kinda like Muhammed.Originally Posted by InterestedParticipant
Nice ideals.
If the occupying forces within the US were not electrocuting and gunning down citizens with impunity every day, and if the Imperial forces were not incinerating people overseas on a daily basis, I'd say there was some merit in that.
But that isn't the reality.
The reality is swift and violent death, visited upon anybody who dares question the regime in any meaningful manner.
The people running the show, the people that are really in charge of things, will launch full scale military assaults and kill millions of people without batting an eyelash.
They are, in fact, mad dog killers.
You cannot negotiate with such people, as they themselves often make the case when trying to justify their latest and greatest killing spree.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
You're right about that.
The concept of "natural rights" is lost on roughly 90 percent of the Boobisie
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
We have to get to the point that I alluded to in this quote... the point where we recognize the tyranny and choose to leave it.kinda like Muhammed.
I agree that they cannot be negotiated with. I also agree that as long as we working within a system that they control, they will maintain control. I also agree that they will use violence with no limitations.
However, do we cower from our will for liberty, even under the threat of such ugliness? What is our alternative? I see no alternative other than to refuse to participate in a system of tyranny just because there if the threat of violence. But that is what people here are doing, and arguing for, namely, continued participation in a tyrannical system, hoping beyond the evidence of history that this approach will work this time.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
They did not give up, they did not compromise their beliefs, they did not except the rule of Britain.
sadly even the members here are rolling over and playing the game and making compromises expecting to win.... what have we won though if all we get is another $#@!ing politician in office?
Our Founding Fathers through The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution established a new nation on a natural law. This natural law established Civil Purpose over legal precedence as it was a self evident and unalienable Truth meaning it was self evident to the extent that the people did not need experts interpreting, teaching, or revising it while it was also unalienble to the extent that its meaning reduced bipartisanly beyond the corrupt comprehension of the mind to the perception of the collective soul, or of the collective conscience, or, as many romantics like to claim, of the collective heart.
Tyranny was understood by our Founding Fathers to be organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses. As this tyranny would never be perfect having the obvious inability to fix itself, our Founding Fathers envisioned a "more perfect government" or a "necessary tyranny" to serve the people. Their ideal was for happiness where legal measures are created to enhance the people's Civil Purpose; as apposed to the ideal today perverting the social contract towards responsibility, with the ideals of liberty and equality being two of them, where officially deemed "legal precedents" take the focus off of the people's Civil Purpose and place it on tyranny and its false power.
Last edited by Uncle Emanuel Watkins; 02-17-2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: tweak
Our Founding Fathers did not establish a nation on a legal precedent, on past tradition, or on a cognizant, political science, but on a Truth (Truths) developed by the use of natural law. So, this natural law was developed by their fellowshipping together. During their time, the cognizant (social) sciences had yet to be developed as Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), the father of epistemology -- the very catalyst for the creation of the cognizant sciences -- was a *peer of our Founding Fathers as well as co-father of the French Revolution along with Rousseau. Instead, they established a new nation with the use of physical science and natural law: the method in use during that time.
Most people do not realize that the Founders were not logical just as the latter Darwin (1809-1882) was not logical. **Logic during that time had fallen out of favor after Galileo received persecution from the natural philosophers of the Catholic Church for having the gall to write a platonic dialogue questioning the logic of Aristotle.
*George Washington 1732-1799
**Consider that Descartes' famous conclusion of "Cogito ergo sum," I think therefore I am, is not logic at all but a platonic "best principled" statement.
Last edited by Uncle Emanuel Watkins; 02-17-2010 at 01:26 PM. Reason: tweak
As a natural right is concerning happiness, civil rights concern responsibility. As a natural right is to the Truth, a civil right is to reality. While a natural right is true to the extent that we will be healed by the Almighty if we fall by the wayside in our quest to acheive it, a civil right is real to the extent that we gain it by legal precedence. But the latter system of civil rights becomes corrupt and places us back into the world of Europe, Asia, Africa, or any of the old places of tyranny.
Our Founding Fathers were aware of the French Revolution and the long standing social contract began during the time of the Greek Zenith (the trilogy of great philosophers) in Ancient Greece. This history was far greater than the history of Great Britain.
They replaced the old tyranny with a new one?
But isn't that what we already do every 4 years.
Well, yeah they were aware of it when it was happening. But their own revolution happened before, not after, the French one.
If one believes in the notion of "a more perfect government" or of "a necessary tyranny," then one also has to believe that tyranny is not an entity made of flesh and blood, but legal precedents comprised of principalities and powers without conscience. One can argue that Atheism begats a lack of conscience as the Almighty blessed the nations (Gentiles) not with His law (Judaism) but with His Gospel (Christianity). So, governments are ordained to serve the nations.
Last edited by Uncle Emanuel Watkins; 02-17-2010 at 01:46 PM. Reason: tweak
Think about what our Founding Fathers did VERSUS what is being advocated at RPF. The former abandoned the system of tyranny and founded a new system based upon individual liberty under God. RPF advocates working within the existing system of tyranny in the hopes of changing it to one of liberty.
Has this ever worked?
What you state is consistent with the point of the OP, and that is that the Founding Fathers recognized the tyrannical system, then abandoned that tyrannical system, and then they created a new system.
We have yet to get to step 1, which is to recognize that the current system is "organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses." Therefore, we won't get to step 2, which is to abandon this system, which is what the Declaration of Independence tells the people to do.
Last edited by InterestedParticipant; 02-17-2010 at 01:48 PM.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a little before the time of our Founding Fathers.
Our Founding Fathers through fellowship created a natural law. They reduced to a self evident and unalienable Truth. This political scheme did not allow the king to squirm. If he didn't know (see) the Truth, something which presents itself as self evident and unalienable, then he wasn't a human being. As such, he wasn't fit to rule as a king ordained by God, but deemed a tyrant and justifiably divorced. Our Founding Fathers at the end of The Declaration of Independence might have gone too far in suggesting that a tyrant is an immature prince not fit to rule.
Actually, I agree with this statement. In fact, I would go far beyond calling them "immature tyrants," for I would call them vicious psychopaths who prey on humanity.
In any event, if one doesn't understand the psychopathic personality, then one cannot understand that it is impossible for humanity to survive while under psychopathic rule. Yet, this is what we have today.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
They established a new ruling class and overthrew the articles of confederation coup d'etat style . Why would we want to do that?
Our Founding Fathers were accountable standing in God's judgement when signing The Declarations of Independence. If serving as their attorney, I would plead on their behalf that they did indeed go to far in supposing the king ruled like an immature prince and I think they would agree. The beauty of the rest of The Declaration of Independence was sufficient showing that the faith of our Founding Fathers faltered towards the end as they seemed to feel they needed to provide further excuses for their rebellion.
But the point is natural law. Natural law is what ties The Declaration of Independence in with the U.S. Consitution. As The Declaration of Independence justified us in divorcing tyranny, the U.S. Constitution married us to a more perfect union (government).
Are we operating under Natural Law now? If No, then what would the Founding Fathers suggest we do?
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
Which founding father are you asking about?
Just to get a conversation started, how 'bout we begin with Jefferson or Franklin.
Last edited by InterestedParticipant; 02-17-2010 at 03:27 PM.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
I think Jefferson pre-presidency would be for another revolutionary war against the regime in DC. I don't know if a post-presidency Jefferson would.
Why not just cut to the chase?
The founders would at this point after realizing that there will be no redress of grievances said F it. They would've started to organize among themselves to subdue the despots that intend to enslave them. If the founders were here today they would be called "homegrown terrorists" because they wouldn't have taken near as much BS as we have and they would have already started being the aggressors in this war for freedom.
Resist or Perish.
I am a sovereign nation unto myself.
So, why organize lovers-of-liberty around a strategy of political influence within the corrupt system?
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
WWTFD?
we'll make millions
Exactly.
Get your house in order and prepare to fight for your freedom.
At the same time time though, radical thought [sic] ie Ron Pauls stances should be encouraged. Raise hell, raise your voice, vote, get involved.
Resist or Perish.
I am a sovereign nation unto myself.
Where's Josh on this thread? I'd like to hear how he reconciles his approach over that of the founders.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
What's your approach IP?
Resist or Perish.
I am a sovereign nation unto myself.
My initial approach is to try and understand why there is a large contingent of people who feel justified in supporting a corrupt system and taking a change-from-within approach that has never worked in history. If someone can explain that to me, that would be great.
* * * Saboteurs and Dupes are on my Ignore List. My non-response means they're included. * * *
email me anonymously
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us