The founding fathers fraud the biggest scam since religion

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Observor

 

Your argument either supports false assumptions using a 21st century lens to view 18th century societal norms, or invalidates the Declaration of Independence.

Which one is it?

False assumptions? Don't see any false assumptions there.

The declaration of independence was nothing more than one bunch of bandits declaring independence from another bunch of bandits to continue to in their bandit ways as they saw fit and not be constrained by the whims of some other bandits across the ocean. There is nothing valid or invalid about it.

Oh! By the way, the bandits who "freed" themselves were far worse off than those they "freed" themselves from, even by 18th century bandit standards.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


I agree it's in bad taste too.

But, he could be right...a small minority would probably have preferred to be controlled and have their lives managed by the 'owners'...a bit like submissive types in the world today perhaps.

I would imagine though, that a very high proportion of those that may have 'preferred' to be slaves, would only have held that opinion through conditioning, the institutionalism of being slaves for all of their lives, or just through plain old fear.

Nothing is black and white in this world..there actually were (and still are) many rich, white families of renown that are actually of good character and thought and continue to think well of their fellow human beings. Being wealthy doesn't automatically equate to being sadistic or evil.

There were many that were evil and sadistic, and held no regard for their fellow human beings, save for the profit and loss on the head of those they kidnapped.

There are records that exist during the slave era, where 'slaves' were often paid wages...so while they were 'officially' owned by another human being, so fulfilled the criteria of 'slave', they were basically boarded paid workers.

Many may argue, that the slave trade has continued in a similar vein to this day. With unauthorised immigrants, working for basically food and boarding, and a very small allowance as wages. This could even be applied to authorised or citizen workers who are earning only minimum wages...but then have to pay their own board and lodgings..in real terms, they are not much better off than the illegal workers, apart from having to constantly peek over their shoulders of course.

So, not all slavery went down the way many imagine it did. It's basically and obviously wrong to own a human being, just as it is to force a human being to work to increase another's profits.

That's the bottom line for me whether the 'owners' were good or bad.

Originally posted by A boy in a dress

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
"All men are born equal" - thomas jefferson....slave owner, (does anyone else see anything wrong with that? or am i the only one?)

This sums it up, really. The victors write the history. They annihilated the indigenous population, yet are revered as saints.

None of us here really know how it all went down, so i'm not calling them bad, wrong, or right, but too many folk take knee-jerk offence at anyone suggesting they may not have had the common man's best interests in mind after all.

Had Germany won the war i'm sure the annihilation of the Jews would have been white-washed into history as an unfortunate, but unavoidable route to the greater good that, for many, the American Indian demise seems to have become.

I have no info, hence no right, to call the founding fathers Nazis, and so my analogy does disquiet me a little. But history is all about perspective, and so, though they my offend, such 'thought experiments', analogies and threads like this give us vital new perspective upon a questionable era in world history.

edit on 11-9-2011 by McGinty because: typo

Ah... a breath of rationalism, a rare bird this far South!

With compliments equally as rare, i thank you BIAD

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


I would have enjoyed the article more if it had sources.

It could be a great piece of fiction or a short story or it may be historically accurate.

I do find it all great food for thought but the website is only a blog with no sources, credits, etc, to validate the claims.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


The country wasn't founded as a democracy. I wish more people knew that.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"- Benjamin Franklin
He wasn't being self deprecating, or being tongue in cheek about the government he helped establish: he was pointing out that democracy is mob rule. All it takes is to get 51% of people to vote for something stupid, vote themselves out of their rights, and screw over the minority with VOTING. Mind you with the multimedia Leviathin we face, 51% is child's play to brainwash. You for one think the founding fathers didn't exist and religion is a scam (lol I would love to teach you some history) due to one tentacle of the Beast. A larger portion of our country thinks the founding fathers were Christians instead of deists and Freemasons due to another tentacle of the Beast.

Hey everyone! Here's a shocker: ATS is the MSM of the conspiracy world. It's painfully obvious how opinions are swayed on here and that this would be an incredibly easy website for the government to peruse everything you've every written via TEMPEST.

Back on the anti-bush-its-all-his-fault kick huh?...Where are the posts exposing the United States of Obamica and his broken promises?....

