Has "equality" been the greatest Trojan Horse in Western Society to date?

Did the ideal of "equality" originate from the French Revolution, and then covertly slipped into the US Constitution? It seems to be used by all sorts of agents as the prime method of infiltrating and subverting our civilization.

Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Open Borders, Same Sex Marriage are examples of this where (((NWO))) employs the exploit of "equality," one of the founding values and principles of the modern Western world, to destroy it.

In our three main principles of Liberty, Justice and Equality, why is equality even needed? Justice covers everything that equality was meant to be in creating a fair society.

Sup Forums please redpill me on this subject. On its origins, and how to defeat the equality jew?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=84bWaHnAtqM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There is no such thing as equality and when Christ establishes his kingdom for 1000 years there will be no equality with his rule

By learning about the races and being able to articulate HBD and walk liberals into the trap of agreeing with your premise before they realize what they are doing.

People who advocated equality for women were persecuted and put to the guillotine during French Revolution.

Consider neoreaction. Their 2016 consensus is a mixture of Jewish and American Protestant (what they call 'ultracalvinism') influence on the degeneracy of modernism, most of all in the French Revolution.

Look up the Bavarian Illuminati. They tried to initiate the French Revolution in 1784, but the member who was to give out the order was struck down by lightning. The documents and evidence was discovered and then sent to the Bavarian authorities who then caused the Illuminati sect to disband.

Human Bio-Diversity? What is HBDleppo?

Really? Source?

A good link?

Stupidity us the greatest threat to the world and it comes in many forms.

You had me until same sex marriage. Why is that an issue for you? It does nothing to effect you and provides other people who are just like you or me the same rights/privileges you and I have (or at least this one in particular).

The concept of equality had been around a lot longer than just the French Revolution especially considering the American Revolution happened before the French. But Native Americans actually had some influence on the concept of equality in America. In the areas of the colonies they had democracies and couldn't understand the concept of land ownership because everyone shared it and was equal that way.

I guess it's a good thing that your fairy tale is no more valid than Greek mythology then, isn't it?

Hello literal faggot, if you kept reading without getting triggered, you'd read the third paragraph about JUSTice. If you're gay and live in a just society, perhaps you'd have those rights. Equality is not needed, it only opens you up to attack by retards leftists that support fashionable Muslims and Sharia Law over gays of peace.

Yes, I believe the idea of "equality" is extremely dangerous and detrimental to our society and the future of our people. The reason why it is so dangerous is, because it is universally accepted as FACT that everyone is equal. Male and females are equal, sexual deviants and "normal" people are equal, all races are equal, etc. If you base all your believes, your opinions and political ideas around the misconception that we are all equal, you can never get to the root of many of the problems especially those groups face that aren't equal to, let's say white men. All the mental gymnastics the left are practicing are a result of the idea that we are all equal. For example, if a certain race performs worse than the white race and you believe that all races and people are equal, then this can not be because of differences between the races, but this inequality has to be caused by the people that are more successful -> oppression by whites. In the same way the blame is put on whites when blacks committ more crime. It can't be because of differences between races, so blacks must committ more crime, because whites created a situation for blacks that somehow forces them to commit more crime. If blacks perform worse in school it can't be, because they aren't as smart as whites, it must be, because whites aren't supporting the black communities enough -> muh programs. If women earn less than men or don't get into STEM fields etc, it's because of the patriarchy, not because of biological differences between the sexes.

>Has "equality" been the greatest Trojan Horse in Western Society to date?
yes.
the greatest to date.

It didnt slip into US constitution your country was founded on the principles of equality and democracy on purpose and it is now the most leftist country for this reason

> (((NWO)))
a convenient lie. This NWO is primarily anglo american. FYI.

Fucking faggot.

Slave morality and resentment.

