The "Constitution" & "President" Pemes

Freespeak (
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:02:33 -0700

[Note: Earlier parts of the debate -- including the "peme rules"
-- can be found at <>,
which will be periodically updated.]

Note how the way Mike Stallings now perceives
certain political events and how he reacts to
them emotionally has changed as a result of
greater awareness of pemes.

The "Liberty" Documentary

At 11:19 PM 3/17/98 -0500, Mike Stallings
<> wrote:
>Posted by: Mike Stallings <>
>Did anyone see the recent PBS documentary series
>called "Liberty - The American Revolution"?
>It was an excellently produced program using the
>actual words from letters of the people involved
>with a minimum of commentary - a la Ken Burns'
>"Civil War".
>What struck me was the episode which covered the
>creation of the constitution. Having just read
>Spooner's "No Treason: the Constitution of No
>Authority" just a month or so ago, I was really
>shocked by my reaction to the documentary at this
>point. The commentators were visibly elated and
>waxing patriotic on this incredible achievement
>of mankind, and where previously I would have
>joined in the chorus of angelic voices, I found
>myself saying to the TV: "No, No, don't do it!
>You'll ruin everything!" - like I was watching
>a movie where the victim is walking into the
>predator's trap but doesn't know it. You've
>watched the movie intently and then you find
>yourself wanting to shout, "Don't go in there!
>He's got a gun!"
>I saw the constitutional convention with new eyes.
>The arguments of the anti-federalists were so
>prophetic. They warned against the tyranny of
>the democratic mob while the federalists countered
>with "what, are we going to enslave _ourselves_?"
>One conventioneer said, regarding the bill of
>rights, to the effect: "We don't need a piece of
>paper to tell us our rights, and no piece of paper
can protect our rights should someone chose to
>violate them." And this guy was a federalist,
>and _against_ the addition of the bill of rights
>for this very reason!
>The contradictions in this piece of history are
>glaring. The colonists had just fought a long
>and bloody war against tyranny, and almost
>immediately set about the construction of an
>all-comsuming federal monolith to take the place
>of the king. Replacing a capricious monarch with
>a capricious mob - to be staffed and run by....
>who else? ...the conventioneers themselves! The
>convention was carried on in strict secrecy so
>that the public would not know what was being
>considered before the delegates had a chance
>to return home and get a head start on greasing
>the wheels of public opinion with carefully
>crafted arguments. The final contradiction on
>the "birth of Democracy" was the fact that this
>"democratic vote" that would be taken to usher
>it in would be restricted to the "representatives"
>of a fraction of the non-slave, wealthy, white
>land owners! (i.e., "We The People")
>My point in bringing this up within the peme
>discussion is this: The facts were presented well,
>but the underpinning of the whole presentation
>was the glorification of the submerged collective
>peme of "Democracy". I felt the tug of "national
>pride" and heard the violins playing in my head,
>but it didn't work this time. In times past I
>would have welled up with a few patriotic tears
>and looked for the nearest flag so as to pledge
>my allegiance to it. Amazing what a little reading
>and critical thinking can do, eh?
>There is an interesting discussion to be had in
>analyzing the history of the revolution, the
>players involved, and the commencement of the
>building of the national "peme infrastructure"
>that followed in America.
"Democracy" is certainly an important peme used
extensively by politicians to increase their power.

Many people have strong emotions attached to their
deepest pemes, notably the "patriotic" ones.

You've started the process of clearing pemes from
your mind. I hope you'll continue it.

In my own case, it was also after reading Spooner's
'No Treason' that I got going

At 01:23 PM 1/22/98 GMT, "L. Reichard White"
<Rick.Rabbit@ELMOS.COM> wrote:
>> Posted by: "Martin Lindstedt" <>:
>> At 11:56 AM 1/18/98 -0500, Dick wrote:
>>>Martin, I'm relatively new on this list, but you seem
>>>to be conveying the message the U.S. Constitution was
>>>NEVER for the benefit of the citizens of the States of
>>>the Union. I don't understand that. What are some of
>>>the major problems with our Constitution?
>>>The problem that does exist is Congress is using it for
>>>toilet paper and we sit by and let them do it.
>>The CONstitution was never made for the benefit of the
>>common people in mind, regardless of what you were told
>>to the contrary. After all, it was formed by a bunch
>>of lawyers getting together in secret to cut a deal by
>>which they all would get gubbnmint jobs and special
>>privileges. I mean what do you expect to result from
>>such a coven of the rascals?
>I'm NOT a particularly ardent fan of the US Constitution
>-- but the current problems here ARE NOT because of that
>document. Read the ninth & tenth Amendments.
>If the pond-scum that lives in Washington merely obeyed
>their oaths of office to uphold said Constitution,
>particularly these two amendments, at least 95% of the
>Federal Government, not to mention the so-called "income
>tax," would be instantly gone. Not perfect, but a definite
>Don't waste time attacking the US Constitution --- more
>extreme measures are required.
You're right that more extreme measures are required.
For starters, you can clear the "constitution" peme
from your mind. You need to attack the very *notion*
of a so-called "constitution."

