Monday, March 25, 2013

We the People? Or, We the Slaves?

The Preamble of the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We, the People" – What does that mean? Who are "the people"? Should "the people" be trusted? Should we include as "the People" those among us who advocate and actually prefer and enjoy their servitude, those who are hostile to and fear the "Blessings of Liberty"? What is their conception of "domestic Tranquility"?  Of "Justice"? What is ours?

"What is a slave?" asks Daniel Greenfield in his Sultan Knish column of March 24th, "From Freedom to Slavery."  

A slave is complicit in his own oppression. His slavery has become his natural state and he looks to his master, not to free him, but to command him.

How many Europeans are complicit in their own slavery? A mental slavery that automatically defers to the authority of the state of their individual nations, and then to the authority of the behemoth of the European Union? How many Americans today are complicit in their own slavery? Americans who were not seeking a master and an icon of authority, an authority who fraudulently boasted of possessing the magical means to correct all their problems and satisfy their every want, would never have ever voted for Barack Obama, not the first time, and certainly not a second time, after having available to them ample evidence of the enslaving and destructive consequences of his policies and his multifaceted intention to diminish their freedom.

Like their European counterparts, American slaves may grouse about their masters about promises made and broken, but still obey their masters' commands. They continue to hope for change. And if the "change" is for the worse, they will still obey and follow, and blame the free for the failure.

Men who reject the evidence of their senses are voluntary slaves. Being voluntary slaves, they can only envy those who are free, free in the literal sense, and free of the slave mentality, and vigorously and viciously clamor for the enslavement of the free, as well. Superficially, they believe that only when all men are slaves, the paradises of milk and honey will magically come about. They blame the free of obstructing the creation of that paradise. Fit the free with fetters, they say, and all will be well, and the paradise will work smoothly and effortlessly. All will be equal, and none shall move forward unless it is with all.

The slave's notion of a "more perfect Union" is compulsory servitude for all. His notion of "Justice" is an enforced egalitarianism in which no one is "above" anyone else in wealth, income, abilities, or even physical appearance. His notion of "Domestic Tranquility" is not a civil society, but a mutually shared stasis and immobility, with no ripples of dissension permitted that would disturb the calm. And, to a slave, liberty has no blessings.

This is the alchemist's dream that all willing slaves share, to turn gold into lead.

The advocates and tolerant of universal slavery – the enslaved and their spokesmen in government and academia and the non-profit foundations and the unions – are moved by a malignity that is proof against reason. They hate and fear freedom, for others' freedom robs them of power, the power to remake men at the point of a gun, at the levy of a tax, of the imposition of a regulation, of a proclamation of prohibition. And they hate freedom because they know they are guilty of submitting to slave masters when they could have said "No."

A slave's mind is insulated against emancipation, against reason, against reality. He does not wish to be manumitted, not from his delusions, or his fantasies, or from his actual servitude. A slave's mind is comfortable in its bondage. In such a state it is relieved of the responsibility of thought, of effort, of the requirements of self-preservation. A voluntary slave wishes to be preserved, to exist without reason or purpose.

Herodotus relates that when a storm destroyed the bridge over the Hellespont over which the Persian tyrant Xerxes planned to invade Greece, as punishment, Xerxes ordered the Hellespont to be whipped three hundred times, that fetters be cast into its waters, and that it be branded with hot irons. When a "democracy" of slaves fails to achieve its ends by force, the slave's demagogic leader will scream that his slaves should blame the rich and the able and anyone else suspected of not "giving back" to society, and that they should be lashed and put in fetters.

Barack Obama is more Persian in that respect than he is Islamic or Communist. But the consequences are the same, regardless of his ideological calibration.

The willing slave knows that slavery is not a badge of self-respect and dignity. In the self-induced lethargy of his mind, he wishes to vanquish the free, so that should he and all his brothers who savor slavery, they the enslaved, perish from their own slavery, the free will perish, as well. Such minds, in their slang parlance, don’t want to "go there." And that is their secret, unexpressed desire, a motive they dare not reveal to their victims, nor even discuss among themselves. To paraphrase the motto of the Three Musketeers: All for one, or none at all. Should we slaves perish from our own folly, the free shall not inherit the earth.

They know, in the darkest corners of their minds, that should men reach the edge of the cliff they suspect lies ahead in the fog of their consciousnesses, the fettered free and slave alike will plummet en masse over it. There will be pushing, and shoving, and the gnashing of teeth, and anyone who pushes back, will be stomped to death.

"We the People" should not include men who wish to be slaves. The Preamble to our Constitution was not written for them.

It was written for us.

4 comments:

Tuck said...

You end your comments "It was written for us." Who is us? I don't know where you get your references from and I find your comments to be twisted and morbid.

Edward Cline said...

Tuck: If you don't get it, I can't help you. Or are you a troll?

Grant Jones said...

Tuck do you take personally Ed's view that those who support Zero are slaves who have cast their own chains? It sure sounds like it.

Pete said...

I like to characterize the subject raised here as "Drift
vs Thrift". And by "us" Ed is naturally referring to men of thrift, who exercise their reasoning faculty in order to pursue their lives; not men who try to escape the exercise in order to "pursue" the mindless routine of an animal's existence.

A self-made man is a living embodiment of the guilt the self-made slave feels for his decision to evade the reality of his nature. The man of thrift is a constant reminder and inescapable testament to the fact that the man of drift has made the wrong decision. That's why the 'thrifter' has to be liquidated, because his very presence disturbs the tranquility of the drifter's mindless existence.

Not coincidentally this tranquility is known within environmentalism as "harmony with nature", which welcomes all but the reasoning animals.