Freedom versus Slavery

A friend recently insisted that the following documentary is a must see.


The following is provided as SYNOPSIS:

THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what’s REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream — uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.


Last time I was referred to this subject was in 1971, as documented here:

Gary Allen: None Dare Call it Conspiracy


My comments are as follows:

(1) Philosophically, this is about the button of “freedom versus slavery” that evokes a significant reaction.

(2) This button has been there for a long time.

(3) This form of the button has appeared in the West in recent times.

(4) The earlier form may be labelled “suffering” that was explored by Buddha.

(5) This button has been resolved earlier in the typical eastern fashion as follows:

  1. Controlling one’s desires
  2. Looking
  3. Nirvana

(6) In fact, this situation has nothing to do with certain “elite families.”

(7) This situation seems to be built into the system, or into the very DNA, of existence.

(8) Have fun exploring this button.


Ultimately, a person is slave to his own desires.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    Very interesting — I will check out your references.


  • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    One should be targeting ideologies and systems, and not individuals and organizations.

    Change in ideologies and systems will automatically lead to change in individuals and organizations without creating undue violence.



  • Kevin Osborne  On February 9, 2012 at 2:02 AM

    Slavery is better with whips. My experience.


  • Kevin Osborne  On February 10, 2012 at 3:18 AM

    But in travel one may wish to see all sights.


  • Kevin Osborne  On February 10, 2012 at 11:09 AM

    Let’s say that freedom is one’s relative movement in this place. The “freer” one is, the more easily one can go anywhere. This doesn’t mean one is or is not free, but that, as you observe above, one believes one is free or not free. Staying in one place is fine so long as one can move from that place. Once one believes one is “stuck” life is not so pleasant. Being stuck is interesting, however, which seems to be God’s mandate. Interest as relative motion is the game.
    It seems that relative consciousness determines relative freedom, because one may not move into space one is not presently aware exists. One creates space by being willing to see space. Meditation slows the time stream allowing one to see space as what it is, without time muddying up the particles. So does Idenics. Thus one’s space grows.
    As one sees more, understanding of the system increases. As you also note above, the system is going to work regardless what one thinks of it. One can move around, however, Better balance of movement is the mantra of new age stuff But real freedom has nothing to do with balance, which is constantly under attack by the system. Go with the flow, understand, and things will continue to be interesting enough to satisfy God, the game, and sometimes, oneself. My experience.


  • vinaire  On February 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

    Freedom comes from not having any fixed ideas. Freedom is a matter of balance. If one wants to create but not destroy, there is something very out of balance.



    • Kevin Osborne  On February 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

      Vin, I don’t believe we are really in this place. There is no formula to existence, one simply exists. All is invention.


  • vinaire  On February 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

    Existence is the result of speculation.



    • Kevin Osborne  On February 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

      How so?


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2012 at 6:59 AM

    As far as I can see, the bottom line is unknowable. Please see




  • Kevin Osborne  On February 11, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    Okay. Imagine if one has lived within, grown up within, and never been outside a house. One day one steps outside. Suddenly many things come into perspective. one understands better the structure, rooms, general construction, etc. One sees where one was. Complete understanding would not happen immediately. One would walk around, note various things, put them into context, etc., in order to really understand. Unless one stepped outside, the entirety of the house would be a mystery to some degree.

    Stepping outside this box that we seem to live within, therefore, helps understanding of the box and one’s place. This is simply perspective.
    It seems to be something that can happen, my experience.


    • vinaire  On February 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

      What you have written here is quite consistent.

      (1) We use this universe as our reference point to perceive, evaluate and understand things.

      (2) But we cannot understand the universe itself by using universe as our reference point.

      (3) To understand this universe we must use a reference point that is beyond this universe.

      (4) That point beyond the universe cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe..

      (5) Hence that point beyond the universe has to be unknowable from the reference point of this universe.

      (6) That is why I don’t pretend to know the reference point beyond this universe. I outright call it unknowable.

      (7) “Unknowable,” to me, simply means that the point beyond this universe cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe.

      So, what do you mean by God, which you seem to use as your reference point? That is the key inconsistency that I find in your arguments because God is derived using this universe as a reference point.

      Look at the Bible. It says that God created this universe.

      What is God in itself, not in the context of this universe?



      • Kevin Osborne  On February 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM

        I agree on unknowable. And that “God” is an inexact word.
        What I mean by God is that which is everything, knowable and unknowable.
        The nature of a creature of that comprehension could be debated till the cows come home. And this universe is not much of a clue to understanding that creature. But the relationship between God and the universe is the clue we have.
        Simply, the more one sees, the more one may understand. So we don;’t disagree, I think.


      • vinaire  On February 11, 2012 at 11:56 PM

        “God” or “Unknowable” is not a creature… πŸ˜‰


        Just kidding. Thank you so much for your endorsement. πŸ™‚



%d bloggers like this: