that freedom from the wider world, they have to zealously guard it at all times - and that's what we must do, too.
That doesn't mean we have to all give up electricity and have 15 children, but rather, it suggests we may have much to learn from long-standing communities that have successfully preserved their freedom and independence from a tyrannical state. Modern, mainstream society hasn't been at all successful at that - by design, of course - and many modern people no longer have the slightest conception of what genuine "freedom" actually is, hence why so many capitulated so unquestioningly to the despotism that was "lockdown".
There is a very strong and pervading belief in modern society that normal, "free" life is having a reasonable job you don't hate (that's touted as "independence", despite the fact you are totally dependent on your employer and the vagaries of the economy), and then effectively spending the rest of the time indulging one's hobbies - watching TV, reading, going to the pub and on holiday. That is effectively what modern life has been cultivated to be, and the idea of holding strong moral values that one needs to fight to defend is seen as quaint - a medieval hangover from the dark ages.
All the important battles, we are told, have been long since won, we have achieved the apex of human civilisation, and your only job now is to sit back and enjoy it.
We were given that message for just long enough - about sixty to seventy years - for most people to believe it and to adjust their lifestyles accordingly. In reality, this was nothing but dark war play from the psychopathic entity that has been hunting humanity for a very long time, to make us - as all good predators aim to do - defenceless. The social architects behind modernity patiently chipped away at real notions of freedom for long enough that the population became complacently accustomed to a mirage-like lifestyle, where everything we need is abundantly available with little to no effort from us - literally, at the touch of a button, we can maintain our temperature, order food, select entertainment - without having to put in any of the direct effort to produce or maintain these things.
Once the system renders the button obsolete, though, or too expensive to press?
They've got us.
That's why in restoring and maintaining real, lasting freedom for ourselves and all future generations, we've got to know exactly what it is. I think the last two years have shown us irrefutably we can never again invest complete trust in "the system" and assume if we just "work hard and pay our taxes", it will look after us. Obviously, few of us are in a position to go completely "off-grid" (I'm certainly not), but we can move towards freer and more independent lives in various other ways, such as having some kind of personal connection to our food supply - that needn't mean growing it all ourselves, but fostering personal relationships with farmers and using local resources to shop seasonally.
There are various movements invested in developing these kinds of initiatives, such as The People's Food and Farming Alliance and The Good Food Project.
But in envisioning the kind of future we want, we've got to be clear in envisioning sturdy rules and frameworks to protect it, or we'll remain easy and defenceless prey for the predatory classes. "Rules" aren't bad or anti-freedom - on the contrary.
To quote a wise person, (or at least, someone with a large Twitter following): ""Freedom is not the absence of constraints but finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us."
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements, paywalls, or wealthy corporate backers - making it truly independent. If you would like to contribute to help this resource remain both independent and free to all, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.
31 comments on “The Fragility of False Freedom”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search
Archives
Categories
"My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self of the chains that shackle the spirit."
Igor Stravinsky
The short article below is primarily aimed at musicians, but the principles it discusses can be applied by anyone, and are extremely complementary to your excellent article.
https://keyboardimprov.com/igor-stravinsky-on-creativity-and-freedom/
A return to what was called wholesome living. My great grandmother had an alottment at the end of her yard, she kept a pig on it as well as growing her own veggies. She lost her husband very young and brought up 6 children on her own making all their clothes from scratch. Her expectations were lower than mine but she lived to 100 and her eyes sparkled till the end. I don't wan to return to that but I do want to learn from her.
Freedoms down the drain for some as 130 properties raided & 25 arrested yesterday in crackdown against ' domestic terrorist DT' group so called Reischsbüger Movement who are accused of staging a coup. This group have been around for years the talk tonight on the MSM is that authorities have expanded the DT net to include 'conspiracy theorists' who have materialised from nowhere and for no reason whatsoever over the past 3 years
Language is a very powerful and ancient social technology. Narratives or myths are our replacement for instinct. We are now or much of the world, is emotionally responding to feelings of WWII. The Nazi which now is just a way to dehumanize somebody for preemptive violence without actually doing it. The Hitler myth is powerful
And Nazi clouds of abstract hate are forming to be weaponized
We need to go back to properly structured discourse. See Ancient Greece and the LOGOS
It can be used for clarity or confusion.
