If You Were Alive in 1776, Which Side Would You Have Taken?
“Taxation without representation” is an old phrase that we learned back in our elementary and high schools, but how many of us stop to think about what this truly means and where we are now? How many modern-day Americans would have supported the patriot cause, as opposed to remaining loyal to the British Crown?
To answer this question, we have to look at both the historical context and the modern political environment, as most Americans would quickly respond that there is no way that they could have supported King George III. Since John Adams seemed to estimate that only about one-third of the American colonists were in favor of secession from the British Empire, it cannot be true that all, or even most, Americans of today would have been rebels. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that most people cringe when they hear the words “secession” or “nullification,” especially in the context of the American Civil War. However, you cannot believe that these two concepts are evil and undemocratic and still believe that you would have desired independence around 1776.
If you believe that the current system is set in stone and that altering it would harm the safety and well-being of the masses, you automatically oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Radically changing the status quo was the main component of what the American Revolution did, so the common slogans of our day, such as “follow the science,” “trust the experts,” “support Ukraine,” or “celebrate pride month,” are clear establishment ideas that stem from propaganda. These mantras would be no different from British-generated propaganda that was meant to push the notion of respect for taxes and the established order that was represented by the king and his officers. The British troops patrolling the streets of Boston and other cities were there to keep people safe and to ensure order, according to the indoctrination of our founding generation.
Speaking of safety and order and soldiers marching in the cities, what about the standing army and police forces that we take for granted every day? We have come to think of the police as necessary for the security of our communities, but is this conducive to a free society? Surely our founders did not envision SWAT teams and DEA agents storming houses looking for drugs (or guns), nor would they have thought of patrol cars on the sides of highways meeting speeding quotas as helpful to our liberties. And certainly, they would not have accepted a federal government that gifts and sells military equipment, like assault rifles, BearCats, and MRAPS, to standing local police departments.
Standing armies were definitely frowned upon by our founders, and to take it even further, spreading the armed forces overseas to dictate to countries abroad what is acceptable behavior, and invading or supporting coups against noncompliant nations, would have been an abomination to our framers, who generally advocated for staying out of entangling alliances and European affairs. Yet, we have been conditioned to accept a constant state of warfare and welfare for the military-industrial complex as necessary for the common good.
We know that our founders were not a big fan of unwarranted searches and seizures, and the surveillance state established in the wake of the 9-11 attacks would have been reason enough for them to spark a revolution. The British troops used to write their own blank search warrants or get them issued from secret courts in London, ensuring that the colonists were adhering to tax policies, counterfeiting and trade regulations, and smuggling standards. Such a thing pales in comparison with what the FBI and NSA do on a regular basis, as the agencies can search your records, spy on you through your laptop, collect your data, and listen to your conversations, all under rubber-stamping FISA court orders (if they even bother getting a warrant at all). Anyone who does not care about this (or thinks that if you have nothing to hide, it is no big deal) or standing armies would have also not worried that the British government was searching people’s homes or dispatching Red Coats to keep order and prevent the conspiracy theorists from causing trouble. After all, security and keeping us safe are the highest priorities of government, right? Well, that is what most modern Americans think, but this is far from the truth. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration, clearly articulated that governments are necessary only to secure our rights, and any overreach of power outside of this was nothing less than tyranny.
Those who believe that those pesky conspiracy theorists are so dangerous that they need to be censored and monitored would have had little concerns about the actions of the monarch. King George III would have dreamed about being able to have a centralized depository of information that can shape the monopolistic narrative established by our politicians, corporate journalists, and experts (like a disinformation governance board or consolidated media that parrots the government’s talking points), but today, we see these as vital to democracy. It is clear that most Americans do not really understand how the United States got started. Secret communications, perhaps like Telegram (and other networks used by those damn January 6th insurrectionists), were key to spreading information across colonies, and circular letters and Committees of Correspondence (most notably by Samuel Adams) were tools to help get the job done. Groups that were opposed to British rule, like the Sons of Liberty, may not have been much different from the hated Proud Boys or Oath Keepers of today. These groups are demonized, and January 6th rioters are held in solitary confinement, while the DHS and FBI are monitoring so-called right-wing domestic terrorists (when they are not planting agents to perform acts of entrapment to help bolster an agenda).
