by Frederick Mann
Copyright © 1997 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Editor Frederick Mann: This report contains two parts; both deal with the falsely-called "US Constitution." The first part is by James Hazel, P.O. Box 863, Mount Angel, OR 97362. Contact him for some fascinating freedom information.]
PART I: ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST
by James Hazel
You will find the enclosed articles, published under the Masthead of THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST, to be factual and provocative. They raise disturbing questions concerning the basis of modern government. These questions MUST BE ANSWERED by individuals who are in search of personal Liberty. Failure to solve the riddles posed by a bewildering Constitution can result, at best, in wasted energy and spirit-crushing frustration. At worst, failure may result in individual tragedies and collective catastrophe.
But an individual cannot answer questions he does not know how to ask; or solve riddles of which he is unaware. That's where you come in! It's important that these questions, issues and "riddles" be brought to the attention of numerous Americans.
It is essential that a dialogue begin to take place concerning the intentions and covert motives behind the Constitution; and of that instrument's real purposes, as well as its grave, deleterious effects throughout the history of America. Many of the issues raised in my enclosed articles, have NEVER BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE! These are indeed novel, CUTTING EDGE CONCEPTS. As you will soon realize -- they are well-documented; and you may wonder why no one, in over 200 years, has raised them before. You will find one answer to that question in 'THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY,' which is included herein.
For the benefit of your subscribers and readers, I urge you to reprint any or all of the enclosed ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST articles that you find of interest. I will appreciate your giving appropriate credit for the source.
I also publish some powerful, mind-boggling, and thoroughly- documented reviews and commentaries -- for details, contact: James Hazel, P.O. Box 863, Mount Angel, OR 97362.
I Thank you in advance for taking the time to examine and review the enclosures. But be forewarned: they may knock your socks off!
THAT CUNNING CONSTITUTION
On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine clever businessmen proposed a Constitution for the United States of America. Today, those 39 men are memorialized as the Founding Fathers. A more perfect title for the consortium would be the Fleecing Fathers!
With unparalleled conceit, they styled themselves: "We, the People of the United States." Never before in history had there been a legal body named "the People of the United States." In the Union of Independent States, under the Articles of Confederation, there were citizens of a State and residents or inhabitants of a State, but no collective status named People of a State or of States. The Fleecing Fathers coined the name for themselves. Their motives were as sinister as the Constitution they tagged after their new name; after: "We, the People of the United States, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union..."
The Charter they crafted was as hallucinatory [emphasis added] as a President's State of the Union address; wordsmithed to appear innocuous, but in language calculated to slash, kill and indenture the innocents who are lulled to sleep by euphonic rhetoric.
Their proposed constitution was advertised as the blueprint for eternal bliss; for peace, safety and order for all free men then living, and for their generations ad infinitum.
BUT IN FACT, it provided for that constitution to be a commercial establishment; to be erected in an unapproachable place, above, around, but most particularly BETWEEN the wealthy States of the Union whose names it plagiarized. The face of the Preamble and the seven Articles of Incorporation literally reveal to whom the profits and benefits are assigned: to the Fleecing Fathers (We, the People) and their linear descendants.
Did you think the Constitution was a Warm, Fuzzy Sacred Puppy!?
LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
1. "We, the People of the United States" includes ONLY those 39 men who signed the Constitution on September 27, 1787.
2. The only Public Authority vested in the 39 Signers was to "propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation." In 1781, those Articles of Confederation had established a perpetual Union of States.
3. The Constitution established an entirely different Union, without abolishing the perpetual Union. Its authors did not propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They acted individually and collectively in their private capacity.
4. The Constitution is a private-law instrument which establishes a commercial monopoly. Its primary "place of business" or Seat of Government is between and above the States of the perpetual Union.
5. The Constitution does not act directly on citizens of the States in perpetual Union except on those citizens who voluntarily or tacitly consented to be subject to its terms.
6. The perpetual Union consisted of only those 13 sovereign States which joined under the Articles of Confederation. No other States have ever been added to that Union.
7. All 50 "states," which are members of the "United States" pursuant to the Constitution, are all "new States" or "statuses"; including the original 13 state-names; surreptitiously appropriated from the 13 States in perpetual Union.
