A Legal Document

When you tell a Republican or a conservative that the Constitution is a legal document, the "tilt" light goes on inside his head. To a Republican or a Conservative the Constitution is a holy collection of Scriptural utterances and Truths that were spoken by Jesus to the, ya know, people who signed their names to it after they had the town hall meeting that the public was not invited to where they voted on it. A lot of people voted against it. you never hear about them. People think I am the first person in American history to have a problem with the Constitution.

Since it is a legal document that means it sets out a ream of conditions. Legal documents are always filled with commands and "how things will be." With most legal documents all the people affected by it have to sign it. The Constitution is allegedly a contract. A contract that involves you personally. However you did not sign it. You are not supposed to see that as an impediment to your being bound under it. But since it is a Holy legal document which has Jesus involved in it since the Constitution is Sacred...then you should not have a problem with it. And you probably don't. In fact you take it on faith, like any good parishioner should, that everything is A-ok with it. Which in reality is not true. In reality the constitution is a hoax that you have bought into. Do I care? Not really, I never particularly liked you in the first place.

the constitution created marx

the constitution was the inspiration for Karl Marx to create the the perfect form of t=what the constitution is merely the outline for: communism.  it's not an accident that communists are always talking about "the people." they got the idea from the constitution's preamble. the first three words hit Marx like three thunderbolts. He probably hung aruond long enough to read the rest of the constitution before it hit him that the constitution was a monumental stroke of genius that itemizes the particulars and spells out how to operate a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is actually just the opposite: a dictatorship of the jailers of the proletariat. Marxism deals in opposites as does, well, the democratic party in america, since they are both identical. this is not to say the republicans and the libertarians and the christian democrats and the nazis and all the other political parties are not marxist; they are. they just think they're something else. at least the democrats are smart enough to know they're marxists. which is of course the attraction; democrats are excited about no one having anything. the democrats are basically a primitive tribe like a mau mau or the apaches: everyone lives in the dirt, takes narcotics 24 hours a day and performs magical rituals to affect the weather. most primitive tribes have some version of the environmental protection agency which is the salient hallmark - other than universal poverty and warfare with other tribes - of primitive cultures. and modern cultures which are basically all primitive cultures. cultures are "group identities" that override individual identities. you'll notice that "business" focuses on individuals. cultures and governments focus on groups. this is why business is universally detested: it goes counter to tribal human history.

upholding the constitution

one of the most baffling things about the constitution is the injunction made by bureaucrats to other bureaucrats "to uphold" the constitution, "to defend" the constitution and to "be loyal to" the constitution. the baffling part is that these people always enthusiastically and even swear an oath to do these things. "Do you swear to uphold the Constitution....." etcetera? They all say "I sure do, bruvva" to that query. But how exactly do you uphold it? How does that action take place? For one thing the Supreme Court was created for the sole purpose of deciding what the constituton actually "says" and what it actually "means." I mean this has been going on since day one 200 + years ago. so should the question really be "do you swear to uphold the constitution no matter how it is interpreted long after you make this agreement"? well, that's kind of a funny thing to agree to, wouldn't you say? do you want someone that fucking wishywashy "representing" you in office? apparently you are not suppose to think these things through to that extent. in other words you are not supposed to think these things through to any sort of concrete reality. youre just supposed to keep it vague and mysterious and sanctified and religious.  which is all that government really is: a secular religion where magic happens as long as the people - whoever they are - will it into being: like scientologists postulating new realities and then they magically appear because "i said so." it's how an infant thinks, in other words.

your alleged right to bear arms

the right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to own arms. your right to bear arms, constitutionally, means you have the right to be drafted. it does not mean you have the right of ownership of firearms. Now you might say "no one has ever said before that the right to bear arms means you have the right to be drafted. no one has ever said that." Well, i just said it and now that i have every anti-liberty, government-worshipping hebrew "constitutional lawyer" in america will be hot on the trail of making this clear.

your alleged right to bear arms - and lets assume it means you have a right to ownership of a firearm, which it does not actually say - your alledged right to bear arms means that a firearm is the only thing you have a right to own. not that a cop will hesitate to confiscate your guns, he wont, he'll take those along with everything else.

the more you put your faith in the constitution to "protect" you the more you put yourself into danger. your faith in a written list of edicts created by the ilk that is now running california is going to be a faith that is false. adam did the same thing: he put his faith in an impotent dragon anad became one himself. americans who expect the constitution - which has continually made things worse - to suddenly reverse course and make things better are putting their faith into a what is basically the mind of an idiot child.

islam and freedom of religion

the constitution never defines religion. it just says religion gets to slip out from under the weight of the restrictions inherent in constitution by being protected by the constitution. Only the constitution can have this kind of fantastic dexterity. because religion is never defined, islam, the only religion on earth that demands the death of all non members, is protected by the constitution. i would call this being an accessory or an ally or an enabler or a traitor. only the constitution could manage to get itself  into this kind of preposterous fix. to date no one seems to want to fix this because that would result in a constitutional pile of nonsense being fixed. and that has only happened once, with prohibition. prohibition was removed from the constitution and a problem in the constitution got fixed. imagine if everything in the constitution was removed. i know. you cant.

The Constitution: A Handbook For Bureaucrats

The plain fact which no one seems to ever see is that the Constitution was written for bureaucrats. It wasn't written for you. You are not mentioned. Only bureaucrats and government officials are mentioned. And they are mentioned relentlessly. You are not in there at all. Only government employees, and usually only the ones with tons of power and authority, are mentioned. The Constitution brings them into being and then to some extent explains what they can do. It all just springs into existence as if by magic thanks to the Constitution. It almost is a form of magic. And not the fun kind. It's kind of like black magic: magic that leads not to delight and applause but magic that leads to wars and confiscation and incarceration and conscription and every other form of obedience to people you never met.

you are not a branch of the government

the constitution created three branches of government that are supposed to keep rein on each other so that one of them does not become more powerful than the other two. they are supposed to remain equally powerful. over you. you are not a branch of the government. you are not in the constitution at all except at the beginning where it says we the people. you are supposed to imagine that you are one of those. actually only the people who signed the constitution are the "we the people" being talked about. you were not even born. so how can they have included you. it is only your wish-machine that is convinced you are part of the constitution. it's the same wish machine that convinces catholics a child molesting homosexual can cause jesus to enter bread dough after he says a few words of command. he can order god around. if you are a catholic you believe that. because all the catholics around you at birth told you that. without exception. they cant ALL be wrong can they?  same with the constitution. same with muslims and their 72 virgins entertaining their rotting corpses. none of it makes sense. but its what your culture told you. and without your culture what do you have. certainly not your own identity. no, you have someone else's - usually several peoples', in fact - identities. you barely exist. only the lies that other liars have told you exist. you are probably comprised of 100% lies, if you are the average person.

"Freedom of the Press"

It has been brought to my attention that the "press" is the only job other than bureaucratic dunce that is actually mentioned by the Constitution. The "press" is the only private arena that is mentioned. all the other arenas mentioned in the Consitution are governmental posts and departments.
     Hearing this it was as if yet another light had gone on in my head.
     This is why the "press" - today's press - has this attitude of "authority."
     The bureaucrats - the other "job" mentioned by the Constitution realize that the "press" is - like themselves - sacrosanct. that's why they fear the "press."
     The "press" realizes this. that is why they brazenly and relentlessly attack bureaucrats. Because they know they have been granted immunity by the Constitution.
     As far as the Constitution is concerned, saddle-making doesn't exist. Car making doesn't exist. Nothing exists except government and the press as far as the Constitution is concerned.
     This is why the press - and the bureaucrats - are the fucking free-for-alling pricks that they are. Because the Constitution grants them and no one else "official existence."

A Religious Document

The Constitution is a secular version of a religious document. It is attributed to have magical powers, one of them being that "We the people" means you - who did not exist when "We the people" got announced and addressed. The actual "we" in the "We the people" are the people who created and signed the Constitution. Now, I talk to a lot of stupid assholes. And they all say that the people who signed it were representing all the people who didn't. Which is not true. No "representative" has ever contacted the people he represents. No agreement has ever been made between bureaucrats and "the people they represent." this is part of the religious aspect of the Constitution: that it does things it doesn't, in reality,  on this planet, actually do.