PDA

View Full Version : Ben Franklin, on man's 'wisdom'



Fredkc
30th November 2010, 19:17
Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.

- Ben Franklin, in his speech accepting the Constitution. (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/anti-fed/debates/dfc_0917.html)

Hiram
30th November 2010, 19:50
To just sit humbly before such reasoned brilliance.

What a light shining in the darkness he was, and what a fine example (with all his foibles..and he certainly had his share) for others to aspire.

--its not perfect---but I'll take it as a tool for the time being---and furthermore---to spite the faces of our detractors who say this tool can not be forged!!!

conk
30th November 2010, 20:04
How many Ben Franklins in government today? Do you need all your fingers to count? Will one hand suffice? One digit?

Second Son
1st December 2010, 00:42
Ben Franklin... freemason and member in good standing of the Hellfire Club, which among other things, conducted drunken orgies (at best) and satanic rituals and child sacrifices (at worst) What... you don't believe me? The bones of 4 adults and 6 children were discoverd at Franklin's one-time residence at 36 Craven Street in London. They have all been dated to the time when our favorite patriot was living there.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The aforementioned quote says it all... this guy, always the consumate politician played both sides of the fence. Seemingly railing against tyranical governance, yet speaking about its necessity at the same time... WOW, brilliant!

Oh, and here's a great quote from a book about Benny: "By the early 1760's Franklin had become a thoroughgoing imperialist and royalist. He had developed an emotional commitment to the Crown's empire, a vision of a pan-British world that was rivaled in its grandeur only by that of William Pitt. Few Englishmen in 1760 were more proud of being English, and few were more devoted to the English monarchy and the greatness of the British empire. Although he remained sensitive to criticism of the colonists, he sought at every turn to affirm his and his fellow Americans' "respect for his mother country, and admiration for everything that is British."

To sum up our founding father for those who aren't familiar with the truth surrounding the most quoted statesman in our history; there is more than ample evidence that he was: a pedophilious, duplicitous, self serving satan worshipper, and a toadie loyal to the crown.

I hate to beat a dead horse here folks, but you leave me no choice... ANYTHING you get from the mainstream... whether it be in the New York Times, a highschool text book, NPR, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc., is not just wrong, IT IS 180 degrees away from the truth. ALWAYS.

Peace out!

Ahkenaten
1st December 2010, 00:55
Ben Franklin also had an excellent sense of humor. He said something to the effect that the worst marriage was better than the best divorce (he never divorced his wife but rather lived down the street from her with his live-in girlfriend) He also said something about women to the effect that ................. oh well, it is not in the best taste and might offend some.

Second Son
1st December 2010, 01:39
I bet it won't offend me, Ahk.

Ross
1st December 2010, 02:34
The aforementioned quote says it all... this guy, always the consumate politician played both sides of the fence. Seemingly railing against tyranical governance, yet speaking about its necessity at the same time... WOW, brilliant!

That is the 'nuts n bolts' of being a good politician (understanding the rules)...and the art of 'timing'

Second Son
1st December 2010, 03:15
I never thought about it that way Ross. The same traits are needed to be a good politician and a good comedian... I guess the laugh is on us.

Ross
1st December 2010, 03:18
I never thought about it that way Ross. The same traits are needed to be a good politician and a good comedian... I guess the laugh is on us.

I would love to be a fly on the wall, while they are drinking Brandy and smoking cigars 'afterhours'

Second Son
1st December 2010, 03:27
Let's see... drugs, prostitutes, pedophilia, satanic rites, sacrifices... I dunno, I might like to be a fly on the wall with a camcorder. I wonder if moving pictures and sound would bring these politicians down. There are so many people who would love to testify to a grand jury about child prostitution rings, etc. but they will not ever get their day in court. How about the male prostitute that had carte blanche to come (pun intended) and go in George W's white house... never made the kind of headlines that the Monica Lewinski scandal made...

Ross
1st December 2010, 03:32
The movie ‘The Bank Job’ depicts the scenario of hidden cams filming Politicians having their fill with Prostitutes, using footage for ‘if needed’ bargaining chips.

A good movie!

truthseekerdan
1st December 2010, 03:36
- and smoking cigars 'afterhours'

You mean hemp. ;)

Carmody
1st December 2010, 05:06
WORKMEN have dug up the remains of ten bodies hidden beneath the former London home of Benjamin Franklin, the founding father of American independence.

The remains of four adults and six children were discovered during the £1.9 million restoration of Franklin's home at 36 Craven Street, close to Trafalgar Square. Researchers believe that there could be more bodies buried beneath the basement kitchens.

Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which was his home from 1757 to 1762, and from 1764 to 1775. Most of the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said yesterday: "I cannot totally discount the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I may have to hold an inquest."

The principal suspect in the mystery is William Hewson, like Franklin a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the husband of Polly Stevenson, the daughter of Franklin's landlady, Mary Stevenson.

In the early 1770s Dr Hewson was in partnership with William Hunter, who, with his brother John, was one of the founders of British surgery. Dr Hunter and Dr Hewson ran a school of anatomy in Soho, but after an argument Dr Hewson left to live in Franklin's house, where he is believed to have established a rival school and lecture theatre. Dr Knapman added yesterday: "It is most likely that these are anatomical specimens that Dr Hewson disposed of in his own house, but we are still not certain about the bones' exact age or origin."

Evangeline Hunter-Jones, deputy chairman of the Friends of Benjamin Franklin House, the charity concerned with restoring the property and opening it to the public, said: "The bones were quite deeply buried, probably to hide them because grave robbing was illegal. There could be more buried, and there probably are."

Brian Owen Smith has volunteered to lead researches on behalf of the friends. He said yesterday: "The discovery represents an important insight into very exciting years of medical history. Benjamin Franklin, through his support for Polly and Dr Hewson, socially and scientifically, was very much part of that."

To the suggestion that Franklin might have been a grave robber, or an accomplice to Dr Hewson, Hilaire Dubourcq, of the Friends of Benjamin Franklin House, responded: "It is possible that he has an alibi. It seems likely that he actually let Dr Hewson have use of the whole house for his school for a time, and went up the street to live with Mary Stevenson. He did not necessarily know what was happening below stairs in the house during his absence."

Luke
1st December 2010, 09:11
You mean hemp. ;)

That would be "Washington's Crop" IIRC .. he even wrote about separation of female plants :)

---

As for bodies- there was that bit about "archaeologists being ghouls with credentials" .. think something like that applies here.

Zook
1st December 2010, 14:51
Good morning, Second Son, the Earth says hello!


Ben Franklin... freemason and member in good standing of the Hellfire Club, which among other things, conducted drunken orgies (at best) and satanic rituals and child sacrifices (at worst) What... you don't believe me? The bones of 4 adults and 6 children were discoverd at Franklin's one-time residence at 36 Craven Street in London. They have all been dated to the time when our favorite
patriot was living there. "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The aforementioned quote says it all... this guy, always the consumate politician played both sides of the fence. Seemingly railing against tyranical governance, yet speaking about its necessity at the same time... WOW, brilliant! [...]

Excellent observation. Here's a little more on the esteemed founding father and freemason:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkzFbKeK5kM

My own opinion of Benjamin Franklin is mixed. I don't have sufficient data to conclude either way with any confidence; but I have an opinion. There are two intriguing possibilities:

(1) Ben Franklin was a genuine American hero, and the reports of paedophilia and skeletons in his basement are nothing more than contrived stories to discredit Franklin's stature with the constitutional patriots of today.

(2) Ben Franklin was, indeed, a paedophile, ritualistic killer, freemason, Illuminatist, agent of the British Empire (controlled by the banksters of the day), etc. And this made him a viable candidate for the Machiavaellian banksters to support his rise to power (e.g. for he would have represented potential for blackmail).

From the literature I have read, (2) appears to be the more credible assessment of Franklin.

http://www.tax.org/museum/1756-1776.htm

My gut feeling about Franklin is this. Empires require dividing tools to prosper. The British empire had come under debt to the banksters (perhaps led by the Rothschilds but certainly with their participation) during the Seven Years Wars. In 1773, Mayer Rothschild assembled a dozen or so bankers and leading European industrialists, and created the proto-Illuminati. The goal of the proto-Illuminati was singular: to seize and control the world's wealth. Full spectrum dominance in today's language. The British Crown raised taxes in the colonies to meet its debt obligations (to the banksters of Europe) incurred by the Seven Years Wars. Still, they ended up borrowing more and more. This further increased the debt load. By now, the banksters had seized de facto control of the British Crown via the Crown's debt obligations to the Bank of England. During the Seven Years Wars, the banksters came to recognize that war was highly profitable (e.g. Count William and his Hessian mercenaries for hire). So they had two ways to make money. (1) by loan-sharking and by squeezing the colonies with taxes; and (2) if the colonies rebelled, hiring out mercenary troops to the Crown (which they already controlled) to quell the dissent. The local currency of the colonies had already been outlawed in 1964 by the Currency Act; but now with taxes on almost everything from sugar, tea, etc. the colonials were starting to resist in major ways. Boston had a Tea Party in December of 1773; remember, the proto-Illuminati were formed earlier in the same year. Here, one begins to wonder whether the banksters were using their influence on the British empire to divide the colonies into factions that would later become patriots and loyalists. Certainly, the American Revolution began well before 1776 with paper and pens before it became official with bullets and guns. For completeness, the proto-Illuminati officially became the Illuminati also in 1776; and freemasonry and the Illumnati merged in 1782.

