The New World the Rise of American Hypocrisy

Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" set the tone for the kind of religious liberty that the Protestants/Puritans sought in America: all for them, none for the Catholics or the Native Americans. It was the same hypocritical sense of liberty that dominated Enlightenment thought and the Founders of America: liberty was for them -- the wealthy elitist land owners -- not for the slaves they held. Thus, one sees in both the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening a myopic vision of life, which starts at stops at the end of the "great thinkers'" noses.

This is not to say they didn't value liberty more or less in the limited capacity that they idealized it. They wanted liberty for themselves -- some from sin (many of the Enlightenment thinkers disavowed the very concept of God that those of the Great Awakening upheld), some from government (the American and French Revolutions were wars against monarchical order). As far as Kant (the representative of modern philosophy) was concerned this same Enlightenment was "man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage" -- a clear indication that Kant was as myopic as everyone else.

In short, it was the same then as now. Modern society is still as myopic as ever: liberty is still for "us" and not for "them" -- and PC culture asserts that everyone has the right to voice his or her opinion -- unless it conflicts with PC values, then that person should be silenced (with force used if necessary: see the MoveOn.org, Soros-funded protestors in Chicago at a Trump rally). So as much as things change, they still stay the same.

Discussion 2:

Sam Adams and Patrick Henry both believed in the colonists' right to represent themselves -- but they simply did not want to pay taxes to the British royalty anymore, because when you are a believer in "liberty" you don't have to answer to anyone but yourself.

In my view, the colonists were insurrectionists and rebels who laid claim to an authority they did not possess. The mother country obviously had a right to demand taxes from its colonists. However, the idea that Britain could rule the New World as effectively (or ineffectively) as it ruled the island was perhaps just as ridiculous: at the same time, events transpired to ensure that the same power brokers behind the scenes remained in place, i.e., the institution known as finance. Talk of sharing power was lip-service, nothing more.

So while the rebels' argument may have been in favor of no taxation without representation, the colonists in the end got financially bludgeoned by a system of, by and for the bankers (which Jackson killed for a moment). It is called the Fed today -- and the American people more or less answer to it. It just goes to show that no matter what words people put down on paper in the form of "laws" of "declarations" none of it matters when it comes to building an empire behind the scenes. Laws and declarations are for the little people -- not for the real power brokers.

Discussion 3:

The Republicans believed in strict Constitutional interpretation (for a time) because they were legalists who yet still enjoyed a "spirit of the law" type of cultural milieu. The danger they saw in giving the federal government unlimited power was the same they saw with having a king: tyranny.

The Federalists wanted a central power and actual control over the states. Hamilton was a rabid centralist who believed human nature was so corrupt it had to be controlled by a central state. Hamilton saw people as slaves to cruelty and ill humor, which is why he advised that a federal power have absolute authority in the Federalist Papers.

Today's political leaders are all members of the Federalist Establishment. When an outsider like Ron Paul expresses concern that the Constitution is being trampled upon, people laugh. Today's America is nothing but an authoritarian, totalitarian regime of tyrants. If the Founding Fathers thought they had it bad, they should see today.

Discussion 4:

Madison wanted to avoid a war because he knew it would be costly and put a strain on America that it could ill afford. But just as the banking elites were happy to fund both sides of the Civil War, their agents in Congress were happy to push for one in 1812.

The war's impact in New England prompted a wave of secessionist fervor. The New Englanders did not want conflict with Britain and they viewed this war as intolerable.