Are the American Founding Fathers worth reading?

he also wrote and spoke in favour of the abolition of slavery. for other people, clearly.

Demsocs, Revcoms, and the like are just as complicit in societal inequality and global exploitation as he was, just by going about their lives.

Read Machiavellian Moment

Jefferson and Paine are extremely based (and very radical.)

if you're interested in more right wing views you should already know to read Hamilton, but also check out Fisher Ames.

Do you believe that makes him not worth reading?
Do you believe we're NOT told to see that?

>if you're interested in more right wing views you should already know to read Hamilton

Attached: 1558255192121.gif (266x268, 1.07M)

Damn ive never seen this point made before

he was an aristocratic Burkean conservative. tf more do you want?

lmao

Is "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Burke worth reading? I always get bored about 40 pages in and I'm wondering if it's worth finishing

>slave guy bad

Attached: 1553439363675.jpg (713x713, 90K)

I know what you mean. I've read it all, and the simple answer is no. the complicated answer is yes, because bc a) he's such a good stylist, and b) the important ideological bits are scattered throughout the text. the abridgement in pic related is good.

Attached: 71VgfF95R+L.jpg (747x1147, 182K)

Thanks

They were cucks who were mad they didn't possess the blood necessary to be considered royal, so with peasent-like rage they left a moral system backed by traditional constitution and spilled upon the world a nation of mongrels, so....no.

and they won

IIRC the learning curve for Madison's prose was a bit higher but he seemed a bit better once you got the hang of him.

The nut of it is that it is correct in every sense to cast off tyranny, especially if one proves to have the power to do so (they won, so they did). On substance, I really only see two places you can go: a tired canard over Muh Slavery Hypocrisy (a current "left" feint), or a rejection of natural law/human equality before God as a principle (a current "alt-right" feint). Either way you are in bad intellectual company.

Getting more pedantic, there is also the long middle screed against the king. So your "pretty much everything" obliges you to spend some time with the historical facts around that passage as well, along with the philosophical conceits, what you really meant but you opened the door onto the more technical.

>but he's a good stylist

This is the same consolation prize that (according to Yea Forums) Cioran gave Nietzsche. The point of the affect is to say: "I"m so well-read that I've read this one guy and I still reject him but he writes well so try him on if you want, just know I disagree with him since I've already been." Supreme posturing.

>weren't
Wait so you're saying they are now?

no, the point of the "affect" is to say: Burke sometimes goes on and on not saying anything interesting content-wise, but you can still enjoy the way he's saying it. but thanks for the analysis, doctor.

>or a rejection of natural law/human equality before God as a principle (a current "alt-right" feint). Either way you are in bad intellectual company.

Isn't this the entire crux of the Catholic response to the Enlightenment? I don't see how you're in bad intellectual company with Pius X and Leo XIII.

You sound like an enormous faggot. Do you think calling something 'in bad company' is an argument?

The substance of what you were actually talking about is incidental, because it isn't actually the substance of what you wrote. The real intent of your post was to display your own prowess, just as my intent with mine, is to display mine. You should at least be honest, as I am. For more on the concept of authorial narcissism, see Sloterdijk's "Nietzsche Apostle".

Attached: both of us are on the right. The difference is that I am the better genius because I am honest unlik (450x317, 94K)

Yes it is, when that person finds themself in the company of Marx and Moldbug (love the useful alliteration, here, to drive the point home). Even the very unattractiveness of "Moldbug" jives well, rhetorically). But let's be honest: you only honed in on that one part of the post, because you couldn't be bothered about the others. The other guy made a grandiose "pretty much everything in the Declaration is bullshit" claim, which he is obliged to defend. You of course also abdicate your "that isn't an argument" thing when you lead with "you sound like an enormous faggot" (read: I don't like Thing). This is you.

Attached: this is you. you are dumb..jpg (590x318, 48K)

he probably thinks the musical is historically accurate

Another extremely embarrassing paragraph that says nothing

The federalist papers are definitely worth reading.

Thomas Jefferson is an interesting one. He's not a capitalist in the industrial sense to be sure. His vision was for American to be an agrarian society of independent farmers who own their own land. In this way no man would work for another. They would be free and equal. Any manufactured goods could be gotten by trade.
In a letter to William Giles
>but this opens with a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. this will be to them a next best blessing to the Monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping stone to it.
In other words, he saw the moves of Alexander Hamiltion and the Federalist party to make America a big business manufacturing location like Britain as an attempt to bring back the aristocracy they fought against.

In the case of his agrarian vision failing, in a letter to Joseph Milligan
>If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree
In other words, hit the reset button on accumulated intergenerational wealth with a large inheritance tax.

Attached: Official_Presidential_portrait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_(by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800)(cropped).jpg (732x900, 241K)

Read Fed Papers, Anti Fed, and notes on the state of Virginia. Then read Lincoln's speeches as he was also a founding father.

Except that's totally retarded. Farmers were the ones who pushed the federal government for an imperialist foreign policy the hardest to expand their markets to sell their goods at the highest price possible. No one wants to live at a subsistence level. Big business interests were more likely to be protectionists in the 19th century and provide a realistic vision of equitable development without perpetual war.

Attached: drumf stupid.jpg (547x519, 59K)

You a Jew?

What is it about these "gotcha" quips that makes them so appealing to nowits?

Funny since the agrarian interests definitely had the more support from Jewry. Look into who supported the confederacy and Andrew Jackson's war against a national bank to the advantage of private gold merchants in New York and Europe.

Attached: alex jones unbalanced.png (1000x562, 703K)

>a tired canard over Muh Slavery Hypocrisy (a current "left" feint)
Why would this be just a "tired canard", and why are you framing it as an inherently leftist point? You could argue that it is a relevant objection while using the doctrine of natural law you've defended in this same post.

Awfully evasive of a simple question there, Benjamin.

No I'm not Jewish and you don't know who Jewry alligned themselves with historically.