Some 70+ "fleecing fathers" (James Hazel's term
at <>)
got together in secrecy and called themselves
"We The People..." The entire proceedings were
a fraudulent hoax. And what they produced -- the
pretended or falsely-called "constitution" was and
is no less a fraudulent document, a hoax, a sham.

How much power would terrocrats (coercive political
agents or terrorist bureaucrats) have in the absence
of the word/peme "constitution" or any equivalent?

The word/peme "constitution" is a lie in itself.
Read '#TL07: The Constitution of No Authority'
<> and

What Lysander Spooner and others have essentially
indicated is that *the entire political system* is
a hoax, a fraud, a sham. Spooner also indicated
that all the pretended "presidents," "ambassadors,"
etc. were then and are now liars and imposters --
"a secret band of robbers and murderers."

The hucksters call themselves "president," etc.
and the suckers believe them.

At 10:10 PM 3/15/98 -0700, "Anton Sherwood"
<> wrote:
>Frederick Mann wrote:
>> Do you really believe that a certain clever,
>> lying trickster is "president" (so-called)?
> [...]
>> Was the "president" deep peme perhaps planted
>> in your brain? Did you buy it? Have you been
>> perpetuating and spreading it? In this respect,
>> has your mind been serving as a weapon for the
>> tyrants?
>> "Man in the street": "The Emperor is wonderful!"
>> Violent anarchist: "Kill the Emperor!"
>> Typical libertarian: "The Emperor has no clothes!"
>> Deep anarchist: "Why do you hallucinate
>> an ordinary naked man as
>> "Emperor" (so-called)?"
[[At 07:00 PM 3/16/98 +0000, "Svein Olav G. Nyberg"
<solan@MATHS.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>Egoist: It was I who nicked his clothes.
This is a profound observation. In the tradition
of Stirner, Nietzsche, and Gurdjieff, the Complete
Egoist has developed the ability to *question
and challenge everything*. The "clothes" of the
falsely-called "Emperor" are his pemes -- literally
(his "uniform") and figuratively (the words used
to dupe his "subjects" into thinking that he's
"special"). The egoist strips off the "clothes."]]
>Because that ordinary naked man is surrounded by
>goons, he is different from you and me.
Maybe he *appears* different, primarily because of
the pemes in your head, the pemes in the heads of
the "masses," and the pemes in the heads of the
goons; and secondarily because of the guns they

In the absence of the pemes, how many guns could
he command?

>The words "president" and "emperor" are job-titles
>for leaders of particular types of gangs. If I say
>so-and-so is a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan,
>does that mean I buy into the Klan's racist memes?
They are commonly used very differently from job-
titles -- among other things to imply superiority
and inferiority: "master" and "subject."

If you're a member of the KKKK and you call another
member "Grand Dragon," you position yourself as
inferior to him: "subject" and "master."

If you call yourself "citizen" and you call someone
"president," then you position yourself as a "subject"
in relation to a "master."

>When the FBI - excuse me, a certain set of terrocrats
>who call themselves "FBI" - gave a certain other
>terrorist the title "Unabomber", what did that imply
>about their memes?
He who places the label and can make it stick has the
power. (But when the gun's stronger than the label,
it's time to run!)

>If a certain "clever, lying trickster" has power to
>interfere with my life in ways that other "clever,
>lying tricksters" cannot, it seems to me that's
>sufficient reason to give him a distinctive label.
I suggest "the terrocrat trickster in the white house"
or some such. "Slick Willie" also seems appropriate
at this time.

>(As if "trickster" isn't itself a special label!)
He who places the label and can make it stick has the

Maybe many humans have a psychological need for an
"emperor" in the same way that lesser baboons need
an alpha-male to guide and protect them. Maybe we
should call it the "Emperor Norton Syndrome" -- see
<> and

Frederick Mann
"The [one] who knows what freedom is will find a way to be free."
-- Robert LeFevre
"We are free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it."
-- William Faulkner
"The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
-- Steve Biko
Practical Freedom - Live free. | Ideal meeting place to network & brain-
Practical knowledge, methods, | storm new, creative, and innovative
skills - Millionaire Reports. | freedom ideas & initiatives. Subscribe:
Expertise at your fingertips: | E-mail | with SUBSCRIBE in the message body.