June 5, 2013
These days, “freedom” mainly refers to fairy-tale mass movements.
We’re supposed to believe it happens this way: A bunch of students sitting in a cafe suddenly go to their cell phones, pop over to Facebook, and say, “Hey, wanna be free?” And a Republic is born. Poof.
The evil dictator grabs a suitcase full of gold bars, wires half a billion dollars from the State treasury to his private account, makes a dash for the airport, and flees to Paris.
In the other popular version, rugged freedom fighters emerge from the forest with copies of John Locke tucked in their luggage, storm the capitol, engage the national police, and after a prolonged battle, pin a copy of the Bill of Rights on the dictator’s riddled corpse.
Or something like that.
But even in the preposterous fairy tales, nothing much is said about freedom of the individual. No, it’s all about the right to vote for a new candidate. Free elections. Democracy.
In other words, the people can now select a president who is sold out to the same people who backed the dictator. Maybe a slightly different group of bankers gets into the act.
The independent individual? Never heard of him. No such thing.
What’s important is the president of a country like America, thousands of miles away, can stand up on his hind legs and say, “We support freedom around the world.”
When you stop and think about it, this bait and switch works because of the impact the word FREEDOM has on the minds of the population.
Say it and they stand up and salute. It doesn’t matter how far the word is being twisted. As long as the people like it and respond to it, you could be referring to a mass slaughter.
And if, by chance, the people don’t like a mass movement that trumpets freedom, because they recognize a deception, the media will call it freedom 24/7 anyway, because they’re paid to.
Political leaders who preach and teach about the need for “mass freedom movements” are never part of those groups. That tells you how deep the public trance can go. Relatively few people say, “Look, the president isn’t with the group. He’s separate. So how can he tell us what to think, what to do?”
It’s like a 400-pound man making diet recommendations.
Next, we have the mixing and churning of the words “freedom” and “rights.”
“I have the right to freebies. If I get them, I’m free. That’s what freedom means.”
Or: “I have freedom, which means rights, and I have the right to get freebies.”
These are actual modern definitions of freedom. Many people understand freedom in these terms and only these terms.
Here’s an example: people in poor countries have a right to food; they have a right to eat, not to starve; how can you be free if you’re starving?
That is very convincing to those who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.
A correct analysis would go this way: people in Uganda are starving. They have no right to food. This isn’t about food aid to Uganda. That isn’t a right, and it doesn’t solve the problem. People in Uganda have a right to fertile land, because it was stolen from them by their government and by mega-corporations and bankers. The theft was a crime. If we focus on the right to eat, then we end up supporting food aid from the outside as the big solution, and this plays directly into the hands of the thieves who stole the land. The thieves keep the land. The people of Uganda get a handout. And nothing is solved.
But that’s too on-target. It exposes the criminals. Therefore, these criminals relentlessly promote food aid as the altruistic thing to do, because it will keep them hidden and in control.
Mega-criminals twist the meaning of freedom to suit their purposes, and they succeed because they appear to be humanitarians. They are humanitarians in the same way that Stalin was a generous loving papa.
Potentially, there is a real Bill of Rights waiting for the people of Uganda. But they will have to make it happen. And that battle, that revolution will make the degree of difficulty of the American Revolution look like a Sunday picnic on the Charles River.
Should the US government assist the people of Uganda in a true revolution for true freedom? That’s asking a psychopath (the US government) to change its basic mindset because it’s the right thing to do.
Finally, we have this twist. Freedom doesn’t exist at all. If it did, it would only pertain to the individual, and since The Individual is a mythical construct with no meaning, freedom is also a myth.
“This is a breakthrough in understanding,” say many academics. “Based on this discovery, we can realize our destiny by equally sharing everything with everybody.”
Never mind the massive non-logic in that assessment. It’s not an attempt at reasoning. It’s propaganda disguised as advanced insight.
Who will decide who “everybody” is? Who will decide precisely what “equally sharing” means? Who will decide what “everything” amounts to? Who will run the show? Somebody has to.
The answers and the commands aren’t going to drop down from the sky.
Of the last few presidents, you could argue about which one most extensively strangled the original meaning of freedom. I’d pick Obama in that contest. Bush and Clinton are right up there. Obama voices more lofty pretensions (while acting as Monsanto’s man in Washington and taking on the role of Dr. Drone-Strike).
Elite players far higher on the food chain than American presidents have made their choice. They believe freedom doesn’t exist, except for themselves. To them, the masses are wild animals who merely act out their impulses. Leaders who can substitute new mind programming for old programming must act decisively and make satisfied androids out of the animals.
Meanwhile, to quote from a recent article of mine:
The independent individual who is an artist of reality sees one genuine emotion after another parlayed into flashes of cheap sentiment.
He doesn’t surrender.
The artist is able to spot the Collective. He opposes it.
This opposition can’t be settled and resolved with some absurd “rainbow philosophy” that pretends to include everybody. It can’t be dismissed or merged in a melting lump of happy-happy cosmic cheese.
Those pseudo-philosophers who speak about consciousness as if it were one all-embracing ocean, within which we are merely tiny and ineffectual drops of water, have already developed a convenient amnesia about the artist.
Down through time, in the face of every system devised by the priest-class and the issuers of money, the artist has said no.
He has asserted his power.
This is the natural mantle worn by the person who invents, imagines, improvises, creates: power.
The artist not only sees, with great clarity, the brain-dead gatherings of Collectives; he not only sees how they are built; he not only sees how they import and twist the highest ideals to flesh out their slave-programs and objectives; he not only rejects all this; he creates something entirely different.
The artist proliferates. He doesn’t reduce.
The artist isn’t looking for the “one thing” that will unite us all under a banner of harmony. He knows all such harmonies produce mass hypnosis.
The artist rebels. In rebelling, he reveals the uniqueness of the individual. He doesn’t pay lip service to this uniqueness. He demonstrates it.
Whether in art, science, philosophy, healing, or any other field of human endeavor, the person who lives by and through imagination creates new realities. As the artist, he challenges the status quo on every level.
Humanity on this planet has been undergoing a transformation into one ten-billion-member cult. You can find its leaders just by listening to their voices and their sentiments. They all come from the same manual.
Today, we have “the Global outlook.” This is the silky cover for drawing in populations to a perverse dream of unity for all.
“We will harmonize the world.”
This is exactly the kind of program the artist has always rejected.
The artist says: there are an infinity of worlds.
When that message is lost, we lose what we are and enter into amnesia.
ROBOT OR FREE?