The founding fathers fraud the biggest scam since religion

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker

I mean seemed like a lot of double standards behind it. "All men are born equal" - thomas jefferson....slave owner, (does anyone else see anything wrong with that? or am i the only one?)

did ya ever stop to consider that maybe some of them wanted to be slaves?

some would rather live the high life as a slave to a rich family that treats them like one of their own,

as opposed to living life as a free vagabond that has nothing, cant find a job, and dies at an early age.

Exactly. This was a system and people fell in line with it. People knew and accepted their position in society as a slave or a freeman. It was not perfect but it was working and so it makes perfect sense that they might tweak that system that was so longstanding and had proved quite effective up until a certain point and bring it across the pond. More and more I think that is exactly what they did.

And if you are escaping a regime of control you found oppressive that did not allow you the freedoms you desired would you come here and begin anew with your friends and hope it all works out?

Or would you steer this ship so that you and your friends held on to those businesses and positions from where you might control the people?

I would rather be free, than a "slave with nice things" which is what i am now.
Plus, if the system wasn't corrupt, for one, there would have been no slaves, and 2, they would have been able to find actual paid work.
Abe lincoln even said, he wouldn't have freed the slaves if he didn't have to.


People thought this is seemingly the only option available, such as the bleak, be a slave or be free with nothing.
I want many options, and it was due to being divided, that people only had so few options.

Yes and i think it was one of ProtoplasmicTraveler discussions that i read back in 08.
The founding fathers, were probably agents of the crown sent in to distract us from the real issues, there's so much left out in history, most of it could be wrong.

well the article you linked too has some faults. Namely, the Democracy thing, he is right in that there is nothing in the founding documents to support democracy, because we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Also I would like to point out that he said in the article

"By 1787, six years after implementation of the Articles, it became apparent to all that defects existed and had to be corrected. A Constitutional Convention was called to amend the Articles and any proposed changes were to be approved by all the states before they could be adopted."

That is false as the constitution was written in 1787 not in 1781 and the Bill of rights, the first ten amendments were passed by the house on August 21, 1789, and were formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.. So basically the whole basis of what this guy is saying is based on a lack of understanding the facts.

I hate to have to keep bringing the zionist protocols up, but if you read them, they explain this whole situation exactly....after reading them, i was well aware of the fraudulent actions or our forefathers....the protocols even explain the mentality behind it and why the people would be so easily duped....it's all psychology and it worked perfectly...people have a hard time understanding what freedom really is, and even less, how to utilize it...that's why they say that freedom comes at a cost...when you have so many people with different mind sets and ideas in a society and you give them all free reign to execute these ideas, you are going to have a clash somewhere...the key to it is to try to gather everyone up and change their thought patterns to be more similar, hence, "sheeple" or swarm mentality......many people suffer from a lack of a filter...they don't know how to regulate themselves and they will go to excesses....especially those that have been given a sense of leadership or power of authority over others...this gives rise to others feeling jilted and their "rights" being trampled on by another's rights....

but, this is the plan...you let the people run amuck, and give the people who have been lucky enough to be put into the ruling class, the breadth to indulge in their excesses, this will always, naturally, create a class of people who have been disenfranchised, these will be the lower class people that have been taught the lessons of slaves in school....the proletariats, everyone will be so upset about the inequalities that this naturally develops that they will at some point revolt after being just plain ole fed up with being kicked around....then, you can slowly start introducing laws that seemingly put a leash on the people that are going to excesses. meanwhile, this same law will affect the very people that called for it....

because of the fact that everyone has their own ideas of what is excess in any given situation, if you start regulating, using laws, every level, it will eventually become a police state.....essentially, the people will bind themselves into a corner by their very own complaints...and these complaints come from feeling like their own rights have been trampled on by someone.....and the reason they feel that way is because they have become accustomed to the life that they live and they don't want anyone to derail it....the problem arises when you have so many people with different lifestyles living in a society, that at some point everyone will be upset about what the other is doing and therefor, a law will be enacted, that's how we keep aquiring new laws all the time...they are based on other's complaints of breach of their rights......perfect way to gain control of a country without having to pick up a gun against them...they will ultimately law themselves into a nice little neat package that is easily controlable.....

The Declaration of Independence represents the pure form of American idealism, a declaration to withdrawal from all forms of control by Great Britain, and did not include a government of its own. The articles of confederation was the next phase of American idealism, still strong in the sense of political independence, but still a government per se. The constitution was a the federalist's attempt at scraping the Articles and replace it with a more centralized government. Still, the bill or rights provided a balance to the federalist powers, and the three branches of government seemed good in theory. The constitution is not perfect, but if followed it would be pretty good. The problem is, if the founding father's were so evil, why isn't the constitution followed to this day? If a gold standard hurts the common man, why isn't a gold standard implemented? If the second amendment was meant to cause continuous havoc on the world, why is the government trying to restrict the second amendment? It's hard to imagine that the founding father's were some type of diabolical geniuses if the current government ignores their original intentions.

Pilgrims and Explorers made the voyage to The New World. What emerged was America. We are the new world order.

Those who think it still to come missed the boat, so to speak, by a few hundred years.

I don't have time right now to thoroughly research your links, but hope to do so later--and possibly respond again.
I'm not sure that I'll respond again, though, since whenever I see the word DEMOCRACY, I cringe--we are a Republic. It's been my experience when reading articles referring to USA as a democracy, that most times they are so far out in left field (pun intended) that they're not worth the effort of refuting.

As far as the Founders/slavery issue goes, the Constitution, with its 3/5 clause, was specifically instituted in order to do away with slavery. There are many many articles online about this fact. Here's one: theamericanconservatives.org...:the-founding-fathers-the-constitution-and-slavery&catid=977:b log&Itemid=175

reply to post by RelentlessLurker

They did not "desire" slavery, or wish to remain enslaved. No human being does. Making the best of an inescapable and awful situation does not constitute approval or desire, it is simply survival.

reply to post by gwydionblack

I disagree.I think that if it weren't for man's insatiable desire for power and control,we may have a different state of the union today.Laying the foundations of a country by slaughtering and killing it's indigenous people,and then bringing human slaves to build your wealth capital while raping,beating,and murdering them as well,and then try to subvert that to Freedom and Liberty is just plain insane.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper.If in fact those who designed it actually believed they couldn't undo it's authority,it wouldn't have been ratified.It was a easy way to grant the subjects the belief that it's government was created for them,the people.When in fact it was written so those who were in power could stay in power,and give the people false hopes of true freedom from Britian.
The victors write the history.I would say 50 percent of what we accept as truth is lies in regards to what really happened.How would we know,we don't.All we see is the constitution and the hope it brings to our nation,when in fact it is being trampled upon by the very same administrations that were set forth from the beginning by the forefathers.And it held up just long enough so the rich could enslave us all and steal the wealth.
The design has been their all along.

Originally posted by Habit4ming
I don't have time right now to thoroughly research your links, but hope to do so later--and possibly respond again.
I'm not sure that I'll respond again, though, since whenever I see the word DEMOCRACY, I cringe--we are a Republic. It's been my experience when reading articles referring to USA as a democracy, that most times they are so far out in left field (pun intended) that they're not worth the effort of refuting.

As far as the Founders/slavery issue goes, the Constitution, with its 3/5 clause, was specifically instituted in order to do away with slavery. There are many many articles online about this fact. Here's one: theamericanconservatives.org...:the-founding-fathers-the-constitution-and-slavery&catid=977:b log&Itemid=175

In the days of slavery slaves were traded as collateral for debts..Of course they were gonna emancipate the slaves,it looks good and grants the idea of freedom.
And in it's place they instituted the central banking system that made us all slaves.No need for physical slave holding when you can strangle all the people with debt as debt slaves.
The panic of 1907 was the subsequent collapse of markets due to the release of slaves in the previous years.Free the slaves,who cares,we'll enslave them all..

this thread has more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese.

agents of the crown debt slaves they say answer me this

considering the financial states of the us and the uk both are on the edge of financial ruin who are we the slaves to?

dont buy english goods nor do we borrow trillions of dollars from them however there is that asian country called china.

fine you dont like the founders or what they stood for so be it but to make crap up to suit your own political agenda is disingenous.

the founders were indeed just men who had a grand vision that has be peed on crapped on for the past 200 years.

to be blunt here the scam is the sheep who are following the op blindly why who knows dont really care i just chalk that up to small minds.

reply to post by newcovenant


I didn't mean he was questioning the "founding fathers" of ATS, just the majority opinion here on ATS - time and time again.


The original founders may have been cleverly played to create what we have today, but those in the forefront, through statements of their own and through those that knew them very well, desired freedom and liberty for themselves and everyone else. They even used their sway as prominent men of the times and as lawyers to defend such freedoms for the common man.

If it was all just a big ruse, the leaders of the whole movement were not aware of it based on no evidence whatsoever to say otherwise. Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, Franklin, and Madison all had their eggs in a row when it came to freedom and proving that they wanted it. The only few that I question are Hamilton and Adams quite simply because of their Federalist views which ultimately led to America's downfall.

To think that a war which led to the downfall of England as the world's greatest empire would be proposed and orchestrated by themselves, is ridiculous. However, I will not deny the fact that it was possible and very likely that England weaseled their way back into the political spectrum of the US. However, when it comes to the Founding Fathers and the revolution - based on the research I have done on the men which is quite extensive - they were not under the control or guidance of England. Period.


reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


America WAS free for quite some time following the revolution. It wasn't just some label slapped on while people were controlled my a dictatorship.

Should we hate them because they were wealthy? Does wealth automatically mean that they were spying scum with ulterior motives? Many people died defending what they believed, many of them were captured and enslaved for the duration of the war, and many of them fought on the front lines to achieve that freedom. Does their wealth make them any less respectable? Not in my eyes.

The fact is, England's system was built on wealth. If you were not wealthy and did not own land, no one was going to listen to you or give you a care in the world. Farmer Joe in southwest Virginia wasn't going to be given the light of day if he sent a letter to King George asking for things. These rich aristocrats risked everything they had going with England and gave a voice to the voiceless. They didn't have to - but people were angry. People were fed up with the imperialistic laws being enforced from thousands of miles away and so the people who COULD do something about it - did.

When it comes to me - the Founding Fathers don't distract me from any issue. In fact, it is because of the story of 1776 that I believe in real freedom and plan to fight for it before my time is done on the Earth. 100% true or not, a revolution was one back then and it just gives hope to those who would hope to win one today. Without that hope there is nothing - nada - no reason to fight, no reason to go on living. No hope of ever being anything more than a slave.

The U.S. constitution was written following the same philosophies as put forth in the DoI, written by Jonathan Locke, so not a scam.

The current situation is a result of completely ignoring the U.S. constitution, and the ICs that have once again seized control of our economy completely oppose the U.S. constitution, which is why they work so hard to convince people that the U.S. government is the problem.

Sounds like the Ops intent.

I read the referenced article and disagree entirely.
The "new world" was vast and wild. There was no way a far off government could control anything, let alone a central government closer to home. The most powerful countries in the world at the time, England, Spain, France, Portugal...they stole from each OTHER and ignored each others claims.
There were no real human rights unless you were born self-sufficient. Anybody could be property if their personal circumstances were such that they had no choice in the matter. The new world was just bursting with opportunity, and it beat the hell out of Europe or the people wouldn't have come.
The founding fathers created a framework whereby diligent citizens could have representative government and definitely NOT a democracy. They knew what they were doing.
The truth is, the people are to blame. They turned the country over to others to run so they could pursue their own self interests. That didn't turn out so well did it? It continues today, most don't know # about how government works, but they will sure scream about their "rights"!
There is nothing wrong with the constitution that honest and educated men couldn't make work just fine. But, we don't have that, do we? So, someone tell me WHAT system would work with absolute corruption at the top?

The Founders were more virtuous than average people, but they were still human and people with money and positions of authority, and people with money and power will always make a system that lets them keep their wealth and power over others. So they created a system that was better than the norm of the time, but still had flaws.

There was a professor on Coast to Coast talking about how the Founders were actually trying to limit the freedom of the people rebelling at the time with the implication that they didn't want too much freedom because it would make it hard for them to rule.

Originally posted by filosophia
The Declaration of Independence represents the pure form of American idealism, a declaration to withdrawal from all forms of control by Great Britain, and did not include a government of its own. The articles of confederation was the next phase of American idealism, still strong in the sense of political independence, but still a government per se.

The constitution was a the federalist's attempt at scraping the Articles and replace it with a more centralized government. Still, the bill or rights provided a balance to the federalist powers, and the three branches of government seemed good in theory.

The constitution is not perfect, but if followed it would be pretty good. The problem is, if the founding father's were so evil, why isn't the constitution followed to this day? If a gold standard hurts the common man, why isn't a gold standard implemented? If the second amendment was meant to cause continuous havoc on the world, why is the government trying to restrict the second amendment? It's hard to imagine that the founding father's were some type of diabolical geniuses if the current government ignores their original intentions.

You are almost hitting the nail on the head, here. Most people don't understand what happened.

This being the important part:

"The constitution was a the federalist's attempt at scraping the Articles and replace it with a more centralized government. Still, the bill or rights provided a balance to the federalist powers, and the three branches of government seemed good in theory. "

There were two camps back then. The Federalists were hell bent on destroying the new Republic's power, and keep the British stranglehold on. THEY SUCCEEDED. With the Constitution that you all prattle on mistakenly about. The Bill of Rights was tacked on as there were enough men against the Constitution that without that little add-on there is no way it would have been ratified.

Note how in American schools they never seem to even mention the War of 1812? Why do you think that is? What was that war all about, just thirty years after the "Revolution"? Read the treaty of Paris, written by King George after the "Revolution". Since when does the "loser" of a war get to write the treaties to end it? And since George was the king of England AND OF FRANCE at the time, why would he (France) lend money to a "Revolution" against himself? Why does the "new nation" of the US automatically owe MONEY to the enemy, both England and France?

I'm not going to tell you the answers, you must find out for yourself to really internalize it. But these are some questions you should ask. You will be surprised by the answers.

Another good question: Why was Hamilton, the lead Federalist, killed in a duel by Aaron Burr? What was that duel all about?

FInd out. Educate yourself.

reply to post by CaptChaos


lol duelio! smear campaigns and mistrust in Government! have fun!
_____________________________________________________________

Sorry Op. The guy (Greenspan) probably read the articles of confederation, and why the constitution was created and formed an opinion. No doubt that the idea of "closed doors" and money raised an eyebrow. I will however not comment on slavery vs the origins of modern work since this is based on choice..

Thanks for the interesting read.