Us. And them. But our claim is better.
Let me preface this by saying that I love America and actual Americans, and I especially love America’s history. Since I do consider myself an expert on its history (and I have the credentials liberals love that prove it), I figure I should comment on it a bit. Specifically, how that history applies to the present, because to my way of thinking, that’s one of the most important things about history.
Contrary to popular belief, America’s original colonists were not here for freedom. At least, not entirely. The English people had considerable rights already. A great deal of what we have in the Constitution is just a clarified and deliberate reiteration of what had been considered the Rights of Englishmen as laid out in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and a handful of important court cases as well as English tradition. Trial by jury, no taxation without representation, common law, habeas corpus – this was old hat when we wrote it down. We took a lot of it a step further, particularly the representation and religious freedom parts, but even freedom of speech was old school for English-speaking peoples by 1789.
Regarding our original settlers, the first people who came ashore in Virginia were looking for wealth, not freedom. Whether the lost colony of Roanoke or the Jamestown settlement, those Limey bastards were all about the Benjamins – well, not Benjamins, since that shit didn’t exist yet, but they were here to get rich. If you remember, John Smith had to implement a “you don’t work, you don’t eat” rule to get them to stop digging for gold and start sowing fields. They never found gold, but instead got rich by essentially acting as Britain’s drug connection. Tobacco was such a hit in the international market that it was used as currency in Virginia and Maryland, and goods were valued in tobacco. Think about that the next time you hear some bullshit about the War of Drugs. Oh yeah, and they did it with semi-slave labor in the form of convicts and indentured servants, and when that dried up, they switched to outright slave labor. Two-thirds of Britons and 99.99% of black people who came here did so in an unfree status. Thank God it hasn’t led to any problems in modern times.
What about the Pilgrims, or the Puritans? Yeah, they were here for religious freedom. Freedom to worship exactly as they said to, no deviations. Roger Williams had to go found his own colony because he wanted to argue religion with the Anti-Fun League in Massachusetts. Anne Hutchinson was told to get to steppin’ for challenging Massachusetts orthodoxy. She was proto-commie fuck, though, and got what she had coming at the hands of some Indians. During the Revolution, George Washington had to outlaw Pope’s Day (or Guy Fawkes Day) where New England Protestants burned effigies of the pope because his Catholic troops from Maryland (Smallwood’s Militia, who were some of his best troops) threatened to quit. So no, they were not interested in religious freedom in the total sense of it.
If you have not read Albion’s Seed, you should. The author, David Hackett Fischer, points out that America was populated by extremely different strains of Englishmen (and some Germans), who were largely at odds with each other. Specifically, he names the Puritans, the Quakers, the Cavaliers, and the Scots-Irish. They all had competing visions for the country and extremely different visions for its development. That is reflected in the Constitution and its original interpretation as creating a relatively weak central government that was in many ways subordinate to the States. That’s why if you read things from before the Civil War, they usually say “the United States are,” but after the Progressive Era, they often say “the United States is.”
As I pointed out before, the Founders were by and large not overly religious (with some exceptions like Lyman Hall and Reverend John Witherspoon, of course) and many may have wanted a secular state with no Christian identity. So what was our country founded on? Our country was not about equality of outcomes. It was never meant to be a melting pot. It represented a compromise that would enable different groups of people who very often were at odds with one another to band together based on common heritage and interests for mutual protection. It was not necessarily trying anything radically different; it simply created a new government to better provide the traditional rights to a people who traditionally had them. While that is a fantastic goal, like all revolutions, it also contains the seeds of its own destruction.
To have a country founded for the preservation of rights, safeguarding those rights must become a principal concern. For many people, this is not enough. They want more. This is almost certainly the case for people from outside who moved here because the system of laws and customs in America allowed the industrious to get ahead financially. After a while, the Cavalier mindset of profit and the New England desire to dominate people’s private lives “for their own good” became dominant because they inherently seek to expand and dominate while the yeoman farmer attitude popular elsewhere sought only to survive.
The result is quite the national personality disorder. Liberals like to claim they are following in the footsteps of the Founders. To some degree, they are. Neocons like to claim the same. They are right, too, but like the libtards, not completely. What about the rest of us? What about the Scots-Irish in Appalachia? Mid-Atlantic middle-class folk? Irish and German and Polish and Italian-descended people who have for generations spoken English and fought for this country? We have a claim to the Founders, too. We just have to be specific about which ones. The Civil War was largely an internecine struggle between competing Anglo-Saxon interests. The next one will largely be the same, although there is a great deal more being wagered, and the cost of losing, for us at least, is a lot higher.
After the First Civil War, America was still largely Christian and most of Americans’ traditional rights were still intact. I say First Civil War because we are in one right now, albeit in the cooler phase like the one that preceded the First. Our current struggle is about issues that are of even greater importance. Now we are struggling for our very survival. We face demographic replacement, abolished rights, and religion completely subordinate to anti-Christian secularism. We have to stop arguing salon-style bullshit about philosophical differences and reconciliation. The time for that was over in 1965 when our demographic doom machine had its gears set in motion. We need to stop worrying about what George Washington would say about what we’re doing. We need to acknowledge some hard truths. Namely, we need to admit that libtards are our countrymen, but they have betrayed us completely. We need to accept the fact that if we are not bold and drastic in our efforts, we will be overwhelmed and crushed. We need to acknowledge that this is going to end in violence and stop fretting about that. We didn’t start the war, and no matter what they Fake News and its hydra-like affiliates tell us, we have the moral high ground. We have to stop worrying about upsetting people. To steal a line, this is a revolution, dammit. We’re going to have to offend someone.
You might be thinking that you didn’t want this. Well, tough shit. As proto-commie yet sound revolutionary Thomas Paine said, “I prefer peace. But if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” Stand up, knuckle up, buckle up. It’s nigh time for us to assert the supremacy of our claim on America’s heritage.