Thoughts on Erick Fromm's "Escape from Freedom"

 

Erich Fromm, a well known psychoanalyst and author from the past, believed that people were afraid of freedom and so were driven to abandon it. He believed that the reason was that they basically wanted to be automatons, as he called them, and surrender their minds to the collective. He claimed this was because of the threat of isolation from independence, which could make them easily disagreeable to the group, which was too much for them to bear.

There's obviously some truth in this, as we know that people are afraid of not fitting in, but I think seeing most people as 'automatons' who confuse group beliefs with their own is not entirely realistic.

In my view--and as I have long seen it--we all have two minds. One is the private mind and the other is the socialised mind. The socialised mind is the mind that plays along to get along, whereas the private mind is where we have our own thoughts directly, and in a context where other people (and their social pressures) basically do not exist.

In my view, people find themselves under heavy pressure to live in their socialised mind when they're in a socially insecure context. I think this is created through over-crowding, forced associations, and authoritarian oppression (think of Islam's morality police, for an example). 

You could say someone is close to being a Frommian automaton when their lives have been dominated by the need to live in the socialised mind, and to the point where the private mind is under-developed. These types may only be comfortable within groups.

I think an over-socialised mind is achieved in part with schooling (which is chronic over-crowding with forced associations), and parental intimidation working as an in-house morality police. There are deep psychological drivers that keep people away from their private zone as well, such as the massive trauma of a baby being isolated from the mother immediately after birth. This makes many people feel anxious when being alone, as it can trigger old trauma.

In saying all this, I think we know what we need to do to avoid a Brave New World type society, where the socialised mind is near-totally dominant over the private mind. Just give kids less early trauma - and more personal space. 

And finally, I think the private mind itself needs to be socially affirmed. People need to be able to express true personal thoughts to others in private conversations, so to develop natural confidence within their private or more 'real' mind. They shouldn't be too worried about the morality police telling them they're crazy, for maybe thinking what the socialised minds never think.

Andrew Atkin, December 2025

Addition: 'Identity':

Rudolf Steiner, Jung, and others, talked about 'identity' relating to what I think is a major adaptive product of the socialised mind. The identity we typically form is the persona that makes us acceptable and understood to the wider society, as we accept becoming a 'type'. 

In my view, the identity is a powerful self-regulatory system that filters and suppresses our subjective experience. We do not allow ourselves to experience things that contradict our identity. For example, a bisexual man who strictly identifies himself as heterosexual may automatically suppress his homosexual urges, because it would lead to an "identity crisis" if he did not. Another example is a person who identifies themselves as fully mature and so refuses to listen to cheesy child-like music, for even if they could like it, because it contradicts their identity.

Hence, we do not allow ourselves to experience things that contradict who we think we are. Needless to say, this comes with potentially serious life costs as we cut ourselves off from personal experience. At worst, our identities will make us bored and boring.

The other aspect of identity, that Steiner went on about, relates to what we think our motives are. For example, a given vegetarian might not be motivated out of a simple respect for animals, but instead the wish to rationalise moral superiority to enhance their self-esteem. Yet awareness of the motive will be kept from consciousnesses, if it contradicts the desired identity.

So, not only do our identities lead to the suppression of experience, but also consciousness of motives. Ultimately, this can lead to some problems in life, but it's trivial compared to the most impactful level of distortion which is repressed of trauma. Trauma creates feelings and compulsions that are directly derived from unconscious deprivations, that have nothing to do with identity as such. They are the raw drivers behind virtually all pathology. On that point, Freud was right. It's just a shame he discredited himself by going off on erroneous theoretical tangents. See here.

Building Back Better - for a sustainable liberty

 

This article is focused on New Zealand.

Nations form constitutions to protect themselves against bad government, which is an enduring threat. 

Bad government can be driven by democratic ignorance, selfishness, and captured, corrupt, and even blackmailed politicians. 

In New Zealand we have no legally binding constitution, making us a sitting duck for the worst. We need a constitution - urgently - and the following is my proposal for the needs of our modern world.

Mastering Democracy:

1. Direct democracy must be installed, using the politics app [linked at the bottom]. 

The public must have the power to override the decision on any bill proposed by parliament, given enough public interest being demonstrated through petition (this is the Swiss system).

2. Restrict voting rights based on basic merit. 

All can vote, but not without first completing a basic online course on politics and economics, to ensure their vote is essentially competent. This improves the quality of the vote, which in turns resists the power of crude propaganda.

3. Introduce Demeny voting. 

This is where parents can vote on behalf of their children. This is to avoid exaggerated electoral power being given to the retired population, who are naturally incentivised to resist means-testing for pensions and healthcare, for even when the younger generations cannot afford the cost.

Link here.

4. Decentralisation: 

Small government is more democratically accountable than big government. The focus will be to decentralise the tax base.

Central government should only perform functions for where there is a good argument or specific need for centralisation. 

Note, decentralisation facilitates foot-voting, which is a powerful mechanism to enhance political accountability. Tax-payers are respected more when they can easily leave for an alternative low-tax district.

Link here.

Police and Military:

1. Police and military must operate to a constitution which can only be ratified and modified through direct democracy (the vote). Any order from parliament given to the police or military, that contradicts the constitution, must be ignored by the police or military. 

2. No war can be initiated, financially supported, or participated in without a public referendum. The exception is a domestic surprise-attack scenario, where there is literally no time for even an online referendum. 

Military conscription should be illegal and considered a gross human rights violation.

Finance and privacy:

Banks and governments will be able to collect records on transactions, including who/where/when, but they will not be able to restrict any individuals access to their own finances or interfere with any lawful transaction, unless there is a serious and legitimate reason to do so. 

If a bank unlawfully withholds an individuals access to their finances, then this should be regarded as theft.

Access to financial records will only apply to the police, and the police will need a search warrant to do as such.

Fertility:

Nearly everyone will be allowed to have children, but not without first obtaining a license. The purpose of the license is to allow the government to identify those who are dangerous or seriously mentally ill, and in turn stop them from having children. 

As this is obviously a very sensitive policy position, the parameters of the test for achieving a fertility license should only be created and modified by direct public consent, via a referendum. It should never be the place of parliament to set the final rules on who is and is not fit enough to have children. The locked-in public veto is essential, as any future government can ultimately go rogue.

It will be compulsory for parents-to-be to complete a course on childcare, that shows they understand the basics. Most importantly, they must understand the basics on what traumatic abuse and neglect is, and what this does to the developing child.

The fertile family will be prioritised for welfare, for where government welfare may be applied.

Note: Child abuse is a horrific problem in New Zealand (and elsewhere) and it is overwhelmingly responsible for all serious social problems. It's a massive contributor to economic and health costs, as well. It is not responsible to allow broken and grossly incompetent people to have children.

Link here.

Population:

Fertility can be directly restricted in the distant future, for when and if population pressures arise. Not problematic 1 child limits (China was too much, too late) but more like 2 to 4 child caps as required.

Education:

Parents will be funded directly to have their children educated. The state monopoly on education will be completely removed. Education will be shaped by the market - not government ideology.

Tertiary education will not be subsidised. However, the government may develop free-to-access online learning material. Winning a qualification through independent study will be affordable to virtually anyone. The individual may only need to pay for the testing process.

Link here.

Race and political correctness:

There will be no race-based politics. Government will be race blind. A white or yellow person in need is just as important as a brown or black person in need.

The government will create no law dictating preferential treatment based on race, sexuality, gender, age, or any other superficial biological variance.

The Maori seats in parliament will be removed. Only 'everybody' seats will remain.

Housing and the cost of living:

A piece of earth to live on is a basic human right. People should not be forced to pay $500k for a small piece of farmland that is really only worth $50k. 

Housing costs should never be allowed to artificially inflate.

Regulations alround must be systematically reviewed. Regulations will be removed or modified when the cost of their impact is seen to exceed their benefit.

Link here.

Health emergencies:

Governments can initiate a Covid-like health response, with lockdowns and closed borders, etc, if they believe it is necessary and there is no time for public consultation. However, a referendum must be held within a week, so to allow the public to veto (and reform) any major decision parliament may choose to make. 

All censorship of contrarian medical opinions must be constitutionally illegal. 

Note: If a government contradicts the law, willfully, there must be serious consequences. This means incarceration and possibly capital punishment.

