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.