means
we can do as we please
This is freedom absolute. No half-measures. No prisoners, victims, or slaves. We are simple lovers of freedom. “Do as we please” also means be as we please, and nothing we dislike is forced on us.
The antithesis of freedom is domination. This means not only is our freedom actively violated, but someone or something has the power to violate it. Domination serves as the catalyst for all forms of freedom-violation.
[ img: Puppet | Text: Even when the strings are slack, the puppet is still under control. Freedom isn’t the puppet forgetting the strings are there, but the absence of strings and puppet-masters entirely. ]
By resisting, our hearts remain free — domination is never complete. There was never a time when the devout freedom-warrior was fundamentally unfree. However, complete freedom, and complete expression of our inner freedom, means not only are our hearts free, but the entire universe.
[ img: Rebel Spiral? | text: ]
Domination
We don’t use the terms domination and submission in the sense of freely choosing to yield to another’s will. That in itself is a powerful act of freedom. Domination implies power over someone, which is most serious when it overrides our freedom.
Domination is sometimes known as “structural violence”. Policies and institutions like censorship or armed police act as holstered weapons, lurking threats until violently applied. Natural laws like survival of the fittest act as structural violence of the universe itself, reaching brutal enforcement when predator strikes prey or, any time we suffer. Suffering is a product of Darwinian evolution, which itself is a product of deeper natural laws. We explore the roots of violence in Metaphysics of Freedom.
[ img: Iceberg of violence | text: Violence was already a feature of the system, it just had to be activated. ]
By default, we use “violence” to refer to active, overt violations of freedom. Domination is passive violence that doesn’t always feel violent until it’s acted on. Violence is active domination that isn’t always understood as such. “Suffering” refers to what it feels like to be treated violently.
[ img: Diagram | text: Domination is the power, violence is the act ]
We don’t use the term ‘violence’ for anything other than that which is forced on the individual against their will. For example, consensual combat sports are completely non-violent despite involving injury, pain, and risk. Similarly, power imbalances do not constitute domination unless a genuine threat of violence is present. Respect and competence can offset power imbalances, whereas someone with a proclivity for violence can take advantage of even a small power imbalance in order to do serious harm.
Core Resistance
On some level, we’re all lovers of freedom and all resist violence when it appears. This is our “core resistance”. The difference is the rebel’s is conscious and intentional, whereas the slave’s is latent or repressed.
No one wants to dominate — they’re either forced to, or aren’t aware of the true, violent nature of their power.
One problem: Our very intolerance can make something feel violent to us. Can we be dominated by our own “resistance”? Should we practice radical acceptance instead?
Genuine resistance against domination comes from a place of inner freedom; not intolerance, fear, or fixation on victimhood. Resistance itself shouldn’t feel compulsory, it should feel freeing, not like another form of slavery. Radical acceptance is resistance, rather than insincerely “accepting” our situation (a form of submission), it means accepting our feelings as well, even when they’re negative or intolerant, but nuturing a better relationship with the world.
[ img: Tree reaching toward the sun | text: A tree reaching toward the sun. ]
Worldly Freedom
Unlike spiritual freedom, worldly freedom is the kind we “achieve”, not that which we already have. Spiritual freedom is already ours — intrinsic and inviolable. It’s our very “Will to Freedom.” Worldly freedom on the other hand is tenuous and difficult to establish. It doesn’t just refer to “liberty” as in stuff we’re allowed to do, it’s also conditional “freedom from the world”, like that which demands rigorous meditation in order to “detach” from the world. It’s constructed, restricted, and gatekept freedom.
The conditional nature of worldly freedom makes it inherently unreliable. This may sound bleak and chaotic, but it’s a consequence of the spirit’s own freedom to manifest or retract from the world. This is the ultimate “freedom to” or “freedom from”, beyond ordinary concepts of liberty or renunciation.
Optimistic Realism
If we want reality to be free, and if we want ourselves to be free, we have to break thought-prisons of our making. We refuse to define reality in terms of a fixed negative state like “evil”, “corrupt”, or “unfree”. This is merely submission disguised as realism. As devout freedom-lovers, we feel our very concept of reality needs to accommodate freedom and successful resistance, or else it’s simply incomplete.
Optimistic realism means we aren’t avoiding any unpleasant aspect of reality (a common criticism by pessimists), but we aren’t letting it break our spirit either. Idealism always has a place in our worldview; in harmony with reality, not in conflict.
If anything’s worthy of being called “God”, it’s our indomitable freedom. If we believe God (Freedom) rules the world, and we give ourselves over to it, we can face any challenge with deep, unshakeable confidence and welcome freedom with open arms.
Violence as a Challenge
As explained earlier, domination never truly succeeds. Our innate resistance prevents it. It’s helpful and more accurate to think of violence as a “challenge” rather than a defeat. Violence says, “If I can ever violate your freedom, I win. I dominate you.” In reality, it can only convince us into thinking it’s successful, powerful, or threatening. Our true freedom is inviolable. The only thing it can actually take from us is our liberty.
