Flags of the United States and British East India Company

Posted by Alex on January 23, 2010, 03:37 PM | #

When it’s addressed at all, that the choice of flags happened to be identical to the British East Company, it is explained as being ‘a most remarkable coincidence’...which is sad to say, rather doubtful.

Posted by Gudmund on January 23, 2010, 10:10 PM | #

England, US, France, Russia have all had constitutional/democratic revolutions and all have the tricolor flags now.  Coincidence? 

What’s in a flag?

Posted by Andrew on January 24, 2010, 04:07 AM | #

I would have a different interpretation – primarily for the moment, - Let’s see.
The last I heard , “  G B “ is in debt , or use another terminology ; Looted by egalitarianism to the sum of 65 % of G D P – and that is in debt to the Gross National Product – Government debt- and not enterprise;
And now let’s look at U S A; simple, 12, near on 13 Trillion dollars debt – But that is National- lets add the state’s debt to the equation-; and what do you theorise now to be the correct answer?

So what do you think the flag will look like in a mere few years?
It wil not make any difference ; A colloquial terminology ; We are Fucked.

Utopia was more appealing than reality .

Posted by the Narrator... on January 24, 2010, 06:08 AM | #

The East India Company was, I believe, founded and financed by jews.

It was a global empire modeled on business with a merchant class as its rulers and aristocracy.

In that, it was indeed the forerunner of the United States.

It’s interesting that three things that always join company are jews, anti-monarchy and globalism.

Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy and allowed the jews back into England, even as he was in the process of his bloody conquest of Ireland and Scotland.

Napoleon followed the overthrow of the monarchy and gave the jews citizenship in France, even as he was in the midst of conquering Europe.

Colonists in America (led by the merchant class) overthrew their king and firmly established the nation-as-an-international-corporation  model. Oh, and not surprisingly the jews were given equal status.

Here is an excerpt from a letter George Washington sent to a Hebrew congregation in Newport Rode Island.

“The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy —a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support ... May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

.
.
From the above (and other things I’ve read) I’ve come to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers of America were either the dumbest group of men who ever lived in a single place and time or they were simply the most dishonest.

The following is a letter Karl Marx sent to Abraham Lincoln congratulating him on reelection and reminding him that America is linked to the progress of Marxist ideology,

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm