This makes me sad in such a profound way...How do we win these people over?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (15)
sorted by:
I saw this posted on the timeline of old friends who I have always respected. If this is how you feel, I do not see any possible way that I can connect with you to bring you back to common ground. If you do not believe in the brilliance of our founding principals I do not even know how to frame an argument to bring us back to a workable place. We are they country that ended slavery, allowed women to vote, etc. Our foundation assumes basic rights granted by God and, as such, is fluid and capable of changing for the good. If you despise that we will never connect. It makes me so deeply sad.
They are taught to shut you down with sound bites. There is no discussion possible. I wish you strength in dealing with them.
While I appreciate your reverence to the beginnings of our country, there are flaws in the foundation of our system of governance. I think those flaws were initiated by those founding fathers that were banker shills (Hamilton et al), but it may have gone even deeper than that. They were after all almost all Masons.
With respect to the specifics of this cartoon, they are using a false equivalence as the argument. They are suggesting because the document didn't explicitly solve all moral dilemmas of the day, that it had no merits. Turning that back around is the rebuttal. The DoI states explicitly that "all men are created equal" where by men it can be inferred all humans, since men = humans in the vernacular. This by itself negates much of the argument they are presenting, even if the details of that declaration still needed some ironing out.
The constitution got a lot of things right. It was based on the writings of John Locke which got even more things right. It certainly does a whole lot more for the individual (which is real) than Marx's social construction which focuses on "the greater good" which is not real, but rather a contrived idea.
The greater good is an ephemeral idea, presented as the inevitable and only moral goal. It is perversion of a group of individuals who are born sovereign into an imagined group of individuals who require a sovereign to rule them by construction of the system it proposes, even though it promises the exact opposite.
We do need to make some changes to the original founding documents. They had inherent flaws that were inevitably exploited. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as this cartoon suggests dismisses all the good that came with the minor bad, which were in this case merely deeper issues that were allowed by the constitution to be solved at a later date, when the populace was ready to face it.
Which flaws, specifically?
Here I lay out a big one. There are I believe others (less important technical details) within the construction of the system of government itself.
What I have come to believe is that founding of America was a Globalist operation (fact that Illuminati was created in the same year 1776 is not a coincidence), but there were enough double/triple agents amongst the founding fathers that they did manage to adopt the constitution that has been a thorn in [their] side all this time.
It took them 250 years to get close to subverting it to this point, and that I believe is the profound victory of the founding fathers for all their faults
I have had similar thoughts. This is one piece of evidence that has given me the thought that there may be factions within the Freemasons. It could be that Q is the efforts of one of those factions.
It could be that America was also the efforts of one of those factions.
Maybe not coincidence, but the actions that are attributed to the Illuminati have parallels that go back millennia. I don't think the group started then in any meaningful way. The Illuminati may have been the start of a plan to take us into a different stage of subjugation by one of my proposed FM factions.
The subversion was almost done by 1913 and was 100% completed by 1933. The efforts since then appear to be the planned construction of the machinery required to control the planet for eternity. The past 90 years has not be "more subversion" but more using the slavery system that was completely constructed to build their utopia.
What I'm saying is, Checkmate in their game of world domination was assured in 1913. We can't win. It isn't possible. The game is theirs, the rules are theirs, its all theirs. We aren't important enough to be playing the game. We aren't important enough to be pieces on the board. We, as their slaves, are holding the game board for them on our backs.
But, just like a child playing chess with a master, there is a way to not lose, to deny victory to the grand master and go on with your day undefeated. All we have to do is toss the board off the table, where in this case the table is on our backs.
All we have to do is stand up.
If enough of us stand up the board tips over, the pieces fall off, and the game ends. We don't win their game, we just stop them from playing it and go on with our lives as we choose.
Brilliant reply. Just thought you should get recognized for it.
I know the feeling and it is horrible. It makes you question yourself on why you did not see these traits before. What's worse is that the divergent thoughts are so unbelievable and so untrue.
But have hope as the individuals who post these divisive comments are showing you who they are..it's hard to listen tho....WWG1WGA
If you go back and dig in, you will find plenty of discussions around slavery and how right from the time of declaration of independance, freeing slaves was a priority but they wanted to do it in a way that would not be destructive to everyone. I know John Adams had discussions around this multiple times, but he was not the only one.
This was at a time when Slavery was completely normal around the world and had been for millenia, and Americans were at the vanguard in dismantling it.
I don't believe people who don't own land should be allowed to vote. Same with people who don't own firearms shouldn't be allowed to regulate firearms.
Actually, Patrick Henry and others did. Samuel Adams told his wife, who had inherited a slave, that she would either enter the house as a free woman or not at all. This was reported by a niece of his and recorded in Ira Stoll's Samuel Adams, A Life. Patrick Henry was a harder case, granted. He had many slaves and did not know what the best solution was. But all of them hoped for a solution to the slavery problem, and Thomas Jefferson freed his slaves in his will. As for women, John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail about that issue. They intended to both protect the rights of single, male landowners and the rights of protection that women had from their husbands. Look at the progress (regress, actually) that the whole feminist movement has caused- Women are actually more exploited now than they were: if you don't believe me, here are some stats and stories that relate to abortion alone:
Stories:
https://www.unitedfamilies.org/life/abortion/women-exploited-by-abortion-nancyjo-manns-story/
https://afterabortion.org/the-elliot-institutes-mission-and-ministry/
http://theunchoice.com/elliotinstitute.htm
BTW, Samuel Adams would not endorse the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.
The founding fathers intended for changes to be done by Constitutional Amendment which is exactly what happened.
She must think Constitutional Amendments are not part of the Constitution as amended or some other garbled thinking.