To discover whether the so-called Free World, by which is meant the West, is actually free, one must have an objective criterion by which to assess freedom.  One must know what freedom is and how it stands in relation to evolution.  One must eschew the relative in favour of the absolute, and by comparing what currently exists in the world, as a given system, with this desired absolute, one will see how free, if at all, that system really is.

      Evolution being a struggle from the Diabolic Alpha to the Divine Omega, from the raging stars in one absolute context ... to the eventual emergence of pure spirit in another, it must follow that freedom, in any ultimate sense, can only be interpreted as a freedom from the former and a dedication to the latter.  In other words, the freer a man is ... the less will he be under the influence or domination of the Diabolic, with its selfless naturalism.  Degrees of freedom can therefore be ascertained along an evolving spectrum ... from the ultimate negativity in stellar energy to the ultimate positivity in transcendent spirit.  How, then, does the 'Free World' stand up to the test of freedom, as defined above?

      To answer this question, one must understand what freedom usually means in the West.  Generally speaking, it means the freedom to worship as one chooses, to vote for one of a number of political alternatives, to exercise freedom of opinion, to buy and amass property of one's own, to conduct business in the interests of personal profit, to become an avant-garde artist, to read what one likes, to practise transcendental meditation, and so on.  These, I think, are most of the main or, at any rate, obvious freedoms normally found in Western society.  Let us now put them to the test, using our ethical criterion.

      The freedom to worship as one chooses is not really a manifestation of omega-oriented freedom, as we may call that which aspires towards pure spirit, but an example of alpha-stemming boundness.  To worship is either to worship God the Father or Jesus Christ.  In Christianity it is mostly to worship Christ, although the Father or, to give Him an alternative name, the Creator (Jehovah) ... is by no means ignored.  On the other hand, the Holy Spirit cannot be worshipped, for the simple reason that it is a state of blissful being to aspire towards, rather than an already-existent fact.  One can only worship what exists, either as a theological entity (Christ) or as an abstraction from cosmic reality (the Father), and to do this is to be bound to the Alpha Absolute, even if, as where Christ is concerned, there is an omega-oriented element involved.  With the Creator, however, there is no omega-oriented element at all, no transcendent spirituality, since this anthropomorphic deity appertains to the subconscious ... as an abstraction, in all likelihood, from the governing star of the Galaxy ... out of which both the lesser stars and the planets originally 'fell'.  To worship is therefore to be bound (to that star) rather than to be free (from it).

      To vote for one of a number of political alternatives, which is the next 'freedom' under consideration, isn't quite what it may at first appear, since in a capitalist democracy one of the parties concerned will always be more bound to aristocratic and/or bourgeois materialism than the others, which means that a vote for that party is, in effect, a vote for slavery to capitalist materialism to a greater extent than would be the case with liberal or left-wing parties, although they, too, are partly allied to such a materialism.  No, so long as there are parties with either aristocratic or bourgeois loyalties, the politics in question will be largely bound instead of free.  Freedom comes with an aspiration towards the supernatural, towards pure spirit, and although politics can never be conducted on strictly religious terms, nevertheless parties with allegiance to the proletariat, within a context of social democracy, will reflect a greater degree of political freedom, as a rule, than any others.

      As to the right to exercise freedom of opinion, this is partly tied-up with dualistic politics and religion, since appropriate to a stage of evolution when no absolute aspiration towards the divine omega is under way in post-dualistic terms.  It entails freedom to defend or champion what is bound to the sensual, the material, the diabolic, the galactic-world-order, and thus, in practice, can fall a long way short of truly free opinion, which will be aligned with a post-dualistic, omega-oriented system of beliefs.

      The 'freedom' to buy and amass property of one's own likewise entails loyalty to what stems from the Diabolic Alpha rather than to what aspires towards the Divine Omega, since private property emphasizes the individual, with his materialistic acquisitions, and is accordingly an aspect of a process at a sublimated remove from the possessive tendency of stars to amass either weaker stars (suns) or planets to themselves, as a matter of cosmic necessity.  To have one's own property is to be bound to materialism, like a star, and to amass additional property, whether large or small, is to extend the dominion of the materialistic in one's life at the expense of spiritual freedom.

      Likewise the 'freedom' to conduct business in the interests of personal profit enslaves one to materialism and makes the acquirement of profit an end-in-itself, quite divorced, it may transpire, from work satisfaction or quality of work or, indeed, the nature of the product itself.  Christ is reputed to have said that it was 'easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven', and that may well illustrate why, in the interests of spiritual freedom, it is better not to become bound to wealth.  Those who do so will never be free to any significant extent!

      On the other hand, the freedom to become an avant-garde artist reflects, in the main, a freedom from the sensual, apparent, concrete realm of artistic activity, and may well be indicative of an omega-oriented tendency compatible with evolutionary progress on the post-dualistic level.  Even when the object of this art is to discredit the external, natural world; even when, in other words, it is anti-natural rather than pro-transcendental, it connotes with evolutionary freedom from the natural-world-order to the extent that it attacks, distorts, and belittles whatever is bound to that order, whether human, animal, or vegetable, and thus indirectly assists in the re-orientation of the mind towards supernatural criteria.

      As to the freedom to read what one likes, this too can entail the study of books, magazines, papers, etc., which do in fact subscribe to anti-natural and/or pro-transcendental tendencies; although, unfortunately, it can also entail the study of traditional, reactionary, or anachronistic kinds of writings which bind one to what stems, in selfless aggression, from the diabolic roots of evolution, and thus preclude, for large numbers of less-informed people, true enlightenment.  A post-dualistic society, on the other hand, would only encourage the reading of books, magazines, etc., compatible with transcendental criteria, thus preventing the everywhichway cultural or intellectual confusions which arise in and necessarily appertain to liberal societies, with their atomic relativity.  Freed from the pernicious influence of writings bound, in one degree or another, to the Diabolic Alpha, the people would be enabled to acquire an exclusively omega-oriented education worthy of the highest civilization.

      Finally, the freedom to practise transcendental meditation in public halls, or wherever, is another aspect of Western life that, carried-on in the right non-mystical spirit, is conducive towards a freedom from the sensual realm and aspiration towards the spiritual one.  We need not doubt that this, too, should be encouraged in the future.

      Getting back to the question of whether the 'Free World' is really free and, if so, to what extent, we can now answer it by contending that in some contexts, not least of all the freedom to worship as one chooses, to vote for one of a number of alternative class parties, to amass property, and so on, the so-called Free World is really bound, in varying degrees, to the diabolic roots of evolution in the stars.  Whereas in certain other contexts, notably avant-garde art and transcendentalism, it is probably more free from those roots than anywhere else in the world, and accordingly reflects an aspiration, whether directly or indirectly, towards the divine consummation of evolution in the transcendental Beyond.  In all probability, the omega-oriented tendencies outweigh the alpha-stemming ones in a majority of Western countries these days.  But the continual existence of the latter provides adequate grounds, as I see it, for ideological opposition and their subsequent elimination, in the event of a truly moral society coming to pass.