A timely look at a recurring category error. As the beast seeks to turn the debacle with Russia into worse with China, reject the siren honk of the old honied lies.
If you are new to the Band, this post is an introduction to the point of this blog that needs updating. Older posts are in the archive on the right. Shorter occult posts and other topics have menu pages above.
Comments are welcome, but moderated for obvious reasons. If you don't see it right away, don't worry. We check and it will be up there.
Time for a more conventional post. It's been a while since a historicized look at manifest inversion. Not to preach doom but to learn from past error. As the beast system wheezes towards collapse, it is imperative to remember that something always comes next. History teaches that life goes on. And avoiding old auto-idolatrous mistakes means understanding what they are and why they appeal.
Signe Wilkinson, China is freeing us from our freedoms, published Dec. 4, 2019,
Quick update. The metaphysics book creeps along. The second half of Chapter 2 is being revised for preview here and idea structures of the later chapters are in preparation for their drafts. Yesterday we finally visualized how the relationship between Ultimate and Abstract Realities manifests through the so-called Platonic triad of Good, Beautiful, and True. That won’t turn up until chapter 4 or so, but it sharpens the alignment between the Ontological Hierarchy and reality as we can apprehend it nicely. It was enough of an epiphany that we had to stop and do something else for a while. As for when it will be posted we can’t say. Our schedule estimates have proven hopelessly optimistic and there seems to be an infinite procession of demands on our time. All we can do is attest that a complete draft is being worked on slowly and that we’ll keep readers posted here.
We are also long overdue an Arts of the West post. Thinking of art is a mental shift when non-family, non-work time is preoccupied with metaphysical speculation. We do share art elsewhere, but that is mostly split between 19th-century to contemporary non-beast beauty and medieval art and culture. The next Arts of the West post will take up the Baroque, and we need to do some more reading and reflection first.
Giovanni Battista Gaulli, Triumph of the Name of Jesus, 1661-1679, fresco, Il Gesù, Rome
It was something of a swan song for the Christian Logos + Techne formula that defined the art of the West before critics, academies, discourse, and modernist inversion centralized and jacked it. But we’ve come to think that Baroque art reflects the structure of the Ontological Hierarchy almost perfectly and that might explain some enmity. Look at this ceiling painting & you can see it. Just need to read and think a little more.
One thing about being preoccupied by the metaphysics book is that secondary observations keep popping up. The book isn’t a kitchen sink where all our observations and insights get thrown in. It is what we call a practical metaphysics - or full and applicable account of reality with the metaphysical components included. Practical meaning useful for real-world discernment and judgments.
Practicality is important. Readers are aware that levels of reality are different with different ways of knowing but they are not contradictory. Consistency and continuity are signs of truth value – that which is knowable observationally, logically, and faithfully as compatible windows on aspects of the objective reality. Just compare the Ontological Hierarchy with the epistemological incoherence and outright contradictions in the ever-changing evil and idiocy the House of Lies proclaims. Practicality means the metaphysical insights are applicable to physical existence. Consistency shows how truth can guide us through the murky entropic uncertainties of a fallen material reality. Without practicality and consistency, metaphysical speculation easily becomes masturbatory smart boy vaporing, where [can’t be ruled out] becomes the only argument for some made-up bit of wish projection. Basically the modern Science! argumentation that pretends [superficially not contradictory to observation] = [explanation for observation].
Like the recent revision of the age of the universe from 13.7 to 26.7 billion years to account for new observations that seem to invalidate the older claim. It's literally making up beliefs whole cloth to fit flimsy and contradictory astronomical observation, with no corroboration - robust or otherwise - and no pathway to hypothesis testing. Nor is there any indication of building a progressive, coherent understanding.
This quote sums it up: "this provides a plausible explanation for the advanced development and mass observed in these ancient galaxies."
Anyhow, enough on that. This post will consider a big category error that belongs to the House of Lies, but really effects people who are somewhat opposed to it. “Freedom” may seem like low-hanging fruit or an unlikely target depending on perspective, but it’s indicative of a bigger issue. That is the difference between material and abstract reality and how its misunderstanding makes people unwittingly vulnerable to beast deception. The incredible magnitude of the error shows how powerful it is. But once you see it, you can see through it.
Consider Delacroix' famous painting. It's French and refers to the July Revolution of 1830, but it fits this issue perfectly.
Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830, oil on canvas, Louvre, Paris
It's dramatic & propagandistically powerful. But you know what didn't happen? The abstract personification of Liberty didn't manifest and lead the revolutionaries. People did, with complications and agendas of their own. Making the leader an abstract virtue changes a complex political conflict into moral absolutes. The revolutionaries are unambiguously virtuous. Their opponents are by extension unambiguously evil. It's fake, but in a particular way. The pretense that abstract absolute virtue exists qua itself as the central driver in specific politicized human conflicts.
The complication comes from abstract and material realities being real in their own ways. Real and interrelated but with different properties. Material reality is physically extant, known observationally, and time-bound – entropic and mutable. Abstract reality is immaterial abstraction, known intellectually, and timeless – absolute and immutable. We tend to use examples from math or symbolic logic to demonstrate this because they make it easy to see [Click for an overview of the Ontological Hierarchy. It will suffice until the book is finished].
Freedom, though, is an abstract quality that is not expressed mathematically. It can be represented as a symbolic logic relation [FREEDOM] ⇔ ¬[CONSTRAINT]. But it is generally used descriptively - as in represented textually. Or visually, in the case of the painting.
So the low-hanging fruit has already pointed to two important considerations.
Abstractions that aren’t expressed mathematically.
and
“Freedom” as a signature Western/US category error.
One is more general, one more specific., but both are related. We'll walk through it together.
An abstract reality is real but not material. A property, principle, quality, etc. Spiritual entities may belong there as well. They’re tricky though – sometimes they seem to have material qualities. Aquinas’ angels fit.
George Frederick Watts - When Poverty Comes in at the Door Love Flies Out the Window, 1892, oil on canvas, Städel Museum, Frankfurt
Personifications are used in painting and poetry to depict abstractions. It's a visualization, but the scene doesn't apply to any one particular story or event. It's an abstract relationship or truth.
Sigismund Christian Hubert Goetze, Til Death Do Us Part, 1910, oil on canvas, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool
Here the personification - and the way the picture is arranged - point to a spiritual abstraction. Passing out of material reality and heading up the Ontological Hierarchy experientially. It's not an explicitly Christian depiction of moving into the afterlife given the inversive belief system of the newly modern West when it appeared. But the point still comes through clearly.
