Do you think the Parliament adopts the Constitution? No, there are unprepared people in parliament. A ready-made draft, prepared by the behind-the-scenes authors, is submitted to parliament. The parliament does not understand the meaning of this project, and only votes for it.
At the dawn of centuries
Fraudsters and all kinds of deceivers were found, of course, at all times and in all states. And of course, among them there were those who guessed: than to deceive one, it is better to deceive many at once - there is more profit. But not only the broth - honor was often added to this. Fraudsters became the heads of tribes, religions, peoples and states.
And this is already the limit of the scale of the deception? Is it already impossible to strive for more? Remember how (according to Pushkin) Godunov said: "I have reached the highest power!" But no, Godunov was wrong, there have been and exist such fraudsters who set their goal to deceive and force the whole world to serve them. The goal is ambitious and not so quickly achieved, and of course, requires a large number of accomplices, most of whom have no idea whether they are serving, good or evil.
In order not to fantasize too much, the author will rely on the history of a gang of scammers, which many generations of researchers have been studying for several thousand years, and which throughout this time has been continuously striving towards its goal.
You can't fool people just like that, you have to lure them with something. All large-scale deceivers always promise something, and what everyone wants. For example, no one wants to die and therefore we are promised eternal life. Not to ourselves, but to our self-consciousness, which is called the soul. The body dies, but supposedly our soul does not die, and at the moment of the death of the body it leaves it and moves to the sky or to the body of another living being. If you believe this, then you have fallen into the power of people who preach such ideas.
But it turns out that it is not at all necessary to promise the obviously impossible. You can promise power over all outsiders, or, more precisely, over all other peoples. This also attracts many. This very idea turned out to be very convenient in order to try to deceive the whole world (and seize power over it).
Promotional video:
All great things begin with small things, in this case, from deceiving the tribe. He was told that it was chosen by the great god, and that "all kings will be at your feet." Many different rules were invented that had to be followed. In particular, they could not mix with other tribes or peoples, as well as divulge the secret about their society. And, of course, it was necessary to pay tribute to the deceivers themselves and their descendants under the guise of a tribute to God.
Not everyone believed this, of course. And disbelievers can ruin everything. Therefore, they came up with not only a carrot (future power over all peoples), but also a stick. For breaking the rules or trying to leave this society, they were brutally persecuted up to execution by secret executioners.
Among themselves, they had to be honest, all the others could be deceived and robbed, but secretly. They should not have killed each other, all others could have been, but again secretly, so as not to arouse general anger towards members of this society. They should never admit their enmity and hatred towards others, and under no circumstances.
Where it is about the need to keep secrets, as well as about deceiving and robbing others, apparently, it is no longer possible to talk about religion, but to talk about the secret society of criminals. But since deceivers never admit their secret thoughts to others, they call themselves a religious society. Whether the members of this society themselves know that in reality they are only bandits - this will remain their secret.
Since there were few of them, and they wanted to subjugate the whole world, they could not talk about open armed struggle. The struggle had to go on in secret and without declaring war on anyone.
Since they wanted to subjugate all the kingdoms, they always, in any country, tried to make acquaintances with people who held the highest positions. If you deceive the top, then you will deceive the whole country.
In all countries, they have always sought to change the laws of the state. In the days of the republics, it seemed to the fraudsters that the easiest way to achieve power over the country was if it was headed by one single person. At that time, in almost all religions, peoples obeyed many gods who were in charge of various forces of nature. But they began to promote monotheism. In heaven there is one god, and on earth there is one king or king. The king, like a god, had to dictate the laws in his country, everyone else had to be slavishly submissive. This is how the Christian religion supposedly appeared, and then the Muslim one. Both were "propagandized" with fire and sword.
No matter how secretly the struggle was waged, no matter how the members of this society pretended to be kind and peaceful, they were hated by the peoples of all countries. And the kings sometimes guessed that it was very dangerous to make friends with professional deceivers. They know neither friends nor loyalty. The main thing for them is their goal. During the time of Philip the Fair, a Templar conspiracy against most of the crowned heads of Europe was discovered. Many of the participants in the conspiracy were arrested, but there were no members of the secret religious society among them. But threads were drawn to them from all sides. As a result, they were expelled from almost all European countries. The Renaissance era began in Europe.
Of course, they slowly returned to all countries. They were stubborn in pursuit of their goal. Since the time of Philip the Fair, they have tried everywhere to deprive monarchs of power and put their protégés at the head of the country, and, if possible, in all countries at once. Now they strove to do their work with the hands of the common people. Even before Napoleon, the common people were attracted under the slogan of the struggle for "freedom, equality and brotherhood." They decided to achieve power with the help of the so-called people's representatives, who were to become their puppets. What the people's representatives should be in the sense of the word and according to the law, and what the eternal schemers (for their own benefit) conceived them, will be discussed further.
