You really need to study the rhetoric and propaganda of the US revolution. I think you may be heavily romanticising a business plot to take over the colonies. It wasn’t even really a revolutionary revolution considering they pretty much adopted the systems of England wholesale. The rhetoric of the revolution was very different than the reality of the Sons of Liberty’s campaign of terror, death, and destruction.
You know your rhetoric isn’t the best when you have to force it with violence. A portion of the wealthy caste of the US made a successful power grab in the end. In order to get there they had to murder, torture their fellow man, and lie about what happened as seen in the numerous amounts of propaganda distorting the facts of the revolution.
The colonies were already well into their genocidal attacks on the Native Americans by this time. Even the best way to look at it, that they advanced the rights of wealthy white men, is pretty hollow when it was at the cost of everyone and everything else. The first President of the US was well on the way to becoming the first billionaire adjusted for inflation. The rot was always there.
Yeah I don’t think we’re going to make too much more progress in this conversation since I can see that we disagree on too many baselines. Namely violence but also how much weight you put on the term revolution. For violence I’ll just say I would happily purge and resettle Utah and large chunks of the south so as you may guess I don’t much care about murder, terror, and torture so long as I agree with the end goal. Also I put basically no weight on the term revolution, revolution is just revolt with some extra letters a monarchist revolt against a republic is still a revolution if successful.
It is okay, you have constructed an elaborate fantasy around what happened during the American revolution. This is very common and a belief I once held decades ago.
The reality is violence is the problem and not the solution. It is a profound weakness as demonstrated by the current administration. When you can’t get what you want diplomatically, you become belligerent and violent just like the founding fathers.
We, of course, reap what what we sow and their is no doubt the violence that started the US has carried on throughout its history destroying countless people in its wake. The fact that you can rationalize this is more along the lines of something like Stockholm Syndrome in my opinion. Or perhaps you could just be a violent monster, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A real revolutionary revolution can be seen in Haiti. This is a real example of the people rising up instead of just another wealthy power grab as seen in the American and French revolution. Of course it didn’t turn out so great, but you could argue this had more to do with the international community shunning them than their intent to cast off their oppressors.
Y’know maybe you’d be more convincing if you weren’t being condescending. At no point have I been a particularly ass in this conversation at least by my baseline standard. I’m firmly done with this conversation.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, I have absolutely nothing to gain. You were the one who advocated for violence as long as you get your goal accomplished. This is totally in-line with how the wealthy elites operate. I get it.
It is a very “my rhetoric will magically rise from the ashes” standpoint which is also quite common. If you feel that you are being judged by what you have said it is not me judging. I completely understand. Sorry if this conversation made you feel uncomfortable. Cheers!
You really need to study the rhetoric and propaganda of the US revolution. I think you may be heavily romanticising a business plot to take over the colonies. It wasn’t even really a revolutionary revolution considering they pretty much adopted the systems of England wholesale. The rhetoric of the revolution was very different than the reality of the Sons of Liberty’s campaign of terror, death, and destruction.
You know your rhetoric isn’t the best when you have to force it with violence. A portion of the wealthy caste of the US made a successful power grab in the end. In order to get there they had to murder, torture their fellow man, and lie about what happened as seen in the numerous amounts of propaganda distorting the facts of the revolution.
The colonies were already well into their genocidal attacks on the Native Americans by this time. Even the best way to look at it, that they advanced the rights of wealthy white men, is pretty hollow when it was at the cost of everyone and everything else. The first President of the US was well on the way to becoming the first billionaire adjusted for inflation. The rot was always there.
Yeah I don’t think we’re going to make too much more progress in this conversation since I can see that we disagree on too many baselines. Namely violence but also how much weight you put on the term revolution. For violence I’ll just say I would happily purge and resettle Utah and large chunks of the south so as you may guess I don’t much care about murder, terror, and torture so long as I agree with the end goal. Also I put basically no weight on the term revolution, revolution is just revolt with some extra letters a monarchist revolt against a republic is still a revolution if successful.
It is okay, you have constructed an elaborate fantasy around what happened during the American revolution. This is very common and a belief I once held decades ago.
The reality is violence is the problem and not the solution. It is a profound weakness as demonstrated by the current administration. When you can’t get what you want diplomatically, you become belligerent and violent just like the founding fathers.
We, of course, reap what what we sow and their is no doubt the violence that started the US has carried on throughout its history destroying countless people in its wake. The fact that you can rationalize this is more along the lines of something like Stockholm Syndrome in my opinion. Or perhaps you could just be a violent monster, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A real revolutionary revolution can be seen in Haiti. This is a real example of the people rising up instead of just another wealthy power grab as seen in the American and French revolution. Of course it didn’t turn out so great, but you could argue this had more to do with the international community shunning them than their intent to cast off their oppressors.
Y’know maybe you’d be more convincing if you weren’t being condescending. At no point have I been a particularly ass in this conversation at least by my baseline standard. I’m firmly done with this conversation.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, I have absolutely nothing to gain. You were the one who advocated for violence as long as you get your goal accomplished. This is totally in-line with how the wealthy elites operate. I get it.
It is a very “my rhetoric will magically rise from the ashes” standpoint which is also quite common. If you feel that you are being judged by what you have said it is not me judging. I completely understand. Sorry if this conversation made you feel uncomfortable. Cheers!