Ticklemaster750 said:
I must respectfully challenge that theory. I am some-what of a history buff, and am a direct descendant of the Adams Family (John, Abigail, and John Quincy Adams).
The Adams were not British by birth. They were born in JamesTown. The only person with whom I know for a fact was British was Ben Franklin. He sailed with his family to America when he was a child.
So you weren't aware that George Washington was a colonel in the British Army then? Or that your familly history can be traced back to European nobility, even if it's two most famous members were born on North American soil? You're right about Franklin though. During the war, he was busy earning money from the slave trade and sitting on his arse in a house in Craven Street in London, very near to Trafalgar Square. When they went back to th place to build a monument to BF, they started finding dead bodies under the floorboards and in the walls, who were subsequently carbon dated to the time when BF lived there. So this prime example of good American Revolutionism was just allowed to live in the capital of his enemy and pontificate, while the people he was conning into believing they were fighting for freedom, were spilling their guts? Of course he was. Because he was as high up the ladder of world hierarchy as George Washington was.
Ticklemaster750 said:
Now let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that you are correct about the leaders of the American Revolution as British aristocratcs and from other "privlidged families" of the British Order.
Why would they forsake their lands, titles, ranks, and privlidge and take up arms against their own. It seems to me, if that was the case, they had everything to lose, and nothing to gain.
Those who wanted to free themselves from the British Order were the commoners. The peasents. Those who, in the British Soceity and the British "pecking order", were lower than dirt. They were not anybody of importance, in British Society.
Why would any British arisocract and anybody of importance in British Soceity would try to "change the system"? They were the ones who profited the most FROM the system.
I agree, what you say makes perfect common sense. Why would the upper classes take such a dreadful gamble? But if you look back at my post you'll see I used the word "con" to describe the American Revolution and what it promised to the true, American people. If you look back at history, you'll see that the British had to go through some incredible feats of incompetency to lose the war. The reason that happened, is because both sides were controlled by the same people and the whole plan was for America to emerge as an independant nation. That being the case, you'd have to put aristocrats and upper classes in charge, to make sure that the people with the reigns of power in the new, "independant" nation would stick to the game plan after it was all over. This is the reason why all but about 9 or 10 of the 44 or so American Presidents elected since Washington in 1789, have been genetically related to European royalty; being able to trace their heriatage back as far as Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. Stunning eh? But true, and provably so. All it takes is a half observant flick through the pages of Burke's Peerage to see it for yourself.
So am I saying that all the battles, heartache, and strain of the people in the war, was for nothing? That they were nothing but actors in a play staged by sick-minded manipulators? Pretty much, yes. I asked a TMF member on Yahoo once who one of the biggest landowners in the US was. He replied "the Vatican". He was ight, but I was thinking of another, who owns even more. Namely the Queen of England. Elizabeth Windsor owns millions of acres of real estate land throughout the country, including massive tracts of oil rich territory in Texas and Alaska. Most of it is channelled through subsiduary companies, who when traced up the line, are private property of the British Crown. That's nothing either.........
Most American citizena are under the impression that all license issuing, (of whatever sort) trade, and governing of laws is under the control of the United States of America. Close, but not quite true. It's actually under the control of the united states of america. Why the lack of capitalisation? Well, pre-revolution the control of the colonies was mainly administered by something called The Virginia Company. It was a private company staffed by people chosen by the Establishment and 80 or 90 per cent owned by whichever monarch was on the British throne at the time. The other remaining shares were given around like scraps under a table. Well after the war this company very surreptiously changed it's name to "the united states of america". This body went on controlling issuing of different licenses, laws and trade and it still does today! It is STILL owned by the reigning British Monarch and it is STILL controlling the lives of supposedly free-born Americans. The only place that can truly spell usa with capitals is abot 60 square miles north of the Potomac river, where the capitol building stands. Why do you think George W. Bush is a cousin of the British royal familly? Why do you think that the north eastern so called "establishments families like the Kennedies are just as obsessed about interbredding as any European royal familly has ever been? It's because he same people that controlled America before the revolution still do. Or their descendants do anyway. It's not just America either. It happens in every country the world over. Australia, South Africa, Canada etc. The list goes ever-smegging onwards. America has never been free and sadly, neither has Britain.