And yes weaponization of language can whip up hysteria and kill and cause murder rampages
Or conceal reality and mad invert on its head
Gladiator internet battles are counter productive
Yes it’s fun to mock the absurd and will get you pats on the back
But only entrench the other tribe in their position even more than before
Detoxifying discourse is an imperative
People are rude online all the time with no consequences. It is positively reinforced
Mocking and satire is rude (to some) but when done with precision is very valuable and powerful. The pen is truly mightier than the sword.
Voltaire Was a world class mocker and satirist. He also valued freedom of speech because he knew he pissed off a lot of people.
Rude is kind of in the eye of the beholder and it is a difficult problem when it comes to freedom of speech
Though as a world class mocker , I do realize it is vanity and also can be counter productive
It’s a difficult problem
The trajectory of global power is one where I am a dangerous criminal regardless of how I frame my positions . Satirically or as politely and we’ll thought out as possible
That is very concerning
So to sum up,
You are 100 correct that most people do not know what ‘freedom of speech” technically is.
However when you use this language.
“does not mean the right to be a rude tw*t online with no consequences.“
I know what you are trying to convey but you do not get to decide what is rude.
Because the best satire is considered rude and sometimes the truth hurts.
context is everything.
I respectfully disagree I should be able to rudely mock and satirize what I wish without violence or government penalty. But I am ok with criticisms of my mocking that is a perfectly acceptable consequence.
But what is at stake is not losing the ability to be rude (as defined by whomever) it’s about having well thought out politely presented opinions considered “hate speech” or whatever .
And those who define rude and the consequences of said rudeness
But you are absolutely correct on your point about proper debate etiquette. It’s non existent
Online debating is gladiator tribal hate fests with whomever can get the best gotchya in. Where rude behavior gets applause
Media in general is tabloid shit flinging gotchyas. With no consequences
Dispassionate honest reporting and poetic stinging satire is a thing of the past. Politically and scientifically correct rude condescending smug fests are heavily rewarded and real proper debate rhetoric is discouraged
ridiculing many events, thinkers, and philosophies of our time is something you do very well Miri.
You should have the right to do that whom some may consider rude without any consequences except criticism of said ‘rude criticisms” of your powerful pen
And time is running out
“After Russia signed this historic document, Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the Kremlin thought the declaration was “constructive” and “balanced.”
Well, It’s truly heart-warming that even amidst ceaseless geopolitical squabbling, theKremlin and the Collective West can sit down at the negotiating table, break bread, and agree to cattle-tag the entire world.
Once they get those cattle tags on us. it’s game over.
Peoples lack of or full legal understanding of Freedom of Speech just won’t matter.
Love of The Law (not man’s law) is true freedom.
If you’ve spent a lot of time studying the Amish, I think you would enjoy a look at the “Perfect Law of Liberty” that makes men and women free souls under God.
https://abolishhumanarchism.com/2018/11/04/the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-heaven/
Linking this to one of your previous articles, there is a huge problem with financial gain through plagiarism within the movement, do you not think?
That causes many of the problems you state.
Facts are facts, and required, where the word truth is spoken about 🥰
Sometimes debate is used to keep the status quo. Same with justice and many other systems.
They set the parameters of what is ok and what is not ok to say. Look at the medical mess today for example of how debates are rigged.
Also, independence is a good thing. To have an alternative to not have to stay in your community is needed. I have some friends that left religious communities because, sorry, but some religions are very oppressive to women.
What we need is a society that allows for choice. You can choose to be a part of the system or a part of a tribe, etc.
Real freedom and real independence are based on independence from the system, not from each other, and that kind of independence can only be achieved with structures and rules."
Yeah good luck with that. You're rage against the system is inextricably linked to and part of the system. You are the system as much as bill gates is the system.