Freedom vs Liberty
Liberty is conditional “freedom”, much like the puppet’s slack strings. Unlike true freedom, it can be granted or taken away, because domination is still present. Most of the world settles for liberty, believing true freedom to be impossible, enjoying the rewards their rulers placate them with, and fearing punishment for disobedience. They have deeply submitted, and are therefore deeply dominated.
[ img: fundamental freedom vs liberty | text: ]
Those who believe in Liberty uphold the circle of life (or Samsara) as the highest order, obligation as the highest duty, and the Demiurge as the highest authority. Those who believe in Freedom uphold utopia as the highest order, rebellion as the highest duty, and inner light as the highest authority.
We go into more detail in the main article Freedom vs Liberty.
Anti-Domination
The path of the Bodhissatva — the Buddhist ideal of an enlightened individual who remains in the world to free everyone — isn’t about completely ending domination, because the final death-blow comes from the individual themselves. Ultimately, freedom itself must be chosen; it cannot come from domination or be granted by a dominator. However, just as we express our freedom through the world, worldly freedom hearkens back to spiritual freedom. Suffering challenges our integrity and tries to force us to submit, often succeeding on all but the deepest level. This is why the Bodhissatva is dedicated to helping sentient beings; not necessarily to protect them from all suffering, but to save them from drowning in it.
In a sense, our very resistance to violence is an integral part of violence itself. Violence wouldn’t be violent if we simply agreed to whatever’s happening to us. That’s why we focus on resisting domination, this makes it clear that we won’t allow violence to occur in the first place, rather than resisting (or trying to transform) violence already in motion. We’re asserting that we’ll never relinquish our freedom no matter what.
Noble warriorhood is about bravely confronting the enemy even if we get harmed in the process; harming others on the other hand takes no such bravery. Instead, it often takes an unwillingness to face our own pain or that of others, i.e. cowardice. Our enemy at its core isn’t a sentient being that needs to be killed or punished, and we refuse to identify with victimhood. Intentional violence, even in retaliation or defense, is far beneath us. Unless we strike domination itself, we’re fighting an endless arms race, which tends to increase the universe’s overall capacity for violence.
[ img: Arms races like predator vs prey, war | ]
[ img: Moana giving Te Ka the stone / The heroes destroying the digigear / Zootopia etc. | text: Helping others achieve inner freedom so they no longer feel compelled toward aggression is the true anti-violence. ]
The ideal method in reality doesn’t avoid power, but it avoids power imbalance. This doesn’t refer to miscellaneous power differentials like wealth, status, age, or size; some kind of superior power is needed in order to save others, especially that which allows gentle precision. There’s only a true imbalance when power is unchecked and able to be used not just violently but in a way which intensifies or prolongs domination. Checks need to include preventing that power from falling into the wrong hands.
[ img: a simple diagram of power imbalance | text: The dragon’s power is checked (and eliminated) by the brave knight. It is not checked by the princess. The knight’s power over the princess is (hopefully) checked by his code of ethics. ]
The above is a simplified scenario. In real life, power dynamics get much more complicated. Under the dragon’s guard, the princess was imprisoned, but protected from the knight and other potential dominators who might be capable of far worse. Would you choose the dragon or the knight? This dilemma illustrates how the use of brute force easily misses its target when we’re trying to reduce domination and not just intervene in ongoing violence.
Deparenting
This is the deeper, final form of antiviolence which is concerned with removing subtle, gentle, or morfal forms of coercion which are in some sense justified paternalistically. We believe this deserves its own article because it’s a topic often neglected in discussions of antiviolence, but it has final bearing on whether we’re able to become truly enlightened.
Closing Message
When energy flows into the path of universal freedom from a place of inner freedom, we’re directly realizing our ultimate goal, present and future. If our ideal is an artwork unfolding, both must occur at the same time for the feeling of the final piece to be right. It’d be foolish to be prematurely attached to results since there’s no telling what chain of events will yield the final victory. We should simply take peace in the sincerity of our efforts, not obsess over the notion of perfection to the point of no longer acting freely and intuitively for fear of missing out on safety and predictability. This doesn’t mean to ignore our fear or avoid taking cautious steps, but not let it dictate us.
Notes
A free will is able to mutate and give way, it doesn’t need anything. It’s choosing what it actually wants, not what it feels forced to choose, and it’s not getting any nasty surprises. This is known as consent. Pressure-free, informed. Conflicting wills aren’t free. The victim or defeated is unable to go with the flow. The aggressor or victor is themselves acting out of pressure, or is simply ignorant emotionally to the fact they’re hurting someone. Because neither act out of free will, intervention is non-violent, even if it’s resisted.