http://1984usa.com/XML/1700_xml_1.xml

Now, the relevant question: how did Benjamin Franklin fit into all of this?

My best guess is that Ben Franklin was the dividing tool sought by the Imperialist Bankster British Crown (IBBC); a tool to foment division between the colonial patriots-to-be and the loyalists-to-be. Franklin rode the patriot horse, as it were. His oratory gifts made him an excellent candidate to be a leader in the revolutionary movement. Leader of the charge into the red brigades, if you will. War is money; it is today ... and it was back then. If Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club in England, and if the newly formed Illuminati was merging with freemasonry (and eventually merged in 1782); then it is likely that Franklin and the European banksters were forming their own illicit relations in the immediate period before 1776 and afterwards.

Ben Franklin was certainly a gifted orator. But so, too, was Churchill; here, there is ample evidence to suggest that the man with the seemingly permanent stogie stuffed between his lips was - by any credible account of history - a scum and minion of TMastardsTB. Hitler was a gifted orator, as well; but most people already accept him as the devil incarnate that he is (so he's not useful to this analogy). By contrast, Churchill - like Franklin - has had favorable reviews in the MSM. Indeed, you won't find mention of Churchill's virtual skeletons or Franklin's real skeletons in mainstream media. You can expect Franklin's skeletons to leak into the msm more and more as the need to discredit the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution (e.g. by discrediting the founding fathers) picks up steam. Prepare for slave-owning stories wrt Jefferson; skeletons in Washington's closet; etc.

In summation, my cursory research and gut feeling tell me that Benjamin Franklin was a false flag leader of American independence. He likely colluded with the banksters to foment animosity against the British Crown (in a scheme to bring about war). War is money. The Crown was an impotent puppet used by the banksters (who controlled the Bank of England). And if Franklin was, indeed, a member of the Hellfire Club, he would almost certainly be a Satanist ... and when did Satanists ever do anything for principle or noble reasons?

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

ps: Franklin is to be contrasted with Andrew Jackson, who came later on. Jackson was the real McCoy. Of course, Jackson they tried to assassinate. And Lincoln they did. JFK, they did.

Carmody
1st December 2010, 15:34
I used to think well of Issac Newton. Until more information on his past and actions came to the fore...in recent years. The reason I mention this, that Benjamin Franklin was no dummy in the sciences, either. Newton's private notes were sold as a set to a Japanese man about 10 years back (?) and those have slowly been 'getting out there'. Regardless of that aspect, Newton was hired by the Central bank of London to quell fears... and he was there due to his Alchemical fame, not any scientific fame.

Hiram
1st December 2010, 22:30
Humble opinions all around.

Franklin is to be contrasted with Andrew Jackson, who came later on. Jackson was the real McCoy. Of course, Jackson they tried to assassinate. And Lincoln they did. JFK, they did.

Thank you Zook for that well-reasoned argument and personal opinion.

I suppose my humble response would not be to debate with anyone about the activities in which this historical figure was, or was not involved (aside from an academic debate of course).

Personally, I have found very few historical figures on whom some dirt cannot be dug up, or who on closer inspection couldn’t possibly be implicated in some scandal.

What I take from that is that historical figures are not caricatures, they are living breathing beings who are endowed with the same foibles as men of today. They are not “Bad” and they are not “Good”. In fact, if one believes in a higher order in this reality it becomes readily apparent that often times the very best results are brought about by “bad” men and “bad” actions unintentionally…..and most alarmingly…the opposite is true as well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the actions of so-called “good” men.

For these reasons I try and regard historical figures objectively, and if they fall short (and they always, always seem to--ask the Cherokee what they think of Andrew Jackson) perhaps it is because their comrades and peers failed them in basic friendship, and brotherhood? Perhaps they kept to the wrong circles? Perhaps they ran with a bad crowd. And Yes, perhaps they did some very bad things.

But there is wisdom in words, and its okay to acknowledge such, despite who said them.

I am reminded of the Gollum from the Lord of the Rings….a very bad creature, who through his treachery became the hand of fate itself.

Even the meek, the evil, the dimwitted have a role to play in all of this.

If anything they deserve our pity.

Zook
2nd December 2010, 00:19
Hi Hiram,


Thank you Zook for that well-reasoned argument and personal opinion.


Thank you for your appreciation.



[...]
For these reasons I try and regard historical figures objectively, and if they fall short (and they always, always seem to--ask the Cherokee what they think of Andrew Jackson) perhaps it is because their comrades and peers failed them in basic friendship, and brotherhood? Perhaps they kept to the wrong circles? Perhaps they ran with a bad crowd. And Yes, perhaps they did some very bad things.


Excellent observation. Totally agree. My apologies to the indigenous populations of the Americas for overlooking their history. My amnesia humbles me. I suppose we can only sanctify Andrew Jackson in the smaller sphere of central banking. In the larger sphere of European expansionism, he is probably deserving of much less. It takes a beast to expand into another territory; and Jackson would have to be considered as such in the bigger narrative. To wit, the human ideal exists above our animal anchoring and does not allow expansion into another's territory. Those who seek expansion are inescapably beasts. I suppose you and I are afforded the luxury of a spacetime wherewhen the issue of beastly gains has been more or less pacified by time (again, we would have to ask the Cherokees for their opinion on the matter). We of a compass set towards the human ideal have replaced expansionism with inner exploration (reductionism to oneness???).

Of course, in the West Bank and Gaza today, the issues are alive and the beast identifiable by its expansionist claws.



But there is wisdom in words, and its okay to acknowledge such, despite who said them.
I am reminded of the Gollum from the Lord of the Rings….a very bad creature, who through his treachery became the hand of fate itself.
Even the meek, the evil, the dimwitted have a role to play in all of this.
If anything they deserve our pity.

Well stated! I mostly agree.

Indeed, Benjamin Franklin is known not just for his political contributions, but for his profound observations as well. Of course, Machiavaelli made profound observations also. The best we can do, then, is not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To this end, the context is paramount to both the message and the messenger.

:typing:

Hiram
2nd December 2010, 00:42
Hi Hiram,

I suppose we can only sanctify Andrew Jackson in the smaller sphere of central banking. In the larger sphere of European expansionism, he is probably deserving of much less. It takes a beast to expand into another territory; and Jackson would have to be considered as such in the bigger narrative. To wit, the human ideal exists above our animal anchoring and does not allow expansion into another's territory. Those who seek expansion are inescapably beasts. I suppose you and I are afforded the luxury of a spacetime wherewhen the issue of beastly gains has been more or less pacified by time (again, we would have to ask the Cherokees for their opinion on the matter). We of a compass set towards the human ideal have replaced expansionism with inner exploration (reductionism to oneness???).

Of course, in the West Bank and Gaza today, the issues are alive and the beast identifiable by its expansionist claws.The best we can do, then, is not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To this end, the context is paramount to both the message and the messenger.

:typing:

You have taken the simple colors of my sentiment, and given me Starry Night.

I am resonating after reading your mind at work Zook. Thank You.

truthseekerdan
2nd December 2010, 01:30
(2) Ben Franklin was, indeed, a paedophile, ritualistic killer, freemason, Illuminatist, agent of the British Empire (controlled by the banksters of the day), etc. And this made him a viable candidate for the Machiavaellian banksters to support his rise to power (e.g. for he would have represented potential for blackmail).

From the literature I have read, (2) appears to be the more credible assessment of Franklin.


Hey Zook, firstly thank you for your vast knowledge on this subject. I also have to agree on your 2nd point in your post, based on a video documentary on google (Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings Volume 1 : The New Atlantis).
The thing is that I didn't want to get involved in this subject since it's not on my priority list...:decision: -- however, since you elaborated on the subject, I will point you and anyone else interested to find out more in this great documentary on this other thread.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?5454-The-Legend-of-Atlantis-part-1-Dawn-of-the-Gods&p=53469&viewfull=1#post53469

The whole documentary is pretty long more than 2 hours, but if you're only interested in Ben Franklin, they start talking about him after 54 min. into the video pretty much confirming what you wrote and more. Knowledge is not worth anything if it can't be shared. Hope you'll enjoy it. :)

Many blessings...:love: