Criminal Universe (Freedom Of Choice Is A Lie)

Governments and religions conspire to use "freedom of choice" as a means to claim it is alright for them to assert domination over us all. It is as if we could all escape at any time by exercising our "freedom of choice" while they have brainwashed us from a young and impressionable age to be dependent upon the reality they manage and enforce. (Dependence and dysfunction are synonymous.)

When a message is self-evident there is nothing to debate. When a message is self-evident the source of the message is irrelevant. Ad hominem: attacking the source of a self-evident message has no effect upon the message.

Message:

"FREEDOM OF CHOICE"
Freedom is not subject to limitation, bondage, requirement, or commitment. Choice requires commitment. By definition freedom and choice are mutually exclusive.

If you are free then you do not have to choose because you are free of commitment. If you have choice then you do not have freedom because you are subject to commitment. You are not free before you choose because you are already in bondage by being subject to commitment. Refusing to choose is still a commitment. It is impossible to "choose freewill" because commitment and freewill are mutually exclusive. We have bondage of choice, not "freedom of choice". "Freedom of choice" does not exist and cannot exist because it is a contradiction. People resist acknowledging "freedom of choice" as a contradiction because there are religions and governments based upon the "freedom of choice" contradiction and such religions and governments are illegitimate because of the contradiction. If you resist, and think this is wrong or unconvincing, then understand this: "Freedom of choice" must include the freedom to undo choices and the freedom to choose the choices. If someone or something else enforces choice or chooses the choices for you then there is bondage to someone or something else. "Freedom of choice" means no one else and nothing else, including "God", "Nature", and "Government", may enforce choice or choose the choices for you. Freedom to undo choices and freedom to choose the choices means choice does not exist because there is freewill instead of choice/commitment. Choice cannot exist unless there is bondage to someone or something. Freedom and choice are absolutely incompatible. Anyone claiming otherwise is either brainwashed with the "freedom of choice" oxymoron or a liar. "Freedom of choice" is always an error or a lie.

CRIMINAL UNIVERSE
There is no freedom in this universe because there are limiting, binding, and controlling "laws" which give this universe parameters. "Laws" are not the problem. Force is the problem because force makes one subject to the "laws". Force is criminal because force violates freedom and places one in bondage to the force. This is a criminal universe and force is the source of crime.

"Laws" do not cause force to exist, force causes "laws" to exist.. "Laws" are an effect caused by the crime of force. "Laws" are powerless without enforcement. If force is manifested by "God" then "God" is criminal. "Nature" is criminal because "Nature" manifests force. "Authority" is criminal because "authority" manifests force.

Corruption only exists within a corrupt/incoherent universe. This universe is not automatically legitimate simply because it exists. Crime exists because this universe provides the circumstances and conditions which cause crime. Freedom includes freedom from need, temptation, and entrapment. One must already be entrapped by need before one may be lead into temptation. "God" committed the original sin because "God" created the circumstances which made temptation possible. There is no freedom in this universe, there is only involuntary entrapment here.

by Mitchel Bradford



Mod edit to remove All-Cap title
Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 4-11-2007 by Duzey]

"LIMITED FREEDOM"
"Limited freedom" means both limited and free at once, this is duplicity. "Limited freedom" is a contradiction. It is impossible to be both limited and free. It is possible to have more limitation or less limitation. It is impossible to have more freedom or less freedom. Anyone claiming otherwise is either brainwashed with the "limited freedom" oxymoron or a liar.

Note: Attacking me is not going to magically make "freedom of choice" stop being a contradiction. Your attack is not going to magically make corruption possible in a coherent universe. Only in an incoherent universe is incoherence/corruption possible. This universe is corrupt as evidenced by colliding galaxies or mobsters posing as "legitimate government representatives". There is no such a thing as a legitimate government or religion because government and religion are only necessary where corruption and dysfunction need to be managed. Things which are functional and coherent are self-managing and do not need occupational management or "salvation". Religions and governments intrinsically have a conspiratorial-subversive-vested interest in creating and maintaining corruption/dysfunction for the purpose of job security. (Machiavellian artificial tampering)
"Balance", you say?! "Nature" will only select something for elimination or modification when the "balance" is corrupt. Balance, by design, does not become imbalanced/corrupted on its own, it must be artificially tampered with in order to become imbalanced/corrupted. The "Nature" of this universe is not natural. The behavior of this universe is the result of corruption/conspiracy/artificial tampering/troublemakers.

