Or is the variable of the government's use of force the difference?
Maybe they felt there was some sanctuary being physically distant from the monarchy, and it gave them the confidence to make a stand?
Comments (20)
sorted by:
Or is the variable of the government's use of force the difference?
Maybe they felt there was some sanctuary being physically distant from the monarchy, and it gave them the confidence to make a stand?
I think my purpose is to brainstorm on how to rediscover that dynamic. Consider, if the American "idea" originated in England, and there was no "new world" across the Atlantic, could the movement have succeeded if the monarchy was right on top of them? Crazy as it may seem, I think that's the situation now. . . crazy, because we represent those who want to uphold Constitutional law and national sovereignty. It's like all the elements and roles are inverted.
Consider, to me the Globalist Tyranny is equivalent to King George and the bozo' Americans who support it are equivalent to the Colonial Loyalists who fought for King George.
The US is equivalent to the Colonies who forge their own path. The Crown wasn't right on top of the Colonies until late 1760's-70's. The prior 100 years we forged our own way as British Subjects, pretty much left alone except for Commerce taxation by the Crown.
But the geographical dynamic is different, and I think it was a major part of the success of the AR. We don't have that advantage today. And not only that, but we are a socially dysfunctional people now as well.
I was born with that dynamic.