The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

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.

Previous

Our Imploding World

Next

Madison vs. Obama

4 Comments

  1. Stan

    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.

  2. Edward Cline

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

  3. Anonymous

    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.

  4. Pete

    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.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén