Reflecting Upon Timothy Snyder’s On Freedom pt. 3

This is a reposting from Thursday because hardly anyone opened the post. I forgot to lable it pt. 3. So I’m hoping it lay dormant in everyone’s mailbox because they thought it was a duplicate post.

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Reflecting Upon Timothy Snyder’s On Freedom

Heroes of Confusion

ken taylor

Mar 5

READ IN APP

Subscribed

Newspeak and doublethink (commonly attributed to Orwell as doublespeak) were ideas that began to be floated by Orwell while dispatching as a reporter during the Spanish civil war.

To war to have peace can be traced at least to the bronze age civilizations and their negotiated wars between the major kingdoms; the beginning of detente; the beginning of dividing smaller cultures between them;the beginning of trade and trade wars;and the confrontations between the major players.

More than likely the heroic Mycenaean adventures in Troy were a confrontation with the Hittites; or at least with an Hittite ally. Although the Hittites never directly controlled Anatolia to the west of the Taurus range, the mountains themselves were a natural defensive barrier that they did maintain and any Anatolian overload that made moves to the east would typically have invoked a Hittite response. But Troy (or Hittite, Wilusa) was a mythological “Look at our heroes” that brought the Hellenes new leaders to support both gods and the heroes of legend.

But the Homeric Iliad was meant as Newspeak to ensure the doublethinking of a new generation of leaders over their constituents. While it’s impossible to know exactly what took place at the waning years of the thirteenth century that led to the collapse early in the second decade of the twelfth to the then known world order we know the gods of the Hellenes have drastically changed from the gods who aided the Greek heroes in their conquest of Troy. Mycenaens depicted no male gods in their art, similar to the Minoan Diktynna (Supreme Mother).

But translations and new scripts of Linear B (Mycenaean script, predecessor to the Greek lettering) have shown there were precedents to some of the male gods…again more consort (like those of the Minoan Supreme Mother.) The male most influential was Potidas who commanded the earthquakes and the thunderstorm but the Supreme Mother (who had variant names for the variant aspects of her character, Diktynna was the consolidated noa-name it appears. And she assured that no matter the little quirks of Potidas, her presence assured the continual fertility of life so she stood over Potidas. By the time the Mycenaens appeared there seems to have been local fertility cults but a greater degree of awareness of the male god-consorts but Zeus was son, not father and not master.

But these were more than likely folk legends because apparently depictions of male gods were not done, even though they were written about. The Minoan gods could be depicted as smaller than the Diktynna or behind her to indicate her supremeness.

But if the lesser male gods were sometimes written about but never drawn in their crafts then that indicates that for the craft class and the non-royals they did not recognize the supreme values the royals placed upon themselves; nor does Mycenaean art or pottery seem to grant any patriarchal assumptions of the royals themselves.

Now there are several theories of what caused the great collapse of the bronze age and the identity of the Sea People but more and more we are defining a clearer identity.

Eric Cline’s 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, develops much into a popular history but there have been great strides made in eleven years since its publication. Mycenaean wealth was in too few hands and the fertility of the Mother was unable to provide enough. It seems that the overconsolidation of the royals was overstressing the annual cycle and the land was becoming fallow and producing less.

So on to Troy at the end of the 13th century. The environmental non-productiveness increased migration and an unpopular dislike of the authorities of aristocracy. The sea-faring Mycenaens may have been an instrumental part in the collapse (thus “Sea People” as the chief sailors of the Aegean trade but of course they didn’t get to keep too much of the wealth. Hērákleitos, who was from Ephesus in Anatolian would have learned the Anatolian stories and he did not place a great deal of veracity upon Homer. Hērákleitos suggests there were only six shiploads of Greek sailors who disembarked on the shores some miles from the enclosed city. (It appears the shoreline may have increased Troy’s (Wilusa) distance from the Aegean over time.)

Support for Hērákleitos can be found in that there has been considerably more Mycenaean pottery found outside of level VI and VII which might suggest a degree of settlement and acceptance and that was the Trojan horse that opened the door to a vast sacking of the city.

Another element of the Homeric heroism is the stolen bride. The patriarchal authorities sealed and broke alliances by sending their daughters as brides between the Egyptians, Eugarits, Hittites and Mycenaens. And we know sometimes we find depictions of tales of “The princess had apparently committed serious offenses against husbands, perhaps adultery” . Ammistamru, the young King of Ugarit, seems to have been on the verge of preparing for war over an errant queen whom he had demanded be extradited back to Ugarit.

So society collapses, Egypt retreats to the upper Nile and seems to have been dynastically reconstituted by Alkebulan genetics; indeed it might be the origination of the term, as the Nubians would emerge as the dynastic kings before Egypt becomes a player again. But the other kingdoms are gone.

City states began to emerge in the Levant, but the cities had existed and the extent these became city-states might be a later extrapolation. But to the east new kingdoms, especially the Assyrians and Babylonians were becoming players and would be ready to vie with Egypt for dominance within a hundred years. But no great power was to emerge to the northern regions, although the other powers, primarily the Assyrians initially. There were the Phrygians, again it seems more of an umbrella assertion of a “people”, at least that appears to be the most contemporary consensus that I am aware of.

But like those that would emerge in the post-collapse Greek peninsula the genetic make-up of the Hellenes and the Phrygians are largely Balkan and peninsular inhabitants that had existed before the collapse.

But the myth of superiority loses once more to the technological achievement during this seeming dark age. With the collapse of much of the trade network and the rarifying of copper and tin; a simpler more abundant metal was utilized—iron. Stronger than tin and able to be forged without first alloying multiple metallic ingredients.

Of course iron had been known and extracted from meteorite rocks of nickel and iron. It was a cold process of extraction, and apparently not too easy. There was an old (probably not historically true) legend of an iron trade during the bronze age controlled by the Hittites, but no more Hittite iron artifacts have been discovered than Egyptian artifacts.

The Hittites did consider its trinket value to be forty times greater than silver. But as the economic powers collapsed the twelfth century saw a great new emphasis on smelting (hot process) iron and forging iron and steel tools. (Kind of a joke, “the iron age”, In the Aïr Mountains of western Africa iron was being smelted some five hundred to possibly a thousand years prior to the Iron Age.)

Egypt, however, didn’t adapt to iron (even though the oldest known iron artifacts probably date to the fourth millennium BCE in Egypt.), and they were overrun by the Assyrians in 633 B.C.E.. The Nubians however did observe te Assyrian iron technology and after Assyrian fell to Babylon, would once again emerge to control the dynastic families of the Egyptian elite until Alexander.

The Thule people from Arctic Greenland could be the earliest toolmakers from meteorite iron. The tomb of Tutankhaman famously contains an iron dagger with a golden hilt and is almost certainly ceremonial. But of course, iron is not just in meteorites and could have never developed into an “age” were it not for native iron often mixed within basalt rock. Again the plains around the Ganges were doing a lot of smelting at least by 1800 BCE, six hundred years ahead of the “age of iron”.

But we never ran out of tin or copper, iron was just local–no one was too far away from a supply, until it did begin to dwindle…and we can mine for more and more…These little tales tell us something is wrong with the historical perspective we have been Newstaught.

There was no great advantage in the intelligence of the early kings of civilization. There was a great deal of familial continuity between the kingly families through intermarriage. And the “superior intelligences” that advanced our “technology” into the iron age existed in some very far off the beaten path of superior leaders and emerged more universally in the dark age of “civilization’s collapse” by those regular guys who just wanted a get-by technology, as technologies generally emerge without heroic names and not belonging to powers or owners but to people who had needs and shared these needs because that advanced intelligence to a greater degree.

So I do now wish to return to Homer’s Iliad. It is not history, although its essence is in historic roots of events that possibly occurred. But it is set four hundred years in its presumed past. This is not unusual. Buddhism in the orient is set roughly four hundred years in the past when its presumed founder supposedly lived. The Theravada is presumably a hundred or so years earlier than the Mahayana but the Theravada Pali Canon and the Mahayana Prajñāpāramitā are both roughly dated to the first century BCE. {Disclaimer: My knowledge of Theravada is superficial theologically and mostly limited to its historical development and we have very early third century BCE of the traditional dating to historian Damien Keown 1st century dating where the first icons and writings appear.}.