>Meanwhile, the men who controlled the Jacobins rejected the Revolutionary Republican Women as dangerous rabble-rousers.
>At this point the Jacobins controlled the government; they dissolved the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, and decreed that all women's clubs and associations were illegal.
>They sternly reminded women to stay home and tend to their families by leaving public affairs to the men.
>Organized women were permanently shut out of the French Revolution after October 30, 1793.[22]

>Most of these outwardly activist women were punished for their militancy.
>The kind of punishment received during the Revolution included public denouncement, arrest, execution, or exile.
>Théroigne de Méricourt was arrested, publicly flogged and then spent the rest of her life sentenced to an insane asylum.
>Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe were arrested, later released, and continued to receive ridicule and abuse for their activism.
>Many of the women of the Revolution were even publicly executed for "conspiring against the unity and the indivisibility of the Republic".[23]

>have all the benefits of centuries of democratic struggle for political equality
>winge about how bad some minor side effects are
>imagine you would be some aristocrat and not a fucking pleb ploughing a field 14 hours a day for some corrupt noble

wew

Fixed it for you senpai

True that equality should be covered in Justice, one possible explanation could be that it was so important for them at the time that they named it explicity. But I'm sure that there's no arguing amongst us that equality was meant before the law, not the modern interpretation of 'all races are equal', modern feminism etc., which is being propagated today by the media. So my conclusion is that the modern equality jew is at the media and that we have to fight them there, but I think we're making some progress on that front (think of meme magic, kek).

Also agree with all of what said

Yea, but founding fathers admitted that they stole a lot of European and French ideas. Maybe I got that confused. The Constitution was ratified in 1789 though, same year French Rev started.

Thanks (((Hans))) for correcting the record. The US is not the most leftist country. Yours and Sweden is. NWO are jews.

Oh yea, I sort of remember being taught this in (((history class))).

Aussie = Abo , JUST as intelligent, JUST as beautiful, JUST as good at posting quality material. EQAULITEE YAY!

I would rather have a just society than an equal one. Funny how a just society will be equal and just, yet an equal one is unjust and unequal.

It originated in liberal, anti-clerical circles before, obviously, but the French Revolution is where it got its first big break and its staying power.
And there was no "covertly" in the US constitution. Maybe the "founding fathers" were more interested in their shekels, heresy, and tea, but the way they justified their rebellion was under the new "democratic-republican" paradigm. Perhaps the biggest difference is that they weren't anti-property or anti-church so much because they were the guys with the property and in charge of the churches.But their ideological underpinning is not very different from the Jacobins. It was the current year-ism of 1776.

Here is the thing though: The concept of equality is actually more detrimental to all those groups that are "inferior" in the sense that they perform worse than white men. As I pointed out before, that is because unless you accept the differences between the sexes, races, etc. you can't possibly help fix their problems. Shifting the blame, carrying them with affirmative action, programs, financial support and so on won't fix any problems, it will just cover them up and when the problems don't go away, then the reason must be that we didn't try hard enough to fix them. I actually think the left are very aware that they aren't actually helping these people. They pretend to help with "cosmetic fixes" and at the same time make sure that these problems persist. That's how you get loyal voters. Because the solutions to many problems, e.g. black poverty, too many blacks on food stamps/welfare can be very uncomfortable for all sides. Helping a group of people _help themselves_ isn't an attractive option, because it could mean cutting welfare for example, it's the opposite of the leftist course of action (there's a problem? throw money at it).

>If you're gay and live in a just society, perhaps you'd have those rights.
Why not try to make society as just as possible? You're just making yourself sound more like than idiot, honestly. Also, you never answered how gay marriage rights are just a (((NWO))) ploy. That's what I was pointing out, please try to actually answer the question. Your entire post is just a large straw man argument. Also, equality doesn't open up support for Sharia law. Sharia law is by definition not favoring equality (and establishing Sharia law would be favoring muslims over every other group: that's why the US government is secular).

Nice argument you retard

Equality, as the French revolutionaries thinked of, is good. A noblemen should be judged with the same laws of a pleb, and a pleb should have access to the same jobs as a nobleman.

But cultural marxism is changing the meaning of words and now equality mean that each people is equal to each other regardless of capacities, and not that each citizen has equal rights.

I think you're confusing two different types of equality (or two different uses). When used in the constitution, equality only refers to equality under the law (getting equal treatment from the government no matter your race, sex, etc.). It's only been recently that leftists have tried to make broader claims on equality. Not only are they claiming that everyone's rights should be equal, but that everyone's capabilities are equal, which is obviously not the case.

