Guest Post: The Goal Is To Destroy All Constitutional Culture

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of,

In America, our cultural method of debate tends to divide individual issues into carefully separated spheres of discussion. This hyperfocus on single issues, from gun rights to illegal wars to invasion of privacy, draws us away from looking at the bigger interconnected picture, otherwise known as the “macro.” Each social or political conflict is compartmentalized by the mainstream, the dots are left isolated and the overwhelming overall threat to our foundational principles is marginalized.

The problem with this civic philosophy is that the general public is left without peripheral vision and unequipped to comprehend that there is a process in motion, an overarching plan that is eating away at the edges of our liberty from every angle, one small piece at a time. That is to say, we have been conditioned to obsess over the pieces and ignore the plan.

I want you to imagine the globalist establishment and the useful socialist idiots it employs as a hive of ants lurking in the grass around a bountiful picnic basket you (or your forefathers) worked very hard to procure. Now, one ant snatches a single crumb and races away, and you think to yourself that losing that one crumb is not such a sacrifice. A few more ants pilfer crumbs, and you shrug it off. A dozen more arrive, and you start to worry a little but are still too lazy to pull out the Raid. The rest of the hive sees your apathy and attacks, gobbling everything in a swarm of single-minded destruction. Left with nothing, you sit dumbfounded and hungry, wondering where you went wrong. The truth is, you went wrong with the first ant.

Not only are personal wealth and property ransacked by the collective in this way, but also personal freedom.

Every time a smaller attack on liberty is exposed or openly announced by the cult of statism, elitists invariably respond with a false face of rationality and common sense. They claim that they respect the line. They claim that they will take only the minimum. They claim that they are pursuing only a reasonable compromise. They expound on the “virtues” of their motives. They sing songs of unity, brotherhood and the greater good. They appeal to our diplomatic side; and if that doesn’t work, they try to shame us instead for being “selfish” or “ignorant” of so-called “social progress.” But this never has been and never will be about social progress.

Their goal is not to introduce greater understanding or awareness. It is not about public good or public safety. And at the very core, it is not about truth. If they cared about truth or principle and if their objectives were honorable, they would not feel the need to constantly lie, cheat, steal, manipulate and threaten in an effort to impose their own worldview on the rest of us. If their purpose was as righteous as they pretend, then deceit and subversion should be beneath them. Their philosophy should be able to carry itself, without their convoluted efforts.

The power elites and the people who blindly follow them are not interested in being on the right side. They are interested only in being on the winning side, and the two are certainly not the same. In the end, the result they covet most is not to achieve compromise on Constitutional ideals, but to achieve total and unequivocal destruction of those ideals. They seek to erase our heritage from history, along with those of us who value it. They want to annihilate Constitutional culture.

Through the efforts of the liberty movement, many Americans are now at least loosely aware of such issues as the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the designation of anyone — including American citizens — as enemy combatants subject to the laws of war, thus destroying the Constitutional right to due process and trial by jury. They have witnessed the vicious trampling of the 4th Amendment and our right to privacy through legislation like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They have been confronted with the gross tyranny of Barack Obama’s executive assassination lists and predator drone fetish. They are aware of the existence of Department of Defense efforts to remove all vestiges of Posse Comitatus and allow standing military authority in the United States through the U.S. Northern Command (Northcom).

All of these things are clearly part of a violent war on our Constitutional rights, but what about the more subtle poison being introduced under the surface? The first place to look is always in your child’s school.

In Duvall County, Fla., the father of a 10-year-old boy discovered his son had been asked by a teacher to write and sign this statement as part of a school project:

“I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

When questioned on the purpose of directing fourth-graders to sign such a statement, the school district argued that the students participated in the activity of their own free will and that the lesson was designed to “create an awareness of the five rights contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and help students “determine their opinions on which rights they value most and least.”

First of all, let’s be honest; I went through public schooling, and anyone else who went through it knows as well as I do that almost nothing within the public school system is treated as voluntary. Threats, fearmongering and mob mentality are all used by State teachers all across the country daily to manipulate and terrorize children into submitting to the program. As a nostalgic refresher, re-examine the incident in a North Carolina school in which a teacher screamed down a student who criticized Obama, claiming that people “could be arrested” for speaking ill of the President.