Heroes don’t need to be set in the past and possibly frequently originate in the present but they always grow from historical heroic eroticism that overly empowers their deeds. But heroes are nearly entirely unknown in this Greek Dark age. There are city-states but they stay primarily in their enclaves along the coast or in mountainous stream valleys. Supposedly King David in Israel is around two hundred years earlier, though some suggest the nation of Israel and the city-state of Israel may be around the same time Greek history occurs.

However it came about, David is the hero upon which the Yahweh/Eloist cults proclaim their superiorness and godly rights to the region—to this day. But the reality of David was surely not that the people “wanted a king to be like other nations.” They possibly could have wanted a king to defend them against falling prey to other nations. More than likely the heroic idea of David was a necessity in order for kings (like David) to ascend to whatever role they had in an area that was at that time very clearly not being threatened by the more powerful but because of their assertion (especially the northern Israeli state) soon would be.

So Homer is creating heroes for the emerging assertiveness in many of these city states by certain inhabitants wishing to assert control. And the wars that would become tantamount to the initial cooperativeness in fighting off conquistadores from the east seems to have occurred only after some aggressors had moved against other peninsular neighbors as well as some of the cities expanding (once more) beyond the peninsula

These heroes of Gods and Men create the illusion of valuations that can be transferred through the contours of Homeric Newspeak that is as important to the oppressors of the moment; the very Newspeak that leads to the oppression and ignorance of their lack of freedom by creating a subjection effect through the proclamations of how Great those gods/heroes were. Willing to sacrifice, nobles and heroes to right the perceived wrong of Paris’ theft of Helen. And so the minds were recreated in the manner of doublethinking that just perhaps there are heroes with whom I cannot care.

Newspeak was what was broadcast to create in the listener’s mind the doublethink that creates confusion from two seemingly contradictory ideas; and frequently at odds with lived experience. (Jan 6 rioters were peaceful; Zelensky started the war in Ukraine.)

How about Zelensky “started” Trump’s first impeachment that began the lead-up to January 6th riot. How about Heroic kings in uniformity with the Mt. Olympus club of Gods waged war so you could comply with the duties you owe the king for what he was willing to sacrifice so you could be dutifully responsive to his claims of authority.
(Skipping over Athens for the moment, but there were a couple of guys named Aeschylus and Euripides who seem to try to show the heroes were kind of made of arrogance and their assumed superiority would eventually bring about their obvious non-superior flaws.

White Man in America became ignorant of being captive by declaration that only the descendents of whites could be legally free. This was a fiction of law that had not been true prior to the legal fiction that became true only because of the legal fiction. Prior to such a declaration white indentured and Alkebulan slaves found frequently a common cause against the Masters they both served.

In September of 1663 in Gloucester County, Virginia what would become known as the Servant's Plot, or Birkenhead's Rebellion, became one of the first common efforts of workers in servitude working together. Regardless of their ethnicity, all of the servants and slaves were treated poorly, which served as a uniting force between them. The British themselves had eliminated slavery with the abolishment of serfdom, but in order to supply the American colonies with much needed labor, they created the fictive category of temporary slavery for British who could be exported from the mother isles. indentured servants met and began a plan of rebellion.

The rebels met and decided to collect as many weapons and arms as they could over the next few days in order to power their upcoming fight. The plan was to reconvene the following Sunday at midnight at a different location and to direct their attack on a member of one of the most influential and largest landowners in Virginia, Lt. Colonel Francis Williams.

The idea was to convince Williams to allow indentured servants to be released a year from the beginning of their service and to kill him only if he refused and it was seen to be necessary if it appeared he might call in support. From there they would march towards other large landowners and the governor himself if he did not declare a legal success to their demand.