People do not like to think about this, but our founding fathers were labelled as terrorists and traitors. Instead, we show hatred towards those who oppose the narrative. I mean, Bostonians antagonized British regulars and trespassed on East India Company (granted a monopoly by the king) ships and vandalized its product, thus sparking the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party (and the Coercive or Intolerable Acts that followed). The ungrateful rebels protested the security of the Crown and the established order, and they tarred and feathered officials, all over a miniscule tax. Yet, in the present, we complain and try to censor posts that speak negatively about a certain vaccine. Those selfish unscientific hicks who just cannot appreciate the benevolence of the collective community. How dare they make a post on Twitter or Facebook. Such speech is more dangerous than what our founders did.
It is ironic that most Americans hardly complain about paying large portions of their income to the federal government (and state governments on top of that), but yet, the taxes against the colonists were quite small in comparison. Because we live luxurious lives compared to many countries and eras, we gleefully accept our employers withholding money from our paychecks throughout the year, because after all, we get a rebate when the tax season is complete and never really know how much the government steals in the first place. Paying taxes is the price we pay for having all of the “free” stuff we get, like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, an imperialist army, a central bank that plans our economy for us and manipulates our currency, and interstate highways. But, does anyone stop and think about how waste and inefficiencies, corrupt dealings, quantitative easing, and government-corporate partnerships cause us to have to pay more money than we otherwise would?
If we are paying this hefty price to live in this country, are we really represented at the end of the day? Sure, we have districts and send congressmen to Washington, D.C. on our behalf, but how much do our representatives actually care for our interests? I have written to politicians at every level of government, and I have never, once, received a response. Most politicians spend the majority of their time campaigning and receiving corporate donations (used for favors later on), and they hardly ever read the thousands of pages of unrelated items that are wrapped into bills headed to the president’s desk. Why read the bill, when we can pass it and see what is in it later, right Congresswoman Pelosi?
Once the bill is passed, we let the excessive bureaucratic departments piece together the details and interpret it in a manner of their choosing, at the direction of the president. So, wait a minute. If the individual departments and administrative components of the executive branch get to manipulate the wording to create their own policies, is this not legislating without Congress (or maybe it is Congress unconstitutionally delegating legislative powers to the executive branch, but does it really matter?)? So, are we the people really represented when the executive branch, which is unelected (besides the president), is actually the one determining policy? Both parties utilize this nonsense to get their agenda items passed without much scrutiny, but if an oligarch of unelected elites are deciding on policies that affect all of us, is this much different than living under a monarchy and a parliament that did not represent the American colonies?
As a side note, my congressional district (New York’s 19th district) is currently vacant, and the House of Representatives is busy jamming new gun control measures, as well as other bills, into law without my consent (literal legislation without representation, but do not expect the so-called progressives, who claim to advocate for democracy, to care). Our current system is an elite club that dictates to us how to live, and if you brush this off as just part of liberal democracy in the twenty-first century, you would not have been too sympathetic to the selfish radicals who rebelled against the tyranny of the British system either (the technology and power of the federal government in the present is far worse than anything that our founders faced back then).
Speaking of selfish radicals who bucked the system over minor inconveniences (like having to pay a tiny tax), what about emergency orders, like those during COVID-19 (and now climate change, gas and food shortages, and gun violence)? Just wear that mask and stick a needle up your arm. It is your patriotic duty to serve your king, I mean, stop the spread. During this time, governors, who were not elected to unilaterally handle a health crisis, nor did they have the authority to act as dictators and become sole arbiters of legislation, locked down their citizens, prohibited them from free association (at bars, restaurants, and small businesses), violated their right to practice their religion, fired employees for making a choice over their bodies, and set up identification systems that would deny access to services if an action that they desired was not taken. Bodily autonomy and liberty were destroyed (this is ironic and hypocritical, given the cries about abortion by the same crowd that wanted to force people to wear masks or get the vaccine). The so-called supporters of democracy had no issue utilizing the executive branch to push their public health agenda and keeping the mandates and orders flowing without the legislature.
If you were in the camp that said that people needed to sacrifice liberty for the collective “good” and adhere to public health guidelines without question, I am sorry to say this, but you would have been a Tory. Again, our founding fathers were radicals who fought for their rights as British citizens, and they rebelled when those rights were being violated. By today’s standards, our founders would have been what we now call right-wing conspiracy theorists and spreaders of disinformation (against the king and taxes). A tax against tea was a minor thing (especially because the other taxes had been repealed, and the legal tea eventually became cheaper than smuggled tea), but to those who wished for their rights to be honored and representation to be practiced, it was a huge deal and a matter of principle. While the modern-day loyalists to the Crown cry that wearing a mask is such a small gesture of appreciation for the established order and collective good and that spreading disinformation about forced jabs is an act of terrorism, patriots are those who fight for retaining whatever rights are left under our technocratic-fascist-corporatist state.