Epistemologically we know abstract reality by logic. Abstract reality isn’t logic per se, logic is how it is thinkable to us. Just as material reality is accessible to us through sensory perception. This means our conception of abstract reality will conform to the ontological parameters associated with logic. Just as our impression of material reality is limited to the ontological parameters of sensory perception. One of the main insights of the Ontological Hierarchy is that ontology and epistemology – what we can know and how we can know - are compatible. The nature of the kind of information logic can provide corresponds to the nature of abstract reality. Just as the nature of the kind of information perception can provide corresponds with the nature of material reality. If the epistemological mode didn't conform to the level of reality, it couldn’t reveal anything meaningful about it. Like describing what you had for lunch with numbers or solving equations with pictures.
Symbolic logic is a form of representation, like language or pictograms. It distills logical relations – or quantities in the case of mathematics - to general expressions that can be assessed for internal truth value.
Logical thought doesn’t have to be expressed in this form – its just the cleanest way to do it.
Abstractions that aren't expressed in symbolic logic are expressions of abstract reality that conform to the ontological parameters of logic but are expressed in another way.
Therefore, consider the ontological parameters associated with logic, regardless of how represented...
1. Not limited by the entropy, temporality, and mutability of material reality
Material reality is time-bound - temporally sequenced and always changing. Nothing in it is permanent. Abstractions have no intrinsic material form and are unaffected by material conditions. They are unchanging and consistent. Love or Death simply are, regardless of time or place.
2. Capable of absolutes without variance no matter how small
This is a point we have brought up repeatedly. Consider the absolute precision of mathematical quantity. Such measurements are impossible in material reality where there is always a degree of uncertainty from perceptual or instrumental limits. Significant figures are not relevant to abstract determinations. The symbolic logic expression of freedom shows the absolute nature of the distinction. [FREEDOM] ⇔ ¬[CONSTRAINT]. This applies to the linguistic representation "freedom" as well. It just isn't visible in the sign.
3. Discernable inductively through pattern recognition
Abstracts move from apprehensible by logic to apprehensible by observation when they manifest in material subjects. The manifestation is obviously constrained by the properties of material reality, but the underlying abstraction is discernable through that. Like deriving the abstract quality "length" or "5" by noting things have physical dimensions or counting five things.
%20The%20Last%20Day%20in%20the%20Old%20Home%20-%20Oil%20on%20Canvas%201862.jpg)
Robert Braithwaite Martineau, The Last Day in the Old Home, oil on Canvas, 1862
Allegory is a way to depict abstraction without personifications. The abstract qualities of profligacy and irresponsibility are the manifest subject of this story picture.
By this reckoning, Freedom is no different from any abstract. It is not dependent on circumstances for its meaning, either temporal or circumstantial. It refers to a condition without constraint. And for it to be meaningful in the material reality we inhabit, it must manifest materially.
Let's turn to the definitions.
Websters defines it first as an abstract quality before moving to specific temporal material instances. Unlike the OED, they don't paywall the definitions, so American English it is.
Material and abstract reality are interconnected as well as distinct and a dictionary has to capture practical usage for comprehensibility.
Since this post will soon be shifting to historical misapplication, 1823 Websters is relevant too.
This definition moves the broad abstract meaning down to #5 and emphasizes the circumstantial material manifestations.
Not only is there nothing wrong with describing an abstract term with material circumstances, it is the only way we can experience the abstraction in our material existences. For [condition of unconstraint] to become meaningful experience, it has to be unconstrained by something. Abstractions are only perceptible – as opposed to knowable logically – when they manifest in the level of reality that perception offers access to.
But here’s the catch. In order to become perceptible, abstractions must manifest materially. And material reality cannot conform to the ontological parameters of abstract reality. It is limited by the constraints of time and entropy. It is not eternally unchanging. It cannot achieve absolutes. Once materialized, the abstraction becomes a descriptor of a material thing and subject to the laws of physics. Freedom becomes freedom from X. Circumstantial and subject to all the limits and conditions of circumstance.
Shout it from the rooftops:
It is literally impossible to stand for “freedom” unconditionally without crossing into satanic inversion. Creation is ruled and structured. Nature is ruled and structured. Any human sociability is ruled and structured. It is possible to be free from some of these rules and structures while others are inviolate to us. The desire to realize freedom qua freedom is the desire to destroy all bounds, all constraints, all structures, and all rules. It is the Sorathic end state of anti-structure, anti-Creation, and it manifested in its fullness somehow, it would be the end of material reality.
Settle for a manifestation...
“Freedom” as an abstract value approaches absolute evil in the manner of a limit of a function. It’s the Sorathic darkness at the bottom of the Ontological Hierarchy - the ultimate, dissolute anti-Creation diametrically opposed to the Creator or God as we know Him. Anyone who isn’t evil and proclaims freedom as a value is proclaiming it conditionally, regardless of what they swear or believe. Conversely, anyone who stands freedom as an unconditional qualitative state is evil, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The Band expects most Fudds with IQs above room temperature could grasp this reasoning with a modicum of effort and aren’t actually cheering for the Sorathic dissolution of reality. Despite the fact that their rhetoric often does. If pressed, the real value would be something like ‘Murican Freedom, which by virtue of its qualifier is a circumstantial and not a necessarily abstract “virtue”. We can let that go for now – were sound reasoning the coin of the realm, the House of Lies would never have taken hold.
Barclay, McClelland, Defend American freedom: it's everybody's job, 1942, poster
Apparently, in 1942 freedom meant industrial production. Of course, the vast majority of American industry has now been outsourced but the rhetoric still rings. Either the poster was mistaken, the rhetoric lied, or both...
Perhaps a symbolic cloth banner can shed light on this puzzler. It is presented in a similar way to the personifications. A material manifestation of an abstraction.
Could it be that wherever it turns up, freedom can be reliably be found?
Does this mean ever more freedom? Approaching the abstract absolute like that limit of a function?
If flags alone are insufficient to stop attempts at hindering freedom, can an extra sparkly flag with an angry bird and a strongly worded message turn things around?
This isn't proving illustrative. Move on.
So American Freedom, sometimes pluralized as the equally circumstantial “Our Freedoms”. What does it mean? Freedom from what? Something metronomically drum-beated into a platitudinous mantra must have well-defined things that Americans are free from…
That doesn’t look good. But all is not lost. We just explained that Freedom as an abstract value is evil or retarded and that well-meaning people confuse it with conditional social arrangements. Social arrangements are material manifestations with material ontological parameters, like temporality and mutability. Maybe there is a pattern of historic movement towards a state of relatively greater freedom from non-consensual control, theft, coercion, etc…
Nope.
Freedom qua freedom as a value is is materially impossible and inverted. But even as a relative material state, it is a nonsense word in the current House of Lies. The difference is that the former can never exist and a relatively high degree of societal freedom can exist. One is logically impossible, the other observably absent. The end result is the same though – dolts claiming to stand for something they objectively don’t have. Meaning something they objectively aren’t standing for. Lies, in other words, in a house of them.
So why so compelling? We don’t exist in a state of omnipresence either, but don’t claim we do.
Its power comes from tapping into deep impulses and desires that transcend ideological and moral differences. The universal desire not to be ordered around. The righteous desire to be free of immoral oppression. The satanic desire to do what you wilt. All can find refuge under freedom’s amorphous canopy.
Nowhere has embraced an undefined abstract notion of freedom as a popular ideological descriptor like the US. We’re using “US” and not “America” because we are referring to the political state and not the posterity of 1776 that defines the actual American nation. Both are implicated, but the oxymoronic nation-state is an expression of the same secular transcendence as freedom as a value, so we’ll roll with US.
There are two components to the freedom myth that are sequential and related. Simplifying and mythologizing.
Step 1 - Turn a real historical conflict into fake situational rhetoric
Step 2 - Turn fake situational rhetoric into fake abstraction
It helps if multiple circumstances can be turned into recurring “proof” of the same fake abstraction. Like claiming everything is driven by freedom so everything confirms freedom… The immediate root is the Revolution, the underlying factors are deeper.
The vehicle is the demonstrated US capacity for believing self-evidently ridiculous mythologizing as seen in earlier posts. This really does pick up after the Revolution with the need for an Enlightenment materialist mythology to invert the meaning of “nation” from natio to paper fluffing and magic dirt. Generations taught Little Golden Book-tier stories of cherry trees, midnight rides, and whites of eyes with varying degrees of truth as if they are meaningful on a macro scale.
Henry Mosler, The Birth of the Flag, 1912, oil, Georgetown University Art Collection
The Betsy Ross story is likely apocryphal to the surprise of none of our readers. The legend of the Revolutionary Penelope appeared in 1870, 36 years after her death during a boom in mass post-War of Northern Aggression flag propaganda. No credible evidence for the story exists at all.
There are a couple of things that make this mythologizing process important. The most obvious one is simplicity - it obscured serious public analysis of real big pictures to severe brain damage levels. In reality, the Revolution was a huge, bitterly divisive Enlightenment-driven colonial rebellion that kicked off the European Age of Revolution, itself the prelude to the beast system. The conflict was an intra-elite affair - as all such conflicts are - over policy, with a veneer - as all such conflicts have - of moralizing rhetoric. And it really was Enlightenment-driven, with actual Freemasonic Enlightenment philosophers providing the ideological content.
Harvard's "Pluralism Project" agrees - from the link
They don't really try and hide it.
We've already posted on the Enlightenment's occultic priesthood. Freemasonry actively pushed the secular transcendence angle hard to swap out God for literally impossible immanent abstractions.
Allyn Cox, George Washington Laying the Cornerstone of the National Capitol, September 18, 1793, mural, 1950s, Memorial Hall, George Washington Masonic National Memorial
The mythologizing confuses morality with polity. Some magic paper and ever-metastasizing laws imposed by unaccountable oligarchs and apparatchiks is True because you shared ancestry with the people living around you. So True that it overrides that shared ancestral culture it presumes. Seriously. Consider how successful that was. Loyalty to an elite construct is accorded the unconditional approval owed virtue. Even today, the conflation of Enlightenment secular materialism, Masonic ideology, and American mythologized secular transcendence is not a mystery. From the link.
The mystery is how this impossible bag of Enlightenment inversion became accepted description of the nature of reality.
We've posted extensively on that blast of auto-idolatry and spellcraft. It's found under the "Epistemology" link at the top of the page. Probably starting with "A Sinister Light or Enlightenment Globalism and Really Fake Truth".
Mythologizing is how a set of specific political circumstances and disputes becomes a virtue. Recasting it as moral fables for dolts turns a complicated matter with implications reaching the present day into a childish story of white hats and black hats red coats. It’s not a set of Enlightenment-fueled elite conflicts, it’s good guys fighting for freedom! No need to consider the larger issues, moral ambiguities, ideological inversions, or any other contextuals.
This is not to say that there weren’t legitimate grievances. Or that many fighters were motivated by self-determination. But the rank and file are also skewed by mythologizing propaganda. And consider how few people actually drove the revolution. Then consider the ideology – pure Freemasonic Enlightenment garbage all the way down to magic paper and unnamed “Creator” gods. Or all the secular transcendence nonsense that followed – civic nationalism, secular ethics, constitution worship… and Freedom.
An Emblem of the Effects of the STAMP, Pennsylvania Journal, October 1765, Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, The New York Public Library
Contemporary commentary on the Stamp Act - a central event in colonial grievance. That the money was for their defense was irrelevant. The rallying cry was political philosophy. "No taxation without representation!" is a legitimate point.
But consider the mythologizing process. The slogan simultaneously ensconces the legitimacy of taxation and democracy within the national ethos. Freedom in this case that leads straight to [muh democracy] and [sending them money]. Institutionalized extortion where governmental representation of the people objectively doesn’t exist.
Recasting the Revolution as a Braveheartian fight for freedom against a wicked oppressor like “Tyrant” George motivated by malevolent joy at oppressing innocent hobbits. Note how this type of distortion works. It’s actually [distortion + oversimplification] into a binary intended to trigger emotional buy-in. A complicated and or banal dispute is stripped of any nuance and reimagined as straight up good vs. evil. With “freedom” as the ultimate good. And since the masses are idiots, the myth becomes the fake “historical fact” that proves the objective moral virtue of the “freedom fighters”. And then the conflict is conceptualized as driven by a spirit of mass liberation from tyranny. Despite no subsequent emphasis on individual freedoms as policy. The actual circumstantial freedom - from foreign rule - has no magic applicability beyond the lesson that the national interest requires real struggle and commitment.
Many remember those halcyon days when freedom came to Iraq...
The most ridiculous thing about early American secular transcendence is how unnecessary it was. Although that has been a recurring theme with inversion since the apple. The American nation was Christian despite the ultimately satanic Freemasonry of many of the elites. Even the Spanish and French in the vicinity were Catholic and a lot of the natives had converted. For an early American, Christianity – and Christian metaphysics – were a given. Obviously, the God of the Bible should have been specifically named. The goal of slipping Enlightenment deism into the founding document should have been stuffed. And while “we the people” really is stirring rhetoric that still carries heft, it categorically is not capable of producing timeless abstract legitimation.
The core conflict is between the perpetual consistency inherent in abstract values and the mutability and situational contingency of material human choices. The ontological nature of reaching a consensus cannot produce the ontological nature of abstract realities. Consensus can obviously ordain and establish a Constitution, but it cannot imbue it with more authority than that. Timeless abstract truths manifest materially, but they’re material manifestations. Not the [abstract truth qua abstract truth]. So they’re still subject to the conditions and limits of material existence. Including mutability and entropy.
