Freedumb.

"Is freedom a noble good? For some. For others, it is liable to make them miserable and degenerate."

"You are miserable because you are free."

Freedom. Such a loaded word. Ask most people, and they'll assume that freedom is good. Why? Because freedom is good. It's what everyone knows; if you have to ask why freedom is good you're a freak. Freedom is whatever one wants to define it as at the moment, such a chimerical thing, so I'll provide a neat, compact definition I'm going to be working with here: the ability to do whatever the fuck you please.

Do we have freedom, in this age where freedom is so highly vaunted?

Think. Even after the explosion of so-called freedom in the modern world, has most of humanity ever been free, to be honest? How many people actually buck the social narrative that is handed down to them from up high? Get born, go to mind-crushing public school, go to college blindly, get a stupid corporate job, muddle through life...

Idiots get worthless degrees and saddle themselves with undischargable, unpayable debt for no perceptible reason, or at best, because it's the thing to do. Is that freedom? You slave away as a drone of a programmer or a junior HR manager...because it's the thing to do. Because it's what the Brahmins tell you to do. Is that freedom?

Drinking and fucking wantonly and in the degenerate fashion to boot is freedom...how, when it's all that's fed to the masses in the social narrative? Rebellion is neatly packaged in a Che Guevara t-shirt, mass-produced and made ready for your easy consumption so you can feel like you're "fighting the system".

Need to feel all righteous and bask in the warm glow of moral superiority? Here's a manufactured social crusade for you to follow. Just sign your name here on the line, or in this day and age, follow, retweet, or what have you, change your avatar to this pretty little equals sign and you can feel all smug and superior for having contributed to a Cause(TM), you daring armchair crusader, you. At least choose a cause that is actual thoughtcrime instead of what the social narrative tells you is thoughtcrime, ya? Hint: if it's blared out in the mass media, it's probably not thoughtcrime.

The most placid animals are those which don't even realise they're penned in. Freedom to choose your leaders? Does anyone seriously believe in this day and age that democracy and voting actually change anything considering that most governments are run by unelected bureaucrats on the front and banksters on the back? Does anyone seriously think there is a true difference between any two candidates?

Ha ha, trick question. Of course they do, that's why voting is still around as a powerful but impotent ritual - at least, for its ostensible purpose.

The ability to handle freedom - freedom that doesn't come prepackaged in a box for easy consumption, freedom that actually involves managing oneself and reaping both rewards and responsibilities for and from one's actions, the freedom that actually comes from being a full human being, understanding the whys and wherefores of the social narrative - that is the defining characteristic of the natural aristocracy, that elusive sliver of humanity that has the natural responsibility of guiding those less able (and I shall repeat, that sliver does not include me). Every other characteristic of the natural aristocracy - low time-preferences, ability to safely dabble in risky behaviour such as drugs, gambling and sexual licentiousness, the ability to be constructive even when there is no need to work to survive, so on and so forth - all of these are the result of being able to grasp freedom by the horns and make the most of it.

As I have noted before, those of the natural aristocracy who enter the world in more unfortunate circumstances rise to the top of their own accord and on their own merits, the merchant who marries into the nobility, the rags-to-riches entrepreneur.

Freedom is wasted on the rest of humanity.

As Amos and Gromar hilariously points about about third-wave feminism:

Forget the grammar in the picture–focus on the message. It isn’t enough that society bends over backwards in order to accommodate women. Third-wave feminism is about acknowledging women’s subordination, both in terms of  agency and intellectual/physical ability. The acknowledgement isn’t explicit because they’ll deny it endlessly. Rather, it’s implicit, and the way it comes out is through the constant over-compensation.

Women have their rights. They have the right to vote, they have the right to murder your child, and they have the right to hold office, etc.–basically, they got what they wanted. That’s what the previous waves were about. But aside from views on those issues, it should’ve been obvious from the get-go that those concessions would never have been enough.

[...]

“Feminism is being free to decide who I want to be and how to act.”

Note the operative definition of the word ‘free’. They already are free. There’s nothing described in the picture that they cannot do. Rather, they’ve redefined the word to mean ‘the ability to do anything I want to do without any negative consequences or negative social feedback’. This is what they hilariously redefine as ‘respect’. This isn’t a new point; I’ve made it before. That is the definition of third-wave feminism, and it takes a while for most new-comers to sex realism to understand this.

No, they wouldn't have been enough. Nothing ever would be, for the majority of men and women alike, for the cognitive miser of mass modern man. Has "freedom" benefited women? Well, they're more miserable in terms of self-reported happiness levels, suffer from ever more mental illnesses than before, and if I remember the stats right more about 75% of them in the US are on some kind of medication for some sort of psychological issue or the other. Hell, fewer of them actually have the choice to putter about at home these days and have to slave away, thanks to wage depression, while their higher-class sisters putter about at home after having gained their feminist merit badges.

Have men benefited from freedom? Wouldn't say so, either. At least, with the state of the pathetic average modern male, it's clear that freedom only results in the Curse of Adam manifesting itself: stripped of meaning in both work and life, they quickly devolve into beer-guzzling, video-game playing, pony-collecting freaks who burst into tears because a man on a box with moving pictures missed a ball.

Westerners haven't benefited from freedom. Easterners haven't benefited from freedom. Middle Easterners haven't benefited from freedom, and neither have Africans, despite attempts to give it to these two groups via bombing and war. Give the mass man freedom, and this is what happens: South African Blacks burning money, despoiling clothes and pouring out alcohol onto the ground, destruction for shits and giggles. Not that it's anything particular to them - near the end of the empire, young Roman patricians would do the same, burning down their villas for the fun of it.

You are miserable because you are free. You are miserable because Enlightenment ideals concocted by autistic philosophers, if truly put into practice, would foist the burdens of the natural aristocrat upon the mass man - an impossible task, yet the natural aristocrat cannot be overtly pulled down to the level of the mass man, for that would shatter the illusion of freedom. Hence, everyone gets a fake copy of the benefits that ultimately ruins them, because the cognitive miser mass man has neither the ability nor the will to handle freedom.

Break the chains on people and they promptly forge new ones for themselves - this time with just enough slack to allow them all the hedonistic, destructive vices of the world, a situation made all the more severe by the corruption of the Brahmin class. The problem is not the Brahmins in and of themselves - every society since the dawn of time has had a priestly, storytelling class which controls the societal narrative. It is that they have become corrupted and dysfunctional. What to do about it, you may ask? From my perspective? Nothing; we are already headed straight for the leftist singularity, a glorious literal clusterfuck of dildocracy, all hail the collapse.

And the chains, the social narrative? They're not wrong in and of themselves. They give people who would otherwise be flapping about in the wind a life script to follow, a giant ritual of "I'm okay, you're okay" that once actually kept society and hierarchy together, but they have been corrupted too. I may be in favour of lighting up the whole mess and letting it burn, but it's not the optimal outcome.

...

If there are going to be chains and people are going to be miserable anyway...then let's pull the chains tight and make the mass man happier. As I've mentioned before, those who are capable of handling freedom will mysteriously find some slack in their chains and keep mum about it.

"Oh, Barnaby! What's happening to me? In an effort to root out tyranny, it appears I myself have become a tyrant!"

*Crab noises*

"Yes, you're right. I suppose tyranny in some form is inevitable in this world, and if someone is going to be a tyrant, it may as well be me."

It's strange, when one actually reads about the Middle Ages from texts free from the plentiful re-writing of history the Cathedral has done. Those poor peasant serfs who suffered under the harsh thumb of their lord and Church had as many as a hundred festivals a year, while today we work through the few official holidays so graciously allowed by our governments. Surprising, isn't it?