â„–2683122[Quote]
its a bunch of disatisfied local freemasons fighting against freemasons from another country
â„–2683123[Quote]
It took away freedoms the British guaranteed to colonial Americans and instituted Slavery.
â„–2683127[Quote]
KYS leaf
â„–2683128[Quote]
also it taxed the shit out of the people that won the war and it almost caused the government to collapse (Shay's Rebellion)
â„–2683168[Quote]
It was brimstone unfortunately
â„–2683285[Quote]
If current america actually followed those ideals it wouldnt be as bad.
â„–2683286[Quote]
It was a good thing though.
â„–2683292[Quote]
coal
â„–2683294[Quote]
>>2683285they'd still have slavery, which is bad
â„–2683306[Quote]
The day ZOG won
â„–2683313[Quote]
Breaking away from Rothschild-controlled Britain=gem
Establishing a non-monarchical government=coal
Overall a gem because it was necessary for the time, but establishing the country as a democratic republic was a massive mistake that they could not possibly see the ramifications of.
â„–2683359[Quote]
>>2683322Thank you for your input frogposter. I've thought about this a lot and I'm not going to dismiss the possibility, but I also don't want to immediately dismiss Freemason as le bad. If we assume masonry is part of the centuries long NWO plan then is it a stretch to assume that masonry isn't the highest position? That maybe the masons themselves just fulfill orders from a higher up and they themselves don't fully understand the ramifications of what they're doing? I don't know though, I've been learning about freemasonry but I don't have a reliable source of learning all of their dogma.
â„–2683389[Quote]
>>2683359Generally speaking when it comes to things like this there are layers of obfuscation. Look at the French revolution for an example, the average naive revolutionary on the street thought he was fighting against oppression and for utopia and he truly believed that all men were now equal. Then you have people in the control, who know what they are doing like Robespierre, that they aren't creating an utopia or fighting oppression (like he becomes worse than any king within a few weeks of getting power), but even people like him didn't have the full picture, but those funding him and the revolution.
â„–2683444[Quote]
>>2683313It was not fully democratic only land owning white men could vote. And why is any system of government except monarchy bad in your view?
â„–2683465[Quote]
>>2683389That's precisely why I'm considering that the American founders themselves may have genuinely believed in democracy, but of course they were socially very conservative by modern standards and did limit it to an extent. When it comes to freemasonry, I am not ever going to state something with certainty because I don't understand their position in the hierarchy of society. I always hear people say "it's da masooons" like the equivalent of Jews, but the difference is that we have thousands of Infographics and historical texts to back that up. I never see anything like this for the Freemasons. It seems most people don't understand what they actually do and yet point at them as an enemy. I know they're very secretive with their exclusive lodges, but there has to be some source where I can learn everything about them, right? I am saying that I have so much to learn and this is why I don't dismiss Freemasons like the founding fathers or Cecil Rhodes, as I know nothing and I think most of us know nothing..
â„–2683492[Quote]
>>2683444I didn't say anything not monarchy=le bad, but i do think it's the best system and obviously for the time period that would of been the most viable system of government. The constitution is very liberal for its time, both literally and in the sense of the modern political use of the word. These very broad strokes they use in the constitution like "all men have the right to pursue happiness" gives a lot of power to the lowest class. I could explain further if you need me to, but the simplest way anyone can put it is: "The people have the right to vote, but the people are stupid"
â„–2683495[Quote]
>>2683114 (OP)coal canada is awesome
â„–2683499[Quote]
also kings are cool i like that
â„–2683555[Quote]
>>2683492Im not in favor of a democratically elected leader, to me a dictatorship is a better form of government. Monarchy just means that the leader cares less about his own people because he gains the position by birthright and not skill or competence, and only wants his personal power not the health of the people or the improvement of the nation. Therefore the previous emperor's son could be genetically ill/sickly and weak and could die before having children, or he could be a retard with no clue on how to run a country, like often happened with monarchies. Also the fact that royal famillies of different nations marry each other just creates double loyalties and other bullshit. I think absolute monarchy is a terrible form of government actually.
â„–2683606[Quote]
>>2683555>Monarchy just means that the leader cares less about his own people because he gains the position by birthright and not skill or competence, and only wants his personal power not the health of the people or the improvement of the nationI'd say it's actually quite the opposite. The monarch cares most for his nation out of any authoritarian figure because of his birthright. This is a common idea people have where they are incompetent and evil because they're just evil and spoiled rich kids controlling a country, but they're in that position for a reason. Monarchies developed through land ownership and the families that owned and developed the most land, which certainly takes a lot of effort, are the ones that end up inheriting nobility or even royalty once the nation is developed. Chances are that the monarch comes from a family that has proven themselves competent. This is unlike a populist dictator, whom often come from nowhere and may be well-intentioned, but they fizzle out quickly even if they burn hot. The monarch cares deeply for his people precisely because of his birthright because his birthright was given to him only through the heritage of the nation and his family. He knows he isn't the reason for his position and he humbly accepts that, as he knows it was graciously given to him through the nation and people of the nation. Unlike a populist dictator or a democratic president, destroying a nation wouldn't just mean destroying the land of r your residence, but centuries of history and lineage that your family established. The monarch is also almost always highly educated and trained with the specific intent of ruling and all general scientific disciplines and knowledge of the time. There's a good video on the subject that I could find if your curious.