Happy Fourth of July and Independence Day! Stay strong and do not let the authoritarians bring you down or prevent you from keeping your eye on the goal of eventual freedom.
To answer this question, we have to look at both the historical context and the modern political environment, as most Americans would quickly respond that there is no way that they could have supported King George III. Since John Adams seemed to estimate that only about one-third of the American colonists were in favor of secession from the British Empire, it cannot be true that all, or even most, Americans of today would have been rebels. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that most people cringe when they hear the words “secession” or “nullification,” especially in the context of the American Civil War. However, you cannot believe that these two concepts are evil and undemocratic and still believe that you would have desired independence around 1776.
If you believe that the current system is set in stone and that altering it would harm the safety and well-being of the masses, you automatically oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Radically changing the status quo was the main component of what the American Revolution did, so the common slogans of our day, such as “follow the science,” “trust the experts,” “support Ukraine,” or “celebrate pride month,” are clear establishment ideas that stem from propaganda. These mantras would be no different from British-generated propaganda that was meant to push the notion of respect for taxes and the established order that was represented by the king and his officers. The British troops patrolling the streets of Boston and other cities were there to keep people safe and to ensure order, according to the indoctrination of our founding generation.
Speaking of safety and order and soldiers marching in the cities, what about the standing army and police forces that we take for granted every day? We have come to think of the police as necessary for the security of our communities, but is this conducive to a free society? Surely our founders did not envision SWAT teams and DEA agents storming houses looking for drugs (or guns), nor would they have thought of patrol cars on the sides of highways meeting speeding quotas as helpful to our liberties. And certainly, they would not have accepted a federal government that gifts and sells military equipment, like assault rifles, BearCats, and MRAPS, to standing local police departments.
Standing armies were definitely frowned upon by our founders, and to take it even further, spreading the armed forces overseas to dictate to countries abroad what is acceptable behavior, and invading or supporting coups against noncompliant nations, would have been an abomination to our framers, who generally advocated for staying out of entangling alliances and European affairs. Yet, we have been conditioned to accept a constant state of warfare and welfare for the military-industrial complex as necessary for the common good.
We know that our founders were not a big fan of unwarranted searches and seizures, and the surveillance state established in the wake of the 9-11 attacks would have been reason enough for them to spark a revolution. The British troops used to write their own blank search warrants or get them issued from secret courts in London, ensuring that the colonists were adhering to tax policies, counterfeiting and trade regulations, and smuggling standards. Such a thing pales in comparison with what the FBI and NSA do on a regular basis, as the agencies can search your records, spy on you through your laptop, collect your data, and listen to your conversations, all under rubber-stamping FISA court orders (if they even bother getting a warrant at all). Anyone who does not care about this (or thinks that if you have nothing to hide, it is no big deal) or standing armies would have also not worried that the British government was searching people’s homes or dispatching Red Coats to keep order and prevent the conspiracy theorists from causing trouble. After all, security and keeping us safe are the highest priorities of government, right? Well, that is what most modern Americans think, but this is far from the truth. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration, clearly articulated that governments are necessary only to secure our rights, and any overreach of power outside of this was nothing less than tyranny.
Those who believe that those pesky conspiracy theorists are so dangerous that they need to be censored and monitored would have had little concerns about the actions of the monarch. King George III would have dreamed about being able to have a centralized depository of information that can shape the monopolistic narrative established by our politicians, corporate journalists, and experts (like a disinformation governance board or consolidated media that parrots the government’s talking points), but today, we see these as vital to democracy. It is clear that most Americans do not really understand how the United States got started. Secret communications, perhaps like Telegram (and other networks used by those damn January 6th insurrectionists), were key to spreading information across colonies, and circular letters and Committees of Correspondence (most notably by Samuel Adams) were tools to help get the job done. Groups that were opposed to British rule, like the Sons of Liberty, may not have been much different from the hated Proud Boys or Oath Keepers of today. These groups are demonized, and January 6th rioters are held in solitary confinement, while the DHS and FBI are monitoring so-called right-wing domestic terrorists (when they are not planting agents to perform acts of entrapment to help bolster an agenda).
People do not like to think about this, but our founding fathers were labelled as terrorists and traitors. Instead, we show hatred towards those who oppose the narrative. I mean, Bostonians antagonized British regulars and trespassed on East India Company (granted a monopoly by the king) ships and vandalized its product, thus sparking the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party (and the Coercive or Intolerable Acts that followed). The ungrateful rebels protested the security of the Crown and the established order, and they tarred and feathered officials, all over a miniscule tax. Yet, in the present, we complain and try to censor posts that speak negatively about a certain vaccine. Those selfish unscientific hicks who just cannot appreciate the benevolence of the collective community. How dare they make a post on Twitter or Facebook. Such speech is more dangerous than what our founders did.