Under no circumstance can bodily autonomy be violated with medications, through direct forcing or coercion. There will be no compulsory vaccination and no forced water fluoridation. Medication must be strictly the individuals own autonomous decision. The government cannot operate as though it owns other people's bodies.

Genetically modified foods will be explicitly labelled. People must know what they are eating. 

Link here.

Government Finance:

Government budgets cannot be increased without public referendum. Periodic referendums will be held by law, giving the public the opportunity to actively reduce government budgets over time.

Without this constraint, poor government spending becomes inevitable - as it has, and is.

Free speech:

A well-intentioned individual should never have to second-guess if they might be breaking the law, in saying what they believe needs to be said. When that standard slips, we are in trouble.

Hate speech laws are dangerous, because the truth is any speech critical of any individual or group can be interpreted as hate-driven, if someone in authority so wishes to see it that way.

There can never be hate speech laws. It is infinitely too dangerous and subjective. Ugly speech will always exist, but it must be opposed with more speech - not suppressed speech. Fact-checking and comments sections can continue to do their job.

The Islam Problem

 

Andrew Atkin - March, 25

The Basic Picture:

Islam confuses people because it has nice verses and nasty verses, relating to the infidel (non believer). It appears to contradict itself, but actually it doesn't...

According to the leading American expert on Islam, Dr Bill Warner, Islam is dualistic. This means it has two modes of operation depending on the circumstance. To be simple, Islam says "Play nice when your numbers and power in the host country is low", and also "Get nasty when you're bigger and can afford to throw your weight around"...

So, the early "play nice" verses get functionally overridden by later verses, when Islam no longer has to play nice. The key in knowing when and where a Muslim should play good or bad, is given through prophet Mohammed's historic example which is explicit. According to Islam, whatever Muhammed did was faultless and righteous. He's the perfect example ordained by Allah.

Islam is a slow-burning expansionist cookbook for global domination - the formation of a global caliphate being its ultimate goal. It's been cranking along for 1,400 years and thus far 1.8 billion have been converted, largely (historically) by the sword, and there's another 6 billion or so to go. 

Mohammed was the ultimate warlord, and his brilliantly composed religious machine is still working its magic today.

Muslim versus Islam:

I would like to stress that it's extremely important to differentiate the Muslim from Islam. Maybe most Muslims hardly know their full faith and want no kind of war with the infidel. 

Also, there is the private relationship any one individual has with their faith. Certainly, some are true believers and are potentially dangerous. Many more will be believing only in part, and will basically just be playing along to keep the peace with their culture.

The price of rejecting Islam--even in part--for the common Muslim begins with full rejection from family and friends, and ends with the death sentence for apostacy (which is sharia law). So, of course Muslims are never going to be completely open with their personal opinions. 

Islam is brutal on any form of dissent. This is, of course, one of the many ways the faith protects itself from reform.

Regardless, this is why I believe it's important to never judge a Muslim by their apparent faith. We have no idea what really goes on in a given Muslim's mind. Judge Islam if you will - but not the Muslim. Muslims are born into incredible pressures.

The danger of Islam:

Brigitte Gabriel, the Lebanese-American activist, grew up in the horrific war in Lebanon in the 1980's. Lebanon was first a Christian nation then devastated by Islamic terrorists "doing Allah's work" like "Mohammed had shown them"...  

Brigitte Gabriel commented [paraphrasing] that "Of course there are (harmless) moderate Muslims, but they proved to be irrelevant. The sizable extremists took over and drove the nation to war".

That's a powerful message and an important warning. If your country has a growing number of Muslims then the right thing to do is not beat up on them, or necessarily kick them out. You probably don't need to be that gross. It's best to just keep a close eye on whatever is happening inside the mosques, to be ready to immediately identify and weed-out problems with what we call radicalisation.

Islam, without a doubt, is prone to creating radicals and is specifically designed to do so (sorry!). It's part of the Islamic plan, and as evidenced by history it works. 

Every nation has a responsibility to be honest about Islam and take action to make sure radicalisation never happens within its own borders. Islam is a totalitarian machine completely antagonistic to Western freedom as we know it. Muslims are not your enemy - but Islam can be.