Freedom lovers are free thinking and harder to collect together because of their INDEPENDENT thinking.
What can bind them together? What was the mysterious binding that brought about the birth of our independence from tyrannical rule? The answer is in our CHRISTIANITY. We had many denominations already within the 13 colonies. The miracle of the power of our Lord God and His Living Word was the binding agent yet it is blatantly absent from this essay.
People who jabbed up or masked up post jabs were the security worshippers and LACKED FAITH.
I was just on a nine-day trip with my family, and a thought popped into my head. But then I got distracted by whales or seashells or whatever, and forgot. THANK YOU for reminding me!
The thought was this, and related to what you just said:
Normal countries produce nationalism for "the nation." You have one identity based on your citizenship in that nation. (I would say "subjection to" rather than "citizenship in," but that is another topic.)
The distributed nation (https://christophercook.substack.com/t/thedistributednation) I am envisioning would certainly not have anything like that. But we could have a kind of "nationalism" in which the uniting factor is solely our absolute refusal to consider ourselves slaves in need of masters. Like the denominations you mention, we can be entirely multifarious in every way, and yet united by our fierce love of independence and our principles of individual human sovereignty.
Exactly. And as in my comment above, to use the example of immigration is not meant to take a political side, but no migrants can exist unless nations believe they have absolute control over those within the artificial lines they have marked off as belonging to them; and thus, yes, citizens are subjects, and one of the faults of so-called "democracy" is it tries to obfuscate its subjects they believe they own by labeling them citizens as if somehow that makes them less under the control of the state.
In a free world, there would not be 237 borders, open or closed. There would be 100s of millions of borders. Some would be open, some closed. Property is property.
ok, ty. probably more borders, we have two, Canada one, iceland 0, China 14 borders. however in principle 237 countries claim jurisdictional borders, ty.
I was able to pull this thought from a podcast I happened to be listening to in the early morning hours before reading your post. I will try to find it.
I believe it is not so much that we have a human mind and an animal mind as that we are spiritual beings born into this world into bodies that are part of this construct with survival programming which is the highest goal and purpose programmed into them. The challenge of this world is to master and overcome the basic negative programming of a predator/prey construct. So we have a spiritual mind and an animal mind, and we can choose our priorities, one choice leads to greater meaning and satisfaction and mastery, and I believe to graduation to a higher world. The other choice is based on separation and lower order goals in which personal survival and security predominate. The spiritual side chooses to cherish the freedom that is the basic nature of spirit and feels a connection and a striving for something higher that sometimes requires risk that is a necessary requirement to achieve. I think even animals have spirits that are evolving. There is a difference between dolphins and whales and sharks.
I would say Your hypothesis is likely to be correct at a probability of 97%. Yes, too Many cling to the animal instinct for security and do not move up to an aim for freedom. May that change.
Good piece, Christopher, and I do recommend it to All for consideration!
You should be aware of a scientific paper that directly addresses the same issue: Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences ~ John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford (2013)
Synopsis:
Using a specially designed questionnaire, scientists asked people “How does society work best?” The questionnaire proved to be an amazingly accurate predictor of whether the people questioned were politically left or right.
The true nature of the left-right political spectrum (and whether it even really exists) has long been argued about. What the researchers seem to have found is that:Yes, there is one real difference between the left and right.
It is the difference in how the left and right believe society should work.
The researchers also discovered something else: The left right difference is heritable, at least in part.
So it turns out that what we call the ‘left-right’ difference is simple. It has existed since the first kings emerged in Mesopotamia about 7,000 years ago. It has never changed. It is nothing more or less than the difference between two kinds of people. One kind, let us call them the leftists, believe that society works best when the government has more control of the people. The other kind of people, the right, believe the opposite: Society works best when the people have more freedom.
I suspect it may not be evolution as much as laziness. Government purportedly do a lot of the work that others won't. Preferring economic security, such as welfare, means one is less inclined to save, for example. The same American government that contributed to the creation of COVID-19, also bailed people out during shutdowns. Bail outs create the illusion that one does not have to take appropriate economic action, because the kind government will always backstop you.
I wonder if fear has locked many of us in a fight, flight, or freeze state. Fear is used as a weapon and narrows our perspective and ability to imagine anything else
You may be onto something about freedom lovers being a higher evolved person. And, maybe free thinkers are not afraid of death, thus not afraid to live, thus, not afraid of the unknown insecurity, whatever it may be.
Agreed on freedom and security, but, speaking as an English person, your analysis of the Whig /Tory divide is not on the money.
The Whigs were essentially those who agreed with the removing of James II for his Catholiciism. They were not freedom lovers, but the grandees, like today, who allied with money for power.
As a group, they were behind the foundation of the Bank of England, and as part of its founding group, benefited from the credit it was permitted to create, which caused a massive expansion of gambling and ruin in the eighteenth century. One of their most famous was Sir Francis Dashwood, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and founder of the Hell-fire club, who engaged in black masses and orgies with women dressed as nuns. Hardly a great role model, and their purported support for liberty was as about as real as Uniparty support today.
What was it William Hazlitt said—"A modern Whig is but the fag-end of a Tory"? I get (and appreciate) the historical nuances, and yes, they were perhaps not as different as Jefferson believed, or as we would wish them to be. It's like the other quote I've heard: “The Whigs and the Tories are like two coaches driving through the mud, kicking up dust and filth as they go, but both arriving at the same destination in the end.”
That said, weren't they reasonably well distinguished earlier (in the 17th and 18th), and especially during the Civil War and Glorious Revolution? (Both of those conflicts took place, in smaller ways, here in the Colonies too.)
Yes. It's interesting for me to note that mine isn't going to be the only comment that brings up the idea that there is a spiritual component to this. I believe that we can all feel it, though we may express it in different ways. The simplest, perhaps, can be found in the saying: "God helps those who help themselves."
The more complex brings me to post a link to a (VERY weird -- weirdness trigger alert here) article that I wrote in 2023 that was based upon some spiritual "downloads" that I received during a very spiritually intense time in my life. In essence ... If I could easily sum it up, I suppose I would say that, based on the "information" that I "received" from this otherworldly source, the search for freedom and individuality may not be merely an important component to "this place" (the 3D realm), but may, in fact, be the whole entire point.
There, is however, always going to be a degree of necessary security. Like animals of any kind, or species of any kind, we must have the security of foodstuffs; that if denied, or controlled, in a manner by some that places others in the position of dependence that can only be found in that dependence, and not trying to get on any side of the jew-palestian debate, it appears that many in Gaza are so dependent on the food handouts they starve and therefore remain in dependence .
So how do they become free of this dependence? Well they fight against that forced dependence and become labeled terrorists.
Now I said I'm not trying to take a political stance, but basically anyone who might take physical action against others to insure what you are calling freedom, is labeled a terrorist,a criminal, or at its most benign, a societal misfit.
I tend to think that freedom is often denied when people are denied security. But then that security does in itself, (as long as there is enough resource-security to survive), turn people into slaves to their own desire for security and they lose their freedom to the security they have been offered.
Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your article; but that is the gist (not the sum) of my interpretation of your article.
But I have a bit of difference with the term "freedom". Not that I in particular think freedom is wrong, but that it is often presented as a longing that can be fulfilled only by the security or grants of certain rights given by the government and those rights are what are your freedoms. So now the government says you no longer have a right to an abortion (again I am not trying to judge the merits,or rightness of abortion), but the interpretation that becries the loss of their freedom of choice.
It seems,although it will be denied by those who have wrapped themselves in a security blanket they think is freedom and they become insecure if what they perceive to be freedom becomes uncovered, and then they find themselves no longer free.
Since this seems to be an almost synonymous definition that equates freedom with security, I have sought for many years for another term, or conception, of freedom with security.
But I think I am in perfect agreement that to be free one must unwrap the security blanket, because no government can grant freedoms, they can only enslave by offering freedom as a security that only they (the government) can grant you.
So I am quite sure a government that offers any type of freedom can never be given, one must simply deny the right of anyone to be able to do so. Otherwise if freedom is something that can be given to us rather than what we deny to be taken from us, freedom itself remains a longing to be given more and more freedom and we become enslaved by our own longings for freedom.
So I've been reading quite a few of your articles, and I would be interested in your conception on that point. Is freedom something granted;or something you deny the other to take from you?
Freedom lovers are free thinking and harder to collect together because of their INDEPENDENT thinking.
What can bind them together? What was the mysterious binding that brought about the birth of our independence from tyrannical rule? The answer is in our CHRISTIANITY. We had many denominations already within the 13 colonies. The miracle of the power of our Lord God and His Living Word was the binding agent yet it is blatantly absent from this essay.
People who jabbed up or masked up post jabs were the security worshippers and LACKED FAITH.
I was just on a nine-day trip with my family, and a thought popped into my head. But then I got distracted by whales or seashells or whatever, and forgot. THANK YOU for reminding me!
The thought was this, and related to what you just said:
Normal countries produce nationalism for "the nation." You have one identity based on your citizenship in that nation. (I would say "subjection to" rather than "citizenship in," but that is another topic.)
