Security or Freedom


The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits. —Plutarch

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. —Benjamin Franklin (and they’re coming for you soon, Ben)

If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking…is freedom. —Dwight D. Eisenhower


     My father used to tell me, back when I was a kid, that freedom and security are practical opposites: to the extent you have one, you lack the other. He would say that absolute freedom would be a state like living naked in a wilderness (no rules, anarchy and chaos), and absolute security would involve being locked into a room, like a prison cell. There can be no freedom without risk, which is insecure, and risk is the opposite of security.

     I have to admit that there is much truth to all this, and that the two principles, or ideals, are practically opposed. For example, lately I’ve been reading Evola’s Pagan Imperialism, in which he claims that the only absolutely free individual would be a kind of more or less deified Emperor who not only makes the laws but IS the law. Ironically the primary model for his vision was the deified Augusti of the Pagan Roman Empire; they could do anything within the limits of physical possibility in those days, with relative impunity; and I’ve read enough history to know that being a Roman Emperor was extremely risky. Not very many of them died of natural causes, and during the calamitous third century CE the average Augustus had a lifespan of only a few years before he’d be hacked or stabbed to death, often by his own bodyguards, and be replaced by the next ruthlessly ambitious sociopath.

     So Evola’s own root example of complete freedom bears out the high risk involved, and demonstrates that true freedom requires courage, daring, and some semblance of a backbone—which of course fewer and fewer people in the west can manage to have. But there are examples closer to the point I intend to make, because much closer to home, and to the present time…in fact they are happening now.

     Western civilization in general is abandoning most of its former respect for liberty, though it is acquiring new standards of liberty involving sexual aberrations (let alone artificial hair colors) that our ancestors would have considered utterly degenerate if not outright insane. This is largely due to the standard historical theme of great civilizations achieving their greatness through stoicism, idealism, and a willingness to die for those ideals, then becoming soft, weak, and decadent after prosperity and some degree of luxury and sophistication have been attained. Another reason for western civilization’s turn away from liberty and towards the security is the fact that, in our prosperity and sophistication, we allowed women the right to vote.

     I am not a woman-hater, in fact I appreciate women more than is appropriate for a celibate monk; but I have to admit (in fact it’s a main reason why I like them) that women are different from men, and instinctively think and feel differently from men. Largely due to being smaller, weaker, slower, and more vulnerable to danger, especially when pregnant or caring for small children, females of our species are evolved to be more security-oriented than men are, on average. Men are more evolved to be fighters and hunters, and are likely to value freedom and risk-taking over security (and remember these are to a great degree mutually exclusive), and women, more designed by nature to care for children and pick berries around the cave, are more likely to value security over freedom. There no doubt is some cultural conditioning in all this, but the fact remains that things have been this way throughout the history of the human race, and it is primally rooted in human animal instinct, alias “human nature,” reinforced by sexual dimorphism—that is, the fact that males and females are markedly different physically and psychologically in our species, as a result of adapting to different lifestyles, totally regardless of political correctness hysteria.

     So as I say, people have always been like this, and men and women have formed a kind of symbiotic balance, ideally a loving one, with a man taking most of the risks (aside from the very real dangers of premodern childbirth) and enjoying more of the freedom, and the woman craving security and a stable home, and thus being attracted to a man who will strongly, reliably protect her and her/their offspring. But since men were the ones going out into the world and taking most of the risks there for many tens of thousands of years, they are the ones more evolved by nature to be objective problem solvers in the realm of what is now known as politics. Studies have shown that men in general tend to be much better informed with regard to the news and with regard to politics in general, than women are, for example.

     Nevertheless, western civilization in its prosperity, sophistication, and desire to be “enlightened” or “civilized” or at least “progressive,” has allowed women the right to participate in government—not only do they have the right to vote, but they have the right to run for important political offices—with many cities, states, provinces, and even some European nations being “led” by females, very often feminist, left-leaning, and security-oriented ones. Thus we see political systems moving away from scary freedom and towards a compassionate mommy state that nurtures everyone, especially the dregs of society, and is reluctant to cause any harm to anyone, even to violent criminals and avowed enemies to the State, or enemies to western civilization as a whole.

     And so we have relatively weak, relatively timid, compassionate females in positions of leadership who may seem competent so long as everything is going reasonably well; but when the proverbial shit hits the fan, like when riots break out, or a crime spree perpetrated by members of “marginalized communities,” many of them do little or nothing, blurting out their support for the poor unhappy criminals and simply allowing a bad situation to become much worse, as can be seen by any number of incompetent feminist “leaders” especially recently. Politics, successful leadership, requires firm, decisive action in times of crisis and tumult, maybe even the occasional breaking of heads, which of course effete weaklings cannot dare to do, or even order others to do. This is a standard example of how compassion and a desire for the security of the downtrodden results in even less security than would prevail under a freedom-loving masculine leader (a real leader, not just a humble servant of and panderer to her voters) willing to enforce whatever laws are enacted. Even with some breaking of heads.

     Now that the liberal left in particular has been thoroughly feminized, being the more traditionally compassionate and egalitarian side in politics, the left has also largely abandoned the old liberal demand for freedom of thought and expression, and instead insists upon the perceived security of a socialized, all-seeing, all-controlling authoritarian state—for everyone’s own good, naturally.

     History shows that desire for freedom in a people leads to strength and prosperity, but not to much security or equality. Desire for security results in less freedom…in fact lately it has western society cruising towards the false security of slavery to a Socialist State. Or, perhaps more likely, especially in Europe, to the barbarism of traditionalist Islam, against which a weak and feminized society simply cannot defend itself.

     There must be some degree of both security and freedom, they should be in some kind of balance, just as female and male should exist in balance; though with women voting and western men being culturally emasculated in a decadent culture, a trend towards less freedom and more socialism is pretty much inevitable…unless, that is, western men start toughening up again and reclaiming their birthright, their thirst for freedom, and women realize more and more that what the feminized left demands, like resentment of men, is not conducive to happiness, or much of anything else of any real value.

     Since women are allowed to crave security, men must have the balls to crave freedom and the taking of outrageous risks, and must stand up fearlessly and audaciously to the shrill ranting of feminists. Putting it in New Age lingo, men in the west must cultivate the Divine Masculine.

     Freedom to me is more important than security, on a mundane level; yet true security at the highest level, a spiritual level, comes from total non-attachment and willingness to accept one’s fate, even if it is harsh. Being fearless and having nothing one fears to lose is thus the highest security of all. Thus results, paradoxically, in the highest freedom and the highest security, practical opposites at the worldly level, going hand in hand, even being the exact same state. But if one tries for the maximum of both at the lower, mundane level, one ends up with neither, and probably ends in some sort of socialist authoritarian dystopia, a castrated, politically correct Brave New World, which is where we are headed if we don’t man up.




A stable social system is necessary, but every stable system hitherto devised has hampered the development of exceptional artistic or intellectual merit. How much murder and anarchy are we prepared to endure for the sake of great achievements such as those of the Renaissance? In the past, a great deal; in our own time, much less. No solution to this problem has hitherto been found…. —Bertrand Russell

Comments

  1. Yes, achieving this balance for oneself is easier than attempting to achieve it for those around oneself, as I am finding out.

    The Middle Way as defined by The Buddha ought to be the framework for a society to maintain this balance, but to get there it seems that many transgressions must take place, especially on this world.

    An Arahant Emperor or a council of Theravada Buddhist monks would be needed. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The primordial balance was worked out by nature before artificial human politics, especially lately, messed it up. In a more masculine and more balanced society (not a society of similar eunuchs as some on the left evidently prefer), a council of monks, or priest/augurs like the Roman Republic had except wiser, could certainly be part of the nation's leadership, though monks would be better as censors in the old fashioned sense than as political leaders in realms like taxation or foreign affairs.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the modern way is humanistic (for lack of a better word) and this view/way separates those who subscribe to it from Nature/Principle. Modern politics based off of this view sees man (humans) as separate and above Nature where the more traditional people of the past saw Nature more as a process that they were a part of. The more wise and knowledgeable that the people were/are of Nature the more that they can be in harmony with Nature (Which is basically cause and effect across various planes/spheres).

      To me comprehending Nature/Law of kamma is one of the greatest securities. Because, with this comes an awareness of processes that I and everyone else is a part of. Hence why it is so important to strive to be aligned with right view (at least on a mundane level). Actions bring results according to the qualities of the intentions motivating them. So yes there is danger but the greatest danger is in our own hearts. Those who realize this can see how devastating the current ways of this modern age truly are in a spiritual sense. This temporal safety supplied by the nanny state of government buffer man from Nature and the consequences of his actions. And in a sensual stupor most of us fritter life away without cultivating true faith, wisdom, or insight into Nature or cultivating wholesome cetena/mental states.

      As for Freedom, to me as a spiritual being it is paramount. I must be free to act and taste the fruits of my actions whether they be bad or good. I must taste them and use the effects of my actions to fine tune my path. Living is a skill to me that needs constant practice and honing. On the level of mind freedom cannot be bestowed however. But collectives of people who are averse of freedom of thought and expression do make it difficult for others wishing explore. And since mind is chief and the form follows its dictates there sometimes is a spillover of tyranny on the material level of form. You can see it's manifestations in some of the angry Antifa mobs at present. All it takes is for enough people to say enough I guess. May we all become champions of freedom and liberty and may we all find the true security of Buddha Dhamma. If we can't penetrate to the higher Dhamma's that the good monks like yourself follow then may we at least see the good Dhamma on the mundane level consisting of the law of Kamma.

      Great entry Ven. Pannobhasa. This is good food for thought. Thank you!

      Delete
    3. Don't know much about Roman Republic priests and augurs, but monks would certainly be wiser.

      Delete
    4. Monks would be wiser with regard to higher things, but possibly worse than useless with regard to harsh worldly realities, like war or punishing criminals, or even some of the ruthlessness of politics in general, especially foreign policy.

      Delete
    5. Agreed. They could at least build an enormous prison colony in South America or somewhere remote (like a space station or another planet) and heavily suggest that the prisoners study The Buddha's Teaching. There could be 'voluntary' dharma sessions everyday with the presiding monks behind heavy duty glass.

      Delete
    6. My experience is that teaching Dhamma to people who aren't ready for it is almost always useless.

      Delete
    7. FORCED STREAM ENTRY FOR EVERYONE! WE WILL SHOVE THE DHAMMA SO FAR UP INTO YOUR BEING YOU WILL BE BLOWING LOADS FULL OF CONCENTRATED DHAMMA AS YOU MINDFULLY PLOW THE EVERLOVING SHIT OUT OF THE FILTHY ORGAN, GERM, AND BLOOD-FILLED $500 AN HOUR ESCORT!

      AND WHEN THE IMPERMANENT SENSUAL CRAVING-INDUCED ULTIMATELY UNSATISFACTORY MUNDANE EXPERIENCE IS OVER YOU WILL REALIZE YOU HAVE BECOME THE LIVING DHAMMA AND YOU WILL BE EVER SO FUCKING HAPPY THAT YOU WERE BORN IN A WORLD WHERE THE LORD BUDDHA TAUGHT THE WAY TO THE END OF SUFFERING! SEVEN LIFETIMES AT MOST MOTHERFUCKER AND YOU WILL BE INJECTED STRAIGHT INTO THE ULTIMATE SATISFACTION THAT IS NIBBANA!

      AND THAT ESCORT WILL BE BOUND FOR LIBERATION THANKS TO THE DHAMMA TALK YOU WILL HAVE WITH HER AFTER THE DEED IS DONE!

      NOTHING CAN STOP THE WHEEL OF THE DHAMMA!

      Delete
  2. Ahh, Mama Merkel; another childless, authoritarian female leader with a misplaced and unfulfilled maternal instinct. So tenderly displacing the German population with her fatherless brown-skinned 3rd world children. She provides them with a child's allowance that has been taken from the hardworking backs of the German people. She tenderly strokes their heads as she pulls them into her barren breasts to suckle. Mommy Dearest will always provide for her children, and if you know the reference to the movie, you know how this story ends...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah the sublimated maternal instinct in female career politicians with no children, treating the populace like children to be nurtured and protected and coddled, was an aspect of it all that I overlooked, so thank you for bringing that up.

      Delete
    2. The archetype we are seeing also creates a hotbed ripe for authoritarianism and socialism - again, an extension of that displaced, toxic paternal/child dynamic imposed upon a populace.

      Delete
    3. Freedom, freedom, freedom. Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? Freedom to kill someone you don't like and freedom from being persecuted for it? Freedom to drive on the left side of the road in a country where the law is to drive on the right? What freedom?

      And risk taking? Most risks cannot be calculated, so the issue is moot to begin with. The concept of "taking risks" is popularized to flatter a particular person at the expense of another.

      "Picking berries around the cave"? Have you ever tried to subsist on berries that grow in your vicinity? Jesus. Do an actual count of edible berries in a two-mile radius around your home, for the duration of a year, and then calculate how many per day you may eat. If you think agriculture offers security and involves less risk than hunting and gathering, do the empirical measurements and calculations. You know, in an effort to be fair. But maybe that's the freedom actually sought - the freedom not to be fair, the freedom not to be productive, eh?

      Delete
    4. It seems you are not particularly eager to understand what I wrote, and jump straight towards captious-mindedness. Unlimited freedom would be the right to do or say whatever you please, although that sort of freedom is reserved for lawless jungles or perhaps Evola's hypothetical God-Emperor, or maybe Nietzsche's overman. A libertarian interpretation of freedom would allow a person to do or say anything he pleases so long as he is not infringing upon the rights of others to do likewise.

      As for risk-taking, your insistence that it must somehow be calculated first before discussing it is totally arbitrary, or just a manifestation of a desire to nitpick. The taking of risks does actually exist, and men are psychologically more conditioned to take them, and that conditioning is largely genetic.

      Picking berries around the cave was a simple example of a wide variety of similar activities, like catching frogs, digging up edible roots, etc., or in other words relatively non-risky food gathering techniques, much less dangerous that going out hunting mammoths.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Hello, I am now moderating comments, so there will probably be a short delay after a comment is submitted before it is published, if it is published. This does have the advantage, though, that I will notice any new comments to old posts. Comments are welcome, but no spam, please. (Spam may include ANY anonymous comment which has nothing specifically to do with the content of the post.)

Translate

Most Clicked On