| May 31 @ 9:04 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
This thread is full of history..A great thread for History Buffs such as myself...There is some pretty amazing information on these three videos..
I hope the thread trolls will just let this one be..please..just this one..dont fill it full of silly posts..ok?
It has alot of history...the history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve.....about the wars..and why they happened....Vietnam..Iraq...and why we are there...The IRS...Fema..The Patriot Act....and how you have lost so many freedoms..yet we do not know..but you will after watching these videos..
I am only putting 3 on for now...but you can watch all of them by following the already provided links..
Prepare for the history lesson of your life...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The history of the Federal Reserve Bank...
Video #1
THE BEGINNING OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
As it relates to the U.S: It is definitely possible for the Government to get out of debt. Since most T-bills mature in less than 10 years, the government could get out of debt by running a balanced budget for 10 years straight.
Now you know why we never balance the budget..and were never going to...as long as the shadow gov is in control..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The IRS and the WARS for profit
Video #2
WARS ARE STARTED ON PURPOSE TO MAKE THE FEDERAL RESERVE MILLIONS
In this video...there are two IRS agents that admit there is no law requiring us to pay any taxes to the IRS...its a lie..The woman IRS worker called it a fraud..The man said he cant find anywhere where the citizens are required to pay these taxes..
The video also shows how starting wars makes millions for the Federal Reserve....The Shadow Government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Wars...Fema...Patriot Act...how they create division..
Video #3
THE VIETNAM WAR WAS NEVER TO BE WON..JUST SUSTAINED..FOR PROFIT.
(are our politicians basically held hostage against their will? Or are they going along willingly...)
This is about the farce of the Vietnam War....
If you have ever talked with a vet..and the hell that war was..this will piss you off....All that pain and suffering and death for money? wow...barbarians..
This is also about Fema....Patriot Act...false arrest...under the suspicion that you may be a terrorist...wow.
They show how they get countries to turn on each other..
JUST LIKE I KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE TRYING TO DOING TO US!!!
All these divisions...This video will talk about these 'divisions' ...
I keep telling you..there is no recovery coming..they are not allowing the money to be lent...The Banksters have complete control of our money...there are no loans coming to Americans ...at least not soon..if ever...
Are our politicians victims...people forced to do the bidding of the shadow government? Or perpretrators?
|
|
  |
|
| May 31 @ 9:49 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
The youtube videos are parts taken from the movie Zeitgeist; and yes it is a fasinating film...rather lenghty in it's pulvarizing grandure. But if one really knows history, one can spot the errors easily in this documentary and it becomes a trivia of codes through the winding lazareth of historical America.
As it relates to the U.S: It is definitely possible for the Government to get out of debt. Since most T-bills mature in less than 10 years, the government could get out of debt by running a balanced budget for 10 years straight.
As this is online quote pertains to one example error of the 3rd film, which is...
The end result of this system is SLAVERY, for it is impossible for the Government, and thus the public, to ever come out of the self-generating debt. ...and becomes the truth of the error quoted above that is stated in the film. Slavery use in the film is called hyperbole, for only a slave can be owned by another person.
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 10:06 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
From Part 3: The Federal Reserve
The Trivia Truths:
In the film it states...
“There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself”
Sir William Pitt, House of Lords, 1770 William Pitt talking about a scandal of sorts, how King George III was under too much influence from Lord Bute and how it seemed as though the King didn't care about what the French were saying.
The speech this quote came from was made in 1770, six years after the King had already stopped seeing Lord Bute, and Pitt knew this. The purpose of the statement was to imply the King was weak; it was nothing more than an insult.
“The World is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
Benjamin Disraeli, English Statesman, 1844 This quote originates from a book written by Disraeli in 1844 which is a fictional account of the life and career of Henry Coningsby and his politics. Essentially the whole thing is Disraeli voicing his opinion to the Reform Bill of 1832, the British Whig Party, and Utilitarianism. This quote is frequently misrepresented by Anti-Semitic individuals who wish to prove that Jews control the world. In reality the context of the quote was discussion the concept behind governmental alliances. Thus it makes sense that things are run "behind the scenes" if governments make agreements with others to do or not to do something.