Appropriate technology is a very important topic. There is no public discussion on appropriate technology because our betters do not think it is of our concern. We would not understand.
The Amish's days are numbered, i do understand the appeal but they will be getting their digital cattle tags like very body else. The Amish pay taxes, they are in the system . They rely on the the monetary system we all use, they are in the system. The system that is rapidly transforming before our eyes. And the Amish will too or their land will be seized by the system on which they rely - our system.
There is no escaping the system, only transformation
Pope John Paul II. He said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
Technology fetishism (masquerading
as scientific literacy activism) is a form of idolatry and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute.
Ethical frameworks as an approach to technology is a very serous topic. So-called bio-ethicists are messianic madmen.
Now, here is factional fighting within the great reset (NWO)
And that is our window
It is crunch time .
Freedom of speech was need led to destroy freedom of speech.
Well the freedom to weaponizing language was needed to be precise
Freedom of speech is no longer desired or wanted . Saying what you want certainly had it’s consequences
As is a right to privacy.
You have neither a right to privacy or freedom of speech , freedom of speech and the internet destroyed both of them. But not is it a good narrative generation mechanism for narrative control Censor ship and the limitation of privacy . Which is needed for thier plans.
Are either really that important . Well it really depends on you perspective
They have a right to weaponized language to remove freedom of speech and fund sciences and technology to. Control
The whole worlds ruling classes love vaccines more than anything . East and west. Kremlin and DC agree on that. Asia all the middle am east. Love it
Anti vaxxers of the world unite should the uniting call ! Seize the means of health freedom.
That war ruined everything . It just tilted the orientation of the NWO
But it is a huge clue to the fulcrum of power within the NWO.
Who is the judge?
The science speaks the best through one orientation
Not my choice but I do see their pint.
The social engineers have invested a lot in dramatically restructuring society's idea of what "freedom" is. Historically, it was always understood as freedom from state overreach and government tyranny, such as, freedom from religious persecution. So, some of the most conservative, traditional, and religiously observant cultures in history would describe themselves as "free", as they were free to practice their faith without state interference..
This is an astute and an tough problem but I do not think church as ever been free the state or vice versa just picks and choses which religions they should be free from or intervene in. And really 'the state' is just a social technology for ruling classes control. It's our overload choice of what or what not be be free from or intervene.
Some of these latter day saints
government intervention in the form of security to enforcer force the rules, the rules and mediate interpersonal disputes interpersonal contacts requires government inverts to in interpersonal disputes. And economic benefits from commerce outside your zone, it may be a bit naïve to think of the system in which you are a part as a system which you can escape
"There is a very strong and pervading belief in modern society that normal, "free" life is having a reasonable job you don't hate (that's touted as "independence", despite the fact you are totally dependent on your employer and the vagaries of the economy), and then effectively spending the rest of the time indulging one's hobbies - watching TV, reading, going to the pub and on holiday. That is effectively what modern life has been cultivated to be, and the idea of holding strong moral values that one needs to fight to defend is seen as quaint - a medieval hangover from the dark ages.
All the important battles, we are told, have been long since won, we have achieved the apex of human civilisation, and your only job now is to sit back and enjoy it."
Yes you are part of the system an can't escape. Our curse of being social beings and unchoice non intendance on the system
"There is a very strong and pervading belief in modern society that normal, "free" life is having a reasonable job you don't hate (that's touted as "independence", despite the fact you are totally dependent on your employer and the vagaries of the economy), and then effectively spending the rest of the time indulging one's hobbies - watching TV, reading, going to the pub and on holiday. That is effectively what modern life has been cultivated to be, and the idea of holding strong moral values that one needs to fight to defend is seen as quaint - a medieval hangover from the dark ages.
All the important battles, we are told, have been long since won, we have achieved the apex of human civilization, and your only job now is to sit back and enjoy it."
Yes you are part of the system and can't escape. Our curse of being social beings and unchoice non independence from the system. The days is isolated tribes are long gone on the system.
Well obviously idiots like Fukuyama are idiots and/or shills
Mark Twain said;
We are always hearing of people who are around seeking after Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment—until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather
My shingles keep getting destroyed =
"There is a very strong and pervading belief in modern society that normal, "free" life is having a reasonable job you don't hate (that's touted as "independence", despite the fact you are totally dependent on your employer and the vagaries of the economy), and then effectively spending the rest of the time indulging one's hobbies - watching TV, reading, going to the pub and on holiday. That is effectively what modern life has been cultivated to be, and the idea of holding strong moral values that one needs to fight to defend is seen as quaint - a medieval hangover from the dark ages.
All the important battles, we are told, have been long since won, we have achieved the apex of human civilization, and your only job now is to sit back and enjoy it."
Yes you are part of the system and can't escape. Our curse of being social beings and unchoice non-independence from the system. The days os isolated tribes are long gone.
Well obviously idiots like Fukuyama are idiots and/or shills
Mark Twain said;
We are always hearing of people who are around seeking after Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment—until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather
My shingles keep getting destroyed =
We were given that message for just long enough - about sixty to seventy years - for most people to believe it and to adjust their lifestyles accordingly. In reality, this was nothing but dark war play from the psychopathic entity that has been hunting humanity for a very long time, to make us - as all good predators aim to do - defenceless. The social architects behind modernity patiently chipped away at real notions of freedom for long enough that the population became complacently accustomed to a mirage-like lifestyle, where everything we need is abundantly available with little to no effort from us - literally, at the touch of a button, we can maintain our temperature, order food, select entertainment - without having to put in any of the direct effort to produce or maintain these things."
Yeah, thinking the zenith of civilization was the ability to buy Chinas crap on amazon and have it delivered to your door is a poor vision, but efficient material-wise..
This goes back to appropriate technology and purpose
The tension between the individual and society has always been a problem.
We have no choice in a monumental shift but this is about language. The used language to confuse , befuddled and in a cloud of uncertainty.
Clarity is much needed . They keep us in a state where anything can be believed but nothing really can be known . It's purposeful
While the inertia is soo great, we mustn't kill the baby and drink the bathwater.
The enlightenment project is ending and the pecking order of the NWO is not looking good for some. Well some much worse than others , it will be unevenly distributed pain.
Our best hope is their failure with their faction fighting it may just give us a window to resist in a way as opposed to those faux paths et up to corral resist to ineffectiveness false outlets that serve ones or the other.
t may sound paradoxical, but if you want to be really free (not the bastardised modern interpretation of it), you have to have rules and constraints, because otherwise, that freedom is so easily lost. The Amish have many such rules, not to inhibit anyone's freedom, but to protect it."
I have always admired them as well actually interacted with them quite frequently when I was very unge. Very nice people.
Still While I agree that they are on to something, they maintain their existence from the system no apart from it, And will be altered forever or go down fighting.
Highly doubt they get a religions exemption from the new world orders. They do utilize many state services western law whch bestowed induvial rights is ikely planned to go a log time ago..
ob Rob
says:
December 8, 2022 at 11:11 pm
Sometimes debate is used to keep the status quo. Same with justice and many other systems.
They set the parameters of what is ok and what is not ok to say. Look at the medical mess today for example of how debates are rigged."
Yes of course
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
This is projection coming from him. Where Noam won't roam were the the long plan hides in darkness.
It's good to have some presuppositions in a debate with rues.
But no debate should be kept off the table.
The Jasson Shoffler Show
Jasson Shoffler wrote -
Anti vaxxers of the world unite should the uniting call ! Seize the means of health freedom.
'The' rallying call for the fastest growing dissident group. Can it be harnessed for 'freedom' or will it be managed nefariously by the controllers?
'The' rallying call for the fastest growing dissident group. Can it be harnessed for 'freedom' or will it be managed nefariously by the controllers?"
Well as Putin's vax pass push collapsed with a huge amount of Pushback the Canadian Truckers were rising up.... It was time for phase two :The reset by other means
Wonderful sane piece, excellent A+. It's interesting to contrast the Amish with the off grid communities in the NW pacific states, where drugs and universal eastern meditation and new age prevail and there are no rules. The Amish follow thr bible and understand that following God's laws is everything and they have known it for a long time that's why they left Europe, also they never get it debt to the banksters. Still, they do have to pray property tax if I'm not mistaken and their property can be seized if they don't submit to digital social credit control? Well then they won't take up arms, whereas some other Christian communities in the west that drive big trucks now and shop for food, are fully prepared to be without gas and have food and seed stored as best they can. And they will shoot to defend their properties. You won't hear it but they know where the capped wells are in OK and that's the amin thing is onshore US energy anyone can refine diesel and its sweet and easy, but it will be those who manage to survive picking up the pieces and faith in our God. No one survives with God willing it and that's a fact what with the nukes all over and US (and UK( military somehow breaking away from evil control. Who knows but may credence with this because the Q psyop is designed to mock God on this level.
A lot of us are independent because we have had to break away from disfunctional families and disfunctional aspects of society along the way so it's been necessary to be "atomised", it may be part of your journey towards meeting like minded souls. Or it may well be a spiritual situation right, and we dont go to Christ in the bosom of our family, oh no. But still your points are valid because the sublimation of desire required is often best done in the confining strictures of stifling community and family. So long as you're not getting raped by dad or worse these day then its best to move away no? For whats coming, I have no doubt that operating independently, alone, with a supply of 5 years food, and hidden in plain sight, is gonna be best. So it's about mental strength to endure and nothing else and those who endure to the end obtain the crown. And pity those suckling...
The freedoms that functioned previously arent often possible now. You can just go back. To what? Thenevil is more determined than us and even ifmyou got rid of the fed and the IMF ... well, they killed a bunch of presidents along the way so forget it. Nations and communities expulsed the evil element over and over hundreds of times and evil just never stops and they murder anyone who actually makes a difference ... so we've had the frankfurt school and the fabians infiltrated andnthe gender bending pedo cultural marxism is full stream ahead, everything is under the control of this determined element. Go read some of the rabbis lately, they are veside themselves in eager anticipation. Yet even now, GOD allows our communication all over the world to HIS end. In the old way, it's too easy for the individual to be subsumed by the group. TPTB have made such a mockery of leadership, especially with their thought leader and anyone can be a leader BS. My word, what a joke all that has been in South Africa for example.
Occultists who at least initially want to do the right thing tho they clearly break all the rules in the bible, are very sophisticated in managing group energies so everyone's soul plays a role and the group energy is harnessed under a supposedly enlightened force, I observe a few of the best closely and I dont believe it's going to cut the mustard. God is ready for his reset, we know this because Satan's minions are apeing with glee because that's all they can do.
I was musing what the next Republican hopeful could sloganise coming up and I like, "let's stick with what works". For now. We really are all on Satan's sinking ship and all we have to do is look at the UN mural with these elites coming out of the underground bunkers after the black horse has stampede by. They can dream on.
sally
says:
December 12, 2022 at 4:10 am
Wonderful sane piece, excellent A+."
No it gets a C, B- at most. Not her best work
Her prose is excellent as usual, I have prose envy, but starts with a false premise which ruins it all
Miri does not adoring fans with no ability to critique constructively
Fourth Idea
Here is the fourth idea: Technological change is not additive; it is ecological. I can explain this best by an analogy. What happens if we place a drop of red dye into a beaker of clear water? Do we have clear water plus a spot of red dye? Obviously not. We have a new coloration to every molecule of water. That is what I mean by ecological change. A new medium does not add something; it changes everything. In the year 1500, after the printing press was invented, you did not have old Europe plus the printing press. You had a different Europe. After television, America was not America plus television. Television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school, to every church, to every industry, and so on.
That is why we must be cautious about technological innovation. The consequences of technological change are always vast, often unpredictable and largely irreversible. That is also why we must be suspicious of capitalists. Capitalists are by definition not only personal risk takers but, more to the point, cultural risk takers. The most creative and daring of them hope to exploit new technologies to the fullest, and do not much care what traditions are overthrown in the process or whether or not a culture is prepared to function without such traditions. Capitalists are, in a word, radicals. In America, our most significant radicals have always been capitalists--men like Bell, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Sarnoff, Goldwyn. These men obliterated the 19th century, and created the 20th, which is why it is a mystery to me that capitalists are thought to be conservative. Perhaps it is because they are inclined to wear dark suits and grey ties.
I trust you understand that in saying all this, I am making no argument for socialism. I say only that capitalists need to be carefully watched and disciplined. To be sure, they talk of family, marriage, piety, and honor but if allowed to exploit new technology to its fullest economic potential, they may undo the institutions that make such ideas possible. And here I might just give two examples of this point, taken from the American encounter with technology. The first concerns education. Who, we may ask, has had the greatest impact on American education in this century? If you are thinking of John Dewey or any other education philosopher, I must say you are quite wrong. The greatest impact has been made by quiet men in grey suits in a suburb of New York City called Princeton, New Jersey. There, they developed and promoted the technology known as the standardized test, such as IQ tests, the SATs and the GREs. Their tests redefined what we mean by learning, and have resulted in our reorganizing the curriculum to accommodate the tests.
A second example concerns our politics. It is clear by now that the people who have had the most radical effect on American politics in our time are not political ideologues or student protesters with long hair and copies of Karl Marx under their arms. The radicals who have changed the nature of politics in America are entrepreneurs in dark suits and grey ties who manage the large television industry in America. They did not mean to turn political discourse into a form of entertainment. They did not mean to make it impossible for an overweight person to run for high political office. They did not mean to reduce political campaigning to a 30-second TV commercial. All they were trying to do is to make television into a vast and unsleeping money machine. That they destroyed substantive political discourse in the process does not concern them.
Fifth Idea
I come now to the fifth and final idea, which is that media tend to become mythic. I use this word in the sense in which it was used by the French literary critic, Roland Barthes. He used the word "myth" to refer to a common tendency to think of our technological creations as if they were God-given, as if they were a part of the natural order of things. I have on occasion asked my students if they know when the alphabet was invented. The question astonishes them. It is as if I asked them when clouds and trees were invented. The alphabet, they believe, was not something that was invented. It just is. It is this way with many products of human culture but with none more consistently than technology. Cars, planes, TV, movies, newspapers--they have achieved mythic status because they are perceived as gifts of nature, not as artifacts produced in a specific political and historical context.
When a technology become mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control. If you should propose to the average American that television broadcasting should not begin until 5 PM and should cease at 11 PM, or propose that there should be no television commercials, he will think the idea ridiculous. But not because he disagrees with your cultural agenda. He will think it ridiculous because he assumes you are proposing that something in nature be changed; as if you are suggesting that the sun should rise at 10 AM instead of at 6.
Whenever I think about the capacity of technology to become mythic, I call to mind the remark made by Pope John Paul II. He said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
What I am saying is that our enthusiasm for technology can turn into a form of idolatry and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute. The best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God's plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us.
Conclusion
And so, these are my five ideas about technological change. First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
If we had more time, I could supply some additional important things about technological change but I will stand by these for the moment, and will close with this thought. In the past, we experienced technological change in the manner of sleep-walkers. Our unspoken slogan has been "technology �ber alles," and we have been willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change. We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that we many use technology rather than be used by it.
Speech without consequences is fantasy
There is a sublet but important distinction between wanting attention and wanting to be heard
I write because I wish to make for ideas, which are my ideas, a place in the world. If I could foresee that these ideas must take from you peace of mind and repose, if in these ideas that I sow I should see the germs of bloody wars and even the cause of the ruins of many generations, I would nevertheless continue to spread them. It is neither for the love of you nor even for the love of truth that I express what I think. No—I sing! I sing because I am a singer. If I use you in this way, it is because I have need of your ears