What the Basic Law of Germany can teach
Fast forward to the post-World War II era. At this time, Germany was divided into West and East, and in the West, the Americans "presented" the German people with the Basic Law for Germany. About two centuries before that, Americans also received a Constitution and it was also called the Constitution for America. Perhaps the whole point here is in English grammar, but the Germans certainly did not compose the Basic Law themselves, and therefore it is quite natural that these were laws drawn up by the Americans for the Germans, for Germany. But who then drew up the Constitution for the Americans? Perhaps, this, too, was not done by the Americans themselves, and therefore their Constitution is called the Constitution for Americans? Who was it for the Americans? We will return to this question later.
Does the Basic Law call on “people's representatives” to cheat?
When reading the Basic Law for Germany, one sentence written about the members of the Bundestag, the German parliament, may surprise you with its incredibly illogical (its incredible lack of logic).
"Members of the Bundestag are representatives of the entire people, they are not bound by orders and are subject only to their own conscience."
In a newspaper, such a text would look great. He would say that the members of the Bundestag care so much about the people that they think not only of the constituency that elected them, but of all of Germany. Therefore, they do not limit themselves to the mandate of their district, but do much more and strive to fulfill the mandates of the entire people. In short, they do everything according to their conscience.
But we do not have a newspaper, but the text of the law, where everything must be expressed with mathematical precision and, if possible, must not allow for different interpretations. From this point of view, a beautiful newspaper text can be completely unacceptable for the text of the law.
A people's representative cannot be a representative of the entire people, since he can only have an agreement with the constituency from which he was elected. He cannot have any other paper. He cannot represent another district, he has no right to do so. Moreover, he cannot represent all the districts. It seems that the text of the Basic Law forces him to commit a crime, because a person who calls himself a representative of someone, but cannot show the corresponding agreement, is a fraud.
Further. If he is not bound by a mandate, then this literally means that he is not obliged to carry out the mandate received from his district. This is again a call to crime. For failure to comply with the order (contract), the representative can and should be punished.
And third. If he obeys only his conscience, then this again suggests that he is not obliged to pay attention to orders, and, for example, can do something completely opposite to what the people sent him to the Bundestag for. Why then was it necessary for the people to give him orders? It turns out that the Basic Law calls on "people's representatives" to disregard the orders of the people, to violate treaties.
Further we go, worse it becomes. Paying attention to the fact that "they are not bound by orders," you might think anything. One might think that they have no orders at all, and then, of course, they are not bound by them. And you can decide that they are not obliged to carry out the orders. A real law that does not allow any misinterpretation, in general it cannot be so. It should be written clearly and clearly: "The representative is not obliged to carry out the written order given to him by his district." But will he then be a representative? In German, the people's representatives are sometimes called Abgeordnete, which means "seconded". Will they send someone without giving him a task (order)? And in order for him to be believed in foreign lands that he is a legal representative, this order, of course, must be written. That is why those who call themselves representatives, but do not have a written agreement,considered scammers.
After reading the entire Basic Law, you will not find a single word about how the people's representative receives his mandate. You will not find a single word about what and how to do if the people's representative does not fulfill the order or deviates from its letter. But there is not one word about how he should be punished for this.
The Americans wanted to create an arbitrary rule, a dictatorship in Germany?
If you've ever read detective stories, then you could understand one truth that is a guiding star for any person trying to solve a crime: you need to look for someone who benefits from this crime. By trying to resolve this issue, you can understand who the culprit was.
Mayakovsky expressed this idea more figuratively: "If the stars light up in the sky, does it mean someone needs it?"
In our case, we must express our thought in a slightly different way:
1. If the Americans did not describe the rights and obligations of the people's representative, then they did not want him to have specific rights and obligations.
2. If the Americans did not describe how the people's representative is punished for failing to fulfill the order of the people, it means that they did not want him to be accountable to the people.
3. If the Americans did not describe how the people's representative receives a written mandate from the people, then they did not want him to receive such a mandate.
But the power of the people or democracy can only be exercised through the fact that its representatives will receive and carry out written orders from their constituencies. Without this operation, in the absence of written orders from the people, it will not be the power of the people, but the power of the representatives themselves, and not bound by any duties! The power of arbitrariness!
And if the Americans did not foresee all this, then this is exactly what they wanted. The power of arbitrariness. Dictatorship.
But if the Americans did not want democracy to appear in Germany, then does this mean that arbitrariness (of the behind-the-scenes schemers) reigned in America itself at that time? Dictatorship?
Who Drew up the Constitution for Americans?
Lack of written orders allows the representative to be corrupt
We have all heard that the US Constitution is the most democratic, that it gives the people the greatest freedom. If we had read the US Constitution before assimilating the contents of the previous chapter, then we might have believed it. Now, reading it, we come to a completely different conclusion.
The word "mandate" is not even mentioned in the US Constitution. The US Congress consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Neither senators nor representatives receive any orders from the people. They are only elected. Therefore, they can fulfill the will of the people only by chance. But it is clear that they can act contrary to her.
They do not find out the will of the people. But, presumably, they all read newspapers, and nowadays they all listen to the radio and watch television. Whose will have the distinguished senators and representatives carried out and will carry out? Presumably, exactly the one that the media will impose on them. Who controls the media in America?
And it is here that the attentive reader may ask:
- And how will the orders of the people be better? After all, the people are an even bigger crowd than the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the will of this crowd is also directed through the same media.
