This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: On New York Times Op Ed: "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution"

Tyler Durden's picture


Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

This New York Times Op Ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, is one of the most absurd and dangerous articles I have read in a very long time. This guy’s incredible conclusion is that it is the Constitution of the United States itself that is causing all that ails the nation at this time.  Not once did I read about the Federal Reserve, or the “war on terror,” or the banker bailouts, or the complete destruction of the rule of law in recent years.  Nope, none of that.  Instead, this scholar’s conclusion is that the founding document, which created the fertile breeding ground for freedom and free markets and led to tens of millions of people to flee to from all corners of the globe, is the problem.

I suppose someone failed to remind Mr. Seidman that the oath of office for the military and those that hold political office continues to be:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I have said for years, a key part of the macro agenda of the corrupt elite has been and continues to be the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.  While the Bill of Rights is already being dismantled behind the scenes, Mr. Seidman is part of the effort to “sell this”to the sheeple  as I noted in my article: Here We Go…Slate Magazine Bashes the First Amendment.  I expect more of this type of propaganda going forward.

From the New York Times:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.


This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

The above paragraph is important for two reasons.  First, he picks and chooses what part of the Constitution he agrees with and then says those things are good and should remain.  More disturbingly, he then says we should defend freedom based on “respect not obligation.”  This is insane.  The reason the Bill of Rights exists is to enshrine the protection of civil rights under the law so that an authoritarian government cannot trample them.  Do you really expect government to protect civil rights out of “respect” if they are not obligated to by law?  Not a chance.  Then he concludes with:

But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Full Op Ed here.

Please pass this on to every freedom loving American you know.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:48 | 3119150 lesterbegood
lesterbegood's picture

There appears to much confusion regarding the Constitution in these comments. Please allow me to clarify matters? There are 2 Constitutions of the United States in existence. There is the organic Constitution for the united States ratified in 1787. And the there is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, a corporate charter, created in 1871 by the Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia.

The current Federeal 'government' is a corporation. All the STATE OF "" 'governments as well as all the agencies are also corporations. All are fictitous entities.

The D.C. corporation was quit-claim deeded to the IMF by the Bretton-Woods Agreement of 1944 as it was in bankruptcy recievership in 1933 (Emergency Banking Act 1933). The People were made enemies of the state by The Amendatory Act of 1933. Our gold was confiscated by executive order since enemies of the state cannot have real money, nor own property (HJR 192).


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 22:57 | 3120980 DaveA
DaveA's picture

A corporation is a voluntary association of shareholders, bondholders, employees, suppliers, and customers. If any of these parties was forced to participate against their will, it's a government or a branch thereof, not a corporation.

Corporations cannot break down your door and drag you away in handcuffs. Governments can. Will you then say that your prison cell is a "fictitious entity"?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 02:37 | 3117869 ejhickey
ejhickey's picture

i notice that the NYT did not allow comments .  some people can take the heat.  Others can't

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 02:38 | 3117870 WTFUD
WTFUD's picture

Martin Luther King is turning in his grave, turning i should say spinning! When a 10 Cent Cunt like O' Fucking Obama can stand up and address the American Sheeple, has his Arse licked by the rest of these phoney world leaders, sportsmen, ham fucking two bit actors and academics & media Alike we must come together as one and say Fuck You I Would Rather Be Dead!!

Sorry for the bad language!

By the by what's up with the Irish? They were the ones with the balls and are now taking it up the arse first and foremost!

I might not get there with you!!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 02:41 | 3117874 Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Seidman? Hmmmm... Another fucking Jew. When are you people gonna see the light? None of this is by accident, or ineptitude. This is a deliberate attack on a whole country by a very small minority. Have you all become so neutered? Go ahead and start hitting the red arrow. I'm a racist, I'm a redneck, I'm anti-blah, blah, blah. I don't give a shit, because none are true. It actually isn't affecting me cuz I'm living in Asia. But, I am an American, and hate what I see.

And if any of you non-jews red arrow me, all I can say is "Where is all this self hatred coming from? Stand up for yourselves for fucks sake!".

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 02:53 | 3117883 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

The average Jew has little to do with this sort of thought or behaviour. As for the elitist Jews there is no doubt that they have a disproportionate level of representation and influence which unfortunately has not played out well for the average Jew and all the other  average Joe Blows out there.

When egos and personal agendas can be sustained by the finances of a nation, no expense is spared and in the process the nation is not spared either.

As far as the elite running the nation are concerned they make decisions which they do not have to finance or pay for when things go wrong so everything we are witnessing is to be expected.

I fear that when the elite wake up to themselves it will be too late for everyone including them.

As for Seidman, does anyone think his piece was not financed/sponsored from above?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:01 | 3117890 Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Of course I am not actually talking about the little guys. I've been to Israel, and have lots of friends there actually. Super folks. I'm saying they should be kept from having any real influence in government, finance, academia, and media. Shit, I guess that sounds really terrible doesn't it? Who the fuck cares! If they don't like it, go fuck up Israel more than it already is. We shouldn't let political correctness or emotions get in the way of what's right.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:55 | 3118006 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

Does make you wonder if "liberal" Jews are the issue and Orthodox Jews less prone to imposing madcap schemes on people

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:33 | 3118429 Random
Random's picture

I hope you forgot the /sarc as many of the orthodox jews and orthodox "jews" are ones of the most fucked up people on the planet. The very fringe of the fringe in Israel is a true orthodox jew and even them are fucked up in the head for still waiting for their old testament "Messiah"...talking about being late...Also, orthodox jews (or a fucked up flavor) kinda regulate every thing that is going on in Israel, thus kinda imposing madcap schemes on people after all...

Hint: many orthodox jews are into talmud (talmud is kosher whilst sharia is fucked up amrite?) and zohar and "sage" interpretations of the Torah.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:32 | 3117917 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

the jews secretly control the world. For example, jews control


















I think you get my point.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:20 | 3118003 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I ain't a jew, and I don't get your point.

How do jews "secretly" control Pakistan? The US admin does since sixty years thru military aid that has installed/maintained/sustained a military regime there, as in Egypt, Indonesia in Irak. 

The jews are a sub-set of the ruling US order; like the Rothschilds were a sub set of the Rule Britannia clique for whom they worked and who made them rich in return. 

The tail does NOT wag the dog. 

Your mouth frothing is clouding your ability to reason. 

Remember also that Caesar needed a state to justify his power as dictator, just like Alexander, Napoleon and all the others. The state is the seat of power in our world of "yester -year". As the private multinational thanks to its technical/financial/globally organised acumen is now running the networked world. They are WAY ahead of the curve than their nation-state elected counterparts, who ONLY exercise power in NAME, being strapped down by bureaucracy and huge deficits.

What Seidman is basically saying is this :

In this day and age of global oligarchy rule, the nation-state has to readapt its Constitution to reflect the NEW REALITY of power belonging to entities that do NOT abide to nation-state boundaries in their deciding power plays.

He is saying to the first world : grow up your democracy and individual freedoms are now outdated in this global oligarchy world. THis reset means your western economic livelihood is NOT WORTH more than that of an African bush man, IF WE THE OLIGARCHY feel that is where our global investments will now go, once we have exploited the CHindia low labour cost potential to full...

The nation-states must adapt to this new reality. And the most powerful nation states must be the first to do it the most thoroughly. They set the global trend at the heart of the system.

If you as an individual resent that; "more fool you" is the cold, implacable warning of the Drone cultured Oligarchy.

The reset requires this; no exceptions.

Just remember from a historical perspective those who created the foundations of this OLigarchy (supply side) NWO : Reagan-Thatcher.

Those who implemented it : Bush Snr. CLinton, GWB.

Those who now manage its ruinous fall-out for first world : BO/BB/MD/IMF.

THose who benefit most from it : the Oil/FInanCE/MIC/FOOD/Agro oligarchies; as all the others.

All based in US as heart land...THose very patrons of the NWO shills like Seidman.

Nobody will survive as a individual "heretic" to this awesome new system. It will take organisation to exploit the inherent weaknessess of any despotic construct; as always.


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:30 | 3118067 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture


where i go off call tomorrow night i will raise a glass of JW blue to you and your depressing perceptions.

they make me joyously dour my friend.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:56 | 3118087 falak pema
falak pema's picture

the world is what it is, let us just rejoice that not all play this dirty game.

As the Man said : in a world of corruption and deceipt telling the truth becomes an act of revolution!

Cheers, as long as there is one man left standing like Spartacus... 

Those who love life and liberty will always win if they be prepared to pay the price.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:17 | 3118110 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Well said.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:15 | 3118376 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

In this day and age of global oligarchy rule, the nation-state has to readapt its Constitution to reflect the NEW REALITY of power belonging to entities that do NOT abide to nation-state boundaries in their deciding power plays.

agreed, falak, he's telegraphing their moves here.   which means to me, "they" are already 2-3 steps ahead in the implementation.    remember Karl Rove's dictum: 

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. 

this article is a perfect example of expectations management from the libertarian paternalists (hattip: tradewithdave).   it should not surprise anyone if all the comments from this article throughout the interwebs will be aggragrated and analyzed for language patterns in order to tweak their next steps, so that the "consent of the governed" can be manufactured appropriately and those that will dissent can be managed in a way that does not tip over the apple cart (now filled with fruits from all over the world).

it's quite unfortunate that most are allowing their emotions to override their survival instincts and are consenting to be unaware guinea pigs in this experiment, thus paving the road to the slaughter of precisely what they hold onto most dearly.


"you must kill all your darlings." - wm. faulkner


clif high has been discussing using the concept of "world government" as a self-organizing collective act of jiu-jitsu  against the "globalist fuckers".    after reading this article, i'm really starting to see the wisdom of his idea.  


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:32 | 3118400 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture


Nice post , but sadly pearls among swine seems to come to mind......

It's no wonder the country is gone to hell as reading the delusional ramblings of most of the fanatics wishing/begging for violence taliban-style to rain down shows the same misguided energy as the evil doers that hate us for the freedoms "protected" by the con.


March Forward christian constitutional warriors..what a bunch of yahoos.

You are so close to the next fascism it will be done to your loud roar of approval.

Probably super bowl half-time show.



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 02:54 | 3117884 ZFiNX
ZFiNX's picture

His life is worth less than our freedom. Where does this hack live?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:44 | 3117930 zebrasquid
zebrasquid's picture

Where else -- D.C.  



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:35 | 3118030 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

Let's see if we can get some "liberal" newspaper to publish his home and work address like they did for gun owners in NY. Maybe throw in pictures of wife, kids, where they go to school. Would make life real interesting for them I would guess.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:11 | 3117895 honestann
honestann's picture

Hang 'em.  All of them (statists).

I do not consent to be governed.  Period.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:34 | 3117915 Element
Element's picture

Sure Ann, but there is a 'state', which is massively bloated, and bloated for a purpose. It is being systematically manipulated by another set of predators who bent on conquest, who wish to make things much worse again so that they can gain full control over the state and the 'governed'.

I live here, this is my world, and I'll die here, but I do not plan to put up with this shit in the interim.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:06 | 3117947 honestann
honestann's picture

No, no, no, no, no!  There is no state.

Please, get that into your head!!!!!

The "state" is a fiction, just as completely as "SantaClaus".  It does not exist.  Period.  What does exist are predators, and they call themselves "the state" in order to confuse you.  Why this confuses very smart people eludes me.

Nor should you tolerate predators!  Evade them or kill them.  That's called self-defense, which always has always been, and always will be, an ethical action.  And in case I need point this out, self-defense does not require a trial.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:18 | 3117960 Element
Element's picture

There is a collection of predators, and it's called "the state". That is not an imaginary hierarchy or organization in terms of actions, just like any organization that you deal with in research. The difference you perceive is purely semantics not a result of confusion.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:40 | 3118457 honestann
honestann's picture

Yes, there are a number of individuals who are predators.