8. Inhabitants, citizens or residents of the 37 district-states which have been admitted to the different, more perfect Union by the Congress, since the first 13 new States were admitted in 1789, have no standing to claim the rights which are reserved to citizens of the sovereign States in perpetual Union. They may claim their Natural Birthrights, with no organized government to support and adjudicate their claims. Or they may claim the puny, revocable privileges offered by the Constitution in exchange for their allegiance and servile servitude.
THE CONSTITUTION: BLUEPRINT FOR HUMAN BONDAGE
The 39 authors of the Constitution, resorted to virtually every editorial trick in the book to draft an instrument which would enable them, and their heirs, to enslave whoever would dare cross, or be born into, their private es-State.
The instrument is all about enslaving the mass of men under the euphemism of voluntary servitude. To interpret their motives and methods, we examine the Corporate Articles which concern human slavery: Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 4 and 5, and Article V (which refers to Article I, Section 9). The most pertinent Clause of Article I, provided as follows:
"The Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
The 39 inventors of the Private Commercial Constitution were not concerned with eventually abolishing slavery of black men, but with extending coercive servitude to include ALL men other than themselves and their posterity, while collecting a tax on import and export of slaves, for the corporate coffer.
As provided by Article VII, the Constitution was erected as an Establishment (i.e., a place of business or commerce) on imaginary lines ABOVE and BETWEEN the States which would ratify or agree to it, and which would thereby collectively grant the 39 "We, the People" the private corporate charter they proposed and applied for. Having acquired absolute jurisdiction over the "places" drawn by imaginary lines; they thereafter had the right to charge tolls, fees, duties or taxes for any person or thing that may cross their private property.
Other provisions, including provision for establishing the corporate headquarters in a district (of Columbia), situated between states; and the promulgation of new Articles (known as the "13th and 14th amendments"), with their prolific byelaws, made completion of their scheme of mass enslavement, possible.
DECODING THE MOTHER OF ALL RIDDLES
When is this Union not the Union?
In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First impressions, however, are often wrong.
Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing? HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making legal instruments.
When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! That's a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," that's exactly what they meant!
The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are those which focus the "victim's" attention away from the solution. In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic [emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution for over 200 years.
Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence, invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles.
They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article 2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect Union.
For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in 1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit. [emphasis added]
The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego" and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more unique.
Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers' Constitution acts directly on that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union, nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the Authors and their Posterity.
As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order, after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped. "When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the original, lawful Union.
A MOUSE IN BEN'S POCKET
[from Joshua Mouse's Notes On the Constitutional Convention]
A cabal of businessmen, mostly Free Masons, met in secret sessions. They were charged, as their respective credentials stated, to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They soon adopted a different, more sinister agenda.
In their public capacity, authorized by the Legislatures of several independent States "to amend or revise the Articles of Confederation"; they were obligated to Convene in Public.
But Secret Societies, by definition and necessity, meet in secret. As for business or commercial negotiations, especially those which involve trade secrets: the historical Maxim is that it's nobody else's business. The fact that the Free Press and the general public were barred from the Convention, raised many hackles and suspicions. Patrick Henry, from his vantage point outside the bar, in Virginia, thought he smelt a rat.
The year was 1787. The place: Philadelphia's State House. Security was tight. A pundit was heard to exclaim: "Nary a mouse could breech the guard." But one did. His name was Joshua. His notes read (in pertinent part) as follows:
JUNE 23, 1787, 2 O'clock P.M. -- The argument between Mason and Hamilton wearied the Master, who called a recess.
B. Franklin, G. Washington and A. Hamilton retired to the table near my post, discretely distant from the others. Grasping fast my notepad, I scurried into the generous pocket of Franklin's coat to better hear, while taking repast of crumbs his careless valet had missed on last cleaning.
GW: To continue the conversation began over dinner last night: of this I am certain: to indenture the common herd to serve us like our black slaves, will require their tacit consent. We must therefore devise an instrument that they will unanimously misperceive to be in their best interests, over our own. It must appear to be not only for them, but more importantly, deriving from, of and by the common people, while the ultimate power is reserved to us.
AH: (Addressing Franklin): The proposition of our friend and lodge Brother, George, deserves our most profound scrutiny and assistance. If General Washington's martial talents are excelled by others, it is his experience and expertise in Agriculture; and especially in the management, breeding, and domestication of black human animals.