One of the Alkebulanians was a servant to John Smith, first mayor in the neighboring county of Warwick. This slave, John Birkenhead, however was quite skeptical of its success. It was not out of loyalty to Smith that Birkenhead exposed the proposed plot but because he feared that such rebellions favored the Masters. He had become a slave (unproven testimony) by having participated in an effort to unite Alkebulanians being held in west Africa for shipment to the new world that had failed even though they vastly outnumbered the guards.

However, that such rebellions were frequent on the continent prior to being shipped to the new world is relatively well established. It seems many were able to escape from their captivity, although it seems some were recaptured.

So John Birkenhead would expose the plot to Smith and the governor in exchange for his release and the grant of both land and servants of his own. Although slaves were not purchased for a term of indenturedness, at that time they were usually granted freedom from indenturedness after a term of service that might have been agreed upon during their sale upon arrival in America, or the Masters could manumit at their whim.

Thirteen years, a disgruntled master, Nathaniel Bacon would unite the servant/slaves and chase the Governor and many other landowners all the way back to England. Of course the English restoration of the monarchy led them to reinforce the fallen plantation owners, many of whom were descendants of the king’s father’s fallen cause.

And only shortly thereafter did slaves become legally “black” descendants from “Africa” and white as descendants from (mostly) England and Africa. And in the southern states the concept of indentured workers would rapidly come to a close.

Freedom for the man, now defined as white, was a legally declared freedom close to two hundred years before the legally declared Alkebulan freedom and freedoms that are needed to become legally declared freedoms are legal fictions.

Doublespeak, or what-have-you to legally permit the continuance of the perpetuation of Slavery as the route to becoming an opposition to Freedom.

Certainly if one is free, one doesn’t long to become free. But the idea I am trying to emphasize from Professor Snyder’s little book is the doublespeak contained within the idea of individual freedom that allows individuals to be able to fight wars to have pain in order for them to be encircled in the arms by the ignorant who zaps the strength of others to empower their own ignorance into suppression through the promotion of ignorance.

In some respects Dr. Snyder’s book finds me reminiscent of Malinowski’s Freedom & Civilization. In his book, Malinowski presents freedom as the natural and desirable state of all living beings. The presumption of complexity within societies makes freedom become dependent upon the use or abuse of authority by the leaders of a given society that denies the freedom of living within a community to an individual dependency upon what the society permits.

In both of these books my takeaway is something removed from the normal conception that freedom can be given to individuals and when this perspective ripens individuals are pulled into conflicts and thrown into pits of psychological turmoil by introducing the person against the community; the family as a unit of individuality creates a similar struggle to deny freedom to spouse and offspring and raise the offsprings as units to be owned by parents that can them feed them into the system for further abuse.

The problem, as Dr. Snyder indicates is that individual human beings are singularly unfree and must be kept in longing to become free individuals, while by acting in concert communities can act in freedom and the longing of individuals within these free communities dissipates, or becomes a non-concept because the longing becomes planted in the free respect of the community for each other and the absence of slavery within the community abolishes the need to become free from; the negative freedom of Dr. Snyder’s terminology that is rooted in free from slavery that continues to enslave by the promise of freedoms to come.

To suppose Orwell is speaking of some improbable concept, in fact, Orwell is illustrating that the doublespeak of rhetorical confusion was already present and the methodology already utilized to create confused interpretations in methodologies meant to prevent comprehension; even in the educational institutions and processes. The modification of human behavior first modifies the intellectual comprehension capabilities of humanity that allows the meanings of ME and YOU to become distinguishably undistinguishable. WAR and PEACE, like ME and YOU, become opposite similarities and exchangeable meaningless meanings.

If we return to the behavioral studies, they illustrate that behaviors adapt to perceived circumstantial changes in the environment. But when Pavlov successfully induces the dogs to believe they will receive food when they hear the bell then they will salivate upon hearing the bell whether food is brought or not. Of course for any of this to work, the subjects need to remain in a state of hunger.

But the brain begins to become confused and associate food with the sound of a bell which has no relationship to food but the association becomes implanted. For human behavior to be modified classically, with or without the added operant conditionings placed on top of the confused identifications of the bell with the food, can be successfully by evaluating persons based on their valuations that the communities or leaders place upon those within the community. Freedom becomes the empty feedbowl when the bell is rung. The promise that freedom is given develops into a doublethink that one who is legally free but finds the bowl empty upon declarations can not be Unfreedom, another Dr. Snyder title, but challenged freedom that only needs to find the culprit who isn’t filling the feedbowl. It can’t be Pavlov, the bell ringer, so it must be those “others” who weren’t free in the mythical perspective that once there was Freedom.

The first step in human operant conditioning is to take control of their resources. The human is unlikely to go to work everyday if he doesn’t need to work, or believes he needs to work, in order to eat. This withdrawal of food keeps the worker dependent on working by associating work with food. But if the worker has enough food then he is offered a home or a car as necessities and everything becomes centered on what he owns.

It is my idea that those who suggest cultures of mankind needed to advance to king-style rulers in order to advance are operantly conditioned or attempting to classically condition people to believe this piece of nonsense that cannot be supported and words need to become conditionally confusing to maintain its narrative.

Wars are fought to have peace and defense becomes aggressive. People need to “work” to find sustenance, they need to be educated to learn, and whatever they possess becomes the sum of their worth.

None of these are of necessity true. So one of the first and most destructive meaningful offerings is totally contradictory. If any of the preceding statements are valid and or necessary to be in order to have freedom,then we are introducing the conceptualizing of becoming free from the tyranny of behavioral control by introducing the conception of freedom as a concept that needs to fight wars to preserve their freedom; attack their neighbors to enable their freedom, and offer everyone the lack of resources so they will work out of having being educated to understand that their freedom is a measurement of value and that freedom will be starved if they don’t learn to work for and obey the leader who enables this freedom.

So what does freedom mean– and can it mean becoming free of tyranny?

But then what does tyranny mean to the untermensch other than to become the Übermensch. So for those held in the captivity of the behaviorally modified confused mind the tyranny are these mind-modifyers. So the necessity of adding the operantly conditioned fears destroys, through these fears, the obvious collective comprehension of the definition of the terrorizers.

The Paletinians terrify the Jews and the Jews preserve their freedom by terrorizing as many Palestinians as possible. The Jews terrify the Palestinians and the Palestinians preserve their freedom by terrorizing as many Jews as possible.

If the black man in America is as free as the white man in America; and the white man has to work to eat and is afraid of his Master; then his Master can operantly condition him to fear the black man by simply fabricating that the black man is dangerous to the white man.

The black man doesn’t need to be dangerous to the white man; he only needs to become feared as dangerous to the white man. By becoming afraid of the black man, the white, to preserve his freedom, and the measurement of his value as a free man, he attacks the black man to diminish what he fears and to eliminate the other from being valued the same as he, which would diminish his freedom since freedom is a measurement of value greater than having less freedom.

If one can have less freedom, then one needs more freedom, the methodology to having more freedom entails learning that others are less free, but if the man has no resources to be free of work he has less freedom.

Freedom, as measured, becomes only the freedom one can take for oneself by tyrannizing others to become, or maintain, one’s own freedom.

I might suggest, therefore, that freedom is exceptionally meaningful but it does not mean what it is supposed to mean, the meaning of the conception of being free from tyranny.

But in reality its meaning is something unattainable offered as obtainable, possibly attainable; possibly could be obtainable; possibly should be obtainable; something one must try to obtain; something one could obtain; something one should obtain.

But it is also something only in the hands of the government, or authorities, to grant;but that can only be granted by those authorities to those who have learned that freedom is something they have to earn. But what has to be earned can not be given; and if one takes freedom for oneself,one has stolen his individual freedom from the authorities singular power to grant freedom.

Freedom, as a concept, is something we all want to mean something. We want it to be our ticket to becoming untyrannized, it becomes a Standard, an Ideal, the Earthly Grail of Self-Independence.

But as something of meaning it is impossible to mean what we want it to mean. To that end it can only be the one who knows what it means leading others into the light of understanding what it means; which is modifying the human behavior to salivate upon hearing the term at its idealistic properties…the desire for an ideal that cannot be achieved, Ideals are Absolutes. Absolutes don’t exist in nature; only possibilities; probable possibilities; possible probabilities; and perhaps probabilities themselves that might be predictive non-absolute likelihoods.

If absolutes do not exist in the natural properties of what is the containing properties of what does exist, then absolutes cannot be created as realities by humans. These absolutes and ideals are manufactured confusions to modify personal behavior and mold that behavior by the potters who wish to control human behavior.

Of course, you say, that is not the Freedom we believe in. The Ideal of the conception of Freedom is the absence of controlled behavior. But this is the very methodology of modifying behavioral development to becoming, by the introduction of the concept to those they wish to control.

The slavemaster told his slaves they were free under his benevolent control because they wouldn’t need to suffer the indignities of possibly starving in trying to survive. But if they dared try to actually remove themselves from his yoke of authority, of course then the desire to be free had to be tortured out of the slave. Actually the landlords underwent several transformations of their relationships to their slaves and freedom.

The first stage was the slave could earn his freedom.

The second stage, that the slaveowners told in debates to their northern counterparts was that their slaves were free because they didn’t have to earn their freedom while factory laborers could never become free because it was impossible for them to ever earn enough to be free.

Eventually, and still conceptualized by white supremacists is that blacks don’t deserve to be free, but if they become free that freedom lessens the availability of freedom for the white.

And I can’t think of a better way to wrap up this first section of trying to define freedom than to say that is exactly what freedom meant to its offerers but they did not allow themselves to tell that to those they were presenting the idea to.

The concept of freedom was not developed by those revolting to become free, but by those who wanted to control others by telling them they were more free by becoming controlled by those who wished to use them as their paper puppets.

Free people earn the freedom to lord over others who become free when they accept that lordship by no longer needing to struggle to earn their freedom. But just in case they do still want to become free, their is a limitation on the amount of freedom that can be rationed and so some, especially those who might think they don’t have enough freedom, either don’t deserve a portion of that freedom, or if they are granted a portion of freedom, someone else will lose a portion of that freedom.To suppose Orwell is speaking of some improbable concept, in fact, Orwell is illustrating that the doublespeak of rhetorical confusion was already present and the methodology already utilized to create confused interpretations in methodologies meant to prevent comprehension; even in the educational institutions and processes. The modification of human behavior first modifies the intellectual comprehension capabilities of humanity that allows the meanings of ME and YOU to become distinguishably undistinguishable. WAR and PEACE, like ME and YOU, become opposite similarities and exchangeable meaningless meanings.

If we return to the behavioral studies, they illustrate that behaviors adapt to perceived circumstantial changes in the environment. But when Pavlov successfully induces the dogs to believe they will receive food when they hear the bell then they will salivate upon hearing the bell whether food is brought or not. Of course for any of this to work, the subjects need to remain in a state of hunger.

But the brain begins to become confused and associate food with the sound of a bell which has no relationship to food but the association becomes implanted. For human behavior to be modified classically, with or without the added operant conditionings placed on top of the confused identifications of the bell with the food.

The first step in human operant conditioning is to take control of their resources. The human is unlikely to go to work everyday if he doesn’t need to work, or believes he needs to work, in order to eat. This withdrawal of food keeps the worker dependent on working by associating work with food. But if the worker has enough food then he is offered a home or a car as necessities and everything becomes centered on what he owns.

It is my idea that those who suggest cultures of mankind needed to advance to king-style rulers in order to advance are operantly conditioned or attempting to classically condition people to believe this piece of nonsense that cannot be supported and words need to become conditionally confusing.

Wars are fought to have peace and defense becomes aggressive. People need to “work” to find sustenance, they need to be educated to learn, and whatever they possess becomes the sum of their worth.

None of these are of necessity true. So one of the first and most destructive meaningful offerings that are totally contradictory. If any of the preceding statements are valid and or necessary to be have freedom,then we are introducing the conceptualizing of becoming free from the tyranny of behavioral control by introducing the conception of freedom as a concept that needs to fight wars to preserve their freedom; attack their neighbors to enable their freedom, and offer everyone the lack of resources so they will work out of having being educated to understand that their freedom is a measurement of value and that freedom will be starved if they don’t learn to work for and obey the leader who enables this freedom.

So what does freedom mean and can it mean becoming free of tyranny?

But then what does tyranny mean to the untermensch other than to become the Übermensch. So for those held in the captivity of the behaviorally modified confused mind the tyranny are these mind-modifyers. So the necessity of adding the operantly conditioned fears destroys, through these fears, the obvious collective comprehension of the terrorizers.

The Paletinians terrify the Jews and the Jews preserve their freedom by terrorizing as many Palestinians as possible. The Jews terrify the Palestinians and the Palestinians preserve their freedom by terrorizing as many Jews as possible. That, of course, is only one contemporary example; the examples could be multiplied historically beyond measure. The Athenians tried to diminish the Spartans as undemocratic tyrants and lost their democracy as the Athenian oppression of those not included in their expansive attempts to control theSpartan league that would eventually prevailed over the Atehenian creation of much of Peloponnesian to be free of the Athenian tyranny . It would be Alexander’s spread, not of Athrnian democracy, but of classical Athenian ideology as a cultural Ideal that Rome would eventually inherit just as it subdued the last standing Alexandrian culturization in Egypt that would lead its Romanized version of the Greek Idealistic Culture that destroyed its own senatorial-type government for the imperial dominated Rex that emerged as their own culture succumbed to the Alexandrized replacement by their need to pax romanize beyond what its culture had been designed to support.

The more that Freedom expands beyond its promise the more distant its own Ideal becomes buried under avalanches of increased longings to become free from as its very imperial conquests need to perpetuate its superiority as a value system. The cultures that are forced into sacrificing themselves on the altar of the conquest begin to long for freedom not only from having become conquered but to long for the lost cultures that themselves have become lost within nationalized identities that no longer are the prior identities before they had become consolidated in the territorial identities the conquerors imposed upon them.

If the black man in America is as free as the white man in America and the white man has to work to eat and is afraid of his master; then his master can operantly condition him to fear the black man by simply fabricating that the black man is dangerous to the white man. The black man doesn’t need to be dangerous to the white man; he only needs to become feared as dangerous to the white man. By becoming afraid of the black man, the white, to preserve his freedom, and the measurement of his value as a free man, he attacks the black man to diminish what he fears and to eliminate the other from being valued the same as he, which would diminish his freedom since freedom is a measurement of value greater than having less freedom.

If one can have less freedom, then one needs more freedom, the methodology to having more freedom entails learning that others are less free, but if the man has no resources to be free of work he has less freedom.

Freedom, as measured, becomes only the freedom one can take for oneself by tyrannizing others to become, or maintain, one’s own freedom.

I might suggest, therefore, that freedom is exceptionally meaningful but it does not mean what it is supposed to mean, the meaning of the conception of being free from tyranny.

But in reality its meaning is something unobtainable offered as obtainable, possibly attainable; possibly could be obtainable; possibly should be obtainable; something one must try to obtain; something one could obtain; something one should obtain.

But it is also something only in the hands of the government, or authorities, to grant;but that can only be granted by those authorities to those who have learned that freedom is something they have to earn. But what has to be earned can not be given; and if one takes freedom for oneself,one has stolen his individual freedom from the authorities singular power to grant freedom.

Freedom, as a concept, is something we all want to mean something. We want it to be our ticket to becoming untyrannized, it becomes a Standard, an Ideal, the Earthly Grail of Self-Independence.

But as something of meaning it is impossible to mean what we want it to mean. To that end it can only be the one who knows what it means leading others into the light of understanding what it means; which is modifying the human behavior to salivate upon hearing the term at its idealistic properties…the desire for an ideal that cannot be achieved, Ideals are Absolutes. Absolutes don’t exist in nature; only possibilities; probable possibilities; possible probabilities; and perhaps probabilities themselves that might be predictive non-absolute likelihoods.

If absolutes do not exist in the natural properties of what is the containing properties of what does exist, then absolutes cannot be created as realities by humans. These absolutes and ideals are manufactured confusions to modify personal behavior and mold that behavior by the potters who wish to control human behavior.

Of course, you say, that is not the Freedom we believe in. The Ideal of the conception of Freedom is the absence of controlled behavior. But this is the very methodology of modifying behavioral development to becoming, by the introduction of the concept, to those they wish to control, the very authors of the freedom they must suppress to be masters,

The slavemaster told his slaves they were free under his benevolent control because they wouldn’t need to suffer the indignities of possibly starving in trying to survive. But if they dared try to actually remove themselves from his yoke of authority, of course then the desire to be free had to be tortured out of the slave. Actually the landlords underwent several transformations of their relationships to their slaves and freedom.

The first stage was the slave could earn his freedom.

The second stage, that the slave owners told in debates to their northern counterparts was that their slaves were free because they didn’t have to earn their freedom while factory laborers could never become free because it was impossible for them to ever earn enough to be free.

Eventually, and still conceptualized by white supremacists is that blacks don’t deserve to be free, but if they become free that freedom lessens the availability of freedom for the white.

And I can’t think of a better way to wrap up this first section of trying to define freedom than to say that is exactly what freedom meant to its offerers but they did not allow themselves to tell that to those they were presenting the idea to.

The concept of freedom was not developed by those revolting to become free, but by those who wanted to control others by telling them they were more free by becoming controlled by those who wished to use them as their paper puppets.

Free people earn the freedom to lord over others who become free when they accept that lordship by no longer needing to struggle to earn their freedom. But just in case they do still want to become free, their is a limitation on the amount of freedom that can be rationed and so some, especially those who might think they don’t have enough freedom, either don’t deserve a portion of that freedom, or if they are granted a portion of freedom, someone else will lose a portion of that freedom.

In the end freedom is not something that can be meaningful if it remains only the Conception of Becoming Free. This is the myth that the reality denies. I offer you freedom and oppress that freedom with the offer of the gift. If I am a man, if I am belief, if I am opportunity,or if I am government makes no difference, I must oppress you with this gift because freedom is a longing, a feeling of lack that is meant to entice me to follow the man, follow the belief, seek the opportunity, or expect of the government to fulfill my longing, heal my wound and make me as free as the gift that is offered. But when I bite the fruit I am consumed into the need and that consuming oppresses and creates the longing. I can not be free enough if I am not free without the need.

The slave may know he is not free of the master, but the master cannot learn he is dependent on the slave and that by his actions of enslaving he has become enslaved to his longing to be master. It does not matter what one is master of, one is mastered into needing freedom from what he has mastered. The slave can, if he wills, free himself from the master, but the master cannot free himself from the longing to be master.

And so Master Patrick Henry demands freedom from England because being master of land and people has tortured him into longing to be free from his own mastership of land and people.

Rather than becoming freer with secession from England, Master Patrick now longs to be free from a nation, and Master Patrick becomes more possessed by his possessions which continue to threaten him and continue to oppress him into losing his freedom to what he owns so his longing for freedom grows as more and more threatens his allegiance is only to what he has mastership over and his alliances sever him from all else. His soul tortured, his longing for freedom grows and he must ignore the plight of others’ longings and freedom can not be but his. But the mastership is the torturer that steals his freedom and increases his longing to become free, never understanding he has lost his freedom to what he has mastered. Dying with the words “I need more freedom, God save me to become more Godly.”

But in his own longing to free himself he tortures his land making him more dependent on denying its own nature and imposing himself over the land; he tortures those he wishes to master to bend to his will creating those he tortured to long for the freedom to become masters of their own and the capacity to torture their own land by conforming it to their longings making the longings less achievable as the land formed into supposed obedience can only conform by responding into something it was not….the plowed field becomes barren of life and rain and then to much rain and too much life he doesn’t want and the longing becomes more intensified and the need to kill the weed before it grows intensifies, and that intensity creates ever-more need to be ever-more master of…and freedom is the mysterious ethereal fluid that does not give life but takes it.