And yes, they call themselves a state.  The predators are not imaginary.  If they were, we could avoid them simply by ignoring them.

The difference I refer-to is the difference between sanity and insanity.  Period.  Yes, humans do not understand how important it is to be able to distinguish what is real from what is fiction.  However, this is the single most fundamental and important characteristic of a sane sentient being.

The fact that modern humans cannot distinguish real from fiction is why mankind is finished.  Not even all the best intentions of all the smartest and most benevolent humans on earth will save them individually, or mankind as a whole.  Not unless they learn to be sane.  Today, they are not.  Have you not wondered why the predators are sooooooo far ahead of regular, smart people?  They do understand the difference between reality and their endless fictions, and in fact, spend quite a bit of time laughing at the 99.999% of humanity who have no clue how clueless they are?  They laugh at how humans are endlessly manipulated by their endless chaos of fictions.  Only when humans can distinguish real from fiction can they make sense of reality... including the predators and their actions.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:50 | 3118905 Element
Element's picture

Which means you're saying I'm insane, that I can't tell the difference between real and abstraction, and you're going to just go with that conclusion.


Let's say you're in a feet-first free-fall towards the moon, and you have a very sensitive instrument that can detect the gravitational attraction is more attractive to your toes, than to the top of your head. You still have detectable inertial location with respect to the cosmos and every particle within 'you', as there is differential acceleration occuring, being absorbed and redistributed by your molecular bonds.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 07:56 | 3121446 honestann
honestann's picture

I don't know how confused you are about real versus fiction, so I can't give you a prognosis.  However, I have given several examples that you can test yourself against, so at least you have somewhere to start to figure this out.

But let's just take a clear case as a start.  If you believe that "SantaClaus" exists because hundreds of millions of humans believe he exists, then you are in fact insane.  Specifically, you are insane because you cannot distinguish real from fiction, and worse, because you don't even realize you need make such an effort.  However, I suspect you don't believe "SantaClaus" exists.  We both believe that humans can hold a mental unit called "SantaClaus", but still understand "SantaClaus" does not exist.  I'm fairly sure of that, anyway.

The slightly harder question is whether you can be as responsible for your mental processes when you encounter fictions that billions of people accept as true... where the overwhelming belief [of people near you] is, "this [insert-fiction] exists".

At age 4 it is already obvious that hundreds of millions to billions of people believe certain things are real that are not real.  This is obvious.  There are several common "god" mental-units from different parts of the world, all of which supposedly created the universe.  I realized at age 4 that this observation proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that:

#1:  at the very minimum, all but one is wrong.
#2:  humans are accepting things as real without question.

Nobody can be completely ignorant of this phenomenon, given the endless in-our-faces examples.  This is clearly a huge problem!  Yet the reaction of 99.99999% is to ignore the fact they are allowing themselves to be completely insane, and instead, "go along to get along", or some variation thereof.

That's insane.  I have no doubt about that, and I have no qualms about saying it directly.

But where you personally fall in this tragedy is for you to figure out.  And if you find yourself not sufficiently diligent in your mental practices, you can decide to fix it, or continue to be insane.  Willingly.

The question about freefall is an interesting one to work out fully.  However, what we'd be able to detect (at best) would be an almost infintesimal tendency for your head to pull away from our feet, and vice versa.  Or would you?  In such a case, would the "gravitational attraction" of your own body (center of mass, or totality of mass) exceed the head-feet differential you speak of?  I'm not sure without running some calculations, but if your own gravitational contraction force (from your own body) was greater than the differential attraction tendency, then you would not even detect any differential.  What you might detect is a slightly lower tendency for your body to compress together than "last week" (when you were much further from the moon).

How you would figure out the reason for this difference is a very interesting question, and not nearly as trivial as it might first seem.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 10:38 | 3121761 Element
Element's picture



The fallacy does not even exist for me, it's as simple as that. There is no effort involved, nothing to learn there. It doesn't take learning, I told you this two years ago in private. There is no need to believe me. Nor a need for you to second-guess capacity to see, hear or speak directly. I hear you perfectly. Actually that is my responsibility to me, just as it is yours to you. I don't need any teaching ann, I never will, just as I know you don't. Comments in plain language are simply necessary, especially on the internet. I learned long ago that people can't understand directly so I don't attempt to do what you do, to conceptualize it in word forms. It never works, people who don't understand direct, never will, and those who do, you don't have anything to tell. I understood you the instant I read one of your comments, knew exactly what you said past everything you said. I thought you realized that.

But either way that's all you need to know.

I will genuinely miss you if you go ann, but I understand if you have to.


PS: but you do already know the cancelling by self-gravitation will be a NET variable and not cancel completely during free-fall, so don't skirt around it, you are not in an undetectable free-fall, different parts of you are feeling the implications of differential location with respect to space, as much as differential acceleration. The 'two' are of course one.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:17 | 3117961 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

there is an undeniable status quo. which is based on many, many "collective contracts", some implicit, some explicit, some are voluntary, some are automatically extended

one of those "contracts" is summarized as the American Republic, which can be called a state

if you were now in any kind of trouble in any foreign country, for example, you could ask assistance from this "your" state, and this state would give assistance

denying that this status or state exists is one thing. calling it a mass-delusion is another. even if you call it a mass-delusion, the effects of this mass-delusion are real. the consequences are real

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:29 | 3118410 honestann
honestann's picture

Anyone who claims to have "automatically extended" a contract to include me, deserves a bullet through the brain.  This is precisely like the slave trader selling a slave to a slave master... they "automatically extend" their agreement to include the slave.  To which I say "total BS".

A "collective contract" is a contradiction in terms.

Furthermore, anyone who imagines they are a participant in a contract that other participants can unilaterally change thereafter is... a complete moron.  Furthermore, such a contract is not a contract in any rational description of "contract".  The terms of any real contract must be known in advance, agreed to voluntarily without coersion, and not subject to later change.

Anyone who imagines "their" predators will help them with problems is completely delusional.  Every single one of us is a million times more likely to be trashed by predators-DBA-his-government than predators-DBA-another-government... or just random individual predators for that matter.

I would be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo infinitely happy to give up all "protection" from whatever government claims me as they citizen AKA slave in exchange for not being subject to their unlimited harms, whims, thefts and enslavement.

Listen.  People need to understand what is fiction, and what is not.  People need to understand that when a group of humans sit around a table and "create" a "corporation" or "government", that nothing pops into existence.  What does happen is, those people reconfigure their brains to create a new mental-unit to which they attach a name like "SugarHigh Bakery" or "Canada".  Even in fundamental law these are called "fictitious entities", because they are no more real than "SantaClaus" or "ToothFairy".

Let me be exactly clear.  Today, at least 99.999% of human beings are completely, totally, utterly... and clinically, insane.  The inability to distinguish what is real from what is fiction is the single most critical and fundamental characteristic of a sane sentient being.  And humans are not.  So yes, the mass delusion is real.  And yes, the consequences of mass delusion, as well as every individual delusion, is real.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:38 | 3118445 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

ann, insane as individuals insane culture insane law insane central .govs that's why some of us sell something for what ails ya , very good post. a one eyed man in the land of the blind

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:44 | 3117933 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Ann, may I point out that you are asking for a collective action (Hang 'em statists) in the same breath as your statement that you don't want to be part of any collective (I do not consent to be governed)

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:01 | 3117943 honestann
honestann's picture

No, I am not.  Every predator who comes after you, or your wealth, is for you to respond to, just as every predator who wanders into your camp or tent in the forest.  Multiply this action by the number of predators who assault others, and problem solved.  Every action taken is individualistic.  See?

Nonetheless, I have nothing against voluntary collaboration.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:31 | 3117965 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

the ancients said homo homini lupus est - man is what most commonly prays upon man

those who pray on you - humans all - band together in order to do that. because like wolfes men band together

and what has been the usual response to those predatory bands? defensive bands

there is no such thing as a lone, single, selfsufficient human. wrong species for that

your individualism is imo philosophically interesting, but has very little to do with the reality of our species

the very fact that you feel the need to explain your stance to a broader group - even a quite anonymous one like the ZH blog - is a fact out of this

and a request for a certain kind of collective action, if only of moral support for your cause, philosophical stance and feelings

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:58 | 3118039 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

homo homini lupus est

- man is what most commonly prays upon man


An evolution of human beings enabled them to become the top predators.

And, the men that prey on men became the topmost of the top predators.

Politics is applied human ecology, although rarely perceived & stated to be.

America, once upon a time, had a coherent enough group for a revolution.

That group was able to organize enough to win the fight for independence.

That group was coherent enough to agree to recognize their "constitution."

America today appears too incoherent, & with way too much polarization!

The constitutional rule of law has been breaking down at exponential rates.

I agree that this New York Times articles suggests things which are insane.

However, I believe that is a symptom of the reality of the social insanities.

I can not imagine how there can be a coherent group of fighters to prevail.

If, or when, the current systems break down, the results will be psychotic!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:58 | 3117977 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

"voluntary collaboration" is a very nice concept, but somehow it presumes that every human has a will

you aren't born with a (political or economic) will, for that you have to grow up, first

and if a genitor or predecessor leaves you something (often contracts, what lead to "own" anything, or being "part" of something) - this is given to you, and so you inherit your (social) place on this planet

and so your starting point is not "voluntary" in the sense this philosophy might give - the "voluntary" part is what you do with it - as soon as you are considered adult (and so not subject to child-care anymore)

some people inherit clan feuds and vendettas, for example, others a sense of entitlement to a club membership to a thing called "state", others a rage for having been oppressed since generations, others a singular or collective entitlement to a territory, or a lifestyle

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:33 | 3117996 Element
Element's picture

However Ghordie all of that can be cast-aside. A person can choose to be independent of that if they're prepared to discard all connections of that sort, and cultural commonality. Plus accept what comes of that. It's not that unlike a Buddhist monk in a cave for a year, or a Christian monk in commuted speechless solitude.

None of it is without purpose or validity, it's honored by many societies, and I personally value it greatly. I admire Ann's way of thinking very much. I don't discount its validity, or think she is incorrect.

I live in a community and rely on so many people to do what they do, so I can do what I do. And I say thank you to them every day, even if just under my breath, and unheard at a distance. I'm not going to let anyone screw-up that community or damage it without me taking action.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:16 | 3118060 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 I have to point out that Buddhist or Christian monks, all hermits, etc. are usually under the protection of groups, and this protection acts as deterrent from many, many attacks. as you say yourself, it's honoured by many societies

if someone would evict Ann with superior force from her property, they would face retailiation from the sheriff, the national gard, the US Army, up to a bombardment by the US Air Force. lacking state intervention, she would be protected by enraged locals, because she is part of them. she belongs to groups

she has inherited this protection by those groups, by being a resident of her country (and a citizen of the US) and a human belonging to many groups - even in hermitude, just by proximity

what many "internet hermits" fail to recognize is that in order to seriously and de facto divorce from one or several group, you have to join an opposed or neutral group. just unilaterally declaring a solipsistic independence is not recognized as such by any group, and that's part of our human nature

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:50 | 3118503 honestann
honestann's picture

You idiot!  If anyone "evicts me from my property", you can be 99.999% certain they will be the cops, sheriff, army or other deluded bunch of predators.  To even imagine the laughable prospect that I need the cops or army to protect me from the cops or army is, well, simply insane.

That human beings imagine the predators who harm them every single day of their lives are somehow their protectors is... simply stunning to me.  I am so ready to get off this planet.  The degree of insanity is simply too revolting to bear.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:34 | 3118611 Element
Element's picture

I know from other discussions (not at zh) that Ann's a very thorough person who examines everything no matter how tedious. It's a talent she has and takes no idea or supposition for granted, and sees other possibilities.

But I think any such conversation has to be about practical things, not political theories, or philosophy, otherwise its pointless and stupid. A 'govt' is concept, expressed as organization, generating acts that extract a tax from those who want their toilets to flush and refuse removed. Like anything it gets over applied and goes way past that, and becomes filled with parasites, crooks and usurpers. Genuine Local Govt providing essential community services is not a problem for the most part. But as soon as local means a city of 1 million, then even 'local' govt loses all meaning and accountability. And the further you get away from true local govt, the more insidious, counterproductive, corrupt, perverse and insane 'Government' becomes.

Intermediate State govts are an obscenity, but National Federal govts are an abomination. I hold each in contempt (and the monarch of england and governor general of the commonwealth of australia can get completely stuffed).

But the notion of global government is beyond the pale, completely unacceptable. No wonder krugman is hoping for aliens to attack, so global govt has some warped excuse to be.  He must fantasize about that stuff I'd say.

However, I want the toilet to flush. I want basic essential community services. Do I need these? No, I've used a shovel to dig a hole, and drank from rivers. But I live in cities. So in effect we do need it.

But after the dismal experience of 'privatization' of once public utilities, like electricity supply (a once state govt level service provision), I can confidently say I have

Z E R O   C O N F I D E N C E

in the private sector providing an equitable level of essential services, as cheaply and as reliably as the local govt routinely has, and does. That said, local govts went way beyond providing essential community services, and are now massively over-indebted. So they're always looking for some way to screw money out of the COMMUNITY who pays them!

If it's an issue of predators, then in my experience, there's a lot more predators in the private sector, at all levels of it, than within the LOCAL public sector, by a wide margin.

So then it is a problem of accountability and real deterrence for serious corruption and malfeasance. i.e. the problem is not govt, as far as service-oriented provision is concerned. It's instead a human behavior problem that poisoned-the-well, combined with a conspicuous lack of serious real-world pain and shame for doing so. So I want local govt, but I want Mayors and Judges to be subject to being shot through the gizzard for screwing up my community or causing people to lose faith in the whole apparatus.

But that's Ann's point, you can't stop the predators destroying everything. You can only evade or kill them, when you detect them in your midst. So on that level I want the LOCAL COMMUNITY to execute scumbags who are degrading and destroying the community for their own greed and sake.

People up the thread talked of exotic uses for rubber trees, and tar and feathering. But the Aboriginals had a good process too, if you caught fish out of the proper season, you got brought before the entire community and were speared. You might live, you might not. Taking fish out of season harmed the entire community and could lead to collective starvation so willful greed was considered a very serious offense, almost on par with murder.

So I want people like he mayor or corrupt officials who harm the community out of greed and malfeasance, to be shot once in the chest from 100m range with a .223 long-rifle, with iron sights, by a marksman. If they live, they live, if not, good!

But I do not consider myself 'governed', especially not from Canberra or Buckingham Palace (barf!). To hell with those preening interlopers. I do not submit to external 'authorities', and never will.

But I do want orderly honest local public provision of essential community services. That is not some theory, and it isn't philosophy, it's just how it has to be.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:33 | 3119093 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

as usual very interesting what you write. since I'm struck with the ugly disease of verbosity, I can't comment all of it

something different, then, from your comment about Aboriginals

I have visited in my life only five groups of "primitive men" (in Papua New Guinea and in the Amazonas)

what struck me - and studies about other cases confirm - is that this kind of societies are a lot less "free" than what we would usually consider

it starts with the very fact that you hinted to: they are "naturally" communist or socialist (they share immediately, everything), and they have a huge amount of taboos (laws) that leave no interpretation - you did it, you die or are outcast (which amounts to the same, to them)

oh, and they can be incredibly savage against outsiders

just "thinking loud" ;-)


btw, I've made the same experiences with private companies feeding from the public hand, and the same experiences that lead me to believe that "small is beautiful", when it comes to orgs - I'd go as far as saying that no company should exceed 150 employees

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 00:37 | 3121073 Element
Element's picture

These societies have no written records, but they all know the rules of community survival. Papua New Guinea tribes can be pretty hard-core, but they're the product of routine lethal fights between tribes in other valleys. For aboriginals definitely no individual is permitted to rise above the community's interests. If you get to an age of respect, what we might call 'elder', its only because you did the right things for the community. They are the deciders, the 'government', based on seasoned experience and knowledge. They didn't take any of that lightly. Australia simply wasn't an easy place for a stone-age level culture to survive in, but is very easy for a technological culture. I wouldn't call their society less 'free' though. Freedom is inside, not outside.

Aboriginals weren't initially savage toward Europeans, they greeted and treated us like guests for the most part. First time Euros turned up they left soon after on good terms. The second time we came they thought we would go again. The violent backlash only started after they realized we weren't leaving, we were taking everything. Governors of the new States and the royalist suck-ups were awarded things like CBE medals, i.e. "Conqueror for the British Empire", in annual Royal 'honors' lists. But only if they've done really abominable pitiless things in the aid of engorging the royal coffer, and increasing Royal assets and "Crown Land", for the royal murdering-scum family. Conqueror is just the English way of saying Conquistador.

And that all the british royals are. Forget the philosophical happy-crappy Charles waffles about, they're murdering thieving militarist scumbags, through and through. They had a boost in the pop-culture ratings via marrying-in a leggy Jewish commoner, Kate Middleton, whose mother is a Goldsmith. And as the jewish bloodline is matriarchal the children of Kate Middleton and royal family bloodline from her will be jewish as well. Gee, how did that happen? Well, not one bit of it is accidental, jews now basically control the Anglo Commonwealth western world mate.

It's not a theory Ghordie, we do in fact live in a zionist-occupational-government 'NWO' western-world, and it's rapidly turning to a zionist operated cess-pit.  It's one giant lie and propaganda spinning machine working flat-out, 24/7/365.

Only now they want everyone disarmed as well.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 05:09 | 3121342 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I'm a descendent of a couple of very, very long lines of those "murdering thieving militarist scumbags", with extensive family archives about how - among others - my forebears profitably burned, killed and pillaged... jews

additionally, I'm a continental european, and nominally Catholic to boot, and still very conscious of our last "clean-up" action here

I even have familial and friendly ties to the Knights of Malta and the Vatican...

so please excuse me from debates on how jews are controlling or not controlling your Anglo Commonwealth, now morphed into our great liberal commercial empire

but count me in when it comes to this odious lies and propaganda actions - I fully agree with you, it's turning in a cess-pit

which leads me to point out that the Order of the British Empire was not frank enough to call 'em Conquerers, and choose the term Commander, instead ;-)

one thing, though: disarmed? those who let them get disarmed by a law aren't probably very useful when armed, anyway

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 07:52 | 3121442 Element
Element's picture

Well, no wonder you can't see an NWO. ;)

I said they want it, didn't say they would get it. People are pretty angry about the very suggestion of any attempt to do that. Once some real firefights get started it would be road to Damascus time, just not in a good way ... but I suspect some want that civil conflict, very much.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 08:36 | 3121483 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I try to see the CWO - the Current World Order, and I don't see much "new" in it - except the usual shifts and the recurring bouts of corruption

no, IMHO most of this pernicious Pro&Contra Guns & Constitution talk is pure irritant, and I'm suspecting it will keep so - coupled with fervent hope, that is

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 09:27 | 3121547 Element
Element's picture



"You can't change human nature"

I heard most of the same survival guns and constitution talk in the 1980s as well. The world was going to end then too. The difference now is the Govt and the system really is completely willfully rotten to the core, it really is 1984-esque, the draconian assassination and indefinite internment without trial, and legal murder of anyone on earth, without recourse, is formally here, they even announced it all in the MSM in the last couple of days, and there's this maggot from georgetown UNI-versity (what a disgrace!) saying to remove the lot and let 'er rip. Well, it would be real nice to see pictures of that maggot and Obama and Clinton, and the treacherous weasils like them hanging from a rope. 

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 03:42 | 3121284 honestann
honestann's picture

You just don't get it.  A so-called "group" or "community" is an abstraction.  It simply flat out does not exist (except as mental units in the brains of humans).  Period.  What does exist are multiple individual humans.  If you know how to operate your brain properly, you can hold abstractions like "group" or "community" in your brain, and in many situations, can help you think with less effort.

So yes, abstractions can be helpful... but if and only if you clearly understand (and keep in mind) the differences between abstractions and other non-abstract mental units.

Here is one almost absurd way of exposing what I'm talking about.  Consider some small "group" you want to discuss.  Let's assume it is your "local neighborhood", composed of 20 "families", which is ultimately 50 individual human beings.

Take those 50 individual human beings, have them step on a scale that measures mass, and add up the 50 numbers.  Let's say the total is 3,000kg.  Now, what is the mass of those 50 individuals PLUS the group?  Answer, 3,000kg.  The group weighs nothing, the group does not exist.  You can perform this on whole towns, cities, states, provinces, countries, continents, world-regions and planet earth.  No matter what size "group" or "community" or "collective" you measure, the collective has zero mass.  Why?  Because the "collective" does not exist.  Put another way, the "collective" is nothing more than a mental unit in your head (and possibly dozens or millions or billions of other heads).  The "group" or "community" or "collective" has no reality outside the brain of anyone who allows that mental unit to form in their brain.

Furthermore, if you object to this discussion of "mass", I will point out that multiple individuals can take all the actions a "community" can, and can enter into every configuration that a "community" can.  In other words, there is nothing whatsoever to "community".

However, there is something important to recognize.  That is, holding these fictional mental units does have consequences --- on the brains of those individuals who hold them.  What are the consequences depends on how those individuals hold them, treat them, consider them.  For example, the mental unit commonly known as "SantaClaus" most certainly motivates actions.  In kids, it motivates them in many ways, including getting up at 5am on one day of the year, when you need to pry them out of bed with a crowbar to get them up before noon every other day of the year.  Those kids do not understand that mental unit is a fiction, a lie.  The same "SantaClaus" mental unit also motivates adults, even though most of them know perfectly well that this particular mental unit is a fiction, a lie.

So therein lies the problem.  Mental units motivate human actions.  So if you don't know the nature of each mental unit, you are a clueless, helpless slave at the mercy of those mental units.  Which is why predators love to create, populate with meaning, and disperse endless bogus mental units to every individual they can.  This is their primary means of control... they know your brain controls your values, goals and decisions, which in turn control your actions and you.  They gotcha!

This is why it is soooooo crucial for human beings to understand that every "corporation" is a fiction, that every "government" is a fiction, that every "organization" is a fiction, and that every "position" in those fictional organizations are also fiction.  They are simply made-up fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy, and nothing more.

This is why I keep repeating here in ZH:

predators DBA government
predators DBA corporations
predators DBA central-banks

What I am trying to point out is this:

The predators, and the actions they take, are very much real.

The "organizations" they claim to "be/represent" do not exist.

When 2 or 22 or 222 people sit down at a table in Kansas or Philadelphia, and agree to "create" some "corporation" or "government", nothing real pops into existence.  Just saying "we hereby create SantaClaus" or "SugarHigh Bakery" or "Canada" does not create anything real... except a mental unit in those people involved.  This is why we call such mental units fiction... to distinguish mental units that refer to some real existent from mental units that do not.

And please understand this.  The most critical, central, fundamental requirement of sanity is the ability to distinguish real from fiction, from existent from non-existent.

And yet, the predators have so thoroughly convinced the vast majority of humans to ignore the distinction between "real" and "fiction", we literally live on a planet populated almost exclusively by absolutely, completely, utterly... and clinically insane chimps, bouncing off the walls and each other at the bequest of the predators-that-be and predator-class (who, by and large, and to various degrees, understand this game of fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy by which they control the sheeple).  In fact, this is how they have converted a planet full of marginally sane creatures into a planet of almost exclusively insane, confused, easily manipulated creatures.

My human nature is what I make it.  Your human nature is what you allow your predator-masters to make of it.  You can escape physical slavery, but only after you escape the enslavement of your consciousness, which you are in complete denial about.  You love your slavery, whether you imagine otherwise or not.

I do not deal with groups.  I only deal with individuals.  Period.  Period.  Period.

Got that?  It doesn't matter how many times you insist otherwise.  I know better.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 04:47 | 3121334 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I think I get now what you are trying to explain to me

I think we both agree that it's "in the minds", as you say, "Mental units motivate human actions"

Perhaps the only real point where we disagree is what would be the "natural" or "reset" status of humans, which would probably lead to a long discussion on culture, etc.

And that I see organizations, groups, etc. more as "agreements" than "fiction", but that's just a point of view - an explainable one with your theory, particularly because I, for example, love and cherish some of my allegiances

So yes, I'm consciously in love with "my slavery" of "imaginary" social debts and expectations - I embrace them, I'm motivated by them

The best and most fascinating term I've ever found for those mental units is "memes", which expands the concept of "idea"

On a scientific side I'm skeptical, though. Research in linguistics show that the brains of children are genetically predisposed to grammar, and my other (quite eclectic) studies point to a general predisposition of humans to social group behaviours - like chimps

On a pure empirical/personal side your point of view is what I'd expect "as natural" from people growing up and living in very low density areas - in contrast to people experiencing the opposite (particularly in cities) and so living the "insane chimp life" to the fullest - which can be fulfilling, nevertheless ;-)

Have you ever experienced villages composed of very, very large extended families, btw?

anyway, thanks for the chat! have a wonderful 2013

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 07:34 | 3121424 honestann
honestann's picture

I never said you can't have agreements with several individuals.  And, in fact, you could write up an agreement that says "this is voluntarily agreed to by everyone on the following list of [invited] individuals who also signs below.  So we can have agreements with "multiple individuals".  Works fine.  Just don't imagine you can include others who are not willing or voluntary.

The problem with mistaking the status of mental units like "group" or "community" or "collective" or "society" or "culture" is... it becomes very easy and tempting to insert or presume endless instances of required/forced/punished involuntary behavior.  And that is aggressive, destructive, predatory and unethical.

The problem is, when people "fuzz out" about the nature of each mental unit they have, and imagine that abstract fictions are the same as real existents, predators and bullies always win... every single time.

Again, nothing wrong with allegiances... as long as they are fully voluntary, and as long as the terms cannot be changed without the consent of everyone included, and/or as long as anyone can opt-out when they wish to.  But when staying in an allegiance makes you sanction, support or finance actions others in the allegiance take, you must make sure you do not sanction/support/finance unethical actions, because you have made yourself responsible for those unethical actions.

Today, every large allegiance abuses others.  Therefore, to consider yourself a part of any of those large allegiances, you are necessarily unethical and predatory.  This is one reason I am so adamant that I am not a member of "groups"... because almost every group sanctions, supports, advocates, practices and/or finances at least some unethical actions --- very often by asserting that others are required to be part of the allegiance/community/collective/society/club.

You are captured by the term "social" and other similar terms.  You seem utterly incapable of seeing two human beings have a conversation or perform some action collaboratively without "seeing" a "society" at work.  That's simply a habit that predators have gotten you to form... a habit of seeing things as fictional aggregates, or parts of fictional aggregates, rather than just seeing things for what they are.

If two riders in a stagecoach both help fight off bandits trying to steal the stagecoach and the property of the passengers, you don't see two individuals cooperating, you see those two individuals as "a society".  Frankly, that's just nuts.  To be sure, they have a common interest (keep their property and survive the attack), but that doesn't create anything in addition to what was there before the attackers started shooting.

Of course individuals intereact with other individuals.  You can call that "social behavior" if you want and you can call that "group behavior" if you want, but you are fooling yourself to imagine that anything but the individuals exists.  Those are simply convenient abstractions that exist only in your mind, and only for the purposes of making brief to consider or express what might otherwise be unwieldy.

Even in a city, it is my opinion that people don't like being harmed, cheated, assaulted and otherwise pushed around.  Why would they?  To be sure, people in a large city have more individuals to chose from if they want to engage in some sort of interactions with other individuals.  That changes nothing that I can see.  If you want to donate some of your wealth to the opera company, you can.  That doesn't mean you necessarily want to donate some of your income to a random bunch of thugs who corner you somewhere and demand your wallet.  How is that any different than being in the countryside?

You seem to not be able to keep your eye on the ball.  What ball?  The ball that is "involuntary".  This is the same ball in the extreme boonies as center city.  As long as individuals only engage in voluntary interactions, it doesn't matter where you are.  Does it?

As for the "extended family" villages, the answer is more-or-less yes.  I spent quite a bit of time in the high andes in a few tiny villages (populations 12 to about 40) that didn't seem like extended families at first, but the more I got to know them, the more connections I learned about.  Eventually it started to seem like maybe the entire village was just 1, 2, 3 extended families.  Even more than that, because they had been living a completely self-sufficient life for the entire 25,000 ~ 150,000 years since their ancestors found their way to the americas.  They were the most impressive and wonderful people I've ever met.  They had zero products or technology from the countries they lived in (Chile, Argentina, Peru), they had never had a peso or penny, they had never bought or sold anything from outside their village, they were happy and at peace and very, very independent.

I mean, I am just about as self-sufficient as any [sorta]-westerner you're ever likely to [be unable to] find, but I'm just a piker compared to those folks.  Of course, they're much tougher than I'll ever be, too.  They do trade with each other, quite a lot, and benefit greatly from "division of labor" and "divison of expertise" even in these tiny little villages.  They simply do so without any form of fiat that would eventually create a fiat predator class.  They trade real stuff for real stuff.  Interestingly the closest they do have to a universal "money" are about 100 (I'm guessing) gold nuggets of various sizes they've found over the tens of thousands of years living in the andes.

The people I got to know the best (perhaps because I stayed in their area the longest) got to be very close friends with me.  This led to me being part of one dynamic that isn't exactly "trade", but perhaps just how friends treat friends (which I am totally fine with, because every action is 100% voluntary).  After I knew them a while I went away for a couple weeks to pick up my brand new toy (a tiny but very high-tech 2-seat airplane).  When I came back I landed on the path into the village and rolled to a stop right in the middle of "town" (vastly more spread out than you are picturing).  So everyone comes running into town, thinking "what is this?!!!!".  They can't see inside because the side windows are tinted, and the front window is swept back and reflects the sky into their eyes.

So when I open the door and get out, everyone cheers when they recognize me.  And they rush around jumping like a bunch of children --- even the 70~90 year olds.  So I convince one of the old gals (80-something) to sit in the passenger side seat, then I get back in, start up the engine, and fly away!  Hahahaha.  You have never seen a kid as excited as 80-something Mazaian.  I thought she'd break her neck off looking out her (right) window, the front window, the left window, the overhead window.  I couldn't make her wear her harness (seatbelts, etc).

She had never been more than 10km away from her home, and now we were flying wider and wider circles around her village.  I point at a 18,000~20,000 foot high volcano maybe 30km away and shrug.  She pronounces the name they call the mountain.  I repeat the name and straighten out our flight... straight at the mountian, gaining altitude as quickly as I can.  We barely clear the lip of the crater at the top by 100 meters or so, and I start flying right-hand circles around the top.  She is transfixed for 3 loops, then when I'm about ready to level out and head for another volcano, she points down and utters a sound I recognize as their local word for "walk".  I bank steeper and look out her window to see what she's talking about.  Some hikers down on the rim walking?  Or what?  I can't see anyone, just a fairly straight level stretch on the rim.  I shrug?  Then she points at me, then at her, then down at the straight section on the rim and repeats the word for "walk"... with inflection implying a question.

Oh boy!  Risk my new play toy on day one?  Well, I can fly a low, slow pass, measure how long the straight section is, and see whether the surface is too rough.  Hey, all I need is a freaking flat tire up at 20,000 feet on a volcano ~300km from the nearest airport!  To my surprise, the flat section is nearly 200 meters long, very close to level, and apparently solid rock.  That's a bit unusual, most places up on these volcano rims are covered with loose 10mm ~ 20mm rocks.  So I make a wide circle and come in as slow as possible to attempt to land.  Turns out, it was an easy landing, and fortunately essentially no wind at all... lucky us.  I rolled up to some big bolders, stopped the engine, and raised both doors open.  She immediately hopped out and started running back and forth between the center of the crater and the edge of the rim where she could see the barren high desert and possibly signs of her tiny village.

As soon as I was certain there was no wind, and I could safely exit the plane myself, I carefully secured three ropes to three big honking boulders and three tiepoints on my little (290kg) plane.  Grabbed my binoculars and camera and went over and took a few still shots and some video of Mazaian exploring the rim, the crater, the desert towards her village.  Finally when she noticed I was there, she grabbed me and gave me the most amazing bearhug.  This little tiny 80-something lady was unbelievably strong!  And she didn't seem a bit phased by the altitude even after all her running around on the rim, while I definitely felt a bit dingy.  No running for me!

Then she points in the general direction of her village, looks at me, and shrugs.  She has a pretty good sense of direction, but not exactly.  I focus the binoculars, then give them to her and point her towards her village.  After a while slowing scanning back and forth, lower and higher, she finally finds her little village and gets all excited.  Still staring through the binoculars, she starts talking at light speed... I have no freaking idea what she's saying.

We spend the next half hour wandering the rim, her looking with eyes and binoculars, me mostly taking video of her exploring (which she never even noticed).  I'm lucky there was a cliff of sorts up ahead, or I could never have stopped her from walking all the way around the rim, which is probably 3 or 4 kilometers at least.  It is mid summer, but damn freaking cold up here at pushing 4 miles altitude, even in my jacket (and no wind).  As before, she's not the least bit phased.

Finally we arrive back and the plane, where I help her into her seat.  I really don't think she wanted to leave, but she could tell I was ready to go.  I perform the checks, untie the plane, turn it around 180-degrees, and stow everything except the video camera, which I firmly attach where it points past her face and out her window.  I start up my toy, get rolling up to about 80km, then take off with lots of flat rock ahead of me to spare.  Good, not gonna destroy my new toy the first week.  Not yet, anyway.

So I fly two more right-hand circuits around the rim so Mazaian gets a good final look, then straighten out, throttle back, then point the nose strongly down and head about 45-degrees left of her village (so the video camera captures her and the village once in a while on the way back).  Not 15 minutes later we roll up to the same spot I stopped before and Mazaian leaps out into the excited "crowd" (~20 people).  They don't even notice me push my plane to where I can tie it down to wooden beams usually reserved for horses.  When I'm done, I see everyone sitting on the rocks or the ground, while Mazaian waves her arms and hands around visually, describing her experience.

Why did I explain that to you?  Oh, right.  Villages of "extended families".  Ends up there were only 8 individuals as brave as Mazaian, who wanted to "fly like a bird".  They got their chances, we went to 8 different places nearby, and collected 8 sets of videos and photos.  Oh, right... "the alternative to conventional trade".  I was a bit different than the others.  I was just about totally incompetent when it came to the chores those folks do to stay alive.  So I couldn't really trade in that way.  But they loved to exchange positive experiences with me.  Some of them loved to go with me when I'd go exploring in my plane, and they all loved to watch the videos that I took of everyone when we landed and explored difficult or impossible to access parts of the high-desert and mountains that is their home.

To the extent I understand what they're saying to me, I could probably visit any of their homes and be given free meals and a place to sleep for as long as I wanted.  The very best was some of the hiking treks they took me on.  Once they understood how much I enjoy "totally wild, crazy, wacko geology", they'd take me to some truly awesome places, many of which I couldn't even see from a distance, but then rounded a corner or passed some bolders and whamo --- some totally amazing place.  Crazy rock formations, amazing caves, incredible hot springs in the middle of the driest desert on planet earth, amazing, amazing places.  I doubt anyone else ever saw many of these places they took me.  I never saw a single sign of western leave-behinds.  More than sufficient payment for me.  I feel like I got the way better end of our dealings, while I'm certain they believe the opposite.  That's called a "win-win", which is the only kind of interactions individualists want to be involved in.

BTW, being "insane" isn't restricted to "cities".  Being insane is practiced by most people everywhere.  Even where people seem and act "more individualistic", if they cannot distinguish real from fiction, they are insane.  Doesn't matter where they are.

Those folks in the high Andes are vaguely aware there is a "big bad world out there", and know there is a bunch of self-important people who claim to have formed a "government" that claims some kind of "authority" over vast expanses of land (Chile, Peru, Argentina, etc), but it has nothing to do with them as far as they're concerned.  They know their ancestors have been living in those mountains for hundreds if not thousands of generations, and consider it absurd that some bunch of bullies imagine they control everyone for thousands of miles.  Fortunately, there seems to be some unwritten practice of those governments not messing with these folks who have no connection to the "citizens".  These folks laugh when they're told they are considered "citizens" of Chile, Argentina, Peru, etc.  And the predators-DBA-government, for some reason or other, hesitate to come force them to... who knows what they'd insist?  Get ID?  Sign up for social security?  Get formal education?  Hmmmm... maybe that last one will be what ultimately starts a conflict someday... when the predators try to tell them what they're kids need to "learn".  Them's fighting words!

Anyway, those were my "social days"... living off-and-on near those folks.  Now I live in much more extreme boonies, where less than 20 people live within about 120km, and there is no road (not even 4WD trail) that can get to where I live.  The only way in or out is by airplane (and only one that can land and take-off in 120 meters or less, like mine can).  This is the real life.  This is how advanced, high-tech sentient beings should live.  Well, except I should be in outer space, somewhere in the asteroids, or... elsewhere.  :-)

It has been an interesting experiment, seeing how people respond to clarity about reality and consciousness.  I've learned (or confirmed) what I wanted to learn.  Humans are beyond the point of no return, and even the best of them don't understand what's happening to them and around them.  Makes me wonder.  Why is almost almost every human who understands the scam a predator?  Is there something about having the attitude of a predator that clarifies the consciousness and makes one understand the nature of the endless intellectual lies and scams?  It sure seems so.  Clearly there is nothing I can do about it in the world at large.  So probably it is time for me to ignore the outside world at large, focus on our project, and finish it.  Sounds like I should make a NewYear resolution to stay away from ZH and stop wasting my time.

2013 will almost certainly be a very bad year.  And all downhill after that.


PS:  A related reply to a point you attempt to make elsewhere, where you claim the fundamental inherent nature of man is to be a predator.

I can't speak about most "remote isolated villages" on this planet. But these people are utterly individualistic. They help each other, but nobody is required to help anyone. I've seen it fall both ways... happy to help, not gonna help. Nobody gets upset, they just go on with what each is doing. For example, they have no leader, no positions, no community services (unless you count the deep fresh water source which is freely shared and universally respected and not polluted). So if you found other places where small collections of individuals tend to form communistic formulae, that doesn't prove that is the inherent nature of mankind, because all the groups I visited in the andes were exactly opposite. What I expect is this. Somewhere along the line some bunch of bullies used aggressive force to scare everyone into submission. When nearby tribes heard about this, some bully-minded in those locations said, "Hey, we can do that too, and be the big-shots here". So yeah, probably predatory-behavior tends to breed more predatory-behavior... at least as long as the rest behave like prey (as "Element" correctly observed). But I can assure you, such behavior is not the inherent nature of mankind. No way. However, it does grow and take over everything like a virus.  Which is sad.  But that's the nature of predatory phenomenon, not the fundamental nature of man.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 08:08 | 3121459 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

GREAT story, HonestAnn. I always enjoy seeing the world through the eyes of truly independent minds - it helps clearing mine

no, I'm not claiming that the communist formula is inherent - only that there are some indications to certain "social adaptations", group behaviours, etc.

the truly "primitive" people I've witnessed had for example quite a lot of taboos or customs around sharing, stuff like that - nothing that disclaims your view, btw

in fact your view explains a lot about my situation in life - in the very middle of "chimp madness"

I find you have a few logical fallacies in your thinking, but hey, who hasn't them? ;-)

I am dead certain I have a couple I haven't found yet, and many, many ethical quandaries you seem to lack

If you don't mind I won't go back to this spot in the blog but I might pose you a couple of OT questions to you if you don't mind

pls allow me to wish you and humanity a great year, nevertheless, and many still greater ahead

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 08:54 | 3121471 Element
Element's picture



"… you must make sure you do not sanction/support/finance unethical actions, because you have made yourself responsible for those unethical actions.
Today, every large allegiance abuses others. Therefore, to consider yourself a part of any of those large allegiances, you are necessarily unethical and predatory.  This is one reason I am so adamant that I am not a member of "groups"... because almost every group sanctions, supports, advocates, practices and/or finances at least some unethical actions …"


Your statements imply more than individual being matters. What that is matters a lot. This stands out more than anything else, I know what that is, have seen you all along, we are the same.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:36 | 3118122 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Ghordius, you still maintain there is NO NWO, plot..just like to know. OR ELSE YOU CONTRADICT YOUR MAN IS PREDATOR COMMENTS.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:51 | 3118154 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

it's a bit OT, isn't it? NWO as term is often used as a description of what initially Reagan and Tatcher brough us, with help of many other leaders of the free world, including Clinton and of course Bush II and Blair, the dynamic New World Order duo

I presume you don't mean that

if you mean that one group, one elite somehow manages to secretly steer all relevant political and economic processes, than, enphatically imo no

if you mean that there is humungus corruption in the AngloAmerican financial world, with many groups extracting illegal wealth, than yes

if you mean that there is humungus corruption in the AngloAmerican political world, with many groups colluding to enact their agendas, than yes

if you mean that many other elites are partly in this game, than yes

but one secret group coordinating a really big chunk of it? no

it's not that it's too simple, it's more all the signs of friction between the different groups, with many of those groups being very, very visible

just a few very stupid examples: why did France not join Bush's and Blair's search for WMDs in Iraq? How did the US and UK retailiate? Remember DSK's honey trap? Have you ever looked more closely to the role of Rupert Murdoch in US/UK politics? His enmity with Italy's Berlusconi? The positioning of big chunks of the Russian and Chinese elites? The way we continental europeans are driving the EUR? How the EUR idea began, in the years 1968 to 1971?

If the whole world would consist in the US and UK, than perhaps you could make a valid case from circumstantial evidence. But not for the whole world. And the whole world is bigger than that, even though lots of people don't realize that

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:05 | 3118162 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture
Ghordius, so you mean NO AND YES. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE YOU WRITE WELL, BUT SO MANY WORDS TO SAY NOTHING. however you would be someone well worth sharing a drink with. and to clarify nwo to me means unelected groups of elite ,by their own definition,who thru wealth and control of central banks, international organisations,are moving the world to a central control of gov and economy.
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:28 | 3118231 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

ah, now you gave me carpet to dance on. ok

several groups are pushing for the dominance of the "liberal commercial empire" (since the beginning of the British Empire) on the world

several groups use the FED, the mighty dollar and the fractional banking systems of the US and UK to further their goals

some other groups push and pull against this mighty tide - for example our gangs in continental europe, as well as in China, Russia, Brazil, etc

and some other groups try to paint the world as a carbon copy of the US, particularly by canvassing all international affairs as maneuverings of "unelected", "technocrat", "shady" "socialist", "foreign", etc. devils

small examples:

- the agendas of most national banks differ from that of the FED and the BoE, even though all of them use the BIS as a facility

- the French, British and American "colonial" agendas differ, even though all three dominate the IMF (to Russia's and particularly China's chagrin) and the World Bank

- the Chinese gov is pushing for a greater role of the SDRs - the other BRICS agree, the others see it as against their interests

- the EUR stole some of the power of the Dollar's global dominance. Without EUR we would have become subject to the process of dollarization (look it up)

clearer? ;-)

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:40 | 3118261 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

ghordius, a note, nwo is not ot. they want goals that match the dropping of american consitution and they pay well to get got yr eu, with brussels gray men doing the dirty work, davos is just for fun each year, the west is falling apart or have you noticed the last 4 years: china has grown per nixon i might add  endless war is here the police state is in place across the west and you can keep your eyes closed to the facts, nwo is here and like a fish you ask what is wet.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:09 | 3118784 Element
Element's picture

Ghordius lives in a happy place, we should probably leave him there, he'll find out himself soon enough. ;)

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:01 | 3118965 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I've been in very, very unhappy places in my life, suffered very unhappy deeds and inflicted others on others

whatever I write here can't be proven while anonymous, so what's the point?

and yet the place where you live is only as happy as you make it - and yourself

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:18 | 3119040 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I wish you luck in defending your constitution. I hope that you understand that it would not be ok for me to defend yours

in fact it's considered nearly illegal and quite unseemly - foreign influence, and all that

we have a deal, here. we try to defend our 26 constitutions, laws and setups. we recognize each others as citizens, and so it's ok for an european like me to care for 26 nations (I'm excluding the UK because the Brits themselves would disagree with me)

brussels? I think I have to write again, soon, about Brussels, and the EU, and the "dirty work". another time, just don't forget to challenge me then

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:03 | 3118171 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Man is a predator - just look at our eyes. So what?

There seems to be some hidden (to me) idea in the room that humans are somehow something more like sheep. We are what we are, but perhaps you put too much emphasis on the word "predator"

The context in the thread was that we are not a species that functions in lone "predator mode"

In fact, we mostly cooperate - peacefully - in groups

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:08 | 3118181 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

we mostly cooperate peacefully, well the gauls, celtic, did cooperate with rome in the end but like so much tragic human history peace had nothing to do with it

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:01 | 3118544 honestann
honestann's picture

Man was a predator, 10,000 years ago, because he did not know how to be productive.

Now man does know how to be productive, so now it is incorrect to say "man is a predator".

Today, each individual human has a choice.

Today, you can be a predator.

Today, you can be a pararsite.

Today, you can be a producer.

My choice.  Your choice.  A choice for every individual.

So no.  Man is not a predator.  Man is a chooser.  So choose.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:44 | 3118677 Element
Element's picture



" ...So no.  Man is not a predator.  Man is a chooser.  So choose."


Very good, but you missed one.


Today, you can be any and all of the above.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 02:49 | 3121260 honestann
honestann's picture

Depending on what you mean, exactly, yes.  However, in a very important way, being a predator part-time is the same as being a predator.  For example, just because predators sleep, and do not harm or destroy others while they sleep, does not stop them from being predators.  They are still predators in the sense that is most important.

Likewise, it is fairly common for people to say "he is a murderer", even though he only spent 1 second of his entire lifetime pulling a trigger and thereby killing another human.

So while the meanings of these terms seem the same on the surface, after reflection we can see that being a producer is quite a bit more difficult.

In the full sense, and in the sense I usually intend, being a producer requires a human produce everything he consumes, and nothing that other consume (except for voluntary trade, which is simply one way to convert one item (that you produced) into another item (which someone else produced).  You and your trading partner are both causes, and the result is an exchange of goods or goodies.

So this is one reason being a producer is more impressive... it requires the human to take no actions to harm or destroy others or their property.  And when a producer accidentally harms or destroys something, he must voluntarily and fully compensate all who suffered the harm.  Thus, someone who is somewhat productive for a while, but then takes predatory acts, we call a predator.  This is clearly albeit indirectly recognized in fundamental law.  If a human who has been highly productive and never predatory his entire life starts trying to kill you, you are perfectly ethical to shoot him dead just as surely as if he was a life-long predator.

So it ain't easy being a producer from that point of view.  However, producers benefit from the exponential nature of productive activity (theirs and others), so it isn't all negative.

Nonetheless, it sure is easier to be a predator or parasite in a world that contains a great many sheeple producers.  No question about that.  Which is why producers should stop being sheeple (or "prey" as you call them).

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:46 | 3118489 honestann
honestann's picture

I am not part of any contract that I did not understand and voluntarily agree to.  Period.  Any claim to the contrary deserves a bullet through the head of the predator slimeball who claims I have a contract.  I hope that's clear enough for you.  I am certainly not subject to any so-called "social contract".  To claim otherwise is fighting words!

You are completely insane.  You are a perfect example of why I claim "mankind is finished".  You have allowed others to completely destroy your brain.

I have nothing to do with human beings.  Got that?  I'm not part of any clan, any group, any organization, any other collective.  I am me, and only me, and have zero responsibility to you or any other individuals (who at least do exist), and certainly not to any "society" or "country" or other fiction (which do not even exist).

Got that?  I wash my hands of you and the 7-billion other insane chimps on planet earth.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:51 | 3118937 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Ann, I'm not claiming that you have a contract with the rest of the world. I'm just stating a fact: that there are groups and organizations that consider you part of them. That include you. You might like it or not, believe it or not, do whatever you want - that's the way others feel, think and act

If you are found dead, someone will investigate. If you are attacked, someone will defend you. The list is very long and has very few exceptions...

and the list includes people posting comments on ZH that value your opinion on certain matters and will defend you whenever they feel you are "attacked" here

you might call me an idiot, insane and one of the other chimps on planet earth - does it change it?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:09 | 3119000 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

perhaps I do have to repeat it from the other part of the thread

"you fail to recognize is that in order to seriously and de facto divorce from one or several group, you have to join an opposed or neutral group

just unilaterally declaring a solipsistic independence is not recognized as such by any group, and that's part of our human nature"

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 04:53 | 3121319 honestann
honestann's picture


As a matter of fact, I do interact with a very small number of individuals about once every three months when I fly my little airplane ~200km "to town" (population ~100) to pick up supplies.

I interact with the nice folks who sell me the tasty meal I eat at my favoite restaurant in that town.  Those nice folks are individuals, and I have a specific individual personal relationship with each individual who works there.  I treat them differently because each of them is different.  Some are fascinated with my airplane, and I've taken them for rides around their vacinity.  Others are terrified, but are curious about self-sufficiency techniques.  Others like to discuss movies.  There is no "group" that I am dealing with, only individuals.

No, I am not part of any group.  I refuse to be part of any group.  Even in the one case where I say I am part of a group [re-implementing inorganic consciousness], that's just linguistic shorthand.  What exists are the few individuals who are working on the project.  They are individuals.  Period.  You can call them a group, since you are so incapable of doing otherwise, but that doesn't mean a freaking thing.  Each of us individuals working on the project have agreed on certain things in order to make the project reliable, secure and viable.  Those are individual agreements, made by individuals with other individuals.

I mean, really!  Just try to imagine making an agreement with a "group".  How on earth would one even attempt to do such a thing?  Makes zero sense!  I can only deal with entities that exist, and furthermore, entities that I can see, hear and/or touch.  The "group" you refer-to has no such characteristics.  It has no mass.  It makes no sound.  It is invisible.  It cannot be touched.  It has no properties!  None, zero, nada, zip.  To imagine I can make an agreement with... nothing... is just crazy talk, by crazy chimps.  Yet you imagine such interactions exist!  They don't, because they can't.  Sorry.  You need to break down everything into the individual steps/actions.  Those actions are real, the vaporware descriptions you believe are nothing but vaporware... pure vaporware.

To claim that an "individual" is exactly equal to a "solipsist" proves how completely over-the-top insane you have managed to become on this issue!  You are saying the only two possibilities are:

1:  one sentient being in the universe (solipsist).
2:  some infinitude of collectives (no individuals).

This is completely absurd.  If every human being on planet earth vanished tomorrow, I most certainly could function in the same general manner I function now.  I already live a self-sufficient existence in the extreme boonies, and have zero physical contact except once every 3 months or so, when I go exchange something of mine for things others have produced.

If everyone on earth vanished, my diet would change somewhat, because I am not set up to produce everything.  I have greenhouses, machine shop, solar-panels, wind-turbine, water-tanks, water-purification, pretty much "the works".  If everyone on earth vanished, I might be inclined to go gather up some meat animals that I currently do not care for at my digs.  Or I'd get by exclusively on chicken, veggies, fruit, nuts that I do grow... which is possible.

What I'm trying to point out is, I don't require any other human being to survive.  And frankly, I would be happier if the rest of mankind vanished like a fart in the wind.  I would.  I'm so sick and tired of willful ignorance and refusal to even attempt to think through issues.  I try to help, but I'll tell you, I am this close to never being heard from again, because I have seriously important productive work to do, and I don't seem to be able to get through to anyone.  You've all been too thoroughly brainwashed by the predators, who you completely serve (whether you realize it or not, or wish to or not).

I am an individual.  I am a sentient being.  I decide what is my nature, I work to become that, and given enough time and effort, I prevail.  I am not some "fragment of a collective".  I am me.

And listen up.  If I do not join a group, I am not part of that group.  Got that?  I am not your slave, or a slave to anyone.  Got that?  And I am telling you and everyone else, I am not part of any group, any community, any collective.  My only interactions are voluntary interactions and they are exclusively with individuals.  And once my/our project is complete, we will happily remove ourselves from this planet and never see, hear or think of you chimps again.  Good riddens!

PS:  Just because I (or some group I am part of) refuse to recognize you are independent of our group... does not make you part of our group.  If you can't distinguish utterly bogus, unilateral assertions from reality, you are deeply sick.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 05:19 | 3121357 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I was already writing further down in the thread. my point was not about your actions and thoughts, it was about what others do, think and feel

do you have an opinion if an used Catalina waterplane is a smart preposition, btw? A friend of mine is asking me to share one

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 18:40 | 3124081 honestann
honestann's picture

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that aircraft.  What hooked me on the pipistrel virus sw 100 with the rotax 912iS engine is: efficiency (75mpg == 32kpl @ economy speed), range (4000km+ non-stop with the extreme range wing tanks), short takeoff distance (under 100 meters), extremely short landing distance (about 20 meters), strong, tough structure (carbon fiber), high-tech instrumentation (glass cockpit with GPS, 3-axis autopilot, etc), comfortable side-by-side seating, and good speed (302kph max, 285kph cruise (75% throttle), ~250kph economy speed (40%~50% throttle and 75 miles per gallon).  I also value having a brand new aircraft, which is very much only my personal preference, since many airplanes fly quite well for a great many decades.

To be sure, it is wonderful to be able to land on water if you live or travel where lakes are common.  Planes can become very expensive, so a major requirement for me was low cost, reliability and cheap operation costs.  At 75mpg, this aircraft is very cheap to operate --- much cheaper than driving a car!  In fact, this is my "car"... this is how I get everywhere I go.  This airplane is very reliable, and I can service the plane myself (the regular, easy stuff).  The 2,000 hour overhauls, I could learn to do, but don't plan to.  2000 hours * 250mph == 500,000 miles.  I can afford to pay $500~$800 every half million miles at major service time.

I really know very little about "other kinds" of aircraft.  I trained in and later rented high-wing cessnas, so my pipistrel virus sw 912iS was extremely natural and familiar for me (only quieter, faster, cheaper, smoother, more agile, vastly longer range, and shorter takeoffs).  It is easier to fly than any aircraft I've ever flown.  I love my toy!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:22 | 3117899 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

these journalists and tv presenters are suspect. when i went to university in usa there were recruiting nights for cia and other government agencies all the time the four years I was there. they seemed to focus on majors in journalism, foreign affairs and political science, and, of course, military students.


i read these kinds of op eds and think they are written by someone else, the "journalist" justs lends their name to them.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:24 | 3117907 bagholder
bagholder's picture

Prof Seidman should read this book:

Eloquently describes why the framers created the constitution into the form in which it exists. These roadblocks prevent the tyranny of the few and at times, the tyranny of the many. Independence was achieved in 1776, but the Constitution was not finalized until 1787 because this was a monumental and important task.

Simply stated, the constitution understands that the public virtue will not be able to overcome self interests, especially in times of difficulty; thus the constituion prevents any unilateral decisions from happening.


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:07 | 3117945 Element
Element's picture



One of the 'religious' freak-show groups in the New Testament account refers to a group called the 'Scribes' or 'Lawyers'. Apparently JC didn't think much of these guys, or so the story goes. But among other very dodgy practices they're reputed to have engaged in broadening the hems of their phylacteries (which was rather disturbing when I first heard of this).


"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the Synagogue ..."

- Matt 23:1-6 (KJB)


Kind of sounds like a legal double-standard, among two-face posers ... apparently you've got to watch out for their Constitutional 'Lawyers' as well. ;)

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:00 | 3118046 ShrNfr
ShrNfr's picture

A bit of historical color. The Gospels, etc. have been largely written from a Pauline viewpoint. It is quite likely that Jesus was a Pharasee. In Israel at the time, there were four flavors of Jewish belief: 1) Saducees, 2) Pharacees, 3) Essenes and 4) The fourth way. The fourth way consisted of people from other religious persuasions that felt that Judism was a religion that had something to offer them. Sort of the Sammy Davis crowd of 50 BCE. The Saducees were the old school. The Pharacees were the new school and eventually morphed into the Talmudic Rabbis. The Essenes were the apocolpytic cult near the Dead Sea. Jews in Alexandria were a mixed bag, but they were in a different area. Philo is an interesting read. He has much in common with the Gnostic Christianity that evolved later. Saul/Paul seems to have been a Pharasee wannabe. But it really matters not a lot. The words from Mathew are a good caution. Since they were committed to paper at around 80 CE after Mark was written in about 65 CE, and before John was written in 100 CE, it would not be unusual for them to reflect some of the bias of the western interpretation. People are free to belive what they want insofar as it does not effect me. For those who take these literally, please be my guest.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:14 | 3118364 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

General Washington will be relieved to find that independence was achieved in 1776.

I'll bet he thought he was in for a bit of a rough slog.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:37 | 3117923 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Back in 1917 Congressman Oscar Callaway demanded investigation into JP Morgan's purchasing control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of his corporate and banking interests. Contains link to 1917 obfuscating NYT article.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:37 | 3117924 cz85b
cz85b's picture

Ladies and Gentlemen,  Let us all remember the name Louis Michael Seitman.  This man stands as a shining beacon that should tell EVERYONE that Constitutional Scolars are NOT necessarily believers in the philosophy behind the Constitution.  In Fact, SOME of these Scolars merely understand what was written.

The fact that he would utilize his freedom of speech to subvert the law that keeps government from shooting him dead for attempting to subvert the law should demonstrate to everyone that the law, in and of itself, is a very good thing!