BF: Gentlemen, we have long had before us a model of a contract such as George advocates. Back in '34, when I was a young printer, I published Anderson's Constitutions; which established the formal, written government for the fraternity of Free Masons. Surely you have both studied it as you have progressed through the Degrees.
Recall its Article 10, which permits even probates of each Lodge to merge their opinions with the majority, to be addressed to their Master. Not, mind you, that the Master need act on the instructions of the lowly. And consider Article 39, which provides for secret election of the Grand Master and other officers; with its appearance that Power lies with the majority; but is silent about the provocateurs who mingle with it, fomenting the consensus of opinion.
In combination, the Articles of Anderson's Constitutions establishes a government which superficially appears to be of, by and for the general Lodge membership, but which in their legal language make all meaningful power to reside in the hands of the Ruling Elite.
Anderson's is an exemplary model for accomplishing what George proposes; that is: drawing the labor of all inhabitants, of every race -- with the exception of ourselves and our posterity-- into a condition of tacitly-consensual servitude; to be human resources for our eternal Agri-Business.
(Old Ben pushed a soiled handkerchief into my sanctuary. The discussion continued for several more minutes; but muffled to my ear).
I scampered from Franklin's coat as the threesome arose, and resumed my post near the woodpile.
A. Hamilton received permission to address the Convention. "Gentlemen," he began, "I propose a new form of government; a proposal which will end our impasse and which, I predict, will garner the unanimous approval of the governed..."
THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA
Constitutionalists are Constitutionalists because they are confused. All it takes for one to become a fervent Anti-Constitutionalist is A BRIEF MOMENT OF CLARITY. This may be that moment!
The typical Constitutionalist adheres religiously to the false tenet that the Constitution provided for a continuing government for those thirteen sovereign States which comprised the Union under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, the Doctrine alleges that upon ratification of the Constitution, those 13 States came into the more perfect Union, lock, stock and barrel.
In fact, only the NAMES of those 13 States were admitted into the more perfect Union! After the new, different Union was established with the admission of the first 13 names, the perpetual Union between the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation, continued to exist. Neither the boundaries, sovereignty nor jurisdiction of any of the Original States was altered or abolished. And they exist today. Perpetuity is much longer than 200 years!
The first 13 names to enter the more perfect Union were each admitted under authority of Article IV, Section 3, of that Sacred Writ; that Corporate Commercial Charter to which so many fools pledge their lives and honor: the Constitution for the United States of America. It states:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another (perpetual Union) State; nor any (new) State be formed by the Junction of two or more (new) States, or parts of (new) States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the (new) States concerned as well as of the Congress."
We, the People, those 39 inventors of the more perfect Union, lacked authority to act on the Sovereign States of the Confederation. Therefore, each reference they made to "any State or States," referred only to their New States - to names or Statuses. The Original States, under the Articles of Confederation, remained intact and sovereign; associated in an unique perpetual Union.
By the explicit terms of the Charter (at Article IV, Section 3, above), no new Name or Status (State) admitted into the more perfect Union, could bring with it any jurisdiction (power and authority) of any perpetual Union State.
Article IV, Section 3, provides that new States "may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The Unanimous Order of the Convention, issued simultaneous with the signing of the proposed Constitution, provided that the Congress and President be selected and installed BEFORE the terms of the Constitution, including the admission of any States, would be executed.
Before approving admission of new names or statuses (States) into nominal, inferior membership; the "Chairman" (President) and "Board of Directors" who were charged with enacting the bylaws (the Congress), must be installed.
All new members, names, statuses (States), beginning with the first 13, were admitted only by approval of the pre-installed Congress.
The "United States of America" under the commercial Constitution is a clever forgery, which appropriates not only the names of lawful States in perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation, but even the name of that pre-existing Union, itself!
The Constitution is a gigantic fraud, perpetrated upon generations of trusting and gullible inhabitants of North America. It doesn't benefit me; and it doesn't benefit YOU, unless you are a direct descendant of one of the 39 Fleecing Fathers. It is fit only for docile and domesticated herd animals who do not object to being bred, harnessed and milked for the profit of a privileged few.