It is ironic that most Americans hardly complain about paying large portions of their income to the federal government (and state governments on top of that), but yet, the taxes against the colonists were quite small in comparison. Because we live luxurious lives compared to many countries and eras, we gleefully accept our employers withholding money from our paychecks throughout the year, because after all, we get a rebate when the tax season is complete and never really know how much the government steals in the first place. Paying taxes is the price we pay for having all of the “free” stuff we get, like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, an imperialist army, a central bank that plans our economy for us and manipulates our currency, and interstate highways. But, does anyone stop and think about how waste and inefficiencies, corrupt dealings, quantitative easing, and government-corporate partnerships cause us to have to pay more money than we otherwise would?
If we are paying this hefty price to live in this country, are we really represented at the end of the day? Sure, we have districts and send congressmen to Washington, D.C. on our behalf, but how much do our representatives actually care for our interests? I have written to politicians at every level of government, and I have never, once, received a response. Most politicians spend the majority of their time campaigning and receiving corporate donations (used for favors later on), and they hardly ever read the thousands of pages of unrelated items that are wrapped into bills headed to the president’s desk. Why read the bill, when we can pass it and see what is in it later, right Congresswoman Pelosi?
Once the bill is passed, we let the excessive bureaucratic departments piece together the details and interpret it in a manner of their choosing, at the direction of the president. So, wait a minute. If the individual departments and administrative components of the executive branch get to manipulate the wording to create their own policies, is this not legislating without Congress (or maybe it is Congress unconstitutionally delegating legislative powers to the executive branch, but does it really matter?)? So, are we the people really represented when the executive branch, which is unelected (besides the president), is actually the one determining policy? Both parties utilize this nonsense to get their agenda items passed without much scrutiny, but if an oligarch of unelected elites are deciding on policies that affect all of us, is this much different than living under a monarchy and a parliament that did not represent the American colonies?
As a side note, my congressional district (New York’s 19th district) is currently vacant, and the House of Representatives is busy jamming new gun control measures, as well as other bills, into law without my consent (literal legislation without representation, but do not expect the so-called progressives, who claim to advocate for democracy, to care). Our current system is an elite club that dictates to us how to live, and if you brush this off as just part of liberal democracy in the twenty-first century, you would not have been too sympathetic to the selfish radicals who rebelled against the tyranny of the British system either (the technology and power of the federal government in the present is far worse than anything that our founders faced back then).
Speaking of selfish radicals who bucked the system over minor inconveniences (like having to pay a tiny tax), what about emergency orders, like those during COVID-19 (and now climate change, gas and food shortages, and gun violence)? Just wear that mask and stick a needle up your arm. It is your patriotic duty to serve your king, I mean, stop the spread. During this time, governors, who were not elected to unilaterally handle a health crisis, nor did they have the authority to act as dictators and become sole arbiters of legislation, locked down their citizens, prohibited them from free association (at bars, restaurants, and small businesses), violated their right to practice their religion, fired employees for making a choice over their bodies, and set up identification systems that would deny access to services if an action that they desired was not taken. Bodily autonomy and liberty were destroyed (this is ironic and hypocritical, given the cries about abortion by the same crowd that wanted to force people to wear masks or get the vaccine). The so-called supporters of democracy had no issue utilizing the executive branch to push their public health agenda and keeping the mandates and orders flowing without the legislature.
If you were in the camp that said that people needed to sacrifice liberty for the collective “good” and adhere to public health guidelines without question, I am sorry to say this, but you would have been a Tory. Again, our founding fathers were radicals who fought for their rights as British citizens, and they rebelled when those rights were being violated. By today’s standards, our founders would have been what we now call right-wing conspiracy theorists and spreaders of disinformation (against the king and taxes). A tax against tea was a minor thing (especially because the other taxes had been repealed, and the legal tea eventually became cheaper than smuggled tea), but to those who wished for their rights to be honored and representation to be practiced, it was a huge deal and a matter of principle. While the modern-day loyalists to the Crown cry that wearing a mask is such a small gesture of appreciation for the established order and collective good and that spreading disinformation about forced jabs is an act of terrorism, patriots are those who fight for retaining whatever rights are left under our technocratic-fascist-corporatist state.
Happy Fourth of July and Independence Day! Stay strong and do not let the authoritarians bring you down or prevent you from keeping your eye on the goal of eventual freedom.
No comments have been added yet.
