The Constitution Con (A Story of Parchment Idolatry)

Michael T. Sarion

The first function of the founders of nations, after the founding itself, is to devise a set of true falsehoods about origins – a mythology – that will make it desirable for nationals to continue to live under common authority, and, indeed, make it impossible for them to entertain contrary thoughts – Forrest McDonald (E Pluribus Unum)

The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787, and ratified behind closed doors on June 21, 1788. Thirty nine of the fifty five delegates attending the Philadelphia Convention signed the document. Their con job is evident from the very first line penned. Legally, the “People” mentioned are not sovereign beings, but willing slaves who have been granted the illusion of freedom.  

From an occult point of view the Constitution was ratified on an Atonist festival day. It is, therefore, a patently Solar Cult document. This is because the date of ratification – June 21st – is the day the sun ascends to its highest point in the zodiac.

Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were three of the men who framed the infernal Constitution and pushed for its ratification. Their document served the American aristocracy, not the people. In fact the document was never put before the people for ratification, and was openly opposed by the majority of men and women in the original thirteen states, who resisted coming together to form any kind of unified nation. Facts of this sort have been deliberately concealed through the decades, but are now openly accepted by some mainstream American historians, such as Joseph Ellis, Thomas DiLorenzo, and others.

The Constitutionalists were guileful traitors whose attendance at the Philadelphia Convention was kept secret for an entire generation. Their document served to leave the “door” of America unlocked and ajar, so the country’s foreign enemies could surreptitiously re-enter in the days and years following the supposed War of Independence.

The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Federalists is responsible for modern neo-imperialism and advent of the so-called New World Order. In our opinion these men were little more than British agents, because King George himself – who declared eternal war on America – could not have done as much damage to America as their actions wrought.

Such a tyrannical future where property rights would be ignored, where a massive standing army would lurk unchallengeable, where Congressmen would hold office for life, where ruinous treaties would be commonplace, where Presidential powers would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would vanish from circulation to be replaced by the worthless “notes” of a private banking conglomeration, where the States would be reduced to mere administrative departments of the feds, and where the grasp of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer’s paycheck – all this was too fantastic to be even theoretically contemplated during the ratification debates – Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

When the duplicitous Hamilton was asked why he helped draft the Constitution, he guardedly replied:

My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast.

He was but one member of the Philadelphia Convention who secretly resented the independence of America. One perceptive dissenter realized this and wrote:

The Continental convention…was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who have been opponents to the independence of the United States – (Dissenting Address of the Pennsylvanian Convention, 18 December 1787)

James Madison is considered the “father” of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu who believed in monarchy. Madison was also influenced by the writings of British empiricist philosopher John Locke, himself “a major investor in the English slave trade through the Royal Africa Company.” Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-Republican ideology and commented on how illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it – (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution’s Preamble, as we said. In fact the “People” referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from within a legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term “We the People”  denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the “United States of America” – the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let’s read it again and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because “People” is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word “for” is found in the last line, not the word “of.” Legally, there is a big difference between:

…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


…do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the “United States of America” and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying: “This document and its articles are for you.” The point being that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word “for” indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed or imposed by others. And of course when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the cunning Federalists who conceived the Constitution.

Suggestively, the word “of” does appear in a meaningful legal declaration. It appears in the text of the Presidential Oath:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In this instance, the word “of” designates the President as a member of the aristocratic elite – denoted by the words “United States.” He is, therefore, a ruler separate from the citizens in the various states. The “for” does not apply to the President because, unlike the masses, he is not an outsider. He is part of the inner sovereign cadre referenced by the word “of.” The Constitution is “of” the ruling elite, but is “for” the masses. In effect the Constitution is a schizophrenic document. There are two Constitutions; one for the serving masses, and one for the served oligarchs ruling from within the legally sacrosanct District of Columbia. This is why the Preamble contains two different terms: the “United States” (denoting the oligarchy and their authority), and “United States of America” (denoting the non-sovereign masses on the receiving end).

If the Presidential Oath read as follows, there would be less cause for concern:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then again, pigs might fly. Alarmingly, before it was dropped, the President’s original title was “His Excellency.”

Many critics and authors have pointed out these disturbing facts and rightly insist that the so-called “United States” is not the same thing as the so-called “United States of America.” Nevertheless, due to deliberate misinformation and conditioning, most people do believe the terms refer to one and the same entity. They are certainly not inclined to think of the “United States” (or U.S.) as a foreign corporation. Furthermore, the drafters of the Constitution intentionally saw to it that the term “United States” had more than one meaning. Specifically, they knew the term did not refer to citizens of a state. Once-upon-a-time an American could have been a citizen of a state without being a citizen of the nation. This political idiosyncrasy did not suit the Federalists who ingeniously manipulated the words and terms we are familiar with. It is a old trick that serves the cause of totalitarians everywhere.

…not only were the poly meanings of “United States” intentionally and expressly used within the Constitution, but often in ways as to actually invite confusion. For such brilliant men to explain three jurisdictional concepts would, on its face, pose a great mystery Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

When members of the police or military swear to serve, uphold and protect the Constitution and “United States,” they probably imagine their oath is sworn to the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are in fact swearing to give their labor, and possibly their lives, for the diabolical corporate executives of Washington D.C.