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
John Trumbull, Declaration of Independence, 1818, oil, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
What if the consensus on this is no one cares? Or if the narrative engineers are working hard to establish them as hateful, genocidal, or something else? The piece of paper may claim to manifest abstract reality. But materially, it's a piece of paper. And its effectiveness is necessarily circumstantial.
You can declare abstract principles in a material enterprise and mean them. But manifestation, not essence. Once you stop manifesting, the principle is no longer… well… manifest. The principle can’t just inhere in in a lump of inert material. Once “we the people” morphed into oligarchic centralized party system of representative government and decided to ignore the paper, nothing stopped them. Any future order will understand that men compel obedience to rules, not the opposite. And the rules will reflect those that make them.
Kurz and Allison, Franklin Opening the Lodge, 1896, print, Chicago, National Heritage Museum
Genius, Freemason, and signer Benjamin Franklin's famous quote was prescient. "A republic if you can keep it". Note that until not long ago, it was just assumed that they did. It's only relatively recently that the failure of the system has become aggressively blatant.
Moving forward. The Revolution was reimagined as a battle of good and evil with freedom as the driving force. It is also the founding event for the US polity, in real history and fake ideology. The path to the corrupt and coercive apparatus of the beast system is instantiated under its fake “Creator” at that point.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with Americans honoring their War of Independence. It represents the moment when the American nation - the posterity of the Declaration of Independence - went from scattered colonies to a country of their own. That they failed to pursue their national interests is on them. But the failure was baked into the beginning with the pretense that impossible materialized abstractions were a national ethos. And an ethos without substance could justify the growth of financialized globalist imperialism.
One of the Babel-tier monstrosities of the globalist beast system is the inversion of the meaning and responsibilities of nationhood. A nation needs to prioritize its national interest over "global needs" or it risks ceasing to exist as a nation. It is possible to pretend lies are real for a while, but inevitably the truth catches up.
Source: the present day.
Freedom, as the ur-myth of this founding event reinforced through countless celebrations and social rituals, became burned into the collective unconscious. We are aware that sounds Jungian. But there is some merit to the idea of a collective unconscious.. How better to explain the recurring propensity for group belief in stupid things? It’s not metaphysical though – think of it more as a long-term mass formation. Or FTS-2 as hivemind.
The result is that freedom became a magic word in the inverted Gnosticism of American materialist religion. One that virtually any major event or initiative could be falsely filtered through. When the whole apparatus is fake, the truth-value of incidentals is irrelevant. And were the truth relevant, freedom wouldn’t be unconditionally trumpeted as an unconditional virtue. Since it is, the truth of the accounts of individual manifestations is irrelevant.
Freedom can cast its distortion field back in time. The Pilgrims become mere seekers of religious freedom. As in this quote from Reagan's farewell address from an earlier post on founding a national ethos on impossible phantasy. The phrase in question is the shining City on the Hill.
Note the circumstantial reality. Freedom from a specific English religious dispute and then civil war.
Go forward to the ultimate nail in the coffin of the constitutional republic – the War of Northern Aggression. That sanguinary demonstration of the ultimate worthlessness of magic paper has been mythologized into a virtuous crusade to “free slaves”. Obviously slavery was part of the larger economic and political issues, and is morally abhorrent as an institution. No doubt many abolitionists were forthright in their convictions. But naked altruism not what motivated the bloodiest conflict to date on American soil. The simplification and distortion into a white hatted fight for freedom is a reiteration of the founding mythology of the Revolution. One that extends [freedom as national virtue] to the freedom of others.
Note the circumstantial reality. Freedom as the end of a specific system of slavery.
Edmonia Lewis, Forever Free, 1867, marble, Howard University Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Obviously the end of involuntary slavery is morally good - the institution never should have been implemented in the first place. And the rhetoric around release from bondage is so powerful, with echoes going back to the Bible. Lewis - an actual black female neoclassical sculptor who lived and worked in Rome - captures it with this marble triumph.
The point we are making is that the acts associated with freedom are specific circumstantial instances. They are not proofs that freedom as an abstract virtue drives US decision making. If that were the case, the preponderance of policy and legislation would maximize personal freedom from external coercion and control.
It is worth pointing out that had the CSA won, the conflict would also have been defined in terms of “freedom”. In this case, most likely freedom from Yankee oppression. Instead the rhetoric of a crusade for freedom drowned out the very different and fundamental issue of replacing the constitutional republic of the Revolution with centralized federal dominance. A huge step towards the beast system waved away in the official narrative as is it never happened. Meanwhile, the veneer of rhetoric meant anyone raising the issue over the rising imperialism of the future clown world empire could be shouted down as racist. Mythologizing and simplifying means the myth has to be monodimensional.
H. B. Sedgwick for the Veteran Art Company of Minneapolis, MN, The Veterans of ’62 United in Defense of the Flag, 1906, lithograph for postcard
Possibly veterans of the Sioux War. In any case, the blast of civic nationalist "patriotism" and flag worship in the wake of the war somehow turned the transformation of the country into all together for freedom.
Somehow America becomes “the land of the free” despite no evidence to support the claim. The mass immigration that dispossessed heritage America and drove income disparity wasn't a sop to financial powers. It was freedom from want or oppression however defined, or whatever else stirs the emotions.
There's the national anthem. The Star Spangled Banner only became the official anthem in 1931, although Francis Scott Key's lyrics were written in 1814 after the War of 1812. Its sentiments weren't novel though - the song that preceded it for a century as unofficial anthem casts the beast system into high relief. Samuel Francis Smith's America or My country, 'tis of thee (1832) weaves a potent rhetorical brew of God's blessing, the beauty of the land, and freedom. For more, here's a short but interesting link on the history of the various American national anthem-type songs.
America. My country, 'tis of thee, published by J. Wrigley, probably 1861
It's worth perusing the lyrics and thinking about a popular culture where this resonated, regardless of ontological credibility. The freedom and liberty is presented as being as natural as the land and God's blessing, but these things are all conditional. The land has to be held. God's will must be upheld. And the freedom first has to be defined as freedom from what present day set of realities then defended.
Alternatively, there's the jarring experience of reading these kyrics is the present day.
The waves of propaganda around the World Wars distill the mountain of freedom-flag-war-civic nationalism incoherence that piled up over the 19th century into refined incoherence for the 20th. The Band has turned to propaganda posters in the past because they're the closest available simulation of the mass and tech media glowing screens of today. Hopelessly simplistic and factually nonsensical messaging that uploads beast narrative in place of reality. Transmitted by combinations of images and texts targeted at the rhetorical hot buttons. They may seem absurd and over the top to us here, but a glance at the mumming grotesques emoting breathless lies about covid or Ukraine or whatever on CNN should be sufficient to show the lineage.
The Band has posted on World War I. A ghastly abattoir driven by international finance & toadying "leaders" that burned down the old European order and poured the foundation for the globalist beast system. The House of Lies was not fully erect yet, but was well on its way. The thing to look for in these pictures how collections of false symbols are mixed and remixed to new contexts. We noted it in occult imagery as something we called "The Churn of Symbols" [click for a link]. How a spray of symbols representing ontologically false claims keeps getting repackaged and reused to bring the old emotional resonance into new contexts. Consider the associations in this one. .
E.G. Renesch, Flag of Freedom World War I poster, 1917-1918
The flag, the Liberty Bell, the Statue of Liberty - the accumulated trappings of secular transcendent freedom. The central figure - Chaste Sailor Moon - copies the statue's pose - the flag as torch of liberty. Her stance evokes the fake goddess Columbia and her pristine white dress is pure damsel in distress. The Bell harkens back to the Revolution and supports the classical column - the symbol of the timeless, Enlightenment, Western values of the country.
A churn of symbols sprayed with bright, colorful, martial appeal.
The churn of symbols aims for a couple of things with freedom.
The results of simplifying and mythologizing events around the same false acceptance of materialized abstraction pile up over time. Like the obelisk example in the Life of Symbols post [click for a link] "freedom" accrues lots of examples that can be added to a growing collection. This creates a cycle that progressively reinforces belief in the impossible value. To the point where even now, when it is beyond obvious that the elites actively oppose any objective concept of freedom or liberty, too many still pretend it's an ethos.
The inversion starts with the founding secular transcendence - the pretense that an abstract absolute inheres in material reality as a "timeless" socio-political ethos. The fake timeless value guides the simplification and mythologizing of real circumstantial events into fake examples of the pure realization of the value. This sells the deception at the time and adds to the growing historical churn of symbols that "prove" the false value. Which then sells the new deception. And adds to the churn. Wash, rinse, repeat. The pattern looks like this...
This one shows how the churn and spray piles old symbols on the new. Remember, the process has nothing to do with capturing what actually happened historically. The point is to pretend real complex events were motivated by the intrinsic American ethos of advancing freedom above any other considerations. And then to use those selective misreadings as evidence of the false ethos next time some other complex set of imperialist adventures needs the freedom treatment.
Visual rhetoric check - does the arrangement of this poster communicate "freedom" when looked at? Or like an imperial horde crushing resistance to a totalitarian god-emperor type? What is the freedom from is not a rhetorical question. If the answer is lacking, the claim is necessarily false. Abstractions aren't material events.
True sons of freedom, Chicago: Chas. Gustrine, 1918
The slaves were victims of the first wave of globalism - colonialism. The reality of their freeing could replace the actual motivations of the war with an altruistic desire to end slavery. And turn Lincoln into a idolatrous "god" of freedom and not the destroyer of the constitutional republic. Otherwise, the slaves could have been freed without then building the imperial federal state.
Note the irony of former victims of globalism invading a foreign nation and imposing the new 20th-century financialized globalism on people they had no historical issue with.
Sometimes the symbols aren't even all that necessary. Unlike the obelisks in the spray and churn of symbols posts "Freedom" is a linguistic symbol, not a pictorial one. The use is similar - both are redeployed again and again to tie different circumstances to the same set of associations. But words and pictures communicate differently. Words are ostensibly denotative - connotations obviously exist, but the assumption is that there is a primary meaning that accounts for the use of the word in a given context. Metaphor and other figurative language complicates this, but the basic relative difference between words and pictures stand. One is relatively more precisely defined while the other is relatively more evocative. The word can be inserted into a sentence or added as a label to give the impression of clearly assigned facts or attributes to any situation.
Of course, words can be used as dishonestly as any form of representation. The denotative precision comes from the structuring of language as a representational system, not whether users are accurate with their usage.
Frederick Coffay Yohn, U.S. Marines - first to fight in France for freedom Enlist with the "soldiers of the sea", U.S. Marines recruitment poster, between 1917 and 1918.
It's good alliteration. It's also nonsense. They may be the first to fight in France. Given the nature of that abomination of a war that's not a good thing, but it is true. But what freedom are they fighting for?
At least the Revolution featured a specific kind of political freedom that could be used to retroactively define the conflict as a virtue crusade. The War of Northern Aggression actually did free the slaves, which could retroactively define the conflict as a virtue crusade. There's nothing freeing to even try to spotlight and blow up. It's pure clown inversion.
Freedom as [circumstantial outcome elevated to pure motivating virtue] becomes freedom as [nonsense word that doesn't apply to the situation at all]. Along with "freedom from what?" ask how freedom motivates the governing powers in other circumstances. What other things does it impel - things that doesn't have posters trumpeting the message? And when you can't think of a single unambiguous example, the magnitude of the word spell should come into focus.
Ignore that the claims and symbols are incoherent - the masses don't think. Once the false belief is accepted as an article of faith, it has the moral feeling of goodness and truth. Even stronger if the believer feels they're part of it - a moral contact high by association. If "freedom" is who we are, what we stand and fight for, the ultimate virtue in our ethos, then anything that can be plugged into that is seen as virtuous. Not just acceptable, or in the national interest, but abstractly, morally virtuous. It
1. Moralizes concrete actions - pretends complex human actions are expressions of pure virtue and therefore "evil" to even question.
2. Obscures real motives - complex human actions actually do have motives that may be worth knowing. Considering that the government objectively doesn't care about freedom, why are they pretending they do in certain cases?
World War II propaganda bangs the freedom drum hard. It is not the Band's intention to address the specifics of that war. We have noted before that there is so much squid ink around the 20th century that it makes the kind of broad observations the Band does too speculative. Just pay attention to how the freedom rhetoric gets deployed. Like the churn-spray of symbols association game...
Bernard Perlin, Americans Will Always Fight for Liberty, United States. Office of War Information, 1943
It is true that the Nazis are an easy target for this sort of rhetoric. But consider the selective nature of the supposed timeless ideal. Where was freedom's clarion call as half of Europe was given over to Bolshevism and the other half to globalism?
Circumstantial, for reasons other than a universal freedom drive - regardless how hard it gets pushed as the same as the Revolution.
Of course, burning countless lives and resources to usher in Bolshevism and financial globalism for "their freedom" isn't as compelling as doing it for "your freedom". We shared some "they're coming for you!" nonsense in the earlier WWI post. Here's a WWII version where they're coming for the civnat totems.
It's easy to see the lies in hindsight. What matters is detecting the pattern with the past and using it to see the lies in the present...
Chester Raymond Miller, We're fighting to prevent this!, 1943, Rochester, NY, Kelly-Read & Co.
Put aside the likelihood of an invasion across the Atlantic from an enemy that couldn't cross the English Channel. The beast loves to mire dupes in debates about irrelevancies. Whether or not the Germans intended or could invade North America isn't the liar's tell. It can't be because it can't be conclusively settled. The tell is whether or not the elites driving the war actually cared about these imperiled tokens . That's not ultimately inconclusive.
