The Limits of Freedom – Ian Dallas

By , January 4, 2012 4:46 pm

The Limits of Freedom

Ian Dallas

INTRODUCTION

The following lecture was given in Birmingham, England, this year, 1990, by Mr. Ian Dallas.

It is characteristic of this particular talk that the speaker touches upon a great many points of reference that all meet at tangent and thereby make connection to the central theme of the philosophy of FREEDOM AND ITS INTERRELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESENT MONETARIST SYSTEM AND ITS MEANS OF CONTROL, IN POLITICAL TERMS, OVER WORLD POPULATIONS. This is a vast subject and has been lectured as well as written upon extensively by Ian Dallas. Nevertheless, this short talk can serve as a precis to many of his challenging and refreshing ideas.

Ian Dallas was born in Scotland and began his writing career as a playwright. As a contract writer for the BBC TV, he was responsible for a large number of plays and dramatisations. Within the last year, Mr. Dallas released his newest novel, THE TEN SYMPHONIES OF GORKA KÖNIG, published by Kegan Paul International of London. Most recently, Ian Dallas has completed his book on the study of WAGNER’S RING, which is expected to be released this summer.

 

Robert Luongo

April 9, 1990

Sacramento, CA

U.S.A.

The Limits of Freedom

 

To address the theme of the limits of freedom, of course one must begin by defining freedom before proceeding to inquire if it has limits and, if so, what these limits are. On examination, we find that the philosophical discourse views freedom differently from the doctrines of politics.

The background to this divergence of views between reason and the pragmatics of power is nothing less than the twentieth century and its unconfronted crises and contradictions. Unless in some degree we face up to these critical conditions, we will be unable to arrive at any meaningful or active understanding of this vital issue.

The mid-century saw an irrecoverable breach with the European past and tradition. Yet its causes go back not just to Weimar, but to 1914. If we regard the first world war as an imperialistic crisis within the kind of framework now assumed in college and classroom, we will not make sense of subsequent events.

Ernst Jünger, Europe’s greatest living writer, whose works you are not permitted to read, thus not at liberty to read, said that with the end of the first world war came the end of the monarchies and with the end of the second world war came the end of the nation-state.

Ernest Nolte, one of Germany’s most distinguished historians,recently wrote a most important book, which you are not permitted to read, thus not at liberty to read, entitled, THE EUROPEAN CIVIL WAR 1919-1945. His thesis was that the conflict of mid-century was in no way a fight between dictatorship and democracy, but rather one between National Socialism and Bolshevism, or International Socialism.

The implications of this were very far reaching. One side of his model was that the concentration camp was seen as a technological solution to political opposition, its system having been designed by Lenin and Stalin, then adopted by the Nazis.

For taking this liberty, he was rewarded by a bomb which exploded in his car outside his Berlin home where he was professor of history. You may recall that he was invited to address an Oxford college, then disinvited. The point is that this hysterical and slanderous attack guarantees that the issues raised by Nolte, at least for the moment, will not be examined. They will not, however, go away. One of the implications of his argument is that International Socialism won the war.

At this point it is interesting to take into account that following World War II, in the reconstructed Germany, the study of history at university level was stopped and in its place was put sociology. The political sciences were placed within an ideological framework that was inescapably Marxist in its location; the intriguing fact being that this was expedited by a series of right wing governments apparently wedded to capitalist doctrines.

From 1950, the European universities were set in a pattern which established an orthodoxy of socialist thinking and its leaders were the well known Frankfurt School. The illusion of open debate was none other than the working out of this ruthless dogmatism, for its dialectic was uniquely that socialism was the only valid humanistic thesis, fascism its unacceptable,repellent and, let us not forget, defeated antithesis.

Since this, by implication, was refined and revised doctrine, thus there was no argument, only orthodoxy kept alive by the threat of denouncing all its enemies as fascist, anti-semitic and reactionary.

The high point of this conflict was, of course, 1968 and the radical uprising which mysteriously resulted in placing a Rothschild in the Elyseé Palace.

The radical dialectic, far from moving the historical process forward by critical analysis, had enthroned a power system whose face we can now begin to see.

The dialectic is a fraud as we can now see. Jünger’s profound perception that the nation-state was over did not simply imply the arrival of the super-state – EUROPE, SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN SUBCONTINENT – but marked the historical point where state power ceded its sovereignty to a totally different emergent system of banking entities and financial flow mechanisms.

The so called collapse of eastern communism and the mythic reforms of Russia are nothing other than the entrance of these new markets into the slave system of world banking. The Gulag has not closed, it is elsewhere – Palestine and the new correctional facilities.