"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D Roosevelt, US President 1933 It is a letter sent from Roosevelt to Colonel Edward M House, and can be received from Sterling Library at Yale University or from Radio Liberty.
|
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 10:18 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
Continuing...From Part 3: The Federal Reserve
Cause of the American Revolution
In 1775, the American revolutionary war began as the American colonies sought to the detach from England and its oppressive monarchy. Though many reasons are sided for the revolution, one in particular sticks out as the prime cause that King George III of England outlawed the interest-free independent currency the colonies were producing and using for themselves. In turn forcing them to borrow money from the Central Bank of England, at interest, he immediately put the colonies in the debt. True - that outlawing local currency with the Currency Act of 1764 was one of many acts that stirred up the colonists.
False - that it was probably the primary cause. Most historians would cite other reasons as more significant like taxation and force monopolistic trade with England.
False - that the colonists were forced to borrow money from the Bank of England. "In 1775…few colonists had any dealings with (the Bank of England).
Ben Franklin quote
And as Benjamin Franklin later wrote: "The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution" -Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. Underdetermined: Cannot confirm from a reliable source.
Overview of a central bank
Zeitgeist: "Central bank" definition
“So what is a central bank? A central bank is an institution that produces the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical precedent, two specific powers are inherent in central banking practice: the control of interest rates and the control of the money supply, or inflation. Mostly False:
Regarding production of currency - Prior to 1913, currency continued to be produced by numerous state and national banks, even when the First and Second U.S. Banks were in operation. After 1913, the Federal Reserve produced most curreny though the Treasury continued to produce silver certificates. Even today, currency in the forms of coins continues to be issued by the Treasury. It is also important to note that currency and money are different. Currency generally refers to paper money and coins.
Regarding control of interest rates - Prior to 1913, there was little attempt to control interest rates by the First and Second U.S. Banks. Interest rates rose and fell based on demands for loans. When the Federal Reserve was created, the control of interest rates was not a goal; it developed as a policy after some years of trial-and-error and much debate. Although money supply and inflation are related, they are not the same phenomenon. Interest rates and inflation is not solely in the hands of the governmenet. For example, the U.S. Government has little influence over the price of commodities which are traded globally and can have a significant impact on inflation. And, although the Federal Reserve can influence short term interest rates, long term interest rates are often influenced by bond investors and during periods of financial distress, they demand higher interest rates to compensate for elevated risk levels.
Zeitgeist: Central bank loans all new money at interest:
The central bank does not simply supply a Government’s economy with money, it LOANS it to them AT INTEREST. False - as it relates to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not make any direct loans to the government. When the Federal Reserve wants to increase the money supply, it will buy previously issued T-Bills on the open market. This action does not create any new debt. In fact, if one considers the Federal Reserve as an arm of the government, then the Fed buying T-Bills actually reduces the amount of debt held by the public. The Federal Reserve also holds the currency of other countries; buying and selling of those foreign currencies is another tool to increase or decrease the money supply without debt. Another action the Federal Reserve can take is to reduce the amount of reserve banks are required to hold, thus increasing the money supply without requiring the use of debt.
True - as it relates to some central banks in history and elsewhere in the world. But where fiat money is concerned, a central bank making direct loans to the government is usually a sure sign of a government in trouble. Virtually all cases of hyperinflation in modern history involve the central bank (by order of government leaders) simply printing money and making direct loans to the the government for expenses. The fact that the Federal Reserve charges interest is actually positive. All assets have a cost and the cost of money is the interest rate. Further, it is in taxpayer's best interest to charge an appropriate rate to private banks for borrowing what is essentially a public asset. For example, it would not make economic sense to lend money to a bank for free (no interest) that is publicy traded on the New York Stock Exchange (whose shareholders may or may not be American) so they can lend those same funds to their customers at a higher rate. This is the core concept of banking - borrow money at a low cost and lend it at a higher cost.
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 10:30 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
Continuing...From Part 3: Federal Reserve
Zeitgeist: regulating the value of currency
Then through the use of increasing and decreasing the supply of money, the central bank regulates the VALUE of the currency being issued. Mostly True - as it related to the Federal reserve today. The Federal Reserve, as part of its mission, actively tries to control inflation.
Partly True - as it relates to central banks before 1900. Back then, there was more of a laissez faire approach to the money supply that allowed for inflation in boom periods and deflation in bust periods.
Completely Misunderstood - as increasing the money supply is important in a growing economy. Consider a simple economy consisting of only two people, each with one dollar. If a baby is born, there are now three people but only two dollars between them, hence, they would experience a decline in their living standards. Since the United States experiences a growing population base and a growing economy, a growing money supply is actually healthy so long as the money supply doesn't grow too fast.
Zeitgeist: system can only produce debt
It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this system can only produce on thing in the long run: DEBT. Somewhat true - It is true that a central bank will try to foster a vibrant economy that will provide plenty of capital available for borrowing. However, the decision to borrow is left up to the legislature, business, and individuals.
Zeitgeist: Jefferson Quote
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826 False: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp
The first portion can be attributed to a letter to John Taylor in 1816 that says " I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies"
The rest of the quote cannot be attributed to any of Jefferson's writing. In fact, this doesn't really match the writing style of Jeffersion.
See Thomas Jefferson's Digital Archives: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/
***
Where I copied my information from, which has much much more and worth the read as well as research:
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-federal-reserve
|
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 10:50 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
and becomes the truth of the error quoted above that is stated in the film. Slavery use in the film is called hyperbole, for only a slave can be owned by another person.
Im not sure what you are getting at..
Slavery...owned by another person
...owned by a forceful government..
I see no difference..
From what I saw today on these movies...we are all slaves to the whims of a few..
I have seen a few other films on this subject...
In my way of thinking.. where theres smoke..there is fire...
Something just does not add up..but the more I seek this information..the more sense alot of what has happened in history is starting to fall into place...
I have always been a History buff...Its very intriging to me..
Im not the only one viewing these..good friends and I have viewed these movies..and others..as we are very curious about all this....
i do not post this to scare of upset anyone...but truth and history must be known...thats how we protect our selves and our freedoms...
It would be nice to not ever have to look at the ugly part of life..
Some people just cant handle it and I wish they would stay away from these kinds of threads...smile..
Not you Angel..your great...I like alot of what you post...you at least have intelligent conversations instead of attacks..even if we do not see eye to eye..Thats ok by me..I like to exchange views..
.I do get so tired of that kind of behavior from the others...
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 11:20 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
Palomino
Posts: 7,635
|
Just to protect this forum -------> 
|
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 11:31 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
I know where you are getting your debunking info..and I have been there as well..
WEBSKEPTIC....I do not trust...there is no way to know who started that site..its totally anonymous..so..I deem it invalid..
It has always been a practice of the 'shadow gov.' people to discredit anyone that exposes them....such as the John Birch Society...a group I used to go listen to..and lo and behold..they were right..
I remember we were scared of these shadow gov. people...The leader of our group was mercilessly attacked over and over by the gov..until he lost his business.....
I found the John Birch Society to be a group of people who love their country..several ex. military..and business men..all concerned about this nation..They love America...
Just the same as McCarthy...he was discredited and made to be a nut job by the media..this same media that is doing the same thing even today..
Wiki: RED SCARE-MCCARTHY
The historical period that came to be known as the McCarthy era began well before Joseph McCarthy's own involvement in it.
Many factors contributed to McCarthyism, some of them extending back to the years of the First Red Scare (1917–20), (Woodrow Wilson/Mandel House years)
inspired by Communism's emergence as a recognized political force. Thanks in part to its success in organizing labor unions and its early opposition to fascism, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) increased its membership through the 1930s, reaching a peak of about 75,000 members in 1940–41.
McCarthy fought communism from the late 40's to the late 50's..
But McCarthy was absolutly correct...The gov was full of commies...House was one...in particular that was in very high positions in I beleive Wilsons term...Wilsons administration was full of Marxists...
My point here..is that McCarthy was slandered..minimulized and criticized..much like I am on these threads by the lefties...same thing..
But McCarthy was absolutly right...He was discredited by the very powerful Shadow Gov..
I presume that WebSkeptic could be the same engine used to discredit Zeitgeist...
From my studies..these facts seem pretty right on to me..but I could be wrong...more studying to do..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not trust that WebSkeptic site...its totally annoymous...
Perhaps you can show me some info of who owns that site ...I just cant find any? Can you?
Snopes...I have proven time and time again that it a totally biased site and I do not use them when looking into political things..They are known for being biased...towards the left...The people who are right now trying to lure us into a global gov...
New Orleans....
[Edited on 5/31/2009 11:44 PM]
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 11:32 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
Read the following..It goes right along with the movie...and how Woodrow Wilson felt awful when he was conned into doing the bidding of Edward Mandell House..a known Marxist..
He felt he had ruinied his country by trusting House..a known Marxist..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wiki:
In the 1920s, House strongly supported U.S. membership in the League of Nations and the World Court, the Permanent Court of International Justice.
All NWO organizations..in their infancy..
Edward Mandell House (July 26, 1858 – March 28, 1938) was an American diplomat, politician, and presidential advisor. Commonly known by the purely honorific title of Colonel House, although he had no military experience, he had enormous personal influence with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as his foreign policy advisor until Wilson removed him in 1919. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Actually, he was more than just a prominent aide of the President; he dominated the President. He was referred to as Wilson’s "alter ego" (other self), and was credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.
House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912, House wrote the book "Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."
In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government.
I beleive this is exactly what is happening today...
And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto".
The Federal Reserve....not a government bank..
And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a [B]private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress.[/B]
so..then..can I start one of these bank too? This is just wrong...to much room for corruption...
And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, [B]the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified. [/B]
The New World Order..in its infancy..in America..
[Edited on 5/31/2009 11:42 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 11:34 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
Just to protect this forum ------->
Wow..cool...I wish I had some of that this last week..
Thanx!!! 
|
| |
|
| May 31 @ 11:41 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
But ....for some reason..i cannot find where that site came from...or who runs it...Can you? It seems to be anonymous..
If you are referring to the site I posted from, it is hosted by Wikidot.com, which they are in Poland. It's a public domaine.
MF...if you enjoyed the series of Zeitgeist, which you posted in part, you will most likely enjoy the Addendum. The film is just over 2 hours long:
http://www.communistrobot.com/viewblog.php?id=978
[Edited on 5/31/2009 11:59 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 1:13 AM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
MF...if you enjoyed the series of Zeitgeist, which you posted in part, you will most likely enjoy the Addendum. The film is just over 2 hours long:
Thank you Angel..I will check it out...
Ive heard about it..but havent watched it yet...
[Edited on 6/1/2009 2:06 AM]
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 6:59 AM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
CPUfan
Posts: 7,983
|
One of the oldest problems when dealing with the American Revolution is the epitaph 'revolution.' The word was taken from the Englishman John Locke's treatises of government, that the ruled have the right to a 'revolution' whenever they are misruled.
Before 1775 the American 'revolution' was undoubtedly a rebellion against taxation without representation. So when did it become a revolution and in what way...?
I'd venture that it actually became a revolution when the King ordered the invasion and repression of the thirteen colonies. The first armed conflagration took place in the Massachussets Bay colony which was leading and fanning the rebellion. Here the first shooting took place, between British Colonial Militia, which were merely defending themselves, and a brigade of redcoat British regulars. At that point, it was a conflict between military organisations within the same military administrative structure. The British Brigade, sent by the British Governor of the colony, was in fact formally in 'command' of the British Colonial Militia formed against it at Concord.
The British officer in charge at Concord was on a mission to disarm rebels at Concord and Lexington of heavy artillery and an arsenal. He ordered a militia he believed to be under his command to disperse. When they did not, tensions grew, shots were fired and the militia were dispersed by volley fire with heavy losses. The militia did not return fire but at Lexington they did. The heavy artillery at Concord, of French origin, was destroyed. By the ultimate irony, 'Concord' means 'friendship'.
The British force despatched to Lexington was met with heavy fire - this time from a much larger force - and harrassed on its return to Boston, suffering heavy losses. For the Americans, this was the beginning of 'revolution.' The British Colonial Militia were no longer British. They were American Militia, now reforming into a Continental Army under the command of Washington.
The King then ordered an entire fleet and army to suppress the rebellion. Thus, by logical stages of escalation, the conflict grew into a 'revolution.'
However, throughout this 'revolution,' the Americans merely defended themselves successfully - and at the final decisive moment - with the aid of the French.
During this conflict known as the 'Revolutionary War', there were numerous examples of Loyalist desertions from the American cause. Ben Franklin's son was always a Loyalist and died a Loyalist in Canada. Why? Because Ben Franklin raised his son with a great love for the mother country, for which he was Colonial Ambassador. He never met his founding father again.
One of the two American commanders before New York was in fact an aristocratic Loyalist. His capture by the British actually benefitted the American cause in future. After these battles, many Loyalists turned out to join the British, many of them deserters from the Colonial Militia. The Commander of the Northern Army, Benedict Arnold, defected in the South as Cornwallis pushed towards Philadelphia from the South. Arnold joined the British with his force of Loyalist Militia.
So that, what commenced as a Civil War in the American colonies ended as a successful defence of Independence. But if the revolution was merely a defence, then how was it a 'revolution' ? Only in the sense of overturning the Royal Governors and expelling Tories after tarring and feathering them...
So the question must be asked... If the early Americans were defending their assemblies, their freedoms and their independence from invasion, from whence did these assemblies, freedoms and independence first spring? The answer to that question is to be found in the Royal Charters of each colony. The colonies were in fact granted quite a large practical measure of self-government by King James, who was otherwise popular in those parts. In many colonies, the revolution was completed simply by removing the words 'King' and his 'Governor' and replacing them with 'elected.' Thus the 'colonies' became states.
The truth is that the American colonies were already in a highly developed state of independence and freedom from their first founding, but with neither union nor a constitution. That King George attempted in so many ways to reverse this freedom of action ended only in confirming it. He drove the colonists even further away from the mother country until in the end, they had no political connections with Britain for over 150 years.
But to the victor go the spoils, and in the loss of their former colonies the British had no further interest in discussing the origins of America with their rebellious cousins.
Isn't that a little bit sad actually?
[Edited on 6/1/2009 7:10 AM]
[Edited on 6/1/2009 7:15 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 8:14 AM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,161
|
I just stumbled on to this site last week. It gives a bit different perspective of history, including the hypothesis that the USA did not really win the revolutionary war -- as evidenced by having the terms of the treaty dictated to them.
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place. Therefore, it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions; or, it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge. Don't let prior conclusions on your part, or, incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.
*****************
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
Thanks CPU for your post and MF for an interesting thread.
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 10:59 AM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
CPUfan
Posts: 7,983
|
That's extremely interesting Lacy and we should always beware of Brits bearing gifts lol... They are long skilled in the arts of war that are formally known as diplomacy.... A thousand years or more... and they have seldom failed to win in diplomacy. That is why such a small group of islands still rules itself. 
It struck me once before that the Revolutionary War ended with a division of rule. Canada is one obvious way in which a Loyalist regime was preserved. But as you point out the Peace Conference was pursued under the threat of continued war. The stalemate of 1778 had been broken by Cornwallis' thrust through the South to the gates of Virginia, the homeland of the American leaders. It was again reversed with his isolation at Yorktown by the French fleet and the combined Continental and French armies. Cornwallis misjudged the decisive presence of the French. He was forced to surrender at Yorktown. It would then seem an easy matter for the Americans to unravel his conquests and focus once again on the centre at New York. But the problem with this outcome was a return to the previous stalemate !!!
In the central colonies around New York was stationed the most powerful British army and fleet - which might have relieved Cornwallis with its second attempt to break the French fleet, this time with the entire British battlefleet. But North's relief mission arrived too late, as Cornwallis was unaware of its arrival.
By then the British parliament had seen enough of North's campaign and decided on peace. It was also aware that Spain, France and Holland had combined their forces against Britain, but knew there was no threat to the homeland. The French channel fleet was routed. Parliament still held a very powerful hand. The main British army and fleet in the central colonies was undefeated. How to gain advantage from this hand?
The British knew that Washington's strategic aim was independence, not the defeat or undoing of the British Empire. In a sense, he wished to be its heir in America. To remove the British from New York, he would either have to face the loss of tens of thousands, or negotiate. The British now offered peace and threatened to continue the war. Washington chose peace. The British left New York in return for the recognition of Loyalism in Canada and the Carribean. The American Loyalists were permitted to relocate in Canada, but many chose to stay in the new United States.
This result afforded many advantages to Britain. Instead of fighting a colonial war against its own former citizens, Britain now had free hands to deal with her real enemies. Within twenty years, Holland was routed, the fleets of Spain and France were smashed to the bottom at Trafalgar and the massed ranks of French cavalry were shredded on the infantry squares of redcoats at Waterloo. For a hundred years, Britain dominated the military, political and economic scene of Europe until the rise of a new enemy, Germany.
And as for the cost? After the French and Indian wars, Britain had sought to place more of the cost of defending America on the colonists themselves. By 1783, the entire cost of defending America was placed on America. For a hundred years, that former half of the Empire would unite, administer, grow and expand itself. The cousins of the British Empire of 1775 would be their own empire in 1875, defeating Britain's enemies on the American continent one after the other... France left, Spain was driven out and Mexico, her heir, defeated. In the meantime, both halves of an Empire split in two now grew on their own terms. American independence had always been the British intention, but it was achieved on terms far different to what the British ever expected.
We might suspect that to be the main reason for peace between our two countries for almost 200 years.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 11:35 AM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,499
|
The terms of the peace treaty that cemented American independence was almost reversed by the Newburgh Conspiracy. If the Army had truly marched on Philadelphia, to demand that the civilian government bow to the wishes of the military, the British could have used the opportunity to peel off several more profitable (and less rebellious) states.
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 5:16 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
Wow....I wish I had taken a closer look at Ron Paul...
He loves this country and he has some excellent idea of how to make American great again....
See for yourself...
RON PAUL....INFLATION IS TAX
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND RON PAUL
After watching this...I realize that Ron Paul and I are in the same way of thinking..
Get rid of the IRS...its a secretative organization taking our tax dollars...and we have no way to know the difference between what we pay in taxes and what we spend..
Anyway...how did we get to this place that we are paying all this money out for all these different things? I dont remember voting on any of these expenditures I deem careless and unnessary..
Ron Paul like me want to get rid of the Federal Reserve..especially after watching the first videos I posted...about the history and the intend of this private bank they call Federal Reserve...named that to fool us..and it did...for a time..
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 5:35 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
[lacy]THE UNITED STATES
IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
EXTORTING TAXES FOR THE CROWN!
Yes..I have heard of that too but havent had time to check it out further..
Perhaps our English friend CPU can help us there....Hi there! Nice to see you again...
Thanks CPU for your post and MF for an interesting thread.
Thank you both for participating. Im glad you find this an interesting subject..
Me too..as well..I have always wondered about this shadow gov..for many years now..If I remember right..I believe it actually going on in England before it came to America..
.Its all so deep and as far as I can tell from some of my studies..It actually started before America was a country...if i remember correctly...I believe that is why we are still paying money to England..on the sly..
I believe that is why we have a system of which we are unable to see how much money is paid in taxes..verses how much we spend..
Today..this is a dark area...The IRS not being an actual part of the government..it is not under the Freedom of Information Act..This bothers me...
So...I presume we are paying 'money under the table' to Britan because of this very dark area...between income and outgoing tax money...
Just when you think you understand the world...you realize...you dont understand it as well as you thought...At least..thats how I feel...I seems with each year..more knowledge comes..Its really quite a tale of intrigue....Like a james bond movie.. 
It amazes me how people can come up with all these deceptions and get away with them....In reality..they are pretty smart...
I feel our founding fathers are pretty smart too...that document is unreal....I have been watching it these last years..hold up pretty good...even though its being beat down a bit..but still intact...our country still repairable...until we can reverse some of the injustice that have been heaped on the America people..such as the Patriot Act....Fema....NAFTA...the impending NATU..and many more through these many years...
Ive been looking at Ron Paul...I have watched him on the tv and the Youtube at congreassional meetings..Hes a very passionate man and I can see he loves his country..
Perhaps you all will give him a look see too..
Cool posts all.....thanx..
[Edited on 6/1/2009 7:16 PM]
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 7:15 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
|
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,269
|
That site you found Lacy was awesome...it explains things pretty well....
Here is some from the site on Lacys post...interesting..
Just when ya think ya know whats going on...we find out...we dont...
Isnt it so amazing..all this stuff going on in the background...
Wow...amazing times we are living in...
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions:
"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay, as you can read in the Treaty, were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.
I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown. (Footnote 3)
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
you'lll have to go to that link for "The Rest of The Story"
[Edited on 6/1/2009 7:23 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 1 @ 7:25 PM |
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT. |
|
CPUfan
Posts: 7,983
|
There have been many ways in which the influence of Britain on America and its culture has continued to grow rather than decline since the 'revolution.' In arts, academia, science and culture the two countries and other former British colonies have actually been a single global entity rather than separate countries. The reasons for this are primarily that British subjects have continued to emigrate to America in large numbers and that there is no actual division existing within the language.
British business, capital and property interests in America continued unchanged by either the revolution or the war of 1812. And as the site author's documents show, the British actually seized Washington D.C. and the contents of the White House in the second war, before burning it down. There was absolutely nothing to prevent them from staying there at that point. That is something I have never understood about that war. It simply doesn't make any sense. Why demonstrate the ability to take Washington D.C and the presidential seat and then withdraw? The answer is clearly that they were not there to take back rule. Their purpose in the conflict was another one entirely.
Once the British had withdrawn there was no further reason for hostilities. They were defeated at New Orleans but they had a war with France to complete and were not distracted into a further colonial war to retake the Americas. They could even have launched such a war at any time between 1815 and 1900 without the risk of another European conflict. Instead they preferred to remain neutral in the Confederate secession of 1861. For a short while they were tempted but the fact is they had no commercial interest in the war. They bought their cotton from the South but would certainly not be drawn to either fight for slavery or for its abolition. Cotton was cheap enough for British clothing industries as it was...
As for the documents presented by that website, there is no doubt of the authenticity of the Peace Treaty documents presented. And it is striking about them that the British were parleying terms that were beyond their current ability to enforce in war. I believe that Washington was intimidated by Cornwallis both after his surrender but also at the Peace talks! America had again defended herself but how much longer could it go on fighting an Atlantic war on its own territory? A powerful British army and fleet were still installed in the central colonies after 8 years. It was hardly surprising that Washington would settle for terms which honoured the legalities of British property and dues under the Royal Charters. It would not surprise me at all if this were the price of peace at this point. The only question is, what was the tariff of this property and these dues? Since the charters are still the legal documents on which the states are founded they would presumably still be valid today, with all their tariffs on property and dues.
There have been so many questions about the American revolution in my mind that I have been unable to answer for so long. Half the British empire rebelled and seceded and after a few decisive engagements the British simply gave up, still in domination of the New York area and Canada. Why on earth would they simply give up in return for recognition of Canada? They had successfully defended Canada from attempts to spread the rebellion to there. It doesn't make any sense.
But then I know the British were most careful to defend their interests in the Caribbean. These were major centres of trade and production. They were the most profitable territories in the American empire. They did not wish them to fall in the hands of the French. But the American position was quite different. The 13 colonies were not threatening property ownership or waging war to defeat Britain. They just wished to rule themselves. I believe they were allowed to do so, but that there was a price. The price you mention could well be it.
I could find no actual proof of the tariff / dues payments per se, but such payments were normally recorded in trade between nations. The documents I read on Lacy's website source indicate that the payments may well have been disguised as such, as simple trade exchanges with Britain. It was indeed strange that the peace treaty made reference to allowing the British freedom of navigation throughout the new America but denied the same to Yankee traders in any port in the British Empire. !!!
Your first leaders may well have sold you a fast one to get themselves out of their predicament, the threat of continued war on their own territory... I remember reading trade figures for 1775 to 1830 once and American trade and industry was virtually crippled in that period. Inflation was rife and banking and finance in poor state. American living standards fell tremendously between 1775 and 1815. The new Americans were denied the opportunity of resuming their normal trade with the British empire. This would seem to suggest some sort of economic retribution by Britain for the rebellion.
If I can find the figures again I'll post them. I think they were on Wiki but under 'the American Revolutionary Wars' rather than the 'American Revolution...'
|
| |
|
|
|
|