Why is ATS still falling for this troll thread starter? Look at EVERY thread the OP has started, and each of his responses. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet. Nearly every post of his contains a logical fallacy that always succeeds at getting a response.

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

"All men are born equal" - thomas jefferson....slave owner, (does anyone else see anything wrong with that? or am i the only one?)

They may be born equal, but some are taken into captivity, and made to serve the will of others.

Bound Captive



A man has 5 free limbs: 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head.

Five Points of a Free Man



But, when taken captive, a man's 2 arms are bound behind him. So, he only has 3 free limbs to use.

That's why the US Constitution counts a slave as 3/5 of a free person.

The 2 arms of a free man are used to serve his will. The left hand to take. The right hand to give. But, a slave is bound to the will of his master. He's lost the right to take and the right to give. He may have been born free, but lives bounded to his master now. He serves his master's will, not his own will, anymore.

But, you are right about the seeming contradiction in Jefferson's words. But, he was comparing himself to the British royalty. They wanted to get rid of Royal and Noble privileges, because they saw these classes as ruling over them, which they thought was unfair. After all, they look alike. It's just one born in this house and another born across the street. But, they couldn't see what was wrong with themselves ruling over slaves. A slave was just 3/5 of a person. And the slave looked different too. It was easy to be blind in one eye, while the other eye was sighted.

I've always thought of the united states as just another arm of the the UK. Basically the UK's, military faction to do their dirty work, and blame shift.

Considering the length at which UK troops are involved in Afghanistan and Libya, in the latter's case more so than US personnel, this post is uninformed and typically ignorant.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


This man feels similarly. Before you (I mean people other than the OP) jump the gun and get defensive (which I really resent by the way because to suggest I am in some way unpatriotic or do not love my country simply because I want to get at root motivation and actual effect of what on the surface seems a giant step toward leveling the playing field for the everyman) is despicable and low....please consider what he has to say and see if this makes any sense at all...

You may not agree but to make character assassinations based on logical and even probable theories deductions and presumptions (from either side) is uncalled for.

If people are not free to speak their mind - they are not free.

Follow the money. People do things to keep wealth in circles of wealth. Why would you want your money to escape your small circle of friends?

I began by researching a question someone asked on ATS.
Challenge: Name a Single Law That Has Solved A Problem
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=12051156#pid12051156

Though is seems unlikely...I could not.

I tried to find the oldest written law and discovered the Hammurabi Codex.
Essentially the OP of this thread is correct. There are no laws that have solved a societal problem and all laws are authoritarian encroachments on the truly free. All laws are written to control "the people" and the society and to settle disputes among the lower tiers of that society. The laws are not and were never intended to be applicable to those who also write them.

This made it clear to me these peoples who wrote that Codex, popped in with their society and culture fully formed - in any event, they WERE "Gods and royalty" who traveled with an entourage. Professional warriors and soldiers called Archons who carried out the enforcing their laws, they had their own Priests and religious consults and consorts who shared a near balance of authority and power - scribes, (modern politicians) aristocratic friends and "patrons" and many others - ALL OF WHOM enjoyed a privileged life in a world and a class of their own

...AND THEN THERE WERE SLAVES and freemen for whom all the laws were written.
It is quaint to imagine over time these groups blended but I don't think they ever really did and in fact it was set up to be difficult of not impossible to break barriers between classes of people alive at the time.

I followed the laws the Gods initiated for the commoners and though some changes were made along the way all along the way there are 2 sets of laws and the Elite who made the laws had their own laws.

The Roman Empire was considered the greatest thus far and most of what we have today is handed down. America is unique since it is the first nationalized attempt and success at breaking away from imperial rule by a monarchy and a papacy.

I am not saying the elite were or are all BAD at all - they are made up of good and bad individuals but they are unquestionably APART and unaffected by what goes on in the general populace.


The Roman Empire and something called Ecumenism (a strategic attempt to unify all Christianity in single purpose) sounds like a NWO agenda to me.


I think the progenitors of this are still among us today.
Otherwise who are THE ELITE?
Who are the Bilderburgs and what are they up to?
Why are we convinced the 2 party system is a treadmill and the differences are made up - It doesn't really matter who is in power?
Why do we think the Presidents office is largely ceremonial and he really has very little power, he is a figurehead? Why would we suggest a plutocracy or a shadow government or a government within a government or a Military Industrial Complex (many of these are descendants of the Archons)

I suspect the Gods and Royal of those times mingled with the humans on Earth and what we have today is a version of those original divisions and laws passed down and modernized to meet the needs and clamoring of THE PEOPLE...(not the Elite, I think those rules laws governing the ELITE stayed the same, basically few rules and almost no laws)... of and for each age. They have to be good at ruling and controlling us secretly and from behind the scenes - they invented it. It is who we are.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

The authors of the Constitution were extremely powerful and wealthy men who disdained and feared the common people and therefore opposed the form of government known as democracy.

That word, democracy, does not appear in the Constitution, its accompanying Bill of Rights, or in any of the amendments.

Yet democracy, democracy, democracy is the term bandied about by all branches and agencies of the government, the media, schools, churches, and by the general public in informal conversations

So the founding fathers hated democracies yet in America we are now brainwashed with the term. So we're to believe that the establishment is brainwashing us with a positive term i.e. "democracy", seriously?

A pure "democracy" is the equivalent of mob rule: "rule of the majority". In a democracy, the majority of a town could vote to prevent women from driving. In a nation of laws under a Constitution, everyone would be equally protected, but we dont just want a nation of laws, we want just laws. Who decides if the laws are just? The Constitution. Though I would argue there are many laws on the books right now which are blatantly unconstitutional and are more reminiscent of mob rule.

The possibility of a major revolt during the Depression caused Franklin Roosevelt and the democratic congress to enact his "New Deal" that may have saved -- although it has always been strongly disputed by the aristocracy -- capitalism in America.

The New Deal saved capitalism in America??? Because it prevented an overthrow of the government by creating handouts? This is probably the only point of his which I would agree with. Some of the most harmful and criminal programs in our nation's history were introduced during the New Deal: people were forced to surrender their gold and the World's largest ponzi scheme, Social Security was created.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Well, there were only 10,000+ witnesses to them and following their orders.


And you know, how they absolutely hated Hamilton for his insanity.


Seems to me that they were what they claimed.

reply to post by gladtobehere

In a nation of laws under a Constitution, everyone would be equally protected, but we dont just want a nation of laws, we want just laws. Who decides if the laws are just? The Constitution.

You can have all the just laws you want but when the levels of defense and penalties are different and when the justice meted out is different for different classes of people...your justice is not actual. It is perceived justice.
It is far from equal. Do you see a lot of equal treatment and sanity in this criminal justice system? It is a free for all but the poor. They keep the jails full, society thinks its protected, and the penal system stays in business everybody keeps their jobs because the poor keep getting themselves into trouble, we lock them up. The wealthy walk away.

Is that what you call justice?

Anybody that disagrees with the OP...I dare you to spend some time here

www.plutocracyusa.com...

...get George Carlin's perspective, watch the videos...


...and come away telling me what a wonderful thing we got going on here and how it can't be perfected. I think it can and we have a ways to go.

Don't get indignant either since this is no personal attack to any flag waving or evangelical red or even blue blooded Americans. It is an observation that only deserves some consideration. It would help explain why we still have an off balance system that perpetuates and maintains (under the radar but very real and effective) system that helps the rich get richer to the detriment of the poor. Nobody wants a Nation of dependents unless maybe you ARE the head of the household.

i don't believe its an outright scam or conspiracy but its true you can make a great case that the USA is an extension of what the Roman Empire started and expanded

Advice: you should all read the "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread if you want to see who is the puppet master potential out there that would still exist in some shape today

You will see an amazing thread linking the Romans, Knights Templar, etc to creation of an expanding empire..one using religion, politics, military might, and capitalism, to unite the world

one can make an amazing case that Columbus was not the 1st to claim America for the crowns

in fact one can make a case for Scotland/Vikings very easily in fact and in legend

do some DD on Prince Henry Sinclair/Templars in America

CHILLING

they likely claimed the land for the templars 90 years before Columbus hit the west indies. in fact i can make a case he purposely missed the east coast of america

There's some interesting articles on LewRockwell.com that talks a lot about the hypocrisy of our founding fathers. You can check out the link below...

Tricked on the 4th of July

Independence Day Propaganda

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
You are a troll or worse, you're avatar reflects what a sick person you are and frankly, I think you're a waste of air but then, I guess you don't use much air living in your mother's closet or whatever hole you are spinning this crap from.

Where to start a comment...

First... there are certainly shortcomings to posting on a "hot" thread, based on ones response to the OP's proposition. I just can't make myself read the entire thread, when the OP's ideas elicited a clear response, which partially follows:

My first reaction to reading Phillip Greenspan's post on The Swan... his writing style is authoritative... but based on what? He's a WWII veteran? My dad was too, and my dad was a really great guy, but he also believed people who smoke pot should be lined up against a wall and shot. So much for "do what you will, but harm no one," right?

I also kept looking for footnotes and source references. Nothing. Essentially, it is an opinion piece presented as fact. In truth it would probably be fair to say, it is some facts blended with a healthy dose of opinion.

I do know this... a republic (is supposed to be), 2 wolves, a lamb, and one other elected by those 3 to oversee the dynamics of state affairs, and prevent a majority from victimizing the minority.

A democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. A democracy is unbridled Majority power. If you're odd, black, Indian, from Asia, or collect bizarre yard art, in a democracy the rest of "the people" can vote as right anything they want to do to you, and there's no recourse, because "the people have spoken."

A republic, is supposed to be based on principles and the "rule of law", vs rule of mob law.

To discuss any of this at all, immediately projects the discussion into the realm of theory, so far as the idea of Republic goes. Democracy is close behind, although Democracy seems to work fine at the national election level even today.

Even today, we ("they", to be more accurate.) still manage to get large groups of people mobilized who believe they are exercising their "free will" voting between 2 candidates who are both working for the same "boss". Essentially, a mass of sheep, choosing from a field of candidates who are all sheep, said candidates really being nothing but professional wolves in sheep skin clothing. That Democracy at work.

I think this is an important conversation for us all to have. But not on rhetoric informed by what we currently have, as an example of different forms of governance. The U.S., and most of the rest of the 1st world planet, is nothing more than an elaborate movie set. Most of the 3rd and 4th world, ironically enough, has some notion about this.

Everything we have now is a perversion of something else, dressed up in language that is carefully selected by the power elite, to elicit the desired response from folks who are too tired and/or too scared to really engage critical thinking skills.

It is true, that to see where the shenanigans are going on, you have to know how the money works and where it is running to.

But to presume that all people who have amassed wealth are agents in a nefarious conspiracy to control everyone else, is only indicative of the kind of individual thinking that has not yet accepted responsibility for their lives, and has profoundly underestimated their own capacity to do amazingly creative and/or productive things.

That said, it IS probably true that many in the Power Elite are fantastically wealthy. I don't think that's a function of wealth, per se. I think it is a typical outcome when you have a psychopath, who manages to generate a lot of accumulated wealth.

A psychopath could care less who gets hurt in their rise to wealth and power. Theirs is a life end based in their horror at a final loss of control. A good person who has aquired wealth, has likely done far more far a whole lot of people than they will ever let on. At the end of their life, they are grateful for having had one helluva life rich with something more than money.

One last digression about those "wealthy" people. 85% of the millionaires in the U.S. are our neighbors, if we live in a typical middle class neighborhood. If they buy a car, they buy a 2 to 3 year old used car. If they are married, they have been married to the same woman most of their lives. They don't make their money by getting elected to office either... they get it from (shocking...) living their lives spending less than they make.

Some of what u have said makes sense.. But the founding fathers were probably rich, but the king was richer.. So I can see what your getting at, but I can't say one way or the other. I know that the constitution is good, and I have fought for this country for the USA.. I believe in the principles of the what the constitution holds for us. But also there are those that wish to destroy that, from either party. We as the USA are the last republic. so depend it with all that u have, whether or regardless about the way u feel about our government. They work for us, not the other way around. They have forgotten that along time ago, and there will come a time where we will have to remind them of that.. Good post, but i feel it is a little off, but good reading, and I have read your link, and there are good questions in it. But based on speculation I believe.'

Keep up with the good posts and questions.

reply to post by Ghillie007


defend this republic from enemies , foreign or domestic..