It's right. But there is still a difference. The crowd of senators and the House of Representatives, although large, is clearly limited. She is tens of thousands of times smaller than the crowd of all the people. Therefore, she can be bribed, at least partially. And it is bribery that can often tip the scales in the direction that the backstage schemers need.
Precisely for the possibility of the influence of the behind-the-scenes scammers on each representative or senator, they were not told that it is simply impossible to be a representative of their voters without having an order (agreement) from them. If they had orders, they would have to carry out the orders of the people and could not carry out anything else.
In addition, we know that elections, even at the level of elections to the House of Representatives, require a lot of money, and therefore a person who really wants to become a “representative” can be bought already at the election stage - by the same backstage schemers. Since in Congress everything is decided by voting, buying everyone is not at all necessary. It is enough to buy some of them.
We all know what a huge role its presidents played in the fate of America, since they have a great opportunity to bend the stick of the law in one direction or another. But the presidential elections require many millions of dollars. And therefore, any presidential candidate, as a rule, turns out to be a henchman of those very behind-the-scenes scammers. Believe me, behind-the-scenes scammers can look very nice people and know how to gain confidence. That is why they are schemers. They only need to understand whether the future president will listen to their advice. For this he must have certain qualities. For example, his stigma should be in the cannon. Then, if he begins to show too much independence, it will be possible to remind him of this and force him to return to the channel necessary for the scammers.
A “mistake” in the election of the president can only occur when the behind-the-scenes schemers themselves cannot get along with each other.
It is simply impossible to buy all the people. Therefore, if members of the House of Representatives came to it with a mandate from their constituency, then the likelihood that they would have to pass laws beneficial to the people would be much higher.
And the president, who would have been forced to rely on the orders of the people, could no longer commit such arbitrariness as he is doing now.
Let's return now to the question, who created the Constitution for the United States?
We have all heard a lot about the various secret societies, whose members are scattered throughout the world. Any secret society, if it is really secret and large enough, can contribute to the fact that over time, almost all the highest posts in the state will be occupied by its members. This has long been an elementary truth. This means that much in this state will depend on this secret society. And if the members of this society are distributed over all states, then this will take place in all these states.
Consider now one of the secret societies, for example, the Freemasons or Freemasons. The society is secret, but nevertheless widely known. Does anyone know the purpose of this society other than collecting contributions from its members? Collecting contributions is very important. The top of this society lives on this, directing its activities. Members are looking for those who are richer and more influential. You can take more contributions from them. They say a lot about the purpose of society, but nothing serious. In particular, they allegedly help the poor and orphans. Allegedly completely harmless people. The Queen of France also believed in this, until these very harmless people cut off her head. And if the specific goal of the society is not known to anyone, and only rumors are circulating about it, then it cannot be published due to its crime.
Membership in this society is multi-stage. At the lower levels, one thing is said about the goal of society, at higher levels, quite another. And so it goes higher and higher. In short, only the one who is at the very top knows the true purpose of society.
And submission goes from top to bottom. The members of the lower levels obey the higher ones. But they know only one of their boss. They don't know those who are even higher. This means that the one who is at the very top can, on the right day and hour, gather all the members where he needs it. And in case of failure, no one knows his name. He will hide first.
In this society, there are all sorts of rituals that look like tomfoolery, but they must be observed. And, besides, a secret must be kept. The punishment for non-observance of secrets is the most severe. The culprit in violation of the rules of society by a strange coincidence, as a rule, dies from an accident.
What does all this mean? Only that this society is built on the principles of dictatorship. And it can only pursue the ultimate goal of a dictatorial one. New order. Power over the whole world.
ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM - TIME THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ORDER FOR CENTURIES.
This is all the more similar to the truth that the order in this society and the methods of punishment are very much reminiscent of just that "religious" society, which was already mentioned at the beginning of the article and which promised its members "all kings will be at your feet." Isn't this a promise of world domination?
Who can prove that the "free masons" are not an offshoot of the very society that has been striving for world domination for several thousand years? Who can say that this society cannot from time to time create subsidiary secret societies and not give them other, less tarnished names?
Let us now recall that US money bears the marks of free masons. The US Constitution was signed (drafted?) By about forty people, the first of whom was George Washington, a freemason. The other most famous among them was Benjamin Franklin, also a Freemason.
Freemasons are obliged to keep secrecy. Based on this, can we say that George Washington only wanted the independence of the United States from England? That he only wished the American people good? Can we be sure that the Constitution for the United States did not pursue other more intimate goals that George Washington did not have the right to talk about or that he did not even know about?
We now know that in order to make the state dictatorial and dependent on the behind-the-scenes schemers, it is enough that the so-called people's representatives are only elected, but do not have written orders from the people. Did George Washington know about this? Was he acting in accordance with his conscience when creating the US Constitution, or on the instructions of the Masonic society? Was it not created by members of the Masonic society who did not live in America and did not at all feel like Americans, and therefore wrote that this Constitution is for the United States?
In the same way, how later the "Americans", or rather, all the same backstage schemers, created the Basic Law for Germany?
Johann kern