Brutus the Anonymous

When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be laid firmly. The Constitution proposed to your acceptance, is designed not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made.

First appearing in a New York City newspaper November 1st, 1787 a writer by pseudonym Brutus attempts to outline the short comings of the Constitution; a feat not well received, citing a belief that the new Constitution does not guarantee the rights of the people. To a certain extent, after years of erosion to the sound structure that is the proverbial Constitutional structure, the literature did not protect all people under every circumstance—let alone prevent insidious instances of corporate and banking political persuasion that indeed places the more powerful, crafty clans of the world above the common man. The creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did, however, form a structure to build upon. The simple inalienable-rights bit is rather innocuous and imperative—but why in the world would a man see such an issue with the structure? The answer is quite simple: all structures have gaps, and the Constitution did not account for these gaps. But how could it? The Fathers of America were not clairvoyant, but rather humble humans who were wrong about slavery. Society is better off with something though.

Here’s why: simply put, any society, in order to function as such, must follow a Leviathan sacrifice. The natural order of man is to be curbed to further protect the goodness in man’s deeds. This is why the Constitution ratified amendments empowering women, not just man. Indentured servants and plantation slaves were freed under such amendments. The last amendment to be ratified was just over 40 years ago, ensuring that Senator/Representative salary changes will not occur until the next Congressional election. These additions were of the immediate moment which appealed to the structure of government or to the rights of all Americans. So what are we to do about entities that attempt to limit these rights? You know, the Indefinite Detention portion of 2012’s NDAA. (Read this before you consider reading more of my mess.) What are we to do about mass shootings that are suspected to be contrived? The relentless acquisition of ammunition by the DHS as a secondary form of gun control? Sure. The Right to Bear Arms—but what about the damn things that make it go bang? The Constitution’s language does not specify this important issue; nor does it function in a way that protects against shortfalls.

Brutus does begin to make sense here, and now. What are we to do about the threat of domestic drone use? Many people dismiss this as a hoax or a classically uttered bit of vomit, “conspiracy theory.” Unfortunately for them, it is fact. The mainstream and others wish to not make this a front-page issue. There are many ways to skin a cat—there are millions of ways that the Constitution does not help us, especially here. If the crafty conspirators succeed in sparking a contrived event, creating an inevitable reaction to enact full blown drone surveillance, I’ll be damned. Brutus done it again.

So what exactly does this all mean? How does this apply to the atrocious past century of mismanagement and inhumane efforts of the conspirators?—and what are they conspiring for? What’s the goal? Here’s the deal: I am not going there. I am going to point to where Brutus finds faults and how we’ve seen this in the past century. Let me break this down:

No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society is then to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but united consent of those who associate. The mutual wants of men, at first dictated the propriety of forming societies and when they were established, protection and defence point out the necessity of instituting government.”

In a nutshell, he’s got a point. And, the Fathers did create a structure that was supposed to work for the people. Things have changed. When Comedian Chris Rock openly states that the President is “the boss,” there’s a serious problem. He is the boss of his branch, but he is not the boss of the country. Protection and defense of the people is the purpose of government. No man should bow down to any government, unless they themselves jeopardize the welfare of the whole. Even when this is the case, the Constitution and the government fail to protect and defend against those who jeopardize the whole.

In a state of nature every individual pursues his own interest in this pursuit it frequently happened, that the possessions or enjoyments of one were sacrificed to the views and designs of another; thus the weak were a prey to the strong, the simple and unwary were subject to impositions from those who were more crafty and designing.

Here we have what I discussed. A Utilitarian point to be taken is that a small sacrifice is needed in order to have a civil society. Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is a rather extreme example of “society.” (Read it. Would you?) We do make sacrifices. We do vow to stop the urge to kill when we lose at poker. We vow to not molest children. All of these sacrifices of the natural law is in the benefit of society. We get some odd birds who do in fact break these laws, but this is the least of our worries. The Constitution does not clearly state what our rights actually are, but only alludes to what they could be. The worst detail are the gaps. A gap will allow for rich and powerful corporate interests to push through the Monsanto Protection Act.

More importantly, riches and power started the beginning of the end: The Federal Reserve Act. The stronger, crafty and intelligently diligent elite of the world created a ticking time bomb. Those who are aware of this combustible know exactly the line of reason I draw. Those who do not see this line need to cuss and tell yourself  “ wasted my time reading this article”—I say this because I am not going to try to convince you that the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government and prints every dollar with debt attached to it. Sorry—but this act created a system to establish a new, incredibly intelligent form of slavery that doesn’t really seem like such. Sure. You get to use your Slave-points to buy a car and have that piece of glass called an Ipad, but what are you really gaining from this? They just take your money back to remind you that you are in debt to them. If you ask any economic expert about the current climate of global finance, they’ll tell you it’s a debt crisis. Thomas Jefferson warned of such central bank schemes. Clearly, the Fathers were trying to prevent an insurrection of evil men. In 2008, members of Congress were privately told that if the “Banker Bailout” was not passed, the country’s streets will flow with blood and Martial Law will be needed to quell the implosion. Does this sound like a hostage take-over? Kinda does, right? Does the Constitution prevent such measures? No. The individuals discussed in Inside Job are the ones who caused this problem.  Even so, they threw their hands in the air and threatened collapse to recoup their losses. Does the Constitution protect them? No, but we bailed them out.  Did it protect us from this atrocious scenario come-true? No,  but we paid the price.

Freedom of speech: hell yeah we have that. But to what extent? Does that include digitally recording the police while on duty? This is where the Fathers could not foresee such developments. This is just one example, but a woman in Rochester, NY was arrested while standing on her own property. She was simply recording an interaction with police and a so-called “criminal.”

The Thirteenth Amendment: yes. This was in our best interest as a society. The cold, hard fact we must face is that corporate interests created this problem. Beyond being a sore loser, the majority of individuals who appealed to the Fourteenth Amendment were in fact corporations and not former slaves! Corporations are people too, ya know. From there, a decision was made to allow corporations to become legal “natural” beings, with the same rights as the organic life form. The issue is not that corporations should have these rights, but the fact that they appealed to an amendment that was not directly created for their disposal to rectify their own legal rights issue. Do you see where Brutus finds fault in the Constitution? Crafty and designing people like these pathetic corporations pushed through a decision in reaction to their asset loss in the slave-trade.

The current structure of the Former United States suggests the latter: we no longer live in the country that was meant for us. Things have changed because just as Brutus predicted, we all were out-whacked by power-tripping, crafty and designing men and women.

If this doesn’t make your head spin, do some research. Take this away from my words: nothing is perfect. There are plans to change the world for the worst, and these men are indeed those who exploit the gaps in the structure. Read into things. Dig deeper. Believe nothing but what seems to make that “click” sound in your head. Let that light-bulb above your head make the connection. Nothing is what it seems. Not anymore.