Look at what happened since and ask how important the constitution, the bill of rights, or "labor and business freedom" have proven to be?
.
These are worth looking at for the way they establish myths then nail them down with the trauma of the war years. Regardless of government motivations, the commitment of the masses was generally sincerely felt. The whole country felt the war effort, at least in terms of the constant propaganda and resource mobilization. It wasn't the famine and destruction level impact on Europe and Asia, but there was a legitimate sense of struggle, sacrifice and loss of life, and a sense of patriotic moral righteousness. The propaganda sharpens the illusion of moral clarity and repackages the commitment and anxiety as the price of virtue.
The combination of ubiquitous feeling of general participation, sense of anxiety over the stakes, determination to win, and continual trauma makes a fertile field for programming. A mass version of that trauma-based mind control we've mentioned in earlier posts. And if the nature of the war, with its total nature and enough centralized media to make it real to the masses, created an ideal state for mass imprinting, the propaganda provided the values to imprint.
Set aside the issue of whether the war was the right thing to do and focus on the reasons being offered. Belief in impossible material values as motivators is not the same as the circumstantial decision to oppose Germany because [the Nazis must be stopped], or [our English allies need us], or [a globalist financial empire needs establishing], or, [a globalist political empire needs establishing], or [something metaphysical calls for blood sacrifice] or whatever else. It means something that isn't the real reason is being offered as the reason - and that never augurs well as the popular 12 axioms post spells out. And it means the credulous masses are led to support something to the level of identifying their own moral self-worth with it that isn't what they think it is.
You can see what else tags along...
Leslie Ragan, United - The United Nations Fight for Freedom, 1943, United States. Office of War Information
According to the link, this United Nations was the name for the Allied nations during the war and became the foundation of the postwar United Nations.
It's an interesting band of freedom fighters. For the full line-up, see next...
The United Nations Fight for Freedom", 1942, U.S. Government Printing Office
It's worth pausing for a moment on the Soviet Union and China on the top row. Again, we aren't discussing whether they were fighting to free themselves from some situational aggressor. We are pointing out how they can be lit by the Statue of Liberty's torch, with all the symbolic spray that connotes.
The issue isn't just the whiplash speed that bastions of timeless freedom become tyrannical enemies of freedom. It's how other, unannounced things are implemented under the emotional cover of the fake timeless value myth. Once the war is simplified and moralized into virtue, things associated with our virtuous side must be virtuous. Fighting for [muh democracy] is similar - an objectively not real totem that makes the masses feel righteous while the beast system is installed unnoticed. In this case it's laying a subtle emotional link between freedom and global community/government.
Although the whiplash speed is astounding. This pair comes from a set of WWII depictions of allied soldiers. If anyone marvels at the speed that the House of Lies can transform one current thing into something totally opposite, look at Russia even before the glowing screen era.
This Man is Your Friend - He Fights for Freedom - Englishman, 1942; This man is your friend - He fights for freedom - Russian, 1942, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
Freedom becomes such a potent label because its intrinsically meaningless as an ethos. Once you realize it's impossible at that basic level you can see how it can attach accumulated associations - themselves also false - to almost anything.
Like the growth of a centralized welfare state, in this case, during the WWII era. The idea, presumably, being to tap into the emotion around patriotic supercharged freedom at the time.
Norman Rockwell, Freedom From Want, 1943, U.S. Office of War Information poster
Rockwell is a venomous little creep - a peddler of exaggerated folksy homespun warmth that masked subversive social programming. It's not that his imagery doesn't appeal - the whole point is that it does. His art subverts the very culture that it draws that appeal from. There's nothing obviously wrong with the image on the surface. It's the use in a government campaign to mobilize - WWII style - increasing control over society by evoking the family bonds government control undermines.
And the "Greatest" treated it like catnip, feeling virtuous about the progressivism that destroyed the world they knew.
The four Rockwell "Freedom from" posters were based on Franklin Roosevelt's annual message to Congress in 1941. Rockwell used the four freedoms in the speech as the themes for posters and Saturday Evening Post covers - the Post seeming to do some of what t.v. did to boomers to greatests. Quoted from the above link:
We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms” he stated. Two of these freedoms were specifically included in the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Two were freedoms deeply desired by a generation confronted by economic depression and the threat of dictatorships, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Note the shift in preposition. It corresponds on when these rights were made up and by whom. The first two are from the old Enlightenment secular transcendence. The former being something that objectively doesn't exist in a reality of speech laws, but is still pretended to by retards for self-comforting reasons. The latter being the legalistic way to de-Christianize what was historically a Christian nation. But both are actually situational freedoms that are in theory universally applicable. They are things you can simply do up to whatever legal limits are imposed. No one else has to do anything in order for you to do them either. They simply have to leave you alone. Now how does that form of situational freedom apply to freedom from?
Freedom from want means someone else is dependent on ensuring your satiation. Freedom from fear means someone else has to suppress the things that frighten you. And since "we're" mobilizing to fight for these things, that means the government becomes that someone. The grotesque sociological failure of the welfare state is enough to show how destructive believing in comforting unrealities becomes. Then throw in the hordes of generational dependents willing to back anything - no matter how dyscivic - that keeps them slaked. But impossible made-up rights that are really obligations proved to be a potent weapon in centralizing control. It is amazing how powerful the freedom spell is.
Norman Rockwell, Save Freedom of Speech, 1943, U.S. Government Printing Office
We recently dispensed with this irritating non-existent, but it does fit here. The message is that if we don't wage war in Europe, Atticus here won't get to drop his shining pearls.
Historically it's interesting how this sort of propaganda shapes downstream attitudes. In this case, the "and everyone clapped" just-so story version of the world the boomers internalized from their less sociopathic parents.
Freedom gets another dose of fuel during the Cold War. Turned out those Ruskies weren't really fighting for freedom after all. They really hate freedom and are bent on destroying our system. That last sentence may actually be true. But once again, we aren't assessing what really happened. We're looking at how an impossible secular transcendence accrues simplified and mythologized examples over time until it becomes an almost magical emotional trigger. The question isn't which post-War system was better or more moral. Nor is it even whether they wanted to destroy ours. It's whether the freedom rhetoric used to justify the conflict is sincere. Whether it is consistent with whatever else it's self-proclaimed champions are doing.
Vintage Radio Free Europe Poster Crusade For Freedom 1950’s
So much architecture for the centralized beast system and its House of Lies was erected in the name of the Cold War Free World. The link has more images.
This one addresses complaints about noise from fighter jets as the new sound of freedom. You marvel at the naïve ridiculousness to the tone of the propaganda, and then the covid fear pushers come to mind and...
Communist collectivism made an easy target for the national myth. It still does. Some can get worked up about the Chi Coms, but their grasp of reality is FTS-2 for a reason. Communist doesn't even really resonate with the current iteration of beast system globalist. All metastases of the collectivist drive that goes back to Babel, but different in form. The thing is, you don't have to be explicitly communist to be an enemy of freedom.