Read the rest here:

11 thoughts on “The Constitution Con (A Story of Parchment Idolatry)

  1. When the duplicitous Hamilton was asked why he helped draft the Constitution, he guardedly replied:

    “My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast.”

    Fortunately for everyone, Aaron Burr shot those motives out of the depository his breast.

  2. And this, my friends, is why I have stated and will continue to declare that a democratic republic, constitution or no constitution, is not liberty. True liberty come s only from the one one form of social compact which most people have been brain washed into detesting. Anarchy. Anarchy in it’s simplest for is no government. Government is contrary to liberty by it’s very definition. Men do not need laws nor the authority to create laws that other men are subjected to. This is subjugation, slavery. All men of a civilized society understand what is moral according to that society and therefore do not need power seeking men to Lord over them and keep them in line. The threat of death for violating the moral code is enough. This model has worked well for tribal societies for thousands of years. Though some tribal societies have enacted a hierarchical structure, those are not the ones that I refer to. Living without government and without servitude is possible and preferable.

    1. Nice, agreed 100% except, the term Anarchy as correctly defined by you, has been so polluted in the public mind by design, peoples eyes roll when you try to converse with them on the subject.

      And since I absolutely Hate titles, but people seem to need titles like baby bottles, I use the term “Voluntarist”…..which is probably more accurate for the way we want to live as opposed to the actual definition of Anarchy….

      Anyway nice comment, I woke to anarchism/voluntarism from youtube/larkenrose…..but of course always had it in my heart, that horrible thing of just wanting to be free and left alone…. laters

  3. Good read.
    I agree with much of what the author says. I also agree with Samuel about anarchy.

    The “US Constitution” applies only to federal employees. It is the ‘job description’. I did not authorize it to rule me. Anyone claiming it does, is claiming I am slave or subject. That my friends will get your neck bone dis-connected.

    If ‘one’ can live within the “Bill of Rights” publicly/socially, and the “10 Commandments” morally within them-self, they are most likely much happier.
    And if not, they should be ‘fare-game’. At least as much as the government allowable deer/elk/turkey/etc ‘harvest’. Who do they think they are to sanction the harvest of food???(I am not implying I intend to eat a human. Fishes need to eat

  4. TY for a great article, usually not found on other sites. Very interesting – I need to learn a lot about this, anarchism and voluntarism.

  5. Great article and explanation of the intent of the founders. Problem is, most people today have a fifth grade comprehension level. And that’s generous. 🙂

    I think the only solace myself and people with the true understanding of this construct called “The United States of America” will reap with the upcoming conflict, is knowing most of the bastards will get dead.

    We all love our children, but let’s face it. Those who were educated in gov’t education centers for at least the last 30 years, are ill prepared for its aftermath. Especially mentally. Those who are ingesting SSRI’s will be a detriment to themselves and others.

    How many people will remain ‘functional’ after most of us geezers make the original push to rid this land of the same kind of people that started it.

    “If ‘one’ can live within the “Bill of Rights” publicly/socially, and the “10 Commandments” morally within them-self, they are most likely much happier.”

    That’s what has to happen. Hopefully the children understand that concept…

    Peace, Hoppes

  6. If you take away the first ten Articles/Amendments,
    the Constitution gives the government unlimited power.
    Only Rhode Island actually put the vote to the people. It
    lost by about 11 to 1 ratio. All other States ratified it
    through committees. If you want to learn what is closer
    to the truth read Lysander Spooner “No Treason #6,
    “Hologram of Liberty” and “American Aurora”.
    Almost everything we have been taught about
    American history is a very carefully crafted lie.

  7. I’ve known since about the mid-90s that the Constitution was flawed, and these flaws allowed for the Act of 1871, for instance…and does anyone know of any other document that uses the notion of “three-fifths of a person” for representation purposes? Yet so were the Articles of Confederation (which allowed for states to go to virtual war with each other over issuance of different currencies at different and unstable values, among other things), which, of course, was flawed on purpose so as to create a desire for a Federal govt. to overrule states…which was why Ben Franklin stated to some woman who wanted to know what form of govt. the US had: “…a Republic if you can keep it.” Franklin, an Illuminati wannabe, knew damned well it couldn’t be kept!

  8. The US Constitution, as many rightly claim here, was designed as a veneer for a democratic infrastructure. The great 20th century conservative historian, Charles Beard, exposed this in his 1913 book, “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States”. Lundberg, in the 1980s, corroborated Beard’s original contentions in his book, :Cracks in The Constistution”. In 2005 McQuire did the same with his book, “To Form a More Perfect Union”.

    The Constitution of the United States in reality is a very flimsy document, and probably made so by all of the concessions that had to be made among the 13 Confederated States in 1787.

    It was never designed to form a democratic government but a republic. However, even here it was designed as a veneer in order to protect the rights of the aristocracy, the most powerful being the slave owners of the south.

    There is also new evidence that the “American Revolution”, the so called war for US independence was actually fought not for independence as such but instead to retain slavery as the primary economic engine of the colonies. This “revolution” was initiated at the knowledge in 1774 that England was planning to rid all of its dominions and holdings of slavery. When that was actually going to happen was not specified but the English were in the planning stages at the time seeing slavery as not economically justified. I don’t believe that much of it had to do with simple Human rights.

  9. oh for petes sake………. “do unto others as you would have them do to you”. that should be enough “law” for anyone

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.