Gay marriage, like transgender ideology, promiscuity, etc, undermines the meaning of marriage and committed relationship by reorienting it toward individual/personal gratification ("me"/what can I get) rather than the appreciation of the other and the recognition of the worth and dignity of the beloved inherent to a committed marital relationship

This doesn't even begin to touch on the creation of families, which are the essential and best way to nurture and transmit values across time, and which also instruct individuals to appreciate beauty and which beautify people's lives--when you hold your baby or your friend's baby, you realize quite quickly how useless the baby is, and yet its uselessness amplifies your sense of wonder at its beauty

For all these reasons, gay marriage is deleterious

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Gays should have the same rights and benefits as marriage, but don't call it a marriage legally, call it a civil union whatever. The reason why this is important is because marriage creates families, and more importantly kids that will be the future of civilization.

NWO is trying use gay-marriage to subvert traditional marriage by encouraging degenerate behavior that's not productive for society. If all people were gay, humanity ends. History has proven that a traditional family is still the best fundamental building block of civilization, and when that is attacked, society fails as a result.

>Equality doens't open up support for Sharia Law
-Look at Germany, Sweden
-What happened in Orlando

"Not all Muslims." Liberals can't support two contradicting ideologies, one gays, other anti-gays.

Is this your first day on Sup Forums or just b8ing?

You're a stupid degenerate prick.

Equality opens the gate to Muslims Muslims open the gate to sharia law

Get it fag?

What meaning is there in marriage? What you describe is not what marriage has been about as long as it has existed. It started out as a business agreement, but since then people have revised its origins to imply some deeper meaning. But let's just ignore reality and say you're right, why does letting gay people experience what you described undermine it?

> Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Why?

> NWO is trying use gay-marriage to subvert traditional marriage by encouraging degenerate behavior that's not productive for society.
Traditional marriage has already been subverted because you aren't allowed to marry multiple women and have a bunch of concubines.

> -Look at Germany, Sweden
> -What happened in Orlando
That's not equality. That's diversity, openness, etc., but not equality.

> Is this your first day on Sup Forums or just b8ing?

Been here since this place was libertarian. Now I just troll stupid fascists like yourself. Your arguments are disturbingly bad. Like the leftists, you rely heavily on false equivalencies and straw man arguments.

because theres no change in the marriage family grant money.

gay couples still get family benefits to have children.

They should not receive this as they cannot have children.

Equality under law is how it is traditionally understood, but the language like it was written in the Declaration of Independence allows it to be twisted.

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Justice alone should be enough for equality under the law. Or at least they should have specified. For a bunch of smart people and meticulous lawyers, they sure fucked up big time.

and don't you dare tell me your a gay couple that wants to adopt

>ten times out of ten the child is abused.

The idea at the core, equality in front of the law, isn't bad.
The whole equality thing is just always taken to retarded levels.

You can repeat the claim, but it isn't true unless you can prove/explain your 'reasoning.' It sounds like your complaint is with diversity/openness, I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself that equality is somehow involved.

Right, in that case I'd argue that equality under the law is a concept I can agree with and it's not so much a question of whether everyone should be treated as equals under the law but rather whether the state should get involved in certain issues & impose laws. I only really have a problem with the leftist bastardization of "equality".

You use a lot of buzzwords to argue like false equivalency and straw man. My 2nd reply as based on what you said. You call me a fascist without making an argument. It seems you are the Leftist using name calling to make points instead of arguing.

How many of your counter-points are questions rather than answers? Yet you act so smug and superior.

>Le I was just pretending to be retarded and trolling LULULULUL

> They should not receive this as they cannot have children.

They adopt. They don't get that money without having a kid (adopting a kid), do you not know how tax deductions work?

> like it was written in the Declaration of Independence allows it to be twisted.

Doesn't matter because the declaration of independence is almost totally irrelevant to life today. The constitution is the law of the land because it outlines the federal government. The Declaration was just a nice letter.

The current ideal of equality is ironically a ruse for complete marginilization. Everyone is being lead into archetypes and paradigms. People are contributing to this for the sake of the individuality to be gained but are effectively killing it both conceptually and literally killing it. The fight seems like a prelude to the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. That being said, I believe justice, individual rights and human rights are important causes that should be looked into and I'm simply glad that there's a moderate ammount of people with any influence provididing to those causes instead of a vacuous concept like equality..

Politics are not necessarily based on law documents friendo. You speak the title Libertarian like it's some kind of accomplishment. Go back to fedoratipping, you guys are full retard.

Quit trying to derail. Explain what equality means to you, and why it is needed on top of justice, or GTFO.

That's reasonable, and I tend to agree. In general I think less government involvement is better. People bitched when the Supreme Court struck down state level gay marriage bans claiming government over involvement, but honestly the overstep was when the states made the laws banning it in the first place.

I already made my arguments, you never responded. That's why we're slinging mud now, it's because you evidently don't know how to argue. I explained to you that traditional marriage already doesn't exist because it was never about what you seem to think it is. Additionally, muslims -> sharia law isn't due to equality, it's due to diversity/openness: you never actually reasoned your way through this. You basically just set it up so that someone who wants to believe what your saying would be able to do so.

I'm being smug because you're a retard who doesn't know how to argue. That's why I'm leaving this thread: this shit is going nowhere. I hope that someday someone teaches you how to reason, but I won't hold my breath for it. The only downside is that you actually vote. At least I can take solace in the fact that Trump isn't that bad (at least he's not one of those crazy evangelicals).

>In our three main principles of Liberty, Justice and Equality, why is equality even needed? Justice covers everything that equality was meant to be in creating a fair society.
No it doesn't. Influential people could get lesser to even non-existent punishments, not only that but people within the government, and even the executive branch are subject to the law equally as the average Joe.

Equality means equality under the law, of course we have a hard time comprehending this because we weren't born over 200 years ago where people found this very attractive due to the abuse and misuse of power of those above them such as nobles and kings above them.

Then you are citing the Constitution and yet forget the 3/5's compromise. That doesn't seem like racial equality to me.

Are you out of high school yet? Or did your school not go over this? Honestly OP, your post pisses me off.

Equality is not a bad thing, don't throw the baby out with the bath water and wish to live under some kind of intense tyranny because you don't like liberals.

I wasn't making an argument you shit packing faggot. Kill yourself.

You don't deserve those digitz. Don't drop your fedora on your way out.

Politics are 100% based on law. Politics is about changing/creating policy (law). It's not what equality means to me, the word has a set definition that is agreed upon in the english language. Equality in this context means that you are treated equally under the law. Basically, that being asian doesn't result in a different sentence for the same crime than being hispanic. That the government doesn't make it illegal for you to get married to the person you want to provided they can and are consenting. That is one of the government's duties to the people (as outlined in the constitution). The new definition for equality which claims that everyone is just as good as everyone else at everything is retarded.

the American revolution and US constitution happened before the French Revolution

>American education

> fedora
Hur dur I don't know how to argue so I'm going say you're a fedora wearing autist.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was pointing out, you retard. Thanks for spelling it out for the class.

It's not all of us, OP is just retarded familia

>"equality"
>covertly slipped into the US Constitution?

You mean the same constitution that counts blacks as 3/5 of a person, indians not at all, and only gives men the vote?

No, I do not think equality was covertly slipped into our constitution.

Why are Loltarians so delusional? You don't live in reality, that's why you'll never come to power.

We all know what "equality under the law" means. We're talking about the left abusing the term in REALITY, not your lalala freedom dick sucking fantasy land.

You don't seem to understand the difference between government and society. I never mentioned government. I said society should encourage 1 man, 1 woman marriages to build strong stable civilizations. If 1 man King takes multiple women, then the betas will revolt you dumb Ron Paul fuck. You'd be last in line for the women in your Loltarian society when all the chad kings fuck your mom and sisters and other potential mates.

Please don't trip over those unbuilt roads in your Lolbertarian society and drop your fedora on your way out.

It's not day time here m8. I admitted to the error, give me a break. I meant that in general the meme of equality is attributed and accredited to the French Revolution.

The main points of the thread still stands. I asked for help for finding the origin, and how to defeat it.

>im smart for being redundant
GAS YOURSELF QUEER

Everyone is born equal. But one second after that, life is what you make of it. So all those niggers complaining about equality are just sore losers.

liberalism at the beginning was alright, but it got infiltrated and now has turned to shit, thats more or less tldr

Yea good point. They didn't even have legal equality back then, so maybe that's the point, a Trojan Horse. Slowly over time, you can use the equality principle to subvert society.

It's not just the US constitution, but western countries have this same value.

Not necessarily. The French had an imperative to spread 'human rights', but ultimately failed as all other nations saw it as stupid.

The US Constitution is NOT a document of human rights, as the US thinks it is. It is the rights of the CITIZEN. The founding fathers are quite clear on this.

>The French had an imperative to spread 'human rights' because they wanted to start a revolution to throw off the 'chains' which they had, in the form of their estates-general.
>as the UN thinks it is

made some mistakes

although plebs think the US constitution is a human rights document these days

I must also mention Marx was inspired by the French Revolution.

a king can embody justice, but without equality the people who make him great may suffer

A king can't embody legal justice if laws don't apply to him.

Both the French Revolution and Marx were Rothschild happenings.

We need to tackle the problem: How do we defeat the equality argument once and for all and promote justice instead?

The law prevents any real agenda from taking place in the country by our government, the media is feeding society but yet here we are. It's really down to what the majority consensus becomes before revelution, I'm more worried that something like that won't happen and people will just be intolerably disgusting while everything else remains completely patronizing outside of society. I mean Jew Kingdom of what? Highest paid screenwriters for autistic goyim who attached a toaster top permanently to their genitals because they related to them more than other people? A dismantled overgrown civilization of hostile reverted mudbloods?

Tip harder faggot.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What pizzabro said.

In the context of the French Revolution, equality meant equality before the law: the abolition of privileges and all that shit.

These days however, SJWs and their lackeys have completely warped the definition of equality: they want us to think fat asses are physically equal to athletes (HAES movement), retards equal to geniuses... You get the idea.

Equality in itself isn't a bad thing. Look at India for example, the caste system has been holding them back for a long time now.

In the same vein, imagine how fucked the Roman Empire (or rather Republic) would have been without the Marian reforms.

>Rothschild
>Before Napoleon

You know that it was the false report to London after the battle of Waterloo that gave the Rothschild's all their money and power?

Anyway, we simply do it by undermining human rights.

French philosophers and revolutionnaries thought about equality before the law, it was never about "forcing equality" (keeping all the people at the same level), that is what came after with Marx and Negles.
Today "equality" meaning has been abused by liberals who push policies liberticide policies, they basically subverted the word, don't reject egality because the left perverted the term.

>Not necessarily. The French had an imperative to spread 'human rights', but ultimately failed as all other nations saw it as stupid.

That's what they teach you in british school ?
Napoléon spread all the ideas of the french revolution everywhere in Europe, colonies and even Middle East, he planted the seed of fair trial, sacred right of property and civil rights with the civil code, we still live in a society who looks up to Enlightment values 300 years after and as far as I know.

>french revolution
>Rotschild

Yeah, I think you should open an history book.

youtube.com/watch?v=84bWaHnAtqM

Yes

>christians don't know their own book
TOP KEK

Muh nigguh. We'll let you know when the time machine is ready.

Agree with everything but the caste system. Only thing holding back Indians are Indians. Equality before the law is JUSTICE. Whenever the word equality is thrown in it gets retarded.

I used to have a soft spot for those less fortunate and still do to a point, but some people are just born subhuman. I see why the Indians felt necessary to have a caste system. It's just genetics, not only culture. I'd like to have a just system where there's upwards mobility through merit for the lower caste Indians, but having them be designated "equal" in any legal form is bad news and a Trojan Horse to be abused in the future.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his sons already had a fortune before Waterloo from doing other shady businesses. Where did you think Nathan got his capital to short then buy the bonds?

If they weren't the leaders, then they were supporters. The French Revolution was an Illuminati operation.

The desire for an egalitarian society is built into European cultures all the way back to prehistory. European folk cultures consisted of tribal groups in which most men treated each other as equals and respected each other's rights. These tribes were defined by kinship, i.e. biological relationships.

What is crippling the west today is not "equality", the desire for an egalitarian social group, it's "universalism", the belief that everyone is basically the same and part of a universal social group. This extends the European ideal of egalitarian kin groups to people Europeans have no kinship with, and who do not share European cultural values. It is universalism which opens European societies to infiltration and disruption by hostile outsiders. The defense against universalism is racism and nationalism. These ideologies recognize broad kin groups which can function with a high degree of egalitarianism, but explicitly reject the idea of universalism which leaves society vulnerable to exploitation by those from outside the kin group.

Open Borders and Same Sex Marriage are direct manifestations of universalist dysfunction. They are based on the assumption that non-nationals and gays are the same as proper members of society and, therefore, should enjoy the same rights. Marxism, Cultural Marxism, and Feminism invoke universalism in a less direct way. They are each driven by Marx's notions of class warfare. They claim specific groups are unjustly oppressed by conventional society. This inspires sympathy for the oppressed group and anger at society for this injustice. That claim of injustice relies, again, on the assumption that the oppressed group is fundamentally the same as the rest of society and, therefore, should be treated equally. Note that in western political rhetoric, appeals for equality are usually accompanied by claims of a fundamental SAMENESS as the justification for equality; that's universalism in action.

deus vult amirite?!

It was. Nature has a well-established inequality and hierarchy of races, genders, people within on race and gender, etc, in everything. If you break this order society will just collapse.
(((They))) use this equality bullshit as a smokescreen for advancing their interests and power and shaping society in their own way so it would be easier to control, beginning from french revolution and to the point where we are today.
What hides behind this equality is dragging people to the lowest common denominator and dominating them, making a majority of people equaly poor, equaly oppressed and equaly brainwashed.

The eternal Anglo strikes again

Universalism? That's sounds like some revisionist bullshit. If Europeans viewed each other as equals, then explain the many Monarchies and feudalism.

If you had said universalism came from Cuckstianity, I might have believed you. Why not pure justice and trying to be as fair as possible? Is that too idealistic even more than equality?

>when you hold your baby or your friend's baby, you realize quite quickly how useless the baby is, and yet its uselessness amplifies your sense of wonder at its beauty

can you explain further

Putin raises a good point that I forgot to mention and nobody else has brought up yet. It's interesting that (((equality))) usually means dragging the top down to the lowest common denominator than raising the bottom to the standards of the top, or even the middle. Also you're right about divide and conquer.

>implying there was not already thousands of peasant revolts during the XVIIIth
>implying the Freemasons or anybody else could control the absolute shitshow that the French Revolution was until Napoléon came to power, who by the way actively fought the Rotschild influence under the Empire

>The desire for an egalitarian society is built into European cultures all the way back to prehistory. European folk cultures consisted of tribal groups in which most men treated each other as equals and respected each other's rights. These tribes were defined by kinship, i.e. biological relationships.
This is every tribe ever.

crusades everyday, brother in Christ :'^)

Napoleon was a Rothschild agent who went rogue after learning the truth. He was just like Hitler.

Think about it, how did some poor lowly corporal become a star overnight? He must have huge, powerful backers behind him.

Peasant revolts might be organic or manufactured. Think BLM. NWO prefers to latch onto an already building movement than create their own, so it was more effective to push the anti-monarchy sentiment and corrupt it for their own purposes.

...

Hmmm. It's like this guy predicted how communism turned out. Thanks hans really made me think.

>The US is not the most leftist country. Yours and Sweden is
no USA is. America was founded on equality and democracy no other country ever was.
It exhibits all the internal conflicts a left leaning country has: race, sex and class warfare, corruption, massive state, ghettoization, militant expansionism, and so forth. Nazi germany was the same just on a smaller scale.
American society is thoroughly absorbed in problems of race, class, sex, civil rights and social justice which is completely unnormal.
Plus your country is the number #1 exporter of liberalism in all forms on this planet and you brought it to europe as well. Your uni campuses are even more batshit crazy than european ones and thought police rules them and other parts of society.
The list goes on endlessly. It doesnt help accusing me of being a jew Jeff. It just wont change all those facts.

Im also baffled how pol still goes on about jews when the history of ww2 - which we should know very well - shows us not a jewish plot, but an English-American hostile takeover of europe. This was required in order to destroy any resistance to the New World Order USA planned to create even then. Europe would have been a competitor to american hegemony therefore it was attacked. And europe represented then and now the old world.

Read & understand history dont just robitically repeat this garbage about jews that way we will not accomplish what we want: to restore the world to the way it was before.

Equality wasn't in the u.s. Constitution. Equal protection for individuals wasn't even in till after the u.s. civil war.

The closest thing to quality the u.s. founding fathers touched on was stating that all men(people) are created equal. That does not mean that they are equal throughout their lives.

Equality might have been a French revolution thing, although France continues to be a much more masculine dominate society the the u.s.. it seems to me equality really took of with communism and socialism.

History is not binary. The jewish interests aligned with the Anglo-American ones. I agree with that part of what you say.

I'm not sure about Americans exporting liberalism. Maybe Hollywood, but why is Europe much worse off than us? Did we outjew you guys?

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of that line is to ensure that there will be no aristocracy and kings in America. It would be the opposite of all men were created equal then they go on to become kings throughout their lives.

They should have been more specific because that line left us vulnerable to all kinds of retardation today.

Justice covers equal protection fine. The word equal should not be used in law for justice.

Yes communism exploited that one line in our declaration to brainwash a lot of young people. Hence, I named equality the Trojan Horse.

>If Europeans viewed each other as equals, then explain the many Monarchies and feudalism.

The monarchism and feudalism of the European history were explicitly based on kin relationships. In fact the word "king" has the same root as the word "kin". Trace back the history of European feudalism and what you find is the formalization of dominance of one tribal/kin group over others. This is why feudalism collapsed into nationalism in the modern era; nationalism simply expanded the kin group which was granted rights under the law.

>If you had said universalism came from Cuckstianity, I might have believed you.
It's the opposite actually, Christianity was the westernization and universalisation of the Judaic Tribal religion.

>Why not pure justice and trying to be as fair as possible? Is that too idealistic even more than equality?

Yes, it's too idealistic. Human psychology doesn't work that way. We are social animals who understand social competition, i.e. competition between groups, the "us vs them" mentality. This is why teams sports are such a popular form of entertainment and why people feel such attachment to "their" team. This is why nationalism and racism worked, as they define a large "team" for people to associate themselves with, but universalism fails, as it denies the existence of competing social groups.

>This is every tribe ever.
No, it really isn't. That's an assumption based in European folk traditions. Many tribal societies follow strict hierarchies and/or invest near absolute power in tribal kings/shamans/elders etc.

You're a retard. The only people who say America was founded on equality are the same dipshits you describe who don't know shit about history. America was dominated and controlled by financial elites from the beginning. LOOK AT THE ANTIFEDERATIST PAPERS YOU STUPID KRAUT. People were bitching about being fucked over before the constitution was ever even signed you moron.

Not to mention Jews DID play a huge role in WW2. Churchill started the whole thing by pressuring Hitler in Poland and we was directly on the pocket of the Jews. The NWO is centered around the banking cartel based in London, CREATED BY ROTHSCHILD.

t. The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley

>Think about it, how did some poor lowly corporal become a star overnight?

Yeah, as I thought you are totally clueless about the subject, you probably just get your "historical" knowledge from conspirationnist sites, simple explanation for simple minds.
Napoléon took more than a decade to reach a significant position of power and he created a deep network among the french leaders years before even becoming a consul.

His journey is extremely similar to Julius Caesar, from his origin (modest nobility) to the context (civil war: revolutionnaries vs royalists/optimates vs populares).

>Peasant revolts might be organic or manufactured. Think BLM. NWO prefers to latch onto an already building movement than create their own, so it was more effective to push the anti-monarchy sentiment and corrupt it for their own purposes.

Peasant revolts happened because the recolts were awful during consecutiv years and the war against England in Europe/ colonies (especially the support to americans) ruined the monarchy which instead of making reforms decided to burry under taxes the peasantry and the bourgeoisie.

By the way you are totally delusionnal if you think, modern propaganda did exist (english basicaly invented it 15 years after and it was only really aimed at the rich), the vast majority of people could not read, the communication on the territory were still spare and the postal service was only really accessible to an elite.
There is no doubt that political forces surfed on the anger of the people but saying that "French Revolution" was a Rotschild plan is plain stupid.

How did he create this network as a broke corporal? That was my question. This is Sup Forums where conspiracies are proven as true before, so you'll have to defend your point since you claim to know historical details.

Why is it stupid? Who said they needed to read? They could have agents to speak to the peasants, or even agent provocateurs to create violence like they do at BLM or Trump protests. Why is it so unbelievable that they were sophisticated 200 years ago?

>I'm not sure about Americans exporting liberalism. Maybe Hollywood, but why is Europe much worse off than us?
we arent worse off but i have come to expect that delusion from americans. We got into the state we are in thanks to our defeat in WW2, Americans imported their model here afterwards.

Hollywood exports liberalism sure but internet and music and gaming as well.
The USA itself is a model the NWO wishes to export around the world, europe first.

>The jewish interests aligned with the Anglo-American ones.
I believe that it is those jews who chose to go to america after ww2, while those who chose to return have no allegiance with this NWO thing outside of protecting their interests as a people (zionism)

America was dominated and controlled by financial elites from the beginning
of course.
That doesnt change the ideological basis of your country does it. Its on paper. It starts with We The People and if that is not a left liberal foundation what is? And those words were used by the very same people - in europe too - who brought the opposite of everything they promised so the control by financial interests ought not surprise you.

> This is why feudalism collapsed into nationalism in the modern era; nationalism simply expanded the kin group which was granted rights under the law.
makes no sense to me this statement. Feudalism did not historically directly collapse into nationalism at all. Nationalism was already at the time of its invention the battlecry of leftist forces btw.

>Not to mention Jews DID play a huge role in WW2. Churchill started the whole thing by pressuring Hitler in Poland and we was directly on the pocket of the Jews.
its a mixed bag. Jews then and now profited from wars and had their hands in this anglo american establishment because of the banking but, the NWO is not directly their making, it is anglo american.

>That doesnt change the ideological basis of your country does it. Its on paper. It starts with We The People and if that is not a left liberal foundation what is?

How can you even say it has a left liberal foundation while at the same time admitting it's been controlled from the beginning by a capitalist financial class? I'm sorry for having been a spas earlier but no, those are not left leaning phrases. They're more left than the traditional monarchies but it's nothing compared to contemporary liberalism or progressivism. The university and SJW setting is not connect with this early liberalism, only by name if there is any connection. The original liberalism was used as an excuse to cut ties with England and start it's own thing under the guise of slave morality rebellion (and even back then Jews were involved with slavery btw.)

>And those words were used by the very same people - in europe too - who brought the opposite of everything they promised so the control by financial interests ought not surprise you.

Hence why the American Revolution was also a fraud. It's not just liberalism or classical liberalism here in the states that's a joke but the entire enlightenment was a fraud.

>its a mixed bag. Jews then and now profited from wars and had their hands in this anglo american establishment because of the banking but, the NWO is not directly their making, it is anglo american.

The Americans only inherited what the British started. It starts with Cecil Rhodes. The nameless organization he started always had deep roots with Jews. He wanted his organization to have the same structure as the Jesuits which was largely influenced by crypto-Jews. The Bavarian Illuminati was also influenced by the Jesuits and they infiltrated parts of freemasonry. It's not that much of a mixed bag. It's Jews and Anglos. Nearly half of the oligarchs in the US are Jews senpai.

>That doesn't make sense. The whole point of that line is to ensure that there will be no aristocracy and kings in America. It would be the opposite of all men were created equal then they go on to become kings throughout their lives.
There is a difference between a person being born a king, and a person becoming kingly through merit. The declaration isn't a legal document, but it was carefully crafted, and if there is a long about being created equal and a line about inalienable rights there is a reason for it.

I.e. you ability to rule or govern should not be determined by birth, further more an individual s right to liberty and justice comes from a creator, not a man.

>They could have agents to speak to the peasants, or even agent provocateurs to create violence like they do at BLM or Trump protests. Why is it so unbelievable that they were sophisticated 200 years ago?

Because:
1) that's a baseless statement
2) there was no centralized forces aside of the church and the aristocracy there, so explain me where an "agent provocateur" could came from and how they are linked to the existing community
3) why would people need an agent provocateur when they already starve and are hammered by taxes ?
4) peasant revolts are as old as the middle-age thanks to feodality, you don't always need a conspiracy to generate a rebellion, oppressing people to the starvation is already enough

>How did he create this network as a broke corporal?

Firstly, Napoléon never was a "corporal", he was an officer who attended a military school, the pseudonym stayed as a mark of affection from his men who considered him as one of them, a leader on the field, close from his soldiers.
Secondly I can't resume you the list of events that happened between 1789 and 1804 because there is simply too much, it is the most agitated paragraph of France with the Hundred Years War but he basically created his network as a military officer during the civil war and the first coalition, he was a protégé of the general Barras that he met during the siege of Toulon for example and then with military successes and political opinion he developped links with his hierarchy and the republicans.

Napoléon was so much more than a general, he was extremly charismatic, helped by a strong grasp on history, philosophy, politics and science, he did not arrive there by accident, he built his career on merit and nothing else, he was a self-made man before the term was invented.