My suggestion to Seidman:  Sir, There are MANY countries who have Constitutions written in the way you wich the US Constitution to be written.  Venezuela, Cuba, China to name a few will offer you the lifestyle you would absolutely want to live given that you are so unhappy here.  If you need a plane ticket, I will be more than happy to purchase it for you.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:41 | 3117928 zebrasquid
zebrasquid's picture



Let this mother fugger know what you think.



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:01 | 3118050 ShrNfr
ShrNfr's picture

But remember that he will defend the first amendment to the death. I mean freedom of speech is in the Constitution you know.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 03:47 | 3117935 zebrasquid
zebrasquid's picture

These old hippies, like Seidman, sure have lost their way as they moved into the establishment.

Now they are both foul AND dangerous.  A little demonstration outside of Mr. Seidman's office or house might be in order.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 04:19 | 3117962 Steve in Greensboro
Steve in Greensboro's picture

As the late, revered North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms said, "Son, just so you understand, I don't care what The New York Times says about me. And nobody I care about cares what The New York Times says about me."

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:12 | 3117988 israhole
israhole's picture

Read Henry Ford's "The International Jew".  Seidman is a Jew, is it starting to make sense Goy?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:59 | 3118319 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian" Henry Ford

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:22 | 3117992 FunkyOldGeezer
FunkyOldGeezer's picture

I'd give the Professor + 1000.

The USA is most definitely tied to the constitution and for my 2 cents worth, it is interpreted in many absurd ways by too many dumbnutz used by many as a major rationale by countless buffoons as justification for their stupid take on life.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:58 | 3118045 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

You mean like this clown using his right to free speech to claim he should not have a right to free speech?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:27 | 3117993 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

Louis Michael Seitman is a very dangerous clown. But this is the deliberate policy of his newspaper. Next thing you know, the NYT will be organizing a military coup, probably to overthrow the next Republican administration.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:27 | 3117994 davidgdg
davidgdg's picture

I don't see what the Professor is worried about. The constitution has completely failed to stop the Federal Government from becoming what it is today. He and his Liberal-corporate-fascist friends have already got most of what they want and the constitution hasn't stopped them one bit.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:53 | 3118004 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

but look how much further they are in the UK where the Constitution is threadbare and comprises a few ad hoc Acts......the oldest institutions pre-date legislation such as the City of London Corporation which "exists by Prescription" since it pre-dates the legal system. Look at this for a proposal to safeguard First Amendment.......

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 05:54 | 3118005 Element
Element's picture

They want the guns.

The constitution is the obstacle.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:52 | 3118459 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

actually the bill of rights is the obstacle.  

the Constitution merely contains them (for now).

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:09 | 3118012 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

I would assume that there are multiple organizations who track those who are attempting to  destroy the citizens Constitutional protections, I'd also assume that these people and their families would not be likely to survive if "the sh*t hit the fan".

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:37 | 3118033 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

And if we don't give up on the constitution the US gov't will just do things like blow up skyscrapers and kill 1000's so they can circumvent it.

Fuck the US gov't.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:41 | 3118034 phoolish
phoolish's picture

So you can write in the NYT about getting rid of the Constituition ... perhaps a prima facie act of sedition ... but if you are a strong proponent of it and write about that on the internet then you are a potential domestic terr'ist.  I thinK i see where this is going.



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:26 | 3118065 Peterus
Peterus's picture

I'm perfectly confident that such a great and high quality media outlet like NYT has all the important context and relevant sides to this. You can definately read articles there about total corruption of core of the system, banksters exploits, whose interest constitution actually impedes and whose interest it promotes and... wait wait... you can't? And how could that happen?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:45 | 3118036 ShrNfr
ShrNfr's picture

Calvinball. Yes come to think of it, I have heard of the game. Where is my mask??

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 06:56 | 3118043 Quinvarius
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:07 | 3118054 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

So a Jewish puppet anti-gun and anti-Constitution martyr, working in a gun free zone, publicly dares the "crazies" to come to his school and shoot him for treason.  No.  This doesn't seem like a set up at all. 

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:04 | 3118055 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Weird how Joos and lackeys are controlling the MSM, Finance, Federal Courts, Education, now Congress, yet are 1.2% of the population. Even with all the blacks they are less than 15% yet they are all we ever hear about.


Not all Joos are traitors, but most traitors are Joos.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 06:14 | 3121382 Manic by Proxy
Manic by Proxy's picture

Ah, so stooge isn't just a clever avatar.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:06 | 3118056 ChacoFunFact
ChacoFunFact's picture

once they take the guns, they'll use 50 votes in the senate to take away whatever else they want (as per gun owners of america), check this out:



"On Election Day last November, several Democrat Senators were campaigning for reelection in pro-gun states. And in order to get their constituents’ votes, they promised fealty to the Second Amendment.

Well, on November 6, Democrat Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Bob Casey (PA) and Jon Tester (MT) all won their respective elections. These seats, among others, were crucial to helping Harry Reid return to the top post in the Senate.

But only a month after the election returns were tallied, the Senate -- under Majority Leader Harry Reid’s control -- is now crusading to implement:

* Gun bans on semiautomatic firearms and magazines;

* An effective ban on gun shows;

* A ban on private gun sales, without going through a gun dealer; and,

* Changes in the Senate rules which would allow them to ban guns with a mere 50 Senate votes.

This last proposal is particularly insidious. Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control. But, with the help of fake “pro-gun” Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50.

So the question of whether Senate Democrats will need 50 votes or 60 votes will determine whether gun control -– and much of Obama’s agenda -– will be slammed through and passed into law.

This brings us to the “nuclear option.”

This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control.

Your senator’s vote on the “nuclear option” may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the Senate is just following its precedents.

But that’s a bald-faced lie. As Democrats made clear during the Bush administration when the Republicans were contemplating the “nuclear option,” the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the “nuclear option” can only be invoked on the first day.

That’s a lie. Senate Rule 5, Paragraph 2, provides that the Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, unless changed by 67 votes (needed to break a filibuster of rules changes). If the Senate can use brute force to obliterate Rule 5 by 50 votes, it can use brute force to obliterate any rule at any time by 50 votes.

This is a major vote that will have huge ramifications for our republic. Our gun rights are just one of the many freedoms that are on the chopping block right now. And if Harry Reid can squelch his opposition by nuking the filibuster, it will be the first step towards completely obliterating our Constitution.

ACTION: Contact your Senators and tell them that the vote on the “nuclear option” will be the most important gun control vote of the 113th Congress. Urge them to vote AGAINST changing the Senate rules. Tell them to vote AGAINST the "nuclear option.""



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:13 | 3118058 Uncle Zuzu
Uncle Zuzu's picture

We won't give up on the constitution. What we need to give up is TENURE in academia which allows professors to write the most idiotic things without any accountability. The trustees and alumni should demand that Georgetown fire this buffoon immediately. As to the New York Times, let it continue on its own slow death.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:20 | 3118062 justsayin2u
justsayin2u's picture

We were once a land of laws that recognized man's inherent inability to avoid cronyism through a limited government backed by a seperation of powers.  The progs and libs hate that and see big government as the cure to all ills.  The progs and libs have been busy eroding the constitution since Wilson.  He set the stage for the administrative state we have today.  FDR got the supremes in line during the great depression with his new deal.  LBJ pushed it further with his great society.  Now the libs are trying to bury what is left of the stinking carcass called the constitution in favor of the fascist crony capitalist corporate state we all enjoy today with the 2000+ page health care fiasco and unelected administrators controling each aspect of our lives.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 07:52 | 3118084 jack stephan
jack stephan's picture

"If you can keep it"

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:05 | 3118096 Catullus
Catullus's picture

The Articles of Confederation argument is my favorite. Basically, the Comstitution is a document a handful of people getting together to decide to do as they goddamn well please. And they did it then because they were in paper money debt crisis.

I'm actually not a big fan of the Constitution. I don't think that he government grants you rights. You always have rights. It's whether someone chooses to recognize them or not that it the question. I've long given up that someone would interpret the constitution has the document that constitutes government and if you get rid of it, you should in turn get rid of that government. What the professor is saying is the usurpers have won. It's little more than an annoyance now. And that by all accounts is true.

What all governments struggle with is legitimacy. Some form simply out a the biggest meanest guy in a group saying he's in charge, some claim they will protect you against any and all hobgobblins, some claim the ruler was ordained by god, some claim the ruler is god, and some use the ballot box. I find it difficult to believe that the US would be in any way manageable given the number of layers of government that there are. This professor will just claim that the Supreme Court will decide disputes between cities, states, and the federal government. But how did an unelected body come to decide that they will be the final arbiter if the constitution is gone? They just decided that they will decide? That's called autocracy. And once you've allowed it for "practical reasons"', it becomes the M.O.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:26 | 3118118 Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hudson's picture

The Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. Why do we need a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution? A well written contract does not need to be “interpreted”; it has to be “enforced”.


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:39 | 3118258 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Every single contract ever brought into court is "interpreted".  Every one.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:19 | 3118585 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

agreed.    one could make the case that the Constitution was the Apple OS of its time: proprietary code ingenuously masked as a tool of liberation for the masses.   like all great disguises, the surface has a magical quality to it which makes itself appealing to our inner "operating system".   but once you open the hood and attempt to tinker with the engine, you find yourself constantly falling short unless you choose to enter into a faustian contract with the gatekeepers and keymasters of the code.

in the meantime, every new iteration of the code gets more and more restrictive for the masses and more and more advantageous for the gatekeepers and keymasters and before we know it, we have all become slaves to the code, while still believing that the code has made us "free".

the perfect example of this is Article V which onlys allows for revisions with approval from the hierarchy, which i think we can all agree has been thoroughly corrupted from top to bottom (and maybe always has been).   unfortunately, the only way to revise Article V (within the context of the code) is to invoke Article V.   

this is akin to getting approval from HAL-9000 to rewrite its own operating system.  in case you forgot how that one turned out...

"i'm sorry dave, i can't allow that"

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:21 | 3118114 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Neo-cons like to talk about "American Exceptionalism."  Where do they think it comes from?  The water?  No constitution = 3rd world banana republic.

Academia and think tanks are open sewers that should have been plowed under long ago.  I get a plea for $ from my 'alma mater' every year.  I ignore it.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:57 | 3118165 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

We should contact Georgetown and make sure this idiot is not teaching any classes ever again.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:00 | 3118168 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

Actually, tilting against THAT windwill would probably get Seidman a promotion and a raise at Georgetown. 

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 08:57 | 3118166 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

Since the Constitution is "archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil", he abdicates its First Amendment protections for himself.  It would be ironic if someone knifed him for his outspoken treason. 

On the other hand, since we have no Constitutional right to knives, we may end up eating steaks with our bare hands. 

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:48 | 3118180 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

The Constitution is the only thing standing between We the People and Tyrants.. The *Organic Constitution of The United States is the default Law of the land.

Not the CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, re writen in1871 when we became the Corporate STATES OF AMERICA.

Shall not be abridged. This Republic was forged by dangerous men,  get dangerous or get ready to live on your knees.

