Americans like to debate prayer in their state schools—the conservatives and liberals disagree over this matter; but if you challenged both as regards the Constitution they would close ranks—and that is because America is a godless society that holds the Constitution, a contrivance of man, to be sacred. As it happens, the liberals are more correct—constitutionally—as regards prayer in state-sponsored schools; for if the state sponsors religious activities, has it not established a religion? And is that not unconstitutional? The charge that American conservatives are “unAmerican” is true—for anyone who adheres to a higher law, whether nature or God, is anti-American (America was founded to spite both). In America, prayer can come and go in schools—but the Constitution is sacred.
The Constitution is America’s major problem—it’s the meta-context that causes many sub-problems for the country. This is so not least because it enforces double-binds on people—it tells them, for instance, that no state church shall be established and yet this is against human nature; there is always a state church, so that America has a state church that says it isn’t one (and in part its liturgy is the Constitution—it’s a religion that tells you it isn’t a religion, that’s in the holy text; it’s like a mother who shakes her child and says, “I love you, I’m doing this because I love you.”). I’ve seen Americans say many things: I’ve seen them endorse Islam, Pentecostalism, Scientology, Marxism, postmodernism, Russian Orthodoxy—what I’ve rarely seen (never seen, though it must exist) is an American who says, “I’m against the Constitution. It’s evil.” Americans will be against Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, evangelical Christians—yet they’re never against the Constitution. It’s almost like it’s the established religion…
The Constitution is mostly just modelled on the English Constitution in the 18th century, just frozen. The English Constitution is uncodified—it’s written in parts, but it is also made up of traditions, customs, and precedent. The Americans took an organic entity and pinned it like a butterfly on paper—and then started to worship the paper (beautiful but dead). It’s a very 18th-century conceit—at around the same time Bonaparte developed the Napoleonic Code; and this was also a negative development—it did things like recognise bastardy (it helped destroy France, even though she was already on a downward spiral). It comes from this very rigid 18th-century rational scientific worldview that is all propositions and axioms—the idea that one man, a few clever men, can use “reason” to rewrite the world.
Now, the English Constitution has decayed—that’s because it’s an organic entity; it lived for 1,000 years, just like Rome, and then it died in 1911; perhaps its spirit carries on in residual traditions but mostly it’s dead—modern British politicians, residual Whigs, mumble on about a “written constitution” and instituted a Supreme Court as a cargo cult to try and summon American wealth (just like they talk about “the British dream”).
So, for example, the Senate is modelled on the Lords—it’s this elitist body that can check the House; now, up until 1911, the Lords was the same—it could veto finance bills from the Commons; but then this power, along, eventually, with the hereditary peers, was removed. After that, Britain was doomed—we’ve had over a hundred years of the fully enfranchised mob (the politicians and press who control them) voting through greedy short-term legislation that has destroyed the country.
The same process is at work in America today: it’s why the Democrats are desperate to decapitate the Senate—it’s this elitist institution (voted for by state, not by mass—so giving Dakota the same number of votes as California, very undemocratic). So the Democrats want to remove that power from the Senate, perhaps apportion its votes by population not by state—in Britain, this was a protest against aristocracy and “inherited privilege”; and in America it’s the same, except the “American aristocracy” is “white people” (“Why should rich white folks in Montana get the same number of votes in the Senate as poor black and brown folks in California?”).
So you can see that the constitutions have decayed in a parallel way—except in America it happened faster. Why so? It’s because the Constitution was dead on arrival—it’s dead because it’s not organic; it doesn’t grow and develop, it’s rigid—it’s like this proposition of Euclid that is immutable (in fact, it’s treated as sacred and worshipped in an act of idolatry). The English Constitution (of which the American Constitution is just a snapshot, somewhat tarted up) grew and developed and responded to reality, it was more like guidelines than strict rules.
The problem with rigid codified constitutions is that they encourage gaming of the system by clever lawyers: so everyone knows the Supreme Court is the most powerful part of the American system—even though it’s not meant to be; and it’s the most powerful because the justices stick around until they die (almost); the politicians in Congress and the presidency cycle through so fast they have no idea what’s going on—meanwhile, the justices are like the pope (the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just like the death of a pope before they let them retire—filled with anticipation and expectation as regards who would be chosen to become the next pontiff).
So America is a gamed system—and that’s because reality is organic not rational: the Constitution doesn’t describe actual power relations in America—and liberals are right, actually, it is pointless to be an “originalist”; we don’t live in the 18th century—the way Americans own guns is, for example, in no way in keeping with a “well-regulated militia”; if Americans kept to the spirit of the thing it would be like Switzerland where you get a rifle if you complete military service—and the entire professional military would be dismantled and replaced by men who had completed service and received “their rifle”.
This is the problem with a non-organic codified constitution; it can’t adapt to reality and ends up as a sordid hypocrisy—France has the same problem, it’s just she replaces the constitutions all the time as they break, it’s why we’re on the 5th republic, or whatever it is now, in France. In fact, the codified constitution actually destroys customs, habits, and traditions because if these form in an “unconstitutional” way (say, Mormonism is invented and Mormons are really into it and want to pray at school, more so than less enthused non-converts) then the Constitution has to squash these natural organic developments. This is usually presented to support liberalism, but it destroys conservative points just as well.
Americans are goal-orientated problem-solvers (with a can-do mindset), whereas Europeans just want to maintain intricate patterns (religion-race). The Constitution itself instantiates this attitude because it’s based on 18th-century rationalism, it’s not even leavened with contemporary cybernetic thought (which reintroduces holism, organicism, and suppleness in an electronic way). No, it’s totally rigid—just laid down as axioms (numbered points and sub-sections, even). To think in this way is what Taleb calls “fragile”: the goal-orientated engineering mindset creates spectacular advances but it is fated to “snap” at a crucial point—it’s vulnerable to “black swan” events, to catastrophic failure.
The war in Afghanistan exemplifies the difference: America’s problem-solving engineering mindset arrived and took over the country in perhaps 50 days or so—but two decades later the very people they displaced, the Taliban, sent them from the country in chaos. The organic system doesn’t snap, it’s like judo or a bamboo reed—you hit it really hard with a goal-orientated fist and it seems to fold under the pressure, actually it has absorbed your energy and reflects it back at you, in time (nature is infinitely patient), with exponential force.
America is not an old country. It is not constituted from intricate patterns in line with nature. It is fragile—it is vulnerable to sudden catastrophic failure; and this is because it was founded by Freemasons (its symbolism on its very currency is from Masonry) and Freemasons hate God, kings, and aristocracy (hate nature); and they have been involved, along with the Jews, in every world revolution. They worship man, not God—and Americans worship the Constitution, and the Constitution is a Satanic document that implicitly establishes an atheist state and creates a cult around “the Founders” that is exactly the same as the cult around Stalin and Lenin (because it comes from the same Enlightenment worldview). America is founded on the proposition that you will not be governed by God, by a king, or by an aristocrat—you will be governed by the hidden yet visible all-seeing eye of Masonry (for Masons believe themselves to be God and have arrogated his powers to themselves).
Yet, surely, organic societies don’t always win? The Taliban beat the Americans, but the Americans beat the Red Indians. To this I reply: did they? The Red Indians still exist and they have existed on the American continent much longer than the Americans. If America is, as I say, subject to catastrophic failure of a sort unseen in organic societies (perhaps more akin to the USSR—except worse, since the USSR had an organic residuum from Russia) then the Red Indians may win yet—after all, they’re still alive.
Remember: the mills of God grind slowly, and nature is his instrument—nature is also very patient. The apparent defeat—of Hitler, Christ, bin Laden, Sitting Bull—turns into victory on a long enough scale; it’s to do with honour—if you keep your honour, even if you die, even if you “lose”, you are rewarded nine-fold. The man who sells his honour, his integrity, and serves “two masters” will win in the short-term but lose in the long-term. America is based on betrayal—on the Judas principle where you scorn your king and master for a coin; hence she wins in the short-term but loses overall.