The distributed nation (https://christophercook.substack.com/t/thedistributednation) I am envisioning would certainly not have anything like that. But we could have a kind of "nationalism" in which the uniting factor is solely our absolute refusal to consider ourselves slaves in need of masters. Like the denominations you mention, we can be entirely multifarious in every way, and yet united by our fierce love of independence and our principles of individual human sovereignty.
What do you think?
Exactly. And as in my comment above, to use the example of immigration is not meant to take a political side, but no migrants can exist unless nations believe they have absolute control over those within the artificial lines they have marked off as belonging to them; and thus, yes, citizens are subjects, and one of the faults of so-called "democracy" is it tries to obfuscate its subjects they believe they own by labeling them citizens as if somehow that makes them less under the control of the state.
In a free world, there would not be 237 borders, open or closed. There would be 100s of millions of borders. Some would be open, some closed. Property is property.
just a query? is that how many borders there are now? (237)?
I think that is the number of countries according to the see eye a.
ok, ty. probably more borders, we have two, Canada one, iceland 0, China 14 borders. however in principle 237 countries claim jurisdictional borders, ty.
I was able to pull this thought from a podcast I happened to be listening to in the early morning hours before reading your post. I will try to find it.
The dots connected for me
I believe it is not so much that we have a human mind and an animal mind as that we are spiritual beings born into this world into bodies that are part of this construct with survival programming which is the highest goal and purpose programmed into them. The challenge of this world is to master and overcome the basic negative programming of a predator/prey construct. So we have a spiritual mind and an animal mind, and we can choose our priorities, one choice leads to greater meaning and satisfaction and mastery, and I believe to graduation to a higher world. The other choice is based on separation and lower order goals in which personal survival and security predominate. The spiritual side chooses to cherish the freedom that is the basic nature of spirit and feels a connection and a striving for something higher that sometimes requires risk that is a necessary requirement to achieve. I think even animals have spirits that are evolving. There is a difference between dolphins and whales and sharks.
Well said.
Of course, this would indicate that my hypothesis is true, but with a more sophisticated and spiritual bent to the explanation for why it is true.
Well, I am a little bent (in that direction) but not broken!
❤️
I would say Your hypothesis is likely to be correct at a probability of 97%. Yes, too Many cling to the animal instinct for security and do not move up to an aim for freedom. May that change.
Good piece, Christopher, and I do recommend it to All for consideration!
Thank you!
A provocative idea.
Of course, some may call it tendentious rather than merely provocative. But I still think it may be true!
I certainly believe it, but that may just be my aversion to security-lovers talking.
Same here.
Excellent Christopher - thank you!
Love the TJ quotes!
🙏🏻
You should be aware of a scientific paper that directly addresses the same issue: Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences ~ John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford (2013)
Synopsis:
Using a specially designed questionnaire, scientists asked people “How does society work best?” The questionnaire proved to be an amazingly accurate predictor of whether the people questioned were politically left or right.
The true nature of the left-right political spectrum (and whether it even really exists) has long been argued about. What the researchers seem to have found is that:Yes, there is one real difference between the left and right.
It is the difference in how the left and right believe society should work.
The researchers also discovered something else: The left right difference is heritable, at least in part.
So it turns out that what we call the ‘left-right’ difference is simple. It has existed since the first kings emerged in Mesopotamia about 7,000 years ago. It has never changed. It is nothing more or less than the difference between two kinds of people. One kind, let us call them the leftists, believe that society works best when the government has more control of the people. The other kind of people, the right, believe the opposite: Society works best when the people have more freedom.
Ref => => https://archive.org/stream/PredisposedLiberalsConservativesAndTheBiologyOfPoliticalDifferencesJohnHibbing/Predisposed%20-%20Liberals%2C%20Conservatives%2C%20and%20the%20Biology%20of%20Political%20Differences%20-%20John%20Hibbing_djvu.txt
This comports with my understanding, observation, and philosophy.
I suspect it may not be evolution as much as laziness. Government purportedly do a lot of the work that others won't. Preferring economic security, such as welfare, means one is less inclined to save, for example. The same American government that contributed to the creation of COVID-19, also bailed people out during shutdowns. Bail outs create the illusion that one does not have to take appropriate economic action, because the kind government will always backstop you.
Good point. Laziness is always a factor in human behavior.
I wonder if fear has locked many of us in a fight, flight, or freeze state. Fear is used as a weapon and narrows our perspective and ability to imagine anything else
I think that must be a part of the picture.
I basically agree with your theory. Education, politics and capitalism seem to have failed us.. or we it.
We see much de- based behavior, much these days is self- defeating, selfish, shortsighted and mindless.
Is wisdom intelligence? Is common sense intelligence? Emotional intelligence?
There are surely many kinds of intelligence.
Yes. No doubt.
You may be onto something about freedom lovers being a higher evolved person. And, maybe free thinkers are not afraid of death, thus not afraid to live, thus, not afraid of the unknown insecurity, whatever it may be.
That could be a component of it, at least in some cases.
Agreed on freedom and security, but, speaking as an English person, your analysis of the Whig /Tory divide is not on the money.
The Whigs were essentially those who agreed with the removing of James II for his Catholiciism. They were not freedom lovers, but the grandees, like today, who allied with money for power.
As a group, they were behind the foundation of the Bank of England, and as part of its founding group, benefited from the credit it was permitted to create, which caused a massive expansion of gambling and ruin in the eighteenth century. One of their most famous was Sir Francis Dashwood, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and founder of the Hell-fire club, who engaged in black masses and orgies with women dressed as nuns. Hardly a great role model, and their purported support for liberty was as about as real as Uniparty support today.
What was it William Hazlitt said—"A modern Whig is but the fag-end of a Tory"? I get (and appreciate) the historical nuances, and yes, they were perhaps not as different as Jefferson believed, or as we would wish them to be. It's like the other quote I've heard: “The Whigs and the Tories are like two coaches driving through the mud, kicking up dust and filth as they go, but both arriving at the same destination in the end.”
That said, weren't they reasonably well distinguished earlier (in the 17th and 18th), and especially during the Civil War and Glorious Revolution? (Both of those conflicts took place, in smaller ways, here in the Colonies too.)
Yes. It's interesting for me to note that mine isn't going to be the only comment that brings up the idea that there is a spiritual component to this. I believe that we can all feel it, though we may express it in different ways. The simplest, perhaps, can be found in the saying: "God helps those who help themselves."
The more complex brings me to post a link to a (VERY weird -- weirdness trigger alert here) article that I wrote in 2023 that was based upon some spiritual "downloads" that I received during a very spiritually intense time in my life. In essence ... If I could easily sum it up, I suppose I would say that, based on the "information" that I "received" from this otherworldly source, the search for freedom and individuality may not be merely an important component to "this place" (the 3D realm), but may, in fact, be the whole entire point.
https://prometheuslost.substack.com/p/sixth-density-the-path-of-integrity
Or one of them, anyway ... Love has to fit in there somewhere, too, I think ;)
I am scrambling to catch up after my long trip, but I am interested in reading this soon.
A very interesting perspective.
There, is however, always going to be a degree of necessary security. Like animals of any kind, or species of any kind, we must have the security of foodstuffs; that if denied, or controlled, in a manner by some that places others in the position of dependence that can only be found in that dependence, and not trying to get on any side of the jew-palestian debate, it appears that many in Gaza are so dependent on the food handouts they starve and therefore remain in dependence .
So how do they become free of this dependence? Well they fight against that forced dependence and become labeled terrorists.
Now I said I'm not trying to take a political stance, but basically anyone who might take physical action against others to insure what you are calling freedom, is labeled a terrorist,a criminal, or at its most benign, a societal misfit.
I tend to think that freedom is often denied when people are denied security. But then that security does in itself, (as long as there is enough resource-security to survive), turn people into slaves to their own desire for security and they lose their freedom to the security they have been offered.
Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your article; but that is the gist (not the sum) of my interpretation of your article.
But I have a bit of difference with the term "freedom". Not that I in particular think freedom is wrong, but that it is often presented as a longing that can be fulfilled only by the security or grants of certain rights given by the government and those rights are what are your freedoms. So now the government says you no longer have a right to an abortion (again I am not trying to judge the merits,or rightness of abortion), but the interpretation that becries the loss of their freedom of choice.
It seems,although it will be denied by those who have wrapped themselves in a security blanket they think is freedom and they become insecure if what they perceive to be freedom becomes uncovered, and then they find themselves no longer free.
Since this seems to be an almost synonymous definition that equates freedom with security, I have sought for many years for another term, or conception, of freedom with security.
But I think I am in perfect agreement that to be free one must unwrap the security blanket, because no government can grant freedoms, they can only enslave by offering freedom as a security that only they (the government) can grant you.
So I am quite sure a government that offers any type of freedom can never be given, one must simply deny the right of anyone to be able to do so. Otherwise if freedom is something that can be given to us rather than what we deny to be taken from us, freedom itself remains a longing to be given more and more freedom and we become enslaved by our own longings for freedom.
So I've been reading quite a few of your articles, and I would be interested in your conception on that point. Is freedom something granted;or something you deny the other to take from you?