Secondly, if the teacher in Duvall County was looking to encourage students to “think critically” about their Constitutional rights, then perhaps it would have been helpful to educate them on what those rights are. Unfortunately, the children had not been given practical lessons on their rights before being asked to abandon them for “safety.”

This is a perfect example of the indoctrination process in action. While the gun rights issue has brought the politicization of public schools out in the open, with federalized education centers punishing children across the Nation for merely playing with imaginary guns or talking about toy guns, the real target is not the gun issue for the establishment.  The real target is all Constitutional thought.

Perhaps this is why the methodology of home-schooling has been so demonized by the mainstream, and why Ron Paul’s latest home-schooling initiative is already being attacked as “Christian fundamentalism.” The real reason the establishment’s panties are in a twist is simple; they do not like the idea of parents being able to compose their child’s own curriculum and, thus, remove anti-Constitutional conditioning from their daily lives.

The erasure of Constitutional culture has spread far beyond schooling, however.

The city of New Rochelle, N.Y., has demanded a local veterans’ post take down its Gadsden flag, a flag in existence since the Revolutionary War, because it has been adopted as a symbol of the Tea Party. The city council, led by Democratic Mayor Noam Bramson, voted to remove the flag after voicing concerns about the flag’s message.

Obama sycophant and hardcore big-government mouthpiece Bill Maher this week stated that the left (neo-liberals) needs to stop being afraid of its true goal in the gun debate — to dissolve the 2nd Amendment — rather than play at compromise.

“I’m so sorry, but this is the problem with the gun debate — it is that it’s a constant center-right debate,” Maher said. “There’s no left in this debate. Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said, which is the Second Amendment is bullshit. Why doesn’t anyone go at the core of it?”

My response would be: “Yes, please do admit your true goals, gun grabbers and opponents of civil liberties. At least be honest about your fascist intentions so that we can stop playing games and have a real eye to eye debate (or fight) on the subject.:

And finally, NASCAR has come under siege by anti-2nd Amendment legislators as well as the media in general for allowing the National Rifle Association to endorse races. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called on broadcasters to block transmissions of the NRA 500 because it would bring national attention to gun rights while the Senate is legislating for gun control (which, in his opinion, is bad).

Perhaps this is purely coincidental, but the timing of this stance against NASCAR’s support of gun culture has arisen right as Oath Keepers, a Constitutional organization dedicated to teaching current serving military, veterans and law enforcement about civil liberties and the affirmation of their oath, announced it is working with racecar driver Jeffrey Earnhardt to bring an Oath Keepers-sponsored vehicle to the NASCAR track.

While some people may not care less about NASCAR or even the 2nd Amendment, I would point out that through the gun issue, the establishment is ultimately undermining the holy grail of the 1st Amendment. If gun rights speech and culture can be silenced in the name of “safety” or “compassion,” then why not any other belief?

This problem of selective free-speech has now been exacerbated by the Boston Marathon Bombings.  Oath Keepers had planned and already received a permit for a high profile rally at Lexington Green in Massachusetts (a public venue where one should not need a permit to rally anyway), but the bombings opened the door for the Lexington Board (one member had been trying to undermine the rally from it's inception) to revoke the event.  The excuse given was, of course, that it was for everyone's "safety", and that not enough police were available to secure it.  Though, a secondary event in a nearby town remains approved with little to no trouble.  The right to free speech is NOT subject to the intensity of the times, it is sacrosanct.  Period.  However, many in government today believe that they can rescind our Constitutional liberties whenever the public is distracted enough by disaster.

Incidents like these by themselves do not necessarily seem like an imminent threat to the freedoms of average citizens; but, taken together as a flurry of strategic movements, they represent a full spectrum attack on the very pillars of our founding structure. Throughout history, when conquerors wished to fully dominate a population, they would seek to slowly subsume the people’s mythology and principles. They would attempt to co-opt cultural ideas and values, twisting them into something completely different or wiping them from memory altogether. When the people lose their traditions and heritage, they become easier to mold and rule. This is exactly what is happening in the United States today: an ideological colonization that views Constitutional life as a mortal enemy and hopes to obliterate it from the pages of time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
New_Meat's picture

This is so '60s and yet so timely today.  All y'all gotta' find "Reville for Radicals" and see the plan.

- Ned

{and nyet, I did not mistake above for "Rules for Radicals"}

{{practicisin my collectivist self-criticism, so I can merge smoothly into the new "situation" don't cha' know}}

CH1's picture

At this point, the constitution is dead and gone... a non-concern.

The state is anti-freedom and anti-human. Talk of a constitution is sucker-bait.

nmewn's picture

No, we will have set laws we all agree with or we will have no law at all. I'm fine either way as I intend to break every law I disagree with moving Forward from here. I will become "a criminal"...made that way by the laws of idiots & imbeciles.

We have too many laws C.

A Lunatic's picture

Most of our "rights" as we know them are derived from the Natural Law and are inherent to being human. They are not the gifts of politicians and cannot be taken but by death. Whether there be willing obedience to the laws of man or a systemic default to the laws of nature is all that remains to be seen............

nmewn's picture

Plus a quadrillion.

The Peoples natural rights were codified by law in the Bill of Rights. If there is no Bill of Rights there is no United States and no federal law to be respected by any citizen of any given state.

Its simply a broken contract of consent to be governed by a federal government.

Now, they already know this (or should) so its up to the statists to back off or be put down.

CH1's picture

The Peoples natural rights were codified by law in the Bill of Rights.

No! SOME of the natural rights of the people were protected from congress, who "shall make no law...."

If there is no Bill of Rights there is no United States and no federal law to be respected by any citizen of any given state.

I never agreed to the deal in the first place. All the guys who did, died about 200 years ago. There is no magic contract that can bind people automatically.

Hive Raid's picture

After Sandy Hook, NPR did a show fawning over a Jewish constitutional law professor whose recent article arguing to eliminate the constitution was very stimulating to the new Bolsheviks.

The constitution was as good as it gets for its intended purpose of governing a homogenous population of moral WASPs, but totally insufficient in safeguarding a nation which hosts the Jews and their third world army.

And so, ironically, he was right--for all the wrong reasons.



Hive Raid's picture

CH1, you are the winner of today's Velvet Jew Head award! You've earned a gold-painted plastic trophy and four ounces of truth bullion:


Full documentation:


Video version:


The Jews behind the 9/11 attacks:


The Israel Lobby:




chumbawamba's picture

To be honest, he lost me at the ant and picnic basket anal-ogy.

I am Chumbawamba.

NidStyles's picture

It is a metaphor about what Bastiat and Mises said about incrementalism.

GetZeeGold's picture



Steal a little at a's the progressive way.


It's either that or kill 30 million people at once......and someone is going to notice that.

DoneThis2Long's picture

"Steal a little at a's the progressive way."

It sounds like inflation to me!

Croesus's picture

This comment is now property of the State. See how Free you are?



nmewn's picture

"No! SOME of the natural rights of the people were protected from congress, who "shall make no law...."

So, the negro, the indian, the female did not have their rights respected as people by this very same contract of consent?

chumbawamba's picture

You dudes need to chill the fuck out and read some Lysander Spooner.


DaddyO's picture

Always enjoy Brandon's essays!

I still believe in the old fashioned notion of the Republic and its Constitutional backbone.


Don't tread on me, bitches!

Harbanger's picture

The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” 
- Samuel Adams

howenlink's picture

What kind of system are you left with when every person born (or every child turned adult) has to ratify it?  The point is we are born with rights.  It is the government who needs restraint, not citizens.

Anusocracy's picture

It is the government that is not needed.

Unfortunately, 98% want it, including ALL of the 1%.

TrulyBelieving's picture

Yes NMEWN they do know this, but it doesn't matter to them. Statism is more like a religion than anything else, and these are true believers. Control and power is their goal and the Constitution is the only legal instrument standing against them. Those of you here that put no stock in the Constitution's power have already been sucker punched. Those that love Liberty and Freedom, as Patrick Henry did, will understand the Constitution's power and know there is but one recourse, "Give me Liberty, or give me death."  A bold and brave statement that should send chills up your back. It is Liberty or slavery, no other choices, except death.

Abi Normal's picture

Amen, give me true Liberty or give me true death!

ronaldawg's picture

How about I'll have Liberty or I will bring death...

Anusocracy's picture

A bolder and braver statement would be: "Take your government and shove it up your ass".

All governments are evil.

new game's picture


boston tea party redux

money is the pen that takes your freedom

this is being done stealthfully

the pen takes the sword

once that happens it is too late.

round 6 was won, but only because the senators want to be reelected

round 7 will be registration as they need to know who has what and where(500 million by my estimate)

we still have the power of the vote, at least for now...

enuf brainwash and we will be just like canada, eu and austies

(the authors main point).

boil da frog bitcheez

the line in the sand move the wrong direction...


TrulyBelieving's picture

As are all people. This is why there is law.

Anusocracy's picture

Law doesn't establish a need for government.

Iceland existed for a couple of centuries without government but with a person selected to remember the laws.


psychobilly's picture

"Those that love Liberty and Freedom, as Patrick Henry did, will understand the Constitution's power and know there is but one recourse, 'Give me Liberty, or give me death.'"

You ignoramus.  Patrick Henry turned down his invitation to participate in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy."  It turns out that the rats had to meet in secrect because they exceeded their legal mandate.  As a representative to the Virginia convention of 1788, Patrick Henry argued against ratifying the U.S. Constitution because it gave too much power to the federal government, which quickly proved to be true (e.g., The Whiskey Rebellion).

TrulyBelieving's picture

You are correct, Patrick Henry made his speech even before the Revolutionary War began, but my point is that his love of Liberty was the basis of his speech, and today, the Constitution is the only document available to protect those Liberties. If the Constitution were strictly adherred to, Liberty and Freedom would be preserved. Obviously today, Patrick Henry is proven correct. Succession my friend.

i-dog's picture

Patrick Henry made that statement 11 years before Independence and nearly 30 years before the Constitution was ratified. What he was talking about is what nmewn is talking about.

Optimusprime's picture

Which statement were you referring to?  In any case, you are off on your dates.

i-dog's picture

There was only one statement of Patrick Henry's referred to: "Give me Liberty, or give me death." ... uttered in 1765 ... 11 years before 1776.

What in the heck are you referring to?

Ghordius's picture

+1 for the sentiment

as an utter outsider to US politics allow me to make some remarks

I don't believe in "natural rights", I believe in humans and humanity - the good and the bad of it, the way it is

saying: "I've got rights to..." sounds to me like "there is someone higher up that should..." in a political debate/fight

imho you have a huge political non-discourse, with equalitarians only talking to other equalitarians, conservatives talking only to other conservatives, liberals of all shades (including libertarians) talking only to other liberals of the same sub-group and so on

equalitarianism is a matter of degrees, from "the law should apply to all equally" up to "everybody ought to have the same way of life"

conservativism is a matter of degrees, from "I care for my brethen of the same tribe/nation/religion/culture" up to "I had my daughter stoned to death because she gave me lip when I presented her my chosen son-in-law"

liberty is a matter of degrees, from "thank you, but I prefer not having a political commissar allotted to my home ordering my life" up to "I don't care about anything else but me, my experiments will obliterate this county and cover it with toxic waste but it's my right to do whatever I like, without any consideration about anybody else"

at one point denying your polity as-it-is becomes counterproductive. the polity does not cease to function only because you wish it away, and won't bend to your wishes if you don't engage in discourse with all it's other parts (yes, discourse is also a matter of degree, from war to friendly discussion)

and this means hard work, then the easy way is the one we are witnessing: each group using it's own political vocabulary, and scorning any compromise, i.e. preferring to lose a political battle completely instead of partially

and so I disagree with the... relevancy of the statement of "It's simply a broken contract of consent to be governed by a federal government"

it's like "wishing it away". well, it won't go away just like this

reality is people forming polities, be them communities, cities, states, federations, empires, whatever, and also banding together in other fields like business, sport, religion, tribes, clans, families, down to having a sweetheart or loving your mom, all bonds that humans form... naturally

yes, some differ in the strenght and type of those bonds, but dismissing them as "statists" does not help to engage them, does not help them to understand what your problems are with their behaviour and won't stop anything

i-dog's picture


"my experiments will obliterate this county and cover it with toxic waste but it's my right to do whatever I like, without any consideration about anybody else""

False dichotomy, Ghordius...and it's a shame that you don't recognise it as such!

I'm not aware of any libertarian (or anti-statist voluntarist) who doesn't also embrace the principle of compensation for any damage caused to others. Indeed, it was the way of the world before the rise of statism...which replaced compensation to the victim with a fine collected by the state to swell state coffers.

"Courts" have been around since neolithic times (even if it was just a tribal elder, or arbitrator) to assess compensation to victims.

Ghordius's picture

those are just examples for "from one extreme to the other extreme", why don't you provide a more suitable extreme example?

or do you really think that there are no extremes when it comes to liberty?

I actually was thinking about Nobel when he was experimenting with what became dynamite, and his pretty scared community that engaged him and eventually they compromised on him making his experiments on a float on the lake (after he blew up a couple of sheds)

but how about experimenting with deadly viruses without protection? is the possibility of wiping out entire populations not a reason for restricting an individual's rights to do whatever he wants? where is compensation where there is no court that can be formed?

oh, another example: how about my liberty to have a private army? a question of size or principle before everybody feels threathened?

I still think that my freedom ends where other people's freedoms begin, and that border shifts with culture, times, etc.

Anusocracy's picture

While your questions are valid, some of them are based on the assumption that without government, society would organize and operate as it does with government. I don't care to discuss this, but there is an obvious example: government strives to aggregate wealth and power in ways that would not, or could not, occur without the presence of government.

Throughout history, government has been the source of the great wealth accumulated by individuals, businesses and nations, that would end. Pleasing customers, not robbing them, would be the path to becoming rich, and that path would be booby-trapped with hordes of competitors going after the same bucks.

So, my guess is that things like fabulously wealthy people with private armies wouldn't see the light of day.

I also think that a free society would provide far more incentives for a peaceful world, over and above the removal of its greatest aggressor:


Ghordius's picture

about home schooling. for me as european a very alien subject, even our royal princes are sent to public schools, so please make allowances for my ignorance

why is it even an issue? the fruitful way to engage the polity with an issue like this would be to form a syndicate or action group or federation of homeschoolers that somehow persuades the rest that "it's a good thing"

to tie to what I've written in the other comment, this would mean to use a language that even an ignorant european like me might understand

you can't stop strong equalitarian sentiment that begins with "every child should have a sensible education", it's part of our times

a middling conservative ancient Roman paterfamilias would have answered: "my children are legally my possession, to do whatever I want, including beating them to death or selling them as slaves". Note that for Roman Law only after the third selling to slavery the child became free (implying that the child had a moral duty to work out of it's "foreign" slavery and go back to the father's at least two times). This from a time when debtors's children were seen as collateral assets

nearly nobody in modern America is that conservative, as far as I understood, in fact I think that most agree with this little equalitarian sentiment of "every child should get an education"

so you are already engaged in equalitarianism, albeit only a bit, and you ought to understand that the majority of those who have stronger feelings of this kind aren't the extreme examples of the school teacher that thinks that the President ought not to be critizised, by law

it's a matter of engaging the moderates of all sides, and for that to happen it's the matter of engaging moderation as a virtue

i-dog's picture


"form a syndicate or action group or federation of homeschoolers that somehow persuades the rest that "it's a good thing""

A typical statist response!!

Such action is moot, if one individual is not being forced to adhere to another individual's idea of "what education should comprise". It's none of anybody else's business, unless a child is being "abused" by depriving that child of an education entirely (and even then, it's still moot, in my opinion...since even a choice of school can subject a child to abuse by teachers - whether physically, emotionally or simply due to poor teaching).

The reason that homeschooling is more of an issue for 'new worlders' is because it was a necessary part of early frontier life. Schools were not always close at hand, but someone born in a log cabin could still become President ... through self-education or home schooling.

Ghordius's picture

not a statist response, a hint on how to engage "equalitarian statists". to which you somehow belong, too, if your equalitarian heart forbids you to allow me to flog my childrens in the ancient Roman customary right

if I would beat my wife, mnewn would, if he were my neighbour, beat the hell out of me - ask him if you don't believe it

when it comes to children, sentiments about "how it ought to be" are way stronger, and can't just be dismissed as "statist", they have to be recognized in their own validity, first, and then engaged in discussion

one corollary of this is the female vote, btw. you simply can't expect one half of the electorate not to be somehow sensitive to whatever concerns children

nmewn's picture

"if I would beat my wife, mnewn would, if he were my neighbour, beat the hell out of me - ask him if you don't believe it"

Yes, I would.

But why would I beat you for beating your wife? My motivation was and is clear, the weaker need protection from the whims of the beating your wife in this case.

I assumed you were only beating her because you can, on some sadistic impulse.  Not for your wife killing your daughter because your daughter was having sex with you and your wife found out and killed her in a rage, you finding out, then beating your wife.

That is the very precept of law.

In either case, you Ghordius, were the strong...over your daughter (mentally & emotionally at her tender age) and your wife (physically).

Ghordius's picture

nmewn, why do you feel this way? why do you have this sentiment that btw makes you my brother in my eyes? imho because of that part of your morals that is conservative, which is in this case stronger than the liberty principles that say that it's my business in which you have no "right" to interfere - or, in order to pull iDog's tail: he might suggest you might have to recourse to a court for damages ;-)

imo it's a question of balance between Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, where I and the early French Revolutionists say you can't have the one without some respect to the other two

I know, it's a powerful "statist" argument, this one, that practically defines freedom as existing only within the borders of what a group of humans defines as permissible. philosophically I find it a tad distasteful, but I haven't found (perhaps yet) a way to disprove it - same as the old adage that "in every realm, custom is king"

nmewn's picture

"nmewn, why do you feel this way? why do you have this sentiment that btw makes you my brother in my eyes? imho because of that part of your morals that is conservative, which is in this case stronger than the liberty principles that say that it's my business in which you have no "right" to interfere..."

Because we are a higher order of life than mere animals.

Because when I see a mugger attacking an old lady (his liberty to do so, of course) I don't say "I shouldn't interfere, its the law of the jungle" I react to the wrong being done to her...HER rights & liberties being violated.

Bob Sacamano's picture

"Because we are a higher order of life than mere animals."

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  Are you sure the mere animals don't disagree and aren't shocked at your elitist view? 

Sounds like something a religous person might say....

nmewn's picture

Have you ever stumbled upon a bear and her cubs in the woods and apologized?

Better yet, did she accept your apology (understanding your intentions) for your intrusion? Did she tell you no problem (showing grace), we understand (showing her intention to teach her offspring), this is your forest too (showing property/boundry rights values)?

If so, you simply must tell me of your Dr Doolittle-like qualities of understanding & conversing with the beasts of the earth, unless of course, you can't because you're not a god of any description ;-)

Anusocracy's picture

Rights are mentalist constructs used to control and manipulate people. They are part of the con used to convince the masses that they need government to - get this - protect our 'rights'.

There is no such thing as a right to form a government, the single goal of which is to make some people dupes and slaves of other people. Without government, there wouldn't be a need of the multitudes of made up 'rights' to protect people from government, ever and always the main violator of said 'rights'. It's the same insanity as having the main violator of property ownership, government, as the protector of property ownership.


Abi Normal's picture

Only if men were true Angels, but we all know that is not the case!

Anusocracy's picture

True angels make up government?

Abi Normal's picture

No, quite the opposite.  If men were true angels, there would be no need for govt, that was my point, poorly worded as it were.