I have recorded here only one of the deceitful webs woven in that commercial charter. There are many, many more. To ferret them out for yourself you need only read the Constitution literally; as all legal instruments must be interpreted.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY
[Why Otherwise Intelligent People Slavishly Support a Constitution They Don't Understand.]
At first glance, the impartial scientific observer discovers in the Constitution what appear to be gross inconsistencies in Language and grammar. But on closer inspection he finds they are not inconsistencies or typos after all, but are in fact evidence of an underlying sinister nature and intent.
To offer up only one of dozens of examples, many of which have even more grave implications than our instant sample:
Article VI, Section 2, mentions "the Laws of the United States," providing that they shall constitute one-third of "the supreme Law of the Land." That's pretty heavy stuff, with no room for ambiguity! But Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, mentions different Laws which, not being the Laws of the United States, are deemed inferior. Those inferior Laws are the Laws which the Militia may be called forth to execute. They are "the Laws of the Union."
The Apologist for the Constitution and its authors, the Fleecing Fathers, will allege that those giant, highly-educated minds used the United States and the Union interchangeably, and that they mean one and the same thing. THEY DON'T! In fact, "the United States" and "the Union," as legal entities, are as different as black and white or night and day! They are not literally the same. And in the context of history, they are as dissimilar as a real person and an artificial person.
If the Apologist is wrong and the literal language of the Constitution is the Legal Reality, what are the implications, beyond confusing the Hell out of millions of somnambulistic Americans? Consider this:
While Article I identifies the purpose of the Militia (plural) as being to execute the (inferior) Laws of the Union, and the unanimously misconstrued Second Amendment defines the purpose of the Militia as being necessary to the security of a free State; what does that say about "the United States" and its supreme Laws? BINGO! Of Course! - "the United States" is an UN-FREE STATE, and pre-existing States of the Union (that unique, perpetual legal entity under the preexisting Articles of Confederation) and the Laws thereof, are the free States which the Militia is charged with defending.
As these words are written the confused members of the many upstart "Citizen Militia" (respectively singular) have not yet been slaughtered or taken as prisoners by the Armed Forces of the United States. (Time will correct that nonfeasance). To a man, the members of self-appointed Militia pledge their very lives to the defense and support of the Constitution... not to the defense of the lawful perpetual Union, and to the execution of its Laws. No sane and fully-informed Man would consider supporting a constitution that is unfit for, and designed to "kill," the natural, inborn freedom of Men and Women. What psychological imperatives drive people to commit their minds and bodies to such delusions? The following analogy should suffice to get the point across: A certain child acts like a perfect angel at home; well-mannered, ingratiating, studious and seemingly empathetic. But when out of his mother's line of vision, he is a budding sociopath. He steals from cons and manipulates everyone in his destructive path. He is the veritable Bad Seed. To the casual observer, he is a classic schizophrenic; a split or dual personality. But in fact his real personality is sociopathic. The personality he presents to his mother is superficial, merely an appearance.
Mother isn't completely stupid. She sees inconsistencies between her child's at-home and away personas. There are the unexplained fruits of them that appear in the child's room. There are the "hateful rumors" of mutilation of small animals, spread by neighbors.
But Mother ignores the "inconsistencies," and gives the benefit of the doubt to her sweet, precocious child. After all SHE is Good. She knows that. And therefore, her child, however poorly she understands his nature, must also be Good. He is, after all, a child that derives of her, by her and in the universal view, for the Mother. Protecting, supporting and defending her offspring (like supporting a misunderstood constitution) is an emotional necessity having nothing to do with reason and logic.
It's one thing, and as excusable as it is understandable, to permit one's emotion to rule in matters concerning his progeny. But where legal instruments are concerned, which can result in our death, deprivation, imprisonment or other restraints on our birthrights to Liberty; we dare not suspend our reason, logic, common sense and capacity for CRITICAL ANALYSIS!
Editor's Comments: In regarding the pretended "perpetual Union" created by the so-called "Articles of Confederation" as lawful, Mr. Hazel makes a serious error. As Lysander Spooner effectively indicated in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' all supposed "constitutions" are instruments of fraud and deception. This applies as much to the pretended "Articles of Confederation" as it applies to the falsely-called "U.S. Constitution."
The spinners of all supposed "constitutions" are spiders spinning webs of illusion, delusion, and hallucination!
[In a recent post to the Advanced Freedom Solutions List, Rickie. A. Slater wrote:
"I am surprised that this is all you took difference to in this article. The whole tone of being a victim to fraud is unbelievable to me."
Frederick Mann's reply:
"Mr. Hazel's article is heavily infused with Slavespeak. One of the purposes of Slavespeak is to induce a "victim mode." I decided not to translate Hazel's article into F-Prime, but to keep it in standard English infused with Slavespeak.
Your impression of "tone of being a victim" illustrates the effects of Slavespeak. By accident or design, Slavespeak is intended to induce a "victim-mentality."
By contrast, I translated Part 2 -- Martin Lindstedt's article (original also heavily infused with Slavespeak) -- into F-Prime."]
PART II
[Note: Edited and translated into F-Prime by Frederick Mann. One of the most basic elements of NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex is the illusion or delusion of "constitution." The pretended "constitution" is one of the primary fraudulent concepts/words on which the power of terrocrats depends. In order to collapse the power of terrocrats, a critical mass of individuals need to cure themselves from the debilitating mental disease I call NSPIC. The false notion of "constitution" is one of the main elements of NSPIC. See Martin Lindstedt's original.]
The pretended "US Constitution" was supposedly "ratified" over 200 years ago. It was nothing more than a piece of paper then, and it is an even more worthless piece of paper now. It promises to define the structure of a "republican form of government." It guarantees nothing, especially now when the people who are supposed to live by and under it are incapable of living together in peace. All the falsly-called "constitution" has ever been used for is to serve as cover for political criminals (terrocrats) to convert socially common resources to their own good and as a paper idol for the foolish. [emphasis added]
The Terrocrat Fathers violated the pretended "constitution" every single time when its expressed limitations proved inconvenient. George Washington established an unauthorized national central bank to pay off Revolutionary War debts. Abraham Lincoln read into it a demand for a unity which did not exist in order to enslave free men and to free the enslaved. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ignored every single pretended "constitutional" paper protection preventing the socialistic transformation of this pretended "country" into a "welfare-warfare state." Presently we live in an Anarcho- Fascistic condition where cowardly bureaucratic terrocrats impose petty rules which they enforce mainly on naive and gullible victims. Pretty soon it will be every man for himself. So-called "constitutional scholarship" will go by the boards during the clawing for survival.
Don't believe this? Let me prove my point by going over some of the flaws that Lysander Spooner pointed out in 1870 in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' and then show a number of other flaws which have turned out since. I'll show that throughout its history, terrocrats have seldom obeyed the silly "constitutional paper."
Inherent "Constitutional" Design Flaws
Lysander Spooner pointed out that only a few men signed the falsely-called "constitution," and that this document did not in any way bind either its signers or future generations. The first outrageous and fraudulent falsehood of the signers was calling themselves "We, the People of the United States." James Hazel pointed out some other falsehoods in Part 1 above.
Since the falsely-called "constitution" pretends to set up a so-called "government" based upon the consent of "the governed," then how can it be held to apply to people presently living who never were consulted on the matter, or, if they were consulted on the matter, would probably not bother to sign it now?
Every generation must determine how to organize and structure their institutions. Right now it is doubtful that many people would agree to the so-called "Bill of Rights" if they understood its implications. The people who matter, the ones who decide the type of terrocrat system, are the ones who are the most ruthless or most willing to dominate, oppress, and exploit their victims. The power of every single tyranny or despotism depends on the support of a majority of collaborators. When a majority of the people who matter decide to overthrow the tyranny no matter what, then that tyranny is doomed. Right now we live during a period where sides are being taken in advance of the struggle to come.
In Section II of 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' Spooner shows how the payment of taxes and voting binds nobody. Paying taxes or voting for terrocrat candidates to a tyranny "established" by a false "constitution" in reality subjects nobody to a pretended "government" because the basis of terrocrat voting or taxes is brainwashing and force and this duress establishes nothing except a duty of rebellion when the force becomes sufficiently weakened. The heaviest chains are those we impose upon ourselves.