Monetarism IS Marxism, since it is based, as Umar Vadillo states in THE END OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, “… on the already delineated assumption of Das Kapital which states that the material existence of money is transformed into a functional existence, in other words, there is a basic permission structurally to manipulate currencies on the market.”

In this sense, the dialectical method has performed its role perfectly. This is an interesting historical moment, since we are in an interspace between the collapse of critical dialectics and the emergence of another orthodoxy which will explain to the world why it should accept the newly imposed tyranny of world banking.

The most crucial implication of the current situation is that the political mechanism, assembly democracy, far from assuring the masses their freedom, legislates their subservience to the banking oligarchy, from the imposed wedding of identity visas to economic status to the census itself, which defines the state’s parameters and what are they but the outlines of debtorhood.

For the democratic state, as constitutionally defined, is nothing other than the receptor of debt, national debt, owed to the banking entity – an entity, in itself, supranational, whose executive remains unknown to us, yet is our absolute ruler, elected by no known franchise. Thus the existence of the powerless democratic state is the seal of the power of oligarchic banking. The dissolution of the state would mean the dismantling of the debt receptor and the end of the current world banking tyranny which is destroying the ecosystem, the cultural template we inherited and the possibility of humanness.

The constitutional state took its model from France following the revolution. That state’s immediate task was twofold: the issuing of the Assignats, or first state paper money, and the creation of the Bank of France. The ideological frame of the so called Enlightenment was the notorious Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. The whole thrust of the movement was that goodness had to be legislated. Robespierre’s goodness.

The political view which declared that utopia could be constructed by interventive legislation and imposition of just force had its philosophical foundations in the Kantian doctrines of a critically apprehended pure reason. The Kantian viewpoint was grounded on the existential reality of the Absolute Subject who, in turn, scrutinised and examined the analysable object. During these years, the analysable object, from being a scientifically specific object, submitted to a science’s disciplines, became society and, finally, man himself. The bill for the enormously costly celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution, was paid almost entirely by French banks.

Solzehnitzen has bitterly demonstrated how the worst excesses of the communist police were performed, not in spite of, but in enthusiastic application of the Soviet Constitution. High sounding clauses defending the freedom of the masses assured the genocidal removal of millions of citizens. There could be no critique of technique from a system which was, in itself, technical and this proves to be as true of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Zionist Israel.

Yet within the turmoil and passions of the late twenties and early thirties, a proud intellectual revolution was taking place. So intense has been the emotional and political dialectic which has determined to denounce everything of that period as Nazi and thus unthinkable – an unpleasant and dubious word – thus both strengthening the current oligarchic doctrines and keeping at bay the discovery of the intellectual revolution which lay embedded, and certainly, at times, entangled in political events.

The three towering giants of that epoch are Heisenberg, Heidegger and Jünger. Heisenberg, who along with Niels Bohr, is responsible for a total revolution of our understanding of the nature of matter and thus existence, effectively changed forever not only how we thought but what we could think about , for the ultimate constituent of matter was transformed from solid object to particles in space or waves of light.

More traumatic, however, was the discovery that the observer had become dethroned from his position of absolute power. Indeed, the act of observation itself took on a paradoxical dimension.

In the realm of philosophy, Martin Heidegger, inheritor of the last stronghold of post-Kantian thinking and the last attempt to provide a method which could licence the Cartesian subject to function scientifically, phenomenology, whose ultimate practitioner was Husserl, Heidegger’s teacher.

In 1927, Heidegger produced his first masterpiece, SEIN UND ZEIT, Being and Time. In this revolutionary work which caused a tremendous shock when it was published, Heidegger basically redefined man.

In order to finish once and for all with the Kantian subject, himself so helpless a technical functionary of the system of technique, he proposed the figure of Dasein, literally being there, as man’s true identity. Man was no longer the passive participant in the technical program, he was the active searcher for his own meaning and reality which he could only fulfill by undertaking his own project.

Heidegger demonstrated how modern man had evolved technique to serve him but, in the end, it was he who served the total interlinked technical system. His delineation of man, as Dasein, in turn demonstrated that the picture of man inside the technical apparatus was false. Man was never separate, distanced from his objects of activity, but enlaced, connected and joined to his every day activities.The famous modern crisis of alienation, the point where man felt apart and cut off from existence, far from being a neurotic failure of nerve, was a breakthrough, a clearing and space which allowed him to see existence as it really was, with himself, a mortal, in-time creature whose true task was his own self discovery.

The third giant of the twentieth century was the visionary writer, Ernest Jünger, a soldier in two world wars, who emerged from the ferocious battles of the epoch stubbornly refusing his name and support to Right or left.

Finally, in the middle of the second war, he could no longer remain aloof and joined with Stauffenberg in the failed coup to assassinate Hitler. He was, quixotically, amnestied from execution because of his World War I decorations for bravery and he survived with simple court martial. The only German who refused to submit to denazification, since he furiously rejected the necessity to be cleansed from what he had never taken on, he withdrew into the Schwabian forests to write his great masterpieces, HELIOPOLIS, and EUMESWILL.

His thirties’ masterpiece, THE WORKER, was a work of prophetic genius. In it, he redefined the worker from being a unit in the economic framework of capitalism. He saw the worker as being modern man and women, every one of whom participated in the technical process. We were all workers, all electricity consumers, road users, plane passengers, radio listeners. He saw that the issue facing the human species in this century was how to deal with and go beyond this apparently inescapable destiny of technical development. He did not propose Luddite opposition nor did he suggest retreat from the issues in private ease. From then until now, he has grappled with the discourse of freedom, and thanks to men like him, we can – at least we will try to – reach a constructive view.

His manifesto, if we may call it that, was written after the completion of his futuristic novel, HELIOPOLIS. In this novel, his hero, after facing the violent conflicts and contradictions of both tyrannical dictatorship and indifferent democracy, at the point where he is politically trapped and assured destruction, goes apart and, with the woman he loves, ingests a psychotropic drug resembling LSD, and from the inner illumination of this experience, he confirms his own being and decides to prepare for a new future. He sets off in his space ship with his wife and his student to prepare for the education of his student and, thus, a new generation.

His text, in which he outlines this new viewpoint, is called DER WALGANGER, the one who goes into the woods. He does not in any way, imply by this a retreat to nature. He means, by this, the one who draws on his or her own inner resources and finds meaning, not from the social project or the technical template, but from depths of their own being.

Thus, these three men, who knew each other and shared together their own spiritual journey, offered to modern men and women a quite new view of existence. One in which matter itself was no longer dead but radiant, no longer static but vibrant, no longer located but present. One in which man is no longer the cultural intervention, destroying nature, but rather the natural phenomenon itself. One in which man does not legislate or impose freedom over and against tyranny but one who recognises freedom itself as the ground of existence. For, as Jünger declares in the great statement that ends DER WALGANGER, “… for freedom IS existence.”

It is not surprising that Jünger remains little published outside Germany, although he is available in French and the Spanish are now bringing out the complete works. In America and England he is virtually unknown.When he was appointed Doctor Honoris Causis this year in the University of the Basque Country, one of Spain’s leading intellectuals hailed the event as the most important world event of the year, a fact confirmed by Spain’s most renowned sociologist, Carlos Moya.

Thus a growing number of European intellectuals are entering the arena of thinking that is the phenomenology of freedom.

The Heideggerian philosophy which places freedom as the existential condition implies a transvaluation of all previous values. Gadamer, himself a student of Heidegger, has said, “There is no higher principle of reason than that of freedom.” So we can see that, if freedom is not something arrived at by legislation and enforced rules and by structuration, it follows that it is something lost by these imposed patterns.

As we noted with Solzehnitzen, constitutional law and defined human rights, far from achieving this end, resulted in licensed slavery. This means that only the removal of imposed power structures will open human beings to their condition and their potential.

It is the state and its instruments of power that represent the destroyer of freedom and it is the state that is the political arm of interest-debt banking which represents the highest oligarchy and the most empowered structuration of modern world.

The romantic socialism of the Third Reich and the realistic socialism of Soviet Russia both took a toll in human lives of several millions. Yet the achievement of state power in post-1945 world of political democracies is much more impressive. It can boast a death rate that surpasses the slaughter of the past, achieving annually what it took these regimes a decade to accomplish.

According to the official report of Dr. Hiroshi Nakajimi, Director-General of the World Health Organization, “We are witnessing the silent genocide of eleven million children every year in the developing world and these deaths are by preventable causes.” This annual slaughter is the direct result of interest-debt economy and the intolerable burden that enslaves these countries to the banking oligarchy.

The whole integrated technical system of today’s world is sustained and directed by the dictates and logics of a financial system that is, in itself, incapable of rational function, is magical, nonpredictive, and locked into cyclical catastrophe. Its main survival mechanism is war or disaster. It is nonreformable and already outside the possibility of local limiting restraint at national level. The constitutional state cannot rescue us, for as we have indicated, its role is to be a servo-mechanism of debt collection. Therefore the assembly politics of so-called liberal democracy is nothing more than the new instrument of world slavery.

One monetarist intellectual recently hailed this event, the dominance of free election democracy, as being the end of history. He would be right if men and women were to lose altogether their recognition of the basic nature of life as freedom itself.

Let me quote from C.G. Jung. He says, “When fate, for four whole years, played out a war of monumental terror on the stage of Europe, a war that NOBODY wanted, no one dreamed of asking exactly who or what had caused the war and its continuation. Nobody realised that European man was possessed by something that robbed him of free will. And this state of unconscious possession will continue undeterred until we Europeans become scared of our godlikeness. Such a change can begin only with individuals. It seems to me of some importance, therefore, that a few individuals or people individually, should begin to understand that there are contents which do not belong to the ego personality but must be ascribed to a psychic non-ego.”

Thus Jünger, Heidegger, Heisenberg, and here, indirectly, the great psychologist Jung, all point towards divine recognition. Yet before we turn to this, let us stay a moment with the Jungian insight into the human psyche.

Abandoning the dialectical prison of Freudian distinctions, Jung turned to the language of myth to supply the dynamic imagery which allow deep examination of human conflicts, a procedure also adopted by Jünger in his visionary writings. Jung builds up a series of insights around the myth of the god Priapus, introduced into the pantheonic world of gods, precisely when the previous natural Olympic world had collapsed before the imperialism of Rome. Thus, Priapus represents unnatural elements which have broken into the primal harmonies of nature. When phallic energy is denied, the phallus representing man’s libido, his capacity to potentiate his own destiny, it becomes split off and becomes an autonomous complex. Thus phallic power becomes disembodied, a thing in itself. This is Priapus.

Since disembodied, the being of the man then senses itself as unmanned and so, to compensate for the loss of the phallus in conscious awareness, the subject indulges in compensatory fantasies of inflation, both in incident and role. These inflations, the fantasy erect phallus, are collectively determined, as Jungian James Wyly puts it, “… in that they are efforts to conform to an exterior standard in a way that will compare favourably with that standard, regardless of the actual abilities or personal characteristics of the individual.”

“Thus Priapus, the split off complex, becomes a kind of advocate of the interest of the Self, archetype of wholeness and the regulating centre of the psyche. But it has no access to ego’s perceptions. It can only strive for integration by acting dramatically AGAINST ego, calling itself to ego’s attention by ruthlessly undermining the inflated positions ego has constructed.”

So, in this Jungian model, the fantasy inflation is followed by humiliation and that, by nature of its realism, can be the opening to natural life if the event is embraced and confronted.

In cultural terms, Jung implies that the masculine, embodied in the social realm by patriarchy, or male values, dominates modern existence. This, in turn, means that, since each conscious attitude has a compensatory unconscious attitude, in our vastly male dominated society, there is a massive and powerful matriarchal fixation. This unconscious, or let us say, hidden connection to the maternal archetype would inevitably result in a Priapic cycle, isolating the phallus from union and indulging in fantasy, social gigantism and inflation.

It is here that the Jungian model takes on its special significance for us. For the fantasy inflation does, in fact, take place cyclically in the global economic system of financial control which modern man has designed. The inflationary cycle, true to this model, is unpredictable, unstoppable and a constant and nagging anxiety which dominates society, brings down governments, causes the rush to desperate means like dictatorships, greater armament programs, nuclear terror, or alternatively for the masses, retreat into drugged avoidance of crisis through compulsive pleasure.

In other words, looked at outside the view of dialectics, itself the framework of sustaining fantasy and avoiding responsibility, the current interest-debt system of world finance is the product – not the cause – of the disturbed psyche which denies women their collaborative place alongside men.

The constructive solution to the dilemma of modern neurosis is the conscious withdrawal from the fantasy mechanisms of inflationary living based on a human economy of worthless money, symbolic wealth, paper and plastic tokens given value by arbitrary assignation of mathematical symbols.

Freedom implies – in our new sense – the right to access to genuine natural wealth of our choosing and not chosen for us, a right which today no individual possesses. We do not and cannot choose our own money. We will not be able to trade freely with real wealth tokens of our choosing as long as the modern state and super state exist. For, as we have defined it, the state’s role is nothing other than the enslaving of its citizens to debt.

Therefore, a conscious and deliberate withdrawal from electoral enslavement must precede the downfall of the banking neurosis and humiliation of the end of the fantasy quest of the Priapic dilemma.

Only with the collapse of the modern computerised state will natural and humanly viable existence begin, and only then will the planet itself be safe from the clearly unstoppable ravages of the fantasy power induced by the billions of dollars which daily inflate, lose their value and commit us to impossible social programs, the most dangerous and most inevitable of which is nuclear war.

One Response to “The Limits of Freedom – Ian Dallas”

  1. colin says:

    We need to march on parliament and claim it back for the people. Then we need to share the wealth of the nation by become self sustainable as a nation. The ‘civilisation’ we exist in has been an experiment. Speaking for myself we have to adopt a scientific approach to coexisting in harmony with nature as a nation and as a global civilisation. This can not be achieved with the tool of money, but it can be achieved with all humanity working together in unity and solidarity.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy