this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
1172 points (98.8% liked)
Bluesky
1592 readers
8 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even your first president knew it would turn out this way and opposed a two party system because of it
You mean the first military commander installed as the President who was known as one of the most corrupt people ever?
Yes, even the most corrupt person ever knew it was a bad idea!
Help me out on this one; search fails to find anything particularly damning, beyond the crimes perpetuated by the US against gestures broadly, which didn't seem to benefit Washington much in particular. Anything he did that was well worse than his peers?
I can find plenty looking up even on Google so I am not sure if you really tried. Your last bit is pretty disingenuous, worse than his peers?
So already we can't judge him for being a slave holder (even though at the time slavery was already known as wrong) and doing things like extracting teeth out of slave's mouths to implant in his.
Other founding fathers are known to have engaged in acts of terrorism. Murder, rape, arson, and bombings were used against their fellow colonists. There was a masterful propaganda campaign where numerous lies were told to deceive colonists.
George Washington went on to lead these people and be a figurehead for the revolutionary war. Being a military commander he was of course responsible for numerous deaths. I find fault in this especially considering many of the battles before the revolution were involving land and other prospects/holdings Washington had. Having a profit motive definitely makes me doubt his actions.
While he was a general he was known for his lavish spending and corruption. So much so that when he became President Congress denied his request for an expense account. Someone even wrote a book about it. His $450k expense account after the war adjusted for inflation would be close to $20 million today. He was also more than half-way to being a billionaire with net worth of close to $600 million adjusted for inflation at his time of death.
The revolutionary war wasn't revolutionary at all. In fact, they ended up with a system eerily similar to the system they left. Wholesale copying the legal system amongst many other similarities. I think this is very damning when you compare modern day white washing and propaganda of their actions. They weren't fighting against corruption, they were the corruption.
They weren't doing it for the common good. They were wealthy individuals who wanted complete control. They created a country born out of violence and lies with a government system designed to embrace their corruption but prevent others from doing the same.
Their concern about corruption was just as much of a projection as we have now with compromised politicians calling it out. I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day and certainly many of the things he and others said at the time weren't necessarily wrong. When you put it in perspective and critically analyze it though you begin to see the bullshit.
I thought corruption meant using power in a dishonest (or at least doing something illegal) way for explicitly personal gain (and not something that was, for example, beneficial to your citizens too. Colonialism can be evil but not corrupt, no?). Similarly for the treatment and holding of slaves; evil but not corrupt.
Your point about the expense account fits, thank you. I'll gently note that if we have the expense book, he didn't lie (?), and that it's a book by a comedian first, historian second. I'll try to look at it more closely.
My bit about his peers was specifically in the context of corruption. I think you've misunderstood me.
Benefitting from an economic boom that enriched many many folks (America went from a backwater to a superpower) is not evidence of corruption, or even particularly suspicious. It should not surprise you that protest leaders often stand the most to lose from the status quo; being self interested is not the same as corruption I think. Sometimes the right thing is also right for you (eg, organizers of mutual aid often need aid, this doesn't make them corrupt).
I also don't think motive is sufficient; if someone implemented a higher minimum wage that is generally not corruption, even if they only do it because their children will personally get a raise. The use of power should also be illegitimate.
If you can't connect the dots that the founding fathers used terrorism for their financial gain then you are perhaps bereft of insight.
Concentration of wealth is one of the huge issues we are facing right now as a culture. We can see this was a problem from the start. A government that was designed to only benefit the wealthy for the wealthy.
I get your are just acting like a bootlicker. My only question is what it tastes like.