Saddam Hussain played the mustachioed dictator to a tee, military costume included. The two Iraq wars can stand in for the post-Cold War Clown World definition of freedom as "opportunistic and violent imperialistic dominance". How did the outcomes correlate with the claimed motivator?
The point isn't to flog a dead horse. It's to show that this secular transcendence problem doesn't just go away. Don't sleepwalk past things that are impossible, but offered up as emotional trigger without explanation. Understand what your values really mean. It's never the narrative engineers that pay the price for their misdirected faith.
Once you're aware of it, you become immune to it. Whatever your opinion on the Ukraine situation, there is nothing in observable reality to suggest that abattoir is any more a result of freedom as the primary driver than those of over a century ago.
Danielle Winter, Ukraine 2022: Attack on Freedom, 2022
That said, the switch from [subverting political and legal systems to suppress constitutional freedoms during covid] to [OMG! Freedom is in peril in Ukraine!] is whiplash worthy.
It's this observed pattern of believing contradictory things successively that led to the Functionally Second Species or FTS model. The larger lesson is that FTS-2 are not logically predictable from what is objectively true or their own past. They don't react to what is really happening the way we do and don't even appear to remember what they previously held. They are predictable by watching the narrative. There's usually enough foreshadowing, predictive programming, pump priming, etc. before the big "sudden" move to telegraph what's coming.
It's the way that the examples repeat and accumulate that weaves the impossible belief into the psychologies of the country. Reinforcing the past, manipulating the present, and building up for the future all at the same time. Once the collective buy-in was established, the myth becomes self-perpetuating. Until it doesn't. What is happening today is that the beast system has become so overt and authoritarian that the gap between rhetoric and reality is too broad to simplify and mythologize over. The old spray of symbols evokes an organic culture that the beast hates and opposes. And the masses have become sufficiently dependent and degenerate to not want the responsibilities of what used to pass for freedom. Rhetoric works on emotion, and the emotional response to a rhetorical appeal reveals what matters to the listeners. Freedom and the other founding myths don't matter how they used to. Some still get aquiver, but the numbers are ever fewer and the effort and response ever more tepid. When we state there's no "fixing" this in the sense of returning to earlier norms its because the people have changed.
One more example shows the repetition, the more complex reality, and the fading rhetorical punch all at once. Naval power was key to the United States turning away from natural autarky to global commercial financialized empire. And freedom has always been the squid ink over building and maintaining US dominance over whatever iteration of the international system currently under its hegemony. Freedom of the seas, freedom of navigation, free trade - generally appealing-sounding concepts, with the exception of the last, that suggest stable law and order. America's first foreign war was a pair of expeditions against the Barbary States in the early 19th century. The pattern is remarkable. An admirable stated freedom-based goal of ending the scourge of Barbary piracy becomes an economically-driven reality complete with local ally left to a miserable fate.
The U.S.S. Constitution in Tripoli during the Barbary Wars [credit wasn't found]
Again, this is not a claim that the Barbary Wars had no moral justification. Apologies for the repetition but the binary thinking impulse is so strong we have to stress that situations have complex motivators and secular transcendence can allow positive situational outcomes. Barbary piracy - especially the centuries of European slavery - was an abomination. And predation on passing ships did call for a response. Circumstantial freedom was being contested. On both sides. There is an interesting parallel between the Barbary States' freedom to take what they want and the current emphasis on granting violent criminals immunity. Freedom from incarceration.
Freedom of the seas, far-off fleets, and globalist economics are still in play in the South China Sea. The specifics are different, but the United States enforcing global access to local powers' regional waters is familiar.
From the linked article. It's a decent overview of the navigational issues from a globalist perspective.
In real time, this conflict is easy to assess. The US globalist imperial system is colliding with Chinese prioritizing of national interests. They're incompatible ethoi. There is no pure freedom. Reality imposes constraints. So does society. Freedom of navigation is also subservience to a global order. Freedom to pursue the national interest constrains the global order. As with the pirates, one side gives or they fight.
The universalist false idol that was raised during the Enlightenment as prelude to globalism inverted and collapsed organic human motivation. Think how denigrated the idea of promoting the national interest has become in mainstream anything. Then consider. National interests are an extension of personal interests as nations extend from individuals through families. First principles are known through faith and provide the rational values that are applied situationally. Relations between nations should be conducted morally as between individuals. But sacrificing nation to an elite construct with no connection to you, based on false claims of principle that it purports to impose on the world is opposite. Opposite free will, natural human development patterns, and the only ontologically defensible source of moral truth.
And yet the universalist false idol is so strong, articulating legitimate national interest is presented as immoral. As against freedom or democracy or whatever other nonsense word is used to slap lipstick on the House of Lies pig.
From the article - "Multiple US agencies and officials this week have blasted China for its ongoing malign activity around the world, with the top intelligence chief branding it "the greatest threat to democracy and freedom worldwide since World War II".
This is a few years old. If and as things intensify with China, be on the lookout for a lot more freedom. Then look more closely.
Ultimately, the problem with accepting an impossible material value is the gullibility. Stepping into a make-believe world means the real world becomes opaque. Motivations are accepted without question that aren't real and a false morality grows from sometimes awful acts of elite interest. Freedom works hand-in-hand with "our democracy", another fake chimera. The illusion of representative government makes the masses feel the elites are like them. Share the same values at least. Then when the narrative engineers use nonsense words like decontextualized freedom, the masses feel the elites feel the same way about it that they do. The elites a) know this and b) use it to gain approval for things that would be less popular if honestly spelled out.
It also allows the elites to act without fear of consequence from the deluded masses. Though this was more of in issue in an earlier era when elections were less farcical. When there was enough organic community that rigging on the current scale wasn't really thinkable.
It explains the persistent Cold War criticism from the other side. The conflict was presented to the US side as a moral black and white between freedom and not freedom. Good and evil. But the actual US behavior abroad was radically different. Not Stalin tier, but far from benevolent uplifters of human freedom.
I. Ganf, Scourge of War, 1949, "The peoples of the world do not want a repetition of the disasters of war"
Not a defense of the Stalinist era - though Russian culture is in better shape after Communism than Western culture after globalism. Soviet propaganda may be even more detached from reality than our own cadre of turds. Like civic nationalism and globalism, Communism is based on the impossible material realization of abstract concepts. The false foundation renders all its promises hollow long term because there is no real foundation to support them. The point is, it wasn't a binary duel between good and evil. The US really was laying the groundwork for its globalist financialized clown world hegemony. And the fact that the Soviet Union didn't really produce towers of moral rectitude to oppose it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been opposed.