(If you are going to respond then respond to the message. Attacking me only means you are putting your weakness on display.)

I must have freedom to choose and freedom to be free. Those in charge must have freedom to control. What is freedom is the real question? Freedom must be both limited and unlimited simultaneously if it is to truly be free... and it must also be imprisoned. Free to be imprisoned and free to be free. Freedom is perfection. Perfection is what everything already is.

Awesome thread OP.

I like the philosophical stand you took w/ your thesis and have to re-read it a couple of times to consider the theory, although as a 101 concept, it's truthful and has much meaning.

Since there are 'universal laws' of science we have to use those as reference point(s) for 'our' everyday existence.

This is tough to delve into without quoting grammar/language concepts. For example, some 'nouns' are expected to be understand from the meaning alone, let's use "table" as a test subject. *We* can all picture a table, numerous tables, etc. from the known understanding of a simple word, then, can take that and use an 'unseen' word like "trust" (as a noun or verb) to apply, without even 'seeing' "trust" -- strange philosophy but true.

Examples: "I trust the table." Or, "the table is something I trust."

Verb and then noun usage, so taking that to the 'choice' subject and 'freedom' or your thread -- I'd have to, like I said, re-read and spend some time w/ the idea first.

A brainstorm of it, leads me to believe that 'natural law' is the next thought in this discussion.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by anhinga]

I often find those with the ears to hear do not need to be told and those which need to be told do not have the ears to hear.

People think they want the truth but what they really want is security. If the truth supports their security then the truth is accepted. If the truth threatens their security then the truth is rejected.

Do you know the difference between a self-referentially coherent statement and a self-referentially incoherent statement? Do you have any idea what the preceding question is saying? If not, then you (LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal) need to stop talking and start listening.
Freedom has no definition. As soon as you define freedom you place it in bondage to the definition. You can only acknowledge what freedom is by defining what is not freedom. Freedom is not inclusive of definable charateristics, freedom is exclusive of any defining characteristics.

It is self-referentially incoherent to define what freedom "must" be, because a "must" is a violation of freedom. The words "freedom must..." are an oxymoron/nonsense.

Yes, there is a contradiction, or actually an error.

In one sentence I said "Freedom includes freedom from need, temptation, and entrapment." and in another sentence I said "Freedom is not inclusive of definable characteristics..."

I made a mistake and stated the first sentence improperly. A more proper way to state the first sentence is: "Freedom is exclusive of need, temptation, and entrapment."

Sorry for the error.

I do think conceptual facts exist. Learning to see the concepts for what they are without "analytical overlay" or improper wording is a process.

reply to post by MITCHEL


Very interesting and well reasoned logic arguing that we really do not have freedom. I agree with your logic on that point, and I believe this is recognized at some level by a number of people. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple songs that implicitly recognizing such, including Freewill by Rush and Desperado by The Eagles.

I do have an issue with your conclusions that lack of true freedom equals a criminal universe. What if we chose in another phase of our existence to limit ourselves by the laws of this "reality"? What if at some level, that choice is reversible, but we do not want to reverse it at such a level? Would you still consider the universe criminal? Is such a universe an impossibility? If not, are there any other models that could result in an experience of "reality" consistent with our own that is not criminal?

Another question... Why is a colliding galaxy equivalent to a morally bankrupt parasite?

BTW, generally, I agree with much of your logic, and I find it refreshing to read. I just believe that by making the moral judgements you have based on our shared perception of reality seems like a leap. Thanks for the post.

Regarding "natural law". Nature must be coherent and functional because it will undermine itself and self-destruct if it is incoherent and dysfunctional. When you introduce a parasite to a functional system the parasite will not be able to find a weakness to feed off of and the parasite will die. Introduce a parasite to a dysfunctional system and the parasite could take the system down. The existence of parasites within a system means the "nature" of the system is dysfunctional/unnatural. This means the "laws" of the system are insufficient to sustain the system properly due to poor design, corruption, or both.

