The True* Kind of Freedom

We talked about a lot over the week, but most of it revolved around freedom. So, today, boys/men and girls/women, let's talk about the true* kind of freedom.
     Now, I understand that there are many kinds of freedom or at least, interpretations of it; however, this is just about the true* kind. Have I said that enough times yet?
     In World War Z by Max Brooks (definitely check it out), under The Great Panic section, during the interview Maria Zhuganova in the Holy Russian Empire, at the end of her interview (prepositions make the world go 'round), she says, "We relinquished our freedom that day, and we were more than happy to see it go. From that moment on we lived in true freedom, the freedom to point to someone else and say 'They told me to do it! It's their fault, not mine.' The freedom, God help us, to say 'I was only following orders'" (Brooks 83).
     I read that over a couple of times, then I compared that with 1984 by George Orwell's freedom: Freedom is Slavery.
    THEN, I compared that with Declaration of Independence's freedom: to be free from the tyrannical reign of G.B.; to be their own nation; to be free from slavery.
    Then I stopped comparing. In World War Z's case, being free is being able to do what you're told without fear of consequence because you were just following orders; to be able to redirect the blame to whoever told you. They gave the order, after all. If so, what freedom did they relinquish? Their freedom to be in control of themselves. You can't say "wasn't me" when it's convenient. You're either always responsible for your actions, or never. There's no flip flopping on this one. Because I don't want this to distinction to be missed: They didn't do it, they did what they were told, which just so happened to be it. They no longer have to think about what they're doing, only do what they're told. By releasing their control, they received the freedom to act without fear of consequence; without guilt.
     Okay, so when someone relinquishes control of their actions, and is instead, subservient to another, they're...what's that called again? Please, don't be so politically correct. They're pretty much voluntary slaves. And slaves are generally in what again? Slavery, right. So their freedom lies within their slavery. We can simplify this: Freedom is Slavery. Well gosh darn it, Orwell was right; at least, Brooks also came to that conclusion. As we all (hopefully know), by the end of the novel, Winston has given himself to Big Brother. He's relinquished his fighting spirit, and simply accepted everything they've told him. He allows himself to become a slave, and in this thoughtless way, he has become free from Thought Crime. How can he commit it, if he doesn't have to think--just do?
   "Wait Paityn," you're saying to yourself, "but the Declaration of Independence was all about escaping their slavery and becoming a new, free nation, oh silly, you've entirely missed the point." Or maybe you're just skimming this because this is borderline rant now, either way, I'm getting there. I'm talking about true freedom, here, not good freedom. If America had just stayed subservient to G.B., they would have eventually learned through forced submission to just do whatever they were told. They would have become free in its truest sense. The Dec. of Ind. might have served to a higher, better freedom, which eventually led to a (usually) wonderful nation, but it didn't serve the truest freedom: the freedom of slavery.