Do away with the Constitution and hello total takeover, UN directed Police State, choice is yours.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:12 | 3118190 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture



I hereby propose a return to the Articles of Confederation.


from wiki:

On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.[2][3]The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


See where it started going wrong?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:15 | 3118198 IvyMike
IvyMike's picture

Government by Calvinball!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:23 | 3118221 BlueCheeseBandit
BlueCheeseBandit's picture

The NYT attempting to use shock jocks to avoid bankruptcy. Don't click the original article or you'll increase their ad revenue.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:00 | 3118542 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The "Pers Morgan" strategy.  Let them die.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:25 | 3118227 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

If I had a son or daughter at his school, you can bet that my last tuition payment would have been made.  There is no way that I would spend another dollar at Georgetown, or in their little town.  Any institution that can put a guy like this in their law department needs to be rewarded accordingly.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:28 | 3118235 mendolover
mendolover's picture

How's this...let's give up on the Talmud!  Ya think that might start some fucking peace?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:32 | 3118240 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Hey, at least he's honest. The democratic party, and republican party to a large extent, have felt this way for years, but just haven't been as honest about it. The constitution exists basically to LIMIT the power of the federal government, so of course the power hungry bastards are gonna hate it. How can they control every aspect of our lives with a document like that? The older I get, the more I appreciate the wisdom of the founders despite the fact we haven't kept the faith with them.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:36 | 3118255 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

The truth, of course, is that the constitution is obeyed only out of respect.  There is no obligation.  There is no legal remedy, with a few notable exceptions, for violations of the constitution.  The remedies for violating the constitution are, mostly, political.  Therefore, people adhere to the constitution out of respect, not out of obligation.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:45 | 3118266 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

yrbmegr, respect I define as coming from a gun barrel, obligation is to understand that fact..that is the only remedy for violation of this great document. you may wish to define what the word respect is to you.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:16 | 3118371 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Respect, to me, in this context, means recognizing the value of the system documented by the constitution, and recognizing the value placed on that system by others.  Adhering to the constitution out of respect, then, means deciding to act in ways consistent with the constitution because the system documented by the constitution has value that is recognized by the actor, and because the system has value recognized by those who may or may not vote for the actor in the next election.  Obligation, to me, in this context, means fearing some defined penalty to be imposed on the actor for acting in ways inconsistent with the constitution.  Mostly, there are no such defined penalties.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:33 | 3118414 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

 yrb,much like fiat money, once respect for it is lost..consent is what you may mean. when those elite in power obtain consent based on that document then act against or ignore it ..what do we have, to whom do you bring your grevance..seems thats were violence and guns come in

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:47 | 3118270 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

It could be so fitting that a nigger would be president when the Constitution is shreaded by his own political allies and a second civil war begins under his "leadership."

Too bad Justice Inc has undermined all justice, and now look what comes out of the woodwork.  No one will see anything.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:01 | 3118545 squexx
squexx's picture

It's not so much "fitting" as it is "planned!" Obama will not reach the end of his term, he will be a statistic of ZOG's choosing! He knows too much and will prove to be too much of a liability to those who govern from the shadows!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 09:49 | 3118272 jaygould
jaygould's picture

this string is as comical as it can get. i told the author of the op-ed that the comments would be heavily skewed to the negative & what a surprise - they were and are!!!!. it's clear the pointy heads that claim to be sophisticated are actually as backward as they have always been - not only shoot the messenger, but also adhere to a document written in 1789 & apply to 2013 - yea, that makes a lot of sense. what's the use, those who don't get it, never will; those that do, remain silent.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:44 | 3118482 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Odd that you haven't chosen to display your pyrotechnical intellect with a superior comparable treatise on the proper role of governance.

We'll wait with great anticipation because we're always ready to hear from someone who 'gets it'.


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:14 | 3118367 smacker
smacker's picture

There is nothing wrong with the American Constitution, except that there's no easy or useful mechanism for supervising compliance by government and holding violators to account. It is - and should remain - the supreme law of the land and compliance rigorously enforced, by people independent of government.

Seidman should be locked in the stocks and left there for a coupla weeks for people to throw garbage at him. The guy's a statist madman. But he's not alone. He's part of the cancerous & insidious trend towards socialism that has infected western societies in recent years. All in the name of "progress". ha-ha.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:17 | 3118372 Enslavethechild...
EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture

Hang the Central Bankers, hang all the Bankers. Hang all the politicians and corrupt judges. Hang all the cops that protect them too.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:25 | 3118398 BuckShotJones
BuckShotJones's picture

Banishment under pain of death in return - should be re-adopted.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:30 | 3118421 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Imagine the poor guy  who eats baloney sandwiches from a lunch pail for 20 years to save for his kids university education, shares his child's excitement at getting accepted to Georgetown, and then reads this column by the idiot 'professor' Seidman in the NYT.

20 years of scrimping and saving so his child can be 'educated' so they can be prosperous and enjoy all that he had to sacrifice.

What a slap in the face that must be...

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:32 | 3118422 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:35 | 3118434 Hannibal
Hannibal's picture

Know what happen when self defense of your life and property is illegal.

Let Feinsein know she is in dishonor of her congressional oath to defend and protect the US COnstitution.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:55 | 3118521 squexx
squexx's picture

Guns and the Constitution are NOT the problem. The problem is the Satanic Tribe that controls the media, Wall St. and controls the lobby industry in Washington DC!

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 10:36 | 3118443 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

Another display of the exact opposite of the truth being promoted as truth.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:11 | 3118584 GNWT
GNWT's picture

Hey Jew haters, that is what they want and have always wanted

to divide us into us and them.  Religious division is their favorite tool.

Can't there be one place to go on the internet where people can be

human and not pavlovian dogs?




Stay liquid my friends

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:34 | 3118644 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

the rants and raves, racist and violent, show all too well the nature of the beast that is easily prodded by those who prod. whipped by shallow but intense frenzy, these subsections of the masses are glued together by the herders and led around by their noses.

hate this. hate that. rage and stomp.

as if that showcases the greatness of humanity.



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 11:35 | 3118649 Keegan11
Keegan11's picture

"But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."

In other words - FASCISM

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:17 | 3118820 smacker
smacker's picture

When the Nazis took control of Germany, one of them said "we now have the freedom to abolish freedom". And that's what happened.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:05 | 3118982 Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hudson's picture

We have almost $17 trillion in national debt, and it continues to grow. The Constitution gives Congress the power to borrow money. Whose fault is that? The Constitution’s, or is it Congress?

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:45 | 3119124 laomei
laomei's picture

The country was never founded for the not-rich in mind.  This is evident from the getgo.

How did George Washington become the richest person in America?  

French and Indian war soldiers were promised land that was not delivered.  GW bought up shitloads of claims from poor soldiers and then shock and surprise, when rich people have the claims, they are granted.  He was never poor in anyway to begin with.


The revolutionary war:

Normal soldiers were paid jack shit.  Officers (rich people) were paid in real money.  Normal soldiers got fucked hard and when they rebelled in 1786 to get what they were promised, they got killed and arrested.  The war was never about "freedom", it was about rich people being pissy that they were not able to get richer faster and also "hurr, we wanna go commit genocide"


There was nothing exciting or new about the constitution either.  It was essentially just basic english law with some tweaks to make enough interests happy enough with it to get a union setup.


Early America:

An endless process of forcing the poors out of the East.  Go check up on your ancestry, cus you'll probably see your ancestors packing up and moving every few years trying to make it.   Oddly enough, usually timed with property taxes.  Those who settled early are more or less driven to sell and gtfo unless they got really lucky and struck it rich.  This process is still used today in gentrification.  Jack up values so original residents are left with bills they can't afford.  Sell off for cheap to someone with cash who tears it down and flips it to some other rich fuck.


The history of the US is a history of fucking over everyone who's not rich/connected.  The rare individual who manages to overcome is held high on a pillar.  The far more common individual who overcomes nothing is brainwashed to blame themselves.   The shitstorm only started to shift to the positive post WW2.  And in reality, that was only because the rest of the manufacturing nations were in ruins and the US was untouched.  That bubble lasted about 30 years and it's been in decline ever since.  Back to the world of shit from whence you came you unwashed surplus population.


Seriously, go read up on the real history of the US, not the history of how a handful of people get all the credit for things.  But the history of the people.  It's endless bullshit.  All the long-forgotten wars, the pure insanity that the *official* propaganda buries to the point where people look at you like you have a mental problem if you mention it.  The shit's not censored, but effective propaganda has dominated it.  It's so horrible that everyone even aware would rather pretend it does not exist... and you see it continue every single day in the news.  Nothing has changed.


As for the constitution, seriously, it's a matter of contention what a bunch of dead rich white guys meant by inserting punctuation 230 years ago.  Tear that shit up, rewrite it in plain fucking modern english.  The notion that a handful of unelected judges get to sit around and decide the intent of laws while at the same time pretend they are non-partisian is a mockery.  Laws should be clear and concise.  If laws are no longer desired they should be revised officially, not simply "reinterpreted".

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:49 | 3119158 laomei
laomei's picture

Furthermore, the notion that the US exports democracy... laff, that's a complete lie.  Here's a country that more or less copied the US constitution: Hati.  The US immediately put them on enemy terms.  Dear god, the notion that someone who is not us might possibly put themselves on an equal playing field? DETESTIBLE! HOW WILL WE PLUNDER IT?  Because in reality, that's the entire basis and driving force for the US economy.  Colonialism and war.  Destroy your competition and take slaves.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 14:30 | 3119362 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

the american revolution was an indian land grab.  the constitution says you can own a gun.  don't leave home without it.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 15:43 | 3119710 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

I wish the Constitution itself said you can own a gun. Right now, the 2nd Amendment says so.

Thu, 01/03/2013 - 18:31 | 3120242 Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture

Did your history of the US come with a red cover?  LOL

George Washington the richest man in America?  Please.  I'm going to stop there because that's so blatantly false that it's not worth proceeding from there.


Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:57 | 3120243 Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture



Thu, 01/03/2013 - 18:27 | 3119983 Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture

Sadly, the US Constitution by any measure has been an abject failure.  Yes, it prescribed limits for the government, but the Constitution is not self-enforcing.  The colonials won their independence and freedom from England and then turned around and gave it up when those of a Hamiltonian centralized government bent decided to discard the Articles of Confederation and start over with a "limited" (LOL) government.  What started in theory as a "Federal" government soon became a "National" one by a revolution within the form, and we are all the poorer and less free for it.


Thu, 01/03/2013 - 21:18 | 3120722 bluecoastholdings
bluecoastholdings's picture

Lets print this pricks work and home address for the world to see.

Fri, 01/04/2013 - 00:27 | 3121125 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

To all the statist/apologist Berkeley/Columbia whackjobs....Bush lied people died. Obama lied more people died.

Gee, it;s a trend! Paper is money. Wars are complicated. Presidents just happen to all have dubious backgrounds ALL THE TIME THESE DAYS! 9/11 was just super convenient cover for all the that's some "reactionary agenda" based upong happenstance, or one hell of a con job.

Beat it kooks!


Fri, 01/04/2013 - 08:06 | 3121457 MickV
MickV's picture

Obviously this "professor" is an Obama ball licker, as the existence of the Usurper Obama, born a British subject of a British subject father, thus not natural born, no mattter if birth occurred on the Oval Office desk, actually voids the Constitution and the sovereignty of We the people.He is simply rationalizing the Usurper's existence in the oval office---i.e. the natural born Citizen requirement is "nit picky". Obama is exactly the type estopped from holding the office, as he has shown repeatedly a lack of allegiance or attachment to America.

GET A CLUE--- there is no constititution when the President, whom is the executor of the laws, is not eligible.

The Bill of Rights are not Rights "given by government". They are rights conferred by god and the law of nature. And yes the Constitution and it's provisions are self executing. It is the most perfect form of government ever created, but criminal congresses have found ways to weaken it by amendments (16, and 17).

Now Congress is openly flouting the Constitution, giving authority over the creation of the nations money to a private entity of criminal central bankers, and operating without a budget, and by executive order of an ineligible President, whom they all know is not eligible. Even the "fiscal cliff" legislation is illegal, since it is an appropriation bill that originated in the Senate, not the house.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!