Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Constitutional Judo

By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press – Dec 15 2010

In all things, there exists a ‘point of balance’; a line that, if crossed, results in
the sudden and expedient loss of our self-determinism and makes us
subservient to the fickle whims of social, political, and physical gravity. We
are “thrown” into the air, as it were, and the landing is rarely ever pleasant.
The U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties it outlines is itself one of these
historic points of balance. Its original purpose was to temper the most epic of
grappling matches ever ignited; between the relentless constructs of
government, and the individual freedoms of the common man. The ultimate
problem inherent in this struggle is one of consistency, vigilance, and

While the concept of the Democratic Republic and the Constitution was
meant to remove suffocating class warfare from our political life and free us
from the numerous dangers of elitism, invariably, those men who thirst for
power over others find a way to insinuate themselves into any system,
regardless of checks and balances, especially when the populace does not
fulfil its necessary role as watchdog and tireless sentinel. Many Americans
often assume that ‘the people’ derive their power from the Constitution, but
the reality is actually reverse; the Constitution, in fact, derives its power from
the people. Our duty (which some have forgotten) has always been to protect
the rights and liberties inscribed on those pages of parchment. Not just to
know those rights, or recite them, but to implement and defend them in our
day-to-day existence. Without the constant nurturing cultural pulse of sound
minds and courageous hearts, the Constitution dies.

Many in our society, instead of taking on the responsibility of preserving their

freedoms, have instead handed it over to the trappings of government. The
fatal error here is obvious; the corporatized and over-centralized political
landscape of America’s government today does not hold the same values as
the people it is determined to lord over. We have witnessed the parasitic
possession of our system, know it to be corrupt, yet still seem to expect this
bureaucratic monstrosity to cradle our liberties in good faith!

Government is a tool; a mechanical apparatus that can be used to either

preserve freedom, or annihilate it. Its use depends upon those men who wield
it, and the men who wield our government today certainly do not have the
expansion of freedom in mind. In this article, we will examine the many points
of contention (balancing points) brewing as our exceedingly globalist leaning
political leaders overstep their bounds. Any one of these points, if allowed to
falter by Americans, could throw the whole of our heritage into disarray…

Death by A Thousand Cuts

If you’ve been living at the centre of the Earth for the past decade, or playing
online games till daybreak battling for dominion of Castle Grayskull, then you
may have missed out on the numerous attempts by our Government (under
both major parties) to erode our freedoms one precious layer at a time. Some
of these attempts have so far fallen flat, while others have been frighteningly
successful. Here is just a sample of various recent actions and legislation
designed specifically to swindle away your rights, if not the shirt right off your

Patriot Acts I & II: The Patriot Act is what I call “chameleon legislation”; it’s
designed to be “open to interpretation” by officials and to be modified for
whatever purpose they happen to deem fit at the moment. Ultimately, both
Patriot Acts opened a terrible gateway to a world where any freedom is
expendable, especially if it means stopping terrorists and “evil doers”. Of
course, the manner in which terrorism is defined by proponents of the Patriot
Act is wildly general. ANYONE could be defined as a terrorist, and any threat
could be construed as a matter of national security. The true goal of this
legislation was not to protect the public, but to untie the hands of the
establishment when implementing further destructive actions, as well as to
plant the fog of doubt into the minds of Americans as to the continued validity
of the Constitution itself.

The Enemy Belligerents Act: The Enemy Belligerents Act is a perfect

example of how the leadership caste of the Democrats and Republicans (who
are neo-cons, not true conservatives) work in tandem to institute globalist
policy. In this case, the act was introduced by the dastardly duo of John
McCain and Joe Lieberman. To put it simply, this legislation, if fully imposed,
would allow the government to label any person they choose, even an
American citizen, as an enemy combatant. This means you could be arrested
without being officially charged, imprisoned without a trial or legal council for
an unspecified length of time, and no one, not even your family, would be told
where you were. They should just re-name it the ‘Shanghai Act’, because it
basically legalizes government piracy. The only problem is that this shanghai
is less likely to end with tropical island adventure and more likely to end with
you being tossed in a dark stinky hole in the middle of another Abu Ghraib
surrounded by Blackwater mongoloids with a penchant for naked man dog-
piles. Again, this is the kind of poison your government thinks up on a regular


The John Warner Defence Authorization Act: A bill passed by George W.

Bush in 2007 with very little initial media coverage. Allows the Federal
Government at the direction of the president to subvert Posse Comitatus and
use the military within the borders of the U.S. as a police force without any
consent from state governments. Also gives the office of the president
unprecedented powers over the National Guard. Just add any real or
engineered national disaster and what you get is a perfect recipe for
Hurricane Katrina deluxe. Martial Law, here we come…


Establishment Of Northcom: Northcom (United States Northern Command)

is, at bottom, the teeth behind legislation like the John Warner Defence Act. If
martial law is declared in the U.S., it will be Northcom and its assigned
military units that will stand at the forefront. Northcom’s stated mission is to
“defend the homeland”, supposedly against terrorism, however, much of
Northcom’s focus in annual exercises like ‘Vigilant Shield’ has been to
prepare for civil unrest and continuity of government. Meaning, they train
under the assumption that YOU will be the enemy. The first person posted to
command Northcom was General Ralph Eberhart, the same man who was in
charge of NORAD on 9/11. Apparently, if you ignore available intelligence
and fail completely in your assigned duties, you get a promotion in the upper
echelons of the military today, unless I missed something, and he didn’t fail…

Presidential Directive 51: A presidential action shrouded in secrecy and

general cloak and dagger spookiness. When ignorant yuppies accuse the
Liberty Movement of “paranoia”, I always point out PDD 51, and ask them if
they are at least intelligent enough to be concerned. This order was initiated
by George W. Bush and continued by Barack Obama, and is designed to give
the president virtual dictatorial powers during a state of “national emergency”.
It dissolves all states rights and places the entire country under the purview of
Northcom, and Homeland Security. The guise of “continuity of government” is
used as a rationale. Also allows the president to declare a state of emergency
for almost any reason. Members of Congress and even some members of
Homeland Security who have requested to read the entire directive have
been denied. The bill is apparently so disturbing that Obama doesn’t even
want those with security clearance to view the full document. Though I’m sure
there is some grey area that can be exploited where classified materials are
concerned, as far as I can tell from my research, Obama’s withholding of
information on a directive such as PDD 51 from Congress is wholly illegal.


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Supported by both Bush and

Obama. The word “foreign” is highly misleading. FISA allows telecom
companies to supply the personal data and communications of anyone,
including Americans, to the government without threat of civil retribution
(lawsuit). Under Constitutional law, any invasion of privacy by government
authorities must first be approved through an individualized warrant. The
person or premises to be monitored must be specified, and the reason behind
the surveillance must be clearly explained. FISA does away with all of these
protections to your privacy and gives free reign to government to spy on
whoever they choose without any oversight whatsoever. It even allows for
mass surveillance, or data collation, on entire subsections of the populace.
What I find most interesting about FISA is the way in which it brazenly breaks
the barrier between government and corporate power. We all know about the
revolving door in Washington, but in the past, the idea of the barrier was at
least somewhat maintained for appearances, if nothing else. The trick to FISA
is that “technically”, it is the telecoms that are doing the actual surveillance,
and not government. This is, I’m sure, the argument that will be used by the
Feds if FISA is ever taken to the Supreme Court under the Fourth
Amendment. The reality, though, is that the telecoms and the government are
one in the same, and to treat them as two separate legal entities is to blind
one’s self to the facts. Now, Mussolini’s definition of fascism (the melding of
government and corporate infrastructure into a single entity with a single
purpose) absolutely seems to apply to the U.S.

Big Brother Technotronic Super Villain-esqe Surveillance Grid: Ever feel

like you are being watched? Get used to it, says Homeland Security! CCTV
cameras have doubled in most U.S. cities over the past two years, while New
York has tripled theirs in only six months. The TSA has been given invincible
IRS-like goon squad status and now fondles and x-rays airport travellers at
will, storing biometric data without consent and generally treating people
worse than cattle. Don’t care because you don’t fly? Don’t worry! Naked body
scanners are coming to bus and train stations near you! Hell, if we don’t put a
stop to this horror soon, the TSA may roll scanners out on street corners.