Since then, the West has become steadily less free by any index that matters. Not narrow legalisms or defined categories, but in overall terms of being able to live comfortably enough for free time with minimal outside interference. It's a gestalt more then set of categories that can be seen as a macro-arc. A weave of political, economic, and socio-cultural trends favorable or disfavorable to secure, prosperous, autonomous life. And that's very different from claiming an ultimately immoral abstraction as an ethos.
Milind Mulick, untitled watercolor
Abstracts are limitless while reality imposes limits. The sort of social arrangement that produces the kind of lifestyle most associate with being free requires a degree of subordination to t social order.
Freedom from what isn't just rhetoric. It's how the abstraction can manifest. If the freedoms aren't articulated, then the ethos is a nonsense term deceivers can apply to anything.
It’s ironic that the same subordination to a social order necessary for a high degree of personal freedom possible also creates dependency. And as abstractions, dependency and freedom are directly oppositional. [Quick aside - directly oppositional. There is no meaningful definition of freedom that can coexist with having life depend entirely on unearned handouts from a satanic beast system]. As with most anything in material reality, moral reasoning is required because absolutes don't exist here. They manifest in complex, entropic material terms. A balance has to be maintained between contradictory impulses. Not the fake occult balance between moral poles. A balance between contradictory abstractions that shows why the guidance of shared objective morality is necessary. Material reality often requires navigating muddy waters. But truth and virtue aren't part of the water. They're the star that guides the navigator.
Dependency can be psychological as well as physical. The level of personal comfort per degree of effort expended is still paralyzingly high for many. Normalcy bias makes the all-encompassing integration of the House of Lies hard to see. But meaningless platitudes can bring comfort any situation because they're meaningless. Their significance isn’t linked to truth value or any other metric for assessing a meaning. There's no representational link to reality to assess. And hence there's no motivation to even consider the reality of eroding broad spectrum freedom that defines the modern West.
Approaching peak clown with an ersatz Vegas version of the symbol of freedom wearing bondage to promote covid ignoring muh constitutional rights in the name of "safety". The macro-arc is a gestalt. It's not either safety or freedom - both are impossible qua themselves in material reality. It's appropriate degrees - manifestations - in the appropriate places. It's a moral judgment. One that the masses of FTS-2s lack the ability to make. And given that the scale of our reasoning ability separates us from animals, it's no surprise the narrative huffers react like gibbering fearful rodents.
One thing that the FTS posts have shown is that most people exhibit the memory and rational capacity to assess truth of fruit flies. They can’t even identify their own self-interest, let alone act on it. They simply mouth what the narrative engineers tell them, regardless of consistency or veracity. If the glowing screen tells them they’re John Wayne, they’ll claim to be John Wayne. If the glowing screens tell them they’re Soylent Green, they’re Soylent Green. Freedom still retains some currency because enough people have been told it defines them long enough to identify emotionally. But that's all it is. Which is why the very real cessation of personal and cultural freedoms just rolled along without any effective opposition. And the odd "conservative case" for why it's really a good thing.
The freedom myth doesn’t just align people with the satanic directive to do what thou wilt. It creates the false complacency that the screen-addled masses possess some intrinsic self-protection.
DC was still beating the Nazi drum in 2019 with an imaginary reality where the Germans won the war. The dying comic companies are so ideologically opposed to fake 20th-century civnat patriotic spirit that they need fantasy Nazis to make Uncle Sam badass. Plus a chance to allude to the Trump beheading pose that was a thing for a minute. Why not "freedom fighters" and the "spirit of America" here, where those things have never been more officially reviled? Because DC is big media is part of the House of Lies. It's part of the reviling. But it's telling how worn out and stale the totems have become.
One unintentional truth of the comic is that mass uprisings in the name of freedom are a myth. They’re fake. Systems change when one elite faction successfully challenges another or, in the case of total systemic collapse, an new elite faction forms and asserts control. Like a cadre of superheroes overthrowing a regime supported by other super-beings.
The original spirit of ’76 constitution could backstop ideological opposition to Bolshevism in the mid-20th century. So long as no one questioned the logic too closely, and the existence of the Band is evidence no one successfully did. Internalized cultural norms don't require absolute logical coherence. They're felt circumstantial motivators in material reality and so long as their material circumstances align with truth, they're socially positive. If the culture turns from truth, that positivity doesn't magically linger. The mid 20th-century US was still mostly Christian with an organic culture that understood the importance of a certain range of political freedoms. The bottom was about to fall out, but hadn't yet. Traditional America wasn’t a nation of logicians, but they understood how their grassroots culture accorded them a blessed lifestyle within reasonable parameters. Leading to a brief and awkward attempt to counter Communist atheism by pretending Christianity and freedom were the same.
The entire scan is available at the link. Freedom of worship is a real issue. But mid-20th century ideology was distorting American's Christian heritage into the globalist churchianity that mainstream organized religion has become. The same ontological inversion that pretended human reality conforms to abstract concepts also pretended the word of God does the same.
As the beast system was replacing the earlier American secular transcendence, there was a brief period of overlap. The earlier form reflected - to some degree - the norms of the organic American culture that spawned it. Even if only in simplified and mythologized forms.
That's the moral entropy at work in history. The original secular transcendence is logically impossible, but the real manifestations express the organic culture it actually reflects. Fake values that feel true. But since the values are only coincidental to the fake ideology, the ideology can become a vector for new values. With no tether to organic, logical, or foundational truths to vet or limit them.
This Canadair anti-communist ad of 1955 drives it home. It's Canadian, but the point stands. Consider the state of education in the House of Lies. But somehow freedom congas on.
It's not hard to see, given the absurdity and internal contradictions of post-War culture, how "Tavistock presents the '60s" swept the civnat defense of secular transcendence away. Something like this Treasure Chest of Fun & Fact vol. 17, 2: This Godless Communism published is 1961 is a rhetorical disaster. The Band has noted in the past how it is impossible to effectively oppose lies from a dishonest position. All that's left at that point is dueling rhetoric, and if this is the level of ammunition… It is worth noting that the early Cold War was also the dawn of the television age. The ur-glowing screen tore this contradictory web of organic culture and secular transcendence to pieces in a matter of decades. But that story of media glamour and the House of Lies is told elsewhere.
As for freedom, it’s all situational. Circumstantial. Whether the the circumstances are simplified and mythologized beyond historical recognition makes the example distorted, but it's still situational. Freedom as the free movement of capital or commerce. Freedom of worship. The end of slavery. Political freedom from conquest. Freedom to criticize government policy. Freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Much of which was to the good. But all of which can be described specifically.
If you can't define what the freedom
is from, it isn't a freedom.
If you can't define any belief you claim to hold, you don't really hold it. You have an amorphous feeling that may or may not connect to something true and could be harmful.
More importantly, think about what else this abstraction/material category error applies to. And articulate beliefs before professing to be led by them.