Also covered in Section II are the people who end up supporting terrocrats in general and the falsely-called "constitution" in particular: Knaves, Dupes, and Cowards. Knaves, because they see ways in which to use the terrocrats to advance their own interests, common every-day fools who because they get one vote to rob someone else out of millions cast, think they live in "the greatest country on earth," and lastly, people who know something is wrong, but are too cowardly or lazy to summon up the effort to change it.
Going on through Spooner's essay, you note that the falsely-called "constitution" pretends to give unlimited, despotic power without responsibility to falsely-called "members of Congress" to pass any pretended "legislation" they please without being held to account for it.
It is said that in the early democracies of Ancient Greece that if any do-gooder wanted to pass a so-called "law" or other infringement upon the liberties of other individuals that he had to stand on a stone block with a noose around his neck. If the so-called "law" passed, then the noose was removed. If the new item of so-called "legislation" failed, the stone block was removed. This kind of safeguard does not appear in the falsely-called "US Constitution," which supposedly grants absolute immunity from responsibility to terrocrats for their so-called "legislation" in Article 1 Section 6.
Every single pretended "lawgiver" of the Judeo-Christian heritage posted a set of so-called "laws" that were relatively easy for men of good will to obey. Moses allegedly brought down from the mountain "10 Commandments," which "Jesus Christ" is said to have simplified down to two: "Obey God by keeping his commandments and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself." These "obligations" are relatively easy and the yoke is light. So how have any terrocrats improved upon the above-mentioned "Godly legislation?" Particularly when it is observed that all the pretended "legislation" created today is for the express purpose of rewarding special interests at the expense of the rest of the population, eating out what little remains of a civilization or social fabric which took centuries to weave.
By Sections VII, VIII, and IX, Spooner is pointing out that the reason for the secret ballot is to render comfortable and secure a den of assassins and thieves. Nobody wants to be held responsible for the crimes terrocrats commit under color of their pretended "legislation." The secret ballot works to diffuse responsibility away from the voters for the "elected" terrocrats. Thus the tripod of power, responsibility and accountability is limited to one long leg of power, which can be wielded like a club, without care by the corrupt.
[The pretended "legislation" or "law" serves as the club or sword of the terrocrats; the falsely-called "constitution," as their shield.]
A sole tyrant or despot, by reason of the absolute power he holds, is held absolutely responsible for the crimes he commits and therefore can be constrained through fear of the consequences of his actions. In a pretended "democracy," the equivalent of putting all the terrocrat Charles Is and Adolf Hitlers to death for their acts of tyranny, would involve finishing off all the worthless people who "elected" or "appointed" the terrocrats to their posts. In a pretended "democracy," it is not only one head you have to chop off, but rather millions of necks must be severed in self-defense when another Charles I or Adolf Hitler is spawned by the degenerate masses who have the advantage of numbers, enabling them to out-vote the productive.
In Sections XI-XV, Spooner demolishes the notion that the pretended "oaths" of terrocrats to "uphold the constitution" are worth anything -- they might as well be "blown to the winds" -- because they are not sworn to anyone (remember the secret ballots) and nobody and nothing holds the oath-breaker to account. In the case of Southerners who had to swear a "loyalty oath," it was also because of duress; in the case of soldiers, it is an unconscionable "oath" to swear to kill or rob others based upon what terrocrat politicians say the falsely-called "constitution" says.
Sections XVI-XX covered what Spooner considered the "New World Order" of his day: international bankers and their relationship to terrocrats. The bankers get a monopoly from the terrocrats and the terrocrats get the money to buy soldiers to terrorize their victims into paying the taxes or tributes and to obey their whims. The productive efforts of the surviving "citizens," terrorized by the murder of the resistors, are used to support parasitic bankers and terrocrats. Thus the cycle continues. Money buys soldiers, soldiers extort money. Spooner considered the "American Civil War" as a tentacle of the European system of plunder to the New World, with the North taking the part of the European "aristocracy."
Of course, this view of Lysander Spooner should play well to those patriots who believe in a NWO/ZOG connection between the "federal" terrocrats and the "Federal Reserve System." However, I submit that it would be best to read the entire Spooner essay, not just the parts of it you may like. The part which should be studied most thoroughly is the portion designed to cure "constitutional" idolatry. If you care to dwell on the last part, remember that the same influences which seem to dominate today were the ones which held true yesterday; human nature hasn't changed.
"Constitutional" Promises NEVER Kept
The guarantees promised by the falsely-called "constitution" have never been kept. Not even by the drafters or Terrocrat Fathers. They broke the pretended "constitution" every single time it proved inconvenient to their nefarious intentions.
During the pretended "ratification" process, the "federalist" terrocrats used just about every dirty trick in the book to attain so-called "ratification." In so-called "Pennsylvania," they kidnapped delegates from the rural western "counties" in order to gain a "legislative quorum." In so-called "Massachusetts" and "New Hampshire the "federalist" terrocrats delayed the "ratification" process when it became apparent that the current delegates would deny "ratification." George Washington was "inaugurated" as imposter "President" in 1789 without "ratification" of so-called "North Carolina" and "Rhode Island," well before the pretended "Bill of Rights," the supposed price of "ratification," had been paid.
Alexander Hamilton, who wrote most of the 'Federalist Papers' in an effort to get the so-called "colonies" to "ratify" the falsely-called "constitution," didn't wait very long in George Washington's "administration" before establishing a "national" bank, although establishing such a bank wasn't enumerated in the stated powers of the terrocrats, nor mentioned in his 'Federalist Papers' as part of the necessary and proper functions of terrocrats. Anything to get the suckers to "ratify" the falsely-called "constitution" first, then put up with it later. Bait and switch strategies have been with us since Washington's first "term."
John Adams wasn't in "office" a year when he and his "federalist" faction dealt with criticism by passing the so-called "Alien and Sedition Acts," which directly violated the pretended "First Amendment" provisions to the falsely-called "constitution" -- "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."
Thomas Jefferson made the "Louisiana Purchase" on "executive," not falsely-called "constitutional authority." He was the only imposter "president" of the lot who admitted the discrepancy -- afterwards. He went ahead anyway and bought the lands from Napoleon.
Jefferson's cousin, John Marshall, the longest-serving imposter "Supreme Court chief justice," was one of the "midnight judges" "appointed" to a position by the outgoing imposter "president" John Adams. Marshall is the imposter "judge" most responsible for the truism, "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." In Marbury v. Madison (1803), by a legal trick, Marshall created a power denied the falsely-called "Supreme Court" by establishing "judicial review" concerning the "constitutionality" of pretended "congressional legislation" and of "executive action." In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) this usurped power was used by Marshall to ignore the pretended "9th Amendment" and negate the pretended "10th Amendment" in favor of the Article I Section 8, "necessary and proper" phrase, thus destroying all constraints to the growth of "federal" terrocrat power. A "national" bank could be "chartered" for the care and feeding of special interests. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) brought forth the "regulation of commerce between states" Art. I Section 8 clause which effectively destroyed all so-called "state sovereignty" under the pretext of regulating so-called "interstate commerce." John Marshall set the stage for the "interpretation" of the falsely-called "constitution" to say whatever the "Supreme Court judge-terrocrats" say it means. The terrocrats can do whatever they want if some terrocrats say it's OK -- the 'de-facto' "constitution": "Anything goes... that we can get away with."
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." [emphasis added]
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
Not bad for an "officeholder" [John Marshall] under John Adams who found nothing wrong with the so-called "Alien and Sedition Acts." Doubtless, Jefferson was talking about his cousin John Marshall as the chief of a "subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one."
Every single one of the imposter "Chief Executives," "Congresskritters" and "federal judiciary" ever since have been violating their fake "oaths of office" with impunity. The process speeded up with the tenure of the greatest (Lincoln setting up a virtual dictatorship over dissent in order to wage a so-called "Civil War" to bring back insurgents who had had enough of "federal authority"; FDR abrogating what little remained of the original "federalism" to foment socialism) and latest (some rascal popularly known as 'Slick Willy' -- a known liar and thief, a suspected rapist and murderer.)
Tear Up this Paper Idol
As long as freedom activists continue to worship the paper idol of the falsely-called "constitution," little progress can be made. Worship negates critical thought. Critical thought negates worship of the falsely-called "constitution."
What kept the falsely-called "constitution" apparently in force for so long was not the quality of that particular piece of paper, but the naiveté and gullibility of those hypnotized by it. The mental and moral composition of so-called "America" has changed and is changing dramatically -- but not for the better. So-called "America" did not have a perpetual underclass without hope for the future in 1789 or 1870. People who could not live within the framework of the pretended "constitution" had an escape valve further West, where they could escape from the pretended "law" and kill each other without collateral social damage. There is no longer a West to act as a frontier and dumping ground where both pioneer and psychotic can battle to the death to settle the issues of freedom vs. dependence, justice vs. order, good vs. evil. Now this war, this struggle, this "Kulturkampf" [culture war] must take place within the very mind of each individual, every man for himself waging a war of each against all and all against each.
1913 was a pivotal year during which the composition of the pretended "constitutional government" was twisted irrevocably. An unratified "income tax amendment" enabled terrocrat power to grow well beyond pretended "constitutional bounds" by taxing the productive to subsidize the parasite. Another pretended "amendment" stripped the pretended "states" of their responsibility of choosing their pretended "senators," opening up the floodgates to "democratic rule," as opposed to "republican representation." And the re-establishment of a centralized banking system (after a 77-year closure of such by Andrew Jackson) misnomered the "Federal Reserve," placed into the hands of special interests the power of unaccountable currency speculation and fiscal mismanagement. After 1913, wealth and privilege would be determined not by production, but by politics.
Since then, the parasitic forces destroying this "civilization" have increased. An unnecessary World War I created W.W.II, which led to an interventionist mentality on the part of upper-caste terrocrats, sending the sons of the poor as cannon-fodder to so-called "Korea," "Vietnam" and "Iraq," where they were betrayed as POWs and poisoned by the toxins of "Korporate Amerika." "New Deal" led to "Square Deal" to "Great Society" as the taxation burden was deliberately shifted from corporations to the middle classes. The pretended "Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights" to keep silent about your business by not generating records to furnish to taxtortionists were disallowed in favor of allowing shadows from the so-called "14th Amendment" to define a new right to "privacy" -- a euphemism for abortion. The ratio of mentally ill as opposed to mentally normal shot up from one in ten, to one in six, to one in four. A 1918 high school degree is now superior to an undergraduate college degree. Over one percent of the population is imprisoned, but we do not have enough prison space to jail all of the criminals, the most rapacious and predatory of which are "law-enforcement" and other terrocrats.
All this (because?) in spite of the fact that so-called "America" has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. The terrocrats admit that average taxation for the remaining workers approaches 42%, which means the actual figure is higher. The terrocrats also admit that the fraudulent "national debt" [which the falsely-called "constitution" decrees may not be questioned] is around 6 trillion dollars, when it is actually over 30 trillion when all the terrocrats' unfunded liabilities are counted.
How has the falsely-called "US Constitution" prevented any of this? Has it not served as a screen for terrocrat wickedness, instead?
Worshipping the "constitutional" paper-god distracts you from reality. The "constitution" and "government" delusions, together with the rest of NSPIC, create the apparency of survival by idolizing unreality. However, how long can such "unreal survival" continue without an economic and social collapse?
The day may come when your survival will depend on knowing "what is," rather than wishing for "what ought to be." If you cannot and will not cultivate a frame of mind necessary to survival, then you may not survive very well. You may not even deserve survival.
So give up your worship of the paper-god of "constitutionality." What has it done for you, except allow some smarmy looters to rule over you in its name, much like the high priests of some cannibal god?
Do you really think that pagans worshipped idols of metal and stone because they were so stupid they believed the work of their hands, their creations, were greater than themselves? Of course not. Every single one of them would tell you that they were not worshipping inanimate statuary. No! The statutes represented the great god "Dagon" or "Baal" or "Molech" or "Christ," in much the same way that a piece of paper called "The Constitution" represents "Truth," or "Justice" or "The American Way."
Would it not be better for you simply to destroy the statuary and tear up the papers that bind your mind? [Cure yourself from NSPIC.] It would certainly be cheaper to not obey or support any of these imposters, whether they bear the name of "High Priest," "Reverend" or "Governor." They might not like the cessation of tribute from those who wake up to their game, but what can they do if you avoid and evade them skillfully?
So tear up in your mind the paper god known as "The Constitution" -- one of the most important words/concepts/idols on which the power of terrocrats depends.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com