Keep the above paragraph in mind while looking at our world and draw your own conclusions regarding various humans and their parasite conspiracies. If a parasite can take a system down does it mean the parasite should take the system down? If a more coherent system rises from the ashes then one might say "yes". Parasites tend to like hierarchal systems and dislike sytems with equality because equality is robust while a hierarchy always has a weakness. This means the "One World Order" needs to be one of equality. Hierarchies of tyranny and slavery always crumble when the weight of the corruption outweighs the system's ability to sustain it.

(From the previous post: another way to properly word the sentence would be: "Freedom does not include need, temptation, or entrapment.)

Response to Lifestudent: Actually, I am not saying a "lack of true freedom equals a criminal universe". I am saying enforcement is the cause of a criminal universe. Force is the problem. A lack of true freedom is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Yes, it is still a criminal universe, even if some like it this way, because others do not like it this way. Some like being tyrants, others dislike being slaves. The only way this reality works is because we are effectively locked in this cage. One has to be a masochist in order to function within the cage and one has to engage in self-abuse to try to escape from the cage. This reality cannot exist without the existence of criminal activity because it is based upon domination and submission and we have been brainwashed to believe the domination is "legal".

Civilization, by definition, has to be a 'level playing field' of fairness and equality or else it is not civilization. Domination and submission are intrinsically hierarchal. Hierarchy and equality are mutually exclusive. All of the tyrants of the world respond to the preceding three sentences by turning into cry babies and howling: "equality means everyone has to suffer equally and this is unacceptable!" Everyone suffering equally is exactly what should happen because it makes everyone work together to make certain everyone is suffering as little as possible. Equality means sacrifices are made from the top down and there is no "ruling class". Hierarchy means sacrifices are made from the bottom up and corruption/abuse spirals out of control at the top. Ours is a fraudulent and illegitimate "civilization".

"Love it or leave it", you say? Does saying "Love it or leave it" invalidate the preceding paragraph? No, it does not! Saying "Love it or leave it" only serves to protect and defend tyrants and the dishonorable.

I was simply making a macrocosm/microcosm example with the colliding galaxy/morally bankrupt parasite thing.

I agree. Great post and keep spreading the word. Even though the people we talk to might not be listening, it stays in the back of their head!

George Orwell wrote an entire book on this, it's called 1984. You seem to be pointing out our own current version doublespeak, which is more subtle than what was used in the book such as "WAR IS PEACE" or "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY".

From the Ages of Ages is the Eternal Thought, and the Thought is the Word, and the Word is the Act, and these Three are one in the Eternal Law, and the Law is with God and the Law proceeds from God. All things are created by Law and without it is not anything created that existeth.

.

You live within the Body of the Law. There is nothing that exists without.

The Law is perfection, and it is in that imperfection, in which death resides.

For that which is perfect, does not perish.

You think of the law as consent. The Law is that which is Right. The Law provides for all, the Good, and the Bad. Yet the Bad does not provide for all.

It is in this Bad, or Error...which some call Sin.

Mankind enforces bad because mankind does bad. A community that sows bad, reaps bad. There is no need for enforcement when mankind has systems that are right, and mankind does that which is right.

Originally posted by MITCHEL
"God" committed the original sin because "God" created the circumstances which made temptation possible. There is no freedom in this universe, there is only involuntary entrapment here.

One man recieves a glass of water from another to quench his thirst. The first sip is quenching. The man chokes and dies on the second sip.
Was a law violated? Or negligence in obeying a law in drinking? Was the water a trap? I should say not.

One man uses his hands provide food for his community. Another man uses his hands to kill a community. Are the hands to be blamed, or the man in the way he used them. Is God to be blamed for making the hands on a man? I should say not.

All that was created was Good. But not all that was Good, was used for Good. Metal used for a plow, was also metal used for a sword.

The original law was Love one Another. The returning command was Love one another. Serve your fellow man, and do good for each other, and in doing so you have honored the command.

While some would argue their right to do as they wish, I would hope that everyones wish was for the good of all of us. That in seeing the eternal way that works for all, that we move closer to selflessness, and the Truth eternal.


Peace



[edit on 8-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by MITCHEL
I often find those with the ears to hear do not need to be told and those which need to be told do not have the ears to hear.

People think they want the truth but what they really want is security. If the truth supports their security then the truth is accepted. If the truth threatens their security then the truth is rejected.

I don't need security. I am secure with my insecurity and insecure of my securities, and that's okay. I have ears to hear and do not need to be told as far as philosophy goes. These subjects are years behind me, but it's nice to see you twisting your mind over them, we all eventually do when we seek knowledge.

Do you know the difference between a self-referentially coherent statement and a self-referentially incoherent statement?

Yes: the prefix in-.

Do you have any idea what the preceding question is saying? If not, then you (LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal) need to stop talking and start listening.

I can manage both simultaneously. Are you threatening my freedom? Or do you feel threatened, thus you are seeking security through attempting to quiet my input and deliver it to me, yourself, and others appearing as an incursion?

Freedom has no definition.

Aren't you defining freedom here?

As soon as you define freedom you place it in bondage to the definition. You can only acknowledge what freedom is by defining what is not freedom. Freedom is not inclusive of definable charateristics, freedom is exclusive of any defining characteristics.

I think you're wrong and that you're limiting freedom through not understanding what it truly is. Freedom is both definable and undefinable and neither, it is subject to inclusion of definition and exclusion of definition. What freedom are you trying to explain if the freedom you speak of is inexplicable? Then why speak of such? Oxymoron rings a bell, no pun intended, just tickling the imagination, it's what I'm best at. I'm a philosophical pervert

It is self-referentially incoherent to define what freedom "must" be, because a "must" is a violation of freedom. The words "freedom must..." are an oxymoron/nonsense.

To state that freedom is not certain attributes is to put forth an axiom of must on what it is and is not. I think what you should search for is Human morality rather than freedom.

Originally posted by MITCHEL
Regarding "natural law". Nature must be coherent and functional because it will undermine itself and self-destruct if it is incoherent and dysfunctional. When you introduce a parasite to a functional system the parasite will not be able to find a weakness to feed off of and the parasite will die. Introduce a parasite to a dysfunctional system and the parasite could take the system down. The existence of parasites within a system means the "nature" of the system is dysfunctional/unnatural. This means the "laws" of the system are insufficient to sustain the system properly due to poor design, corruption, or both.

Nature is coherent and perfect. Parasites are nature and parasites exist in all systems. Over 340 varieties of parasites can live in your body. Could you please define a functional and dysfunctional system. Could you please define a "closed system" and then validate it philosophically, scientifically, or otherwise. Parasites exist perfectly. When you undertake the statements persuing to stake claim that parasites destroy, in my opinion you reveal a lack of knowledge on the way things work. When you exterminate a parasite do you not then become a parasite to the parasite? If you are attempting to limit the system to a finite entity then you will experience corruption, poor design, and both, because your expectations are not meeting the eternal system's requirements.

Parasites tend to like hierarchal systems and dislike sytems with equality because equality is robust while a hierarchy always has a weakness.

How about the "one world order is one of disorder", it would be sure to recognize its dysfunctional functionality and would have no need for government, rather citizens and planetary consciousness would metamorphose to eternal entropy.

(From the previous post: another way to properly word the sentence would be: "Freedom does not include need, temptation, or entrapment.)

So, is freedom now definable and are you being a part of this enforcing criminal universe by telling me what I can not (or "must not") include in my life style to experience freedom?

[edit on 8-11-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I'm not sure, but i don't think we are talking about philosophy here but how you and I are controlled by the elite within a pyrimid like structure through the inherent word play that he is describing. The OP could correct me on that though. Direct control through thought.

Saying someone has "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" is like saying 2+2=5. There no true freedom in choice, as the choices are being laid out for you to pic from, not do as you please.

What's so wrong with 2+2 being 5? Ever heard of mitosis?

I sense an urgent and out of control fear from paranoia. Instead of looking for how you are "controlled" or how you can be "free" I think you should be appraciative of what you have and embellish in your time here, because trust me... we can define freedom for eternity. Just be thankfull that you don't have to wear a veil over your face and be stoned to death for dating someone outside of your religion.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Instead of looking for how you are "controlled" or how you can be "free" I think you should be appraciative of what you have and embellish in your time here, because trust me... we can define freedom for eternity.

Well stated... I think its been said before and Ill post a portion of it here for I believe it applys.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy

Perhaps its when one feels that what is good for all, is not good for them that they do not feel they are able to achieve freedom. That which knows what is best for all, teaches those without understanding.

Force can be percieved as not accepting in ones own mind that which they know is right, for what person who is in agreement experiences force?

The Heirarchy of the system, teaches equality with acceptance.

Love one Another..

The Universe will take care of the rest..

Peace



[edit on 8-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]

Just be thankfull that you don't have to wear a veil over your face and be stoned to death for dating someone outside of your religion.

Thats just it, nobody could EVER make me do that. Anyone who complies with a religion is already a slave. BTW look up what mitosis is, it's cell division, ie it is a halving of the original cell. You can not add two cells together and magicly have 3. Stop trying push your need to belive in god as part of an agument.

FREEDOM IS THE LACK OF HEIRARCHY. Your belief of a god "on high" promotes unthought slavery. Because you allow women to be forced into wearing burkas against thier will shows you are complacent.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Anyone who complies with a religion is already a slave.

When you say Thank you to a person, are you doing it because you have to or because its nice to, or its expected of you?

When you shake hands in a greeting, are you doing it because you have to, because its nice to, or because its expected of you?

In both cases, your free to do what you want, but the arguement arises, do you do whats expected.

If you dont say thank you, perhaps the other party may think your not appreciative. If you do, there is good will experience on both sides.

If you dont shake another mans hand, he may think your a jerk.
If you do, the handshake, like the hug, forms a bond of unity.

In both cases, kind expression build a relationship, rather then detracts from it. Can you see the difference? Is that religion or custom?

Is Love a custom? Is Unity a custom? Religion that divides is not the teaching of Love.

Love. Humility. Acceptance. Kindness. Helpfullness. Compassion. Forgiveness, and a host of other things which heal society was the way of Christ.

I might argue that the creation of Religion and its labeling, like nationalism, has becomes a disease in the hands of the less understanding.

Jesus was not a religion, he was the perfect Man, and his way was that of healing the masses. Universal Love. Which, in some scripts is what Christ is. the manifestation of Love on earth.

The Church took his Truth, and perverted it to a tragedy with the Crusades and whatever else.

Be Kind. Be Loving. Be caring. Be compassionate.Be Humble. Be Brotherly, at all times.

Why do it? because it is right. Not a religion.

Like saying Thank you, its better.

When we all do this, we are free.

Love one Another, think about that in the ultimate sense of its meaning.

Peace


[edit on 12-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Thats just it, nobody could EVER make me do that. Anyone who complies with a religion is already a slave.

And those that don't are slaves to freedom? Or are they free? Or are they obliged to freedom from fear of religion? These are serious questions meant for progress and answers, not snide inquisitions seeking to anger you.

BTW look up what mitosis is, it's cell division, ie it is a halving of the original cell.

But that cell started as one and where that one comes from never started, as it is of zero(eternal transmutating energy), and that dividing one turns into two whole cells, and more, of the exact same size.

You can not add two cells together and magicly have 3. Stop trying push your need to belive in god as part of an agument.

In fact we can: mitosis. Even more magically we can add absolutely no cells to one cell and watch as it morphs into 2, 3, and 4. I do not believe in God, nor am I trying to push a belief in God onto you. My signature states that well in advance.

FREEDOM IS THE LACK OF HEIRARCHY.

That is true, but freedom is also the acceptance of heirarchy. For freedom must be allowing of everything, even denial, or it is truly not freedom.

Your belief of a god "on high" promotes unthought slavery.

I do not have one.

Because you allow women to be forced into wearing burkas against thier will shows you are complacent.

I do not think that it is morally correct. But I can not force others to comply with my will, for love is compassionate, caring and kind, it is patient, accomodating and a choice to choose. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction... what would be of my love/freedom if I was to attempt to force it onto others?