A friend of mine was recently on a trip to Boston and went to see the U.S.S.
Constitution, the oldest commissioned American war vessel still afloat. He
related to me that his excitement was soon smothered when he realized
visitors had to pass through metal detectors and security just to see the boat.
I’m sure that the government is merely trying to prevent Al Qaeda from
sneaking on board with box cutters, hijacking the ship, and sailing it into the
Sears tower, causing the building to implode at near freefall speed.

The reason he was disenchanted with the experience was because he knew
the metal detectors and security served little purpose, except to condition
people into accepting that this was the norm. Everywhere you go, there DHS

Next of course would be easily tracked national ID cards, which were

attempted a couple of years ago with little success under the Real ID Act.
State compliance for the Real ID was postponed until May 2011, which is
right around the corner. We’ll see if the states cave, or stand their ground.
Finally, no surveillance society would be complete without citizen spies.
Homeland Security is establishing its new “If You See Something, Say
Something” campaign in your local Walmart. Yes, imagine the ghoulish face
of cave troll Janet Napolitano leering down at aisle five as you attempt to
save a dollar on frozen buffalo wings. She slobbers rhetoric about how you
are surrounded by terrorists while you try to find that economy sized box of
Count Chocula. Wouldn’t we all just feel safer?

Bailout Bills (All Variations): I find that a lot of people like to blame our
current economic doomfest on one political party or the other, stumbling
about in the dark in a sad attempt to trace the roots of the credit and
mortgage collapse back to Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc. Everyone is
desperate to play cheerleader for their team, not realizing that both teams are
fake and almost every president since the creation of the Federal Reserve in
1913 is to blame for selling out the American people to global banks. Let’s not
forget, both Obama and Bush supported bailout legislation which is now
widely considered to be an abject failure. The majority of Americans
according to most polls opposed these bills, and yet they were still passed.
What do the bailouts have to do with the loss of Constitutional rights? When
the entirety of your country’s financial future is poured into the coffers of
international banking elites and your currency is subsequently debased if not
destroyed, leaving you with nothing but debt and supranational centralization,
it is a certainty that a total loss of your rights will soon follow.
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act S. 510: Currently being considered for
passage in the House. Yet another bill written in such a way as to make it
wide open for interpretation by the authorities. First of all, the FDA has never
been synonymous with “safety”, considering half the products they approve
end up causing cancer or shrinking your testes. They would approve rat urine
for mass consumption if a company like Monsanto wanted to market it. The
FDA’s true roll has been to let major corporations violate safety regulations
unobstructed while ruthlessly bringing the hammer down on smaller
businesses. Now, the FDA has set its aim upon not just small farms, but
personal gardens!


The bill gives the FDA far reaching powers over what it terms “food
production facilities”, which are defined as “any farm, ranch, orchard,
vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation”. It also
places all food production under the control of Homeland Security in the event
of a “national emergency” (there’s that poorly defined phrase again). I have
heard some organic growers and ranchers shrug off the bill, believing that the
FDA would never take advantage of the broad interpretation and bring
pressure on private gardens or food trade. This kind of naivety is always
astonishing to me. When has a society ever opened a door to power that its
government has not taken quick advantage of? In fact, the FDA has already
begun harassing the Amish, of all people, for private farm trade, even without
S. 510:



These are non-commercial farms, yet the FDA believes it has the authority to
dictate their food production activities. If the government is willing to set its
laser guided sites on a pacifist group that still rides around in horse and
buggy, then they’ll definitely have no qualms going after the rest of us.

Anti-Constitutional Arguments for Dummies

Most people enjoy the advantages of freedom and are naturally conservative
towards government, whether they realize it or not. Because of the rather
unsavoury past actions of the neo-cons (globalists), the word “conservative”
has been sullied, and is now associated with corporatism and big
government. However, real conservatism has always been quite
revolutionary. True conservatives believe in the principle of limited
government, and individualism above collectivism, which means they usually
find themselves the target of establishment fury. True conservatives are
almost always in rebellion against the system, because the system is almost
always operated by those who are anti-freedom. Show me a self proclaimed
conservative who supports proliferation of government with a smile and I’ll
show you a very confused man.

The label “Conservative” should really be interchangeable with

“Constitutionalist”, and once this is understood, anti-Constitutional arguments
can be viewed without the blurred distractions of the false left/right paradigm.
We begin to understand that the conflict is not between Democrat and
Republican, Liberal or Conservative, because those terms have been warped
and their meaning eroded. The conflict we face is instead between
individualists (Constitutionalists), and collectivists (globalists).

We’ve all heard the gamut of anti-Constitutional arguments in the past, but
almost always through the left/right filter. Let’s set that filter aside for a
moment and consider a few of them once again more objectively…

Argument 1 – The Constitution is an outdated document and is no

longer practical for the modern world:

I’ve heard this argument from both sides of the aisle once again indicating
that left vs. right is all fantasy. Does a good idea ever become outdated?
What about inborn instincts? Can the desire for freedom ever be impractical?

The suggestion that the Constitution is “too old” is ludicrous for many
reasons. First, the idea of an independent republic is painfully new compared
to the long wash of human empires filled with vast stretches of feudalism and
tyranny. Globalism is often touted as the next step in the cultural evolution of
man, but it is really a giant leap backwards compared to Constitutionalism,
representing yet another old centralist autocracy marketed in a modern way.
A global feudal state is still a feudal state.

Second, the guidelines of the Constitution are built upon social necessities
that have never and will never disappear. The right to speak openly one’s
opinions or observations without fear of government reprisal is not a right that
we will ever find ourselves too modern to appreciate. The right to bear arms
and defend oneself will always be essential to a culture that wishes to prevent
despotism in its various forms. The right to privacy from all people, including
the government, will never be programmed out of the public entirely. Every
man has an innate need to live without being examined and judged as though
he were under constant suspicion. Every aspect of the Constitution is
archetypal, and therefore, as much a part of us our own eyes and ears.
These things do not lose their usefulness, no matter what era we live in.

Third, I have yet to see a political dynamic that is more sincere and
honourable than the U.S. Constitution. I have yet to see a social concept
presented as an alternative to the Constitution that does not have an ulterior
motive attached. If someone, anyone, can present a new system that
improves upon the Constitution while retaining the liberties described in the
Constitution, I would love to see it. I hear a lot of criticism of the Constitution
by globalists, but I have never seen any of them present a workable
replacement that the public would respect, or willingly accept.

Argument 2 – Some rights must be given up for the greater good:

I’ll tell you a little secret; there is no “greater good”, unless you are talking
about personal conscience. If your version of the “greater good” demands
that you supplant your personal conscience, then it is not “greater”, and it is
not “good”.

Safety is usually the catalyzing issue that leads to relinquished liberties, but
safety itself is an illusion. No government can promise you true safety. Life is
dangerous, and filled with the unexpected. Get over it and stop projecting
your fears on the rest of us. If someone really feels that they are in immediate
danger of a terrorist attack, then they should build a concrete bunker for
themselves and stay in it, instead of trying to impose a collective bunker
made out of unconstitutional laws and government surveillance around all of

Ultimately, what IS the greater good in this situation? Is it an unaccountable

globalist nanny state and the dissolution of all individual and national
sovereignty for the sake of a few people’s delusions of security? Maybe I’m
just reckless, but I’m not buying it…

Argument 3 – National sovereignty must be removed if we are to

achieve world peace:

World peace sounds very nice, I admit, but anyone who thinks removing
Constitutional boundaries and bowing to Globalism is the cure for war is
smoking something laced with a serious amount of something. Almost every
war of the past century alone has been funded, facilitated, or outright ignited
by the same types of global elitists who now demand that we centralize world
economic and political power into their hands to end war. This isn’t irony, it’s
actually very well thought out Hegelian gaming; a sort of anti-Karma that
rewards evil and punishes the respectable.

We have been led to believe that peace requires some kind of Faustian trade;
freedom for harmony. But, legitimate freedom is a harbinger of peace, and
nothing, not even the promise of harmony, is worth trading it away.

Argument 4 – The government could never undo Constitutional liberties

because we would just vote them out:

This argument shows a serious lack of insight into how our government
actually functions. As I have pointed out, most of the anti-Constitutional
legislation described in this article was supported by both major parties.
Therefore, it would be logical to then consider that voting out one party and
replacing them with the other makes little difference as to the policies the
government pursues. Unless you are voting for third party or liberty based
candidates, your stop at the ballot box was a big waste of time. Sorry, that’s
just reality. The people who write in Mickey Mouse have more sense than
most of the voting public. The point ? Elections change very little on a federal

The argument is also sometimes reversed by nihilists, who claim that the
American public is to blame for government corruption because they voted for
said politicians in the first place. Again, how the public votes has little bearing
on most major elections because they have not been given a real choice. I
get more excitement when deciding between Coke or Pepsi.

Argument 5 – The Founding Fathers couldn’t live up to their

Constitutional ideals:

Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he also tried to implement a

gradual emancipation for all slaves. It’s a contradiction. Jefferson, like all the
Founding Fathers, was living in the midst of a revolutionary age filled with
contradictions and conflict. The fact that they were able to sort through much
of this and form a nation that at least aspired towards equal rights and
independence is nothing short of a miracle. Washington made many
mistakes, and so did Adams. In the context of the era in which they lived, they
still did extraordinarily well, and this world is immensely better off because of
their contributions.

This argument is perhaps the most dishonest of those I’ve heard, because it
seeks to dismantle the very tangible and beneficial accomplishments of the
revolutionary period by defaming men who cannot defend themselves
because they are long since dead. It is successful when used to target people
who know only historical events or dates but do not know more about the
characters of the figures involved. That is not to say we should blindly idolize
the Founding Fathers, on the contrary, we should endeavour to see them as
real human beings with strengths, as well as flaws. Those flaws do not
discredit what they built. What men are able to achieve in spite of their flaws
is often far more meaningful and valuable than what they lose because of

Moral Ambiguity in Times of Crisis

Liberty is most threatened in moments of great duress. Desperation breeds

reckless abandon, and such an atmosphere is suffocating to wisdom. Each
point of balance in the struggle for freedom requires considerable focus, and
that focus can be twisted, flipped, and wrenched by the shock of disaster. The
preservation of Constitutional rights depends greatly on our ability to maintain
a sense of integrity and discipline as a culture, even when all the world seems
to crumble around us.

Fear makes the insane seem reasonable. Financial collapse, war, civil unrest,
all of these calamities can tempt us to silence our dissent, to do things we
would not normally do, or to concede that which is precious to us. Even now,
that kind of fear has led to many unfortunate compromises. The good news
is, there is no freedom taken, that cannot be taken back.

The question is, how much are we willing to endure to see that our ideals
survive? How hard are we willing to work? How much of our time, effort, and
energy are we willing to expend? If the answer is not “all of it”, then we have
failed already. What we have covered so far is the present situation, and by
no means does it have to continue. When drawing a line in the sand, that line
must first be drawn within. We must promise ourselves that it is here we will
not bend, we will not lose balance, we will not be thrown. All liberty depends
most on this.

You can contact Giordano Bruno at: giordano@neithercorp.us

SPECIAL NOTE TO READERS: Well, after more than three years, we’ve
gone and done it; we’ve added a donate option here at Neithercorp. Why
now? Does Giordano need more whiskey to get through all those IMF white
papers? No. In fact, we will soon be working in tandem with Stewart Rhodes
and Oathkeepers to present a project which we feel is a very powerful
solution to our current economic uncertainty. Details on this project will be
reported here and at Oathkeepers soon. If you would like to help us by
making a small contribution, please visit our donate page here:
Thank you once again for visiting us here at Neithercorp.