>A proclamation by King George III. "Many of Our subjects, misled by a desperate conspiracy of dangerous and ill-designing men, have forgotten the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them, and have declared rebellion and traitorously levied war against Us. It is the better part of wisdom to put a speedy end to such disorders. We have thought fit to issue Our royal proclamation that all our royal officers, both civil and military, are obliged to suppress such rebellion and bring the traitors to justice. When the unhappy and deluded multitude against whom this force shall be directed shall become sensible of their error, I shall be ready to receive the misled with tenderness and mercy. For those who persist in their treason…For those who persist in their treason, the punishment shall be death by hanging. Given in Parliament this 26th day of October in the year 1775.” God save the King.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
tl;dr
Death to America
>goes mad
Based. America was a mistake
No, letting the Black's into america was a mistake
The entire project was doomed from the start. It's pretty clear at this point that colonization was a mistake. If it wasn't Black folk, it would be beaners or feather Black folk. White men had an entire continent to themselves and we just HAD to leave it for some reason. Why?
Last chance was for Lincoln to ship them all back, but even fighting a civil war over that shit was stupid in the first place.
Salty yuropoors
America was built on slavery.
This, but unironically. The failure of Kings to live up to their sacred duty is one thing: believing that we should give control of who we elect to political power to the ignoranr masses is anotheer. I recognize no system is perfect, and thatbthey often end up becoming the "same old game" under different rules, but give me a Monarchist-Republic centered in God anynday of the week over a Democracy.
America isn't a democracy, we're a Republic founded on the basis of the ancient Republic of Rome. In truth, we are The Third Rome, and there shan't be another.
In name only. We haven't been a true Republic since the civil war. The south was trying to uphold the true Republic ideal, and with their loss, we lost The Republic. To deny this is to deny history, and is cope/delusion.
Just blame the israelites you homosexual
>just be anti-semitic!
Nah, I like having a function, adult brain.
It all boiled down to money. There was no way Britain would keep making profits from the colonies once they found out they no longer needed the Brits
why did we write and talk so much more elegantly in the 1700s compared to now?
Probably cause most of the people whose words have survived were educated on Greek and Latin classics and also, being aristocrats, had relatively little reason to use the common people's speech to appeal to the masses in a populist way.
We studied Latin and Greek, from which most of current English is derived. Understanding the basis and foundation of language allows one to speak with greater perspicuity, clarity, and force of sentiment.
>Understanding the basis and foundation of language allows one to speak with greater perspicuity, clarity, and force of sentiment.
How do I do this? Where to even start?
Don’t listen to that guy first of all, not only are Latin and Greek NOT foundational to English, studying them was not why people were more expressive back then.
just go read any random magazine article from the 70s or early 80s if you really want to feel depressed. We really had to dumb everything down to accommodate how stupid mexicans and their children genetically are.
IQ has been measurably dropping since the 1850s, based on reaction time tests
A piece of legislation or a SCOTUS ruling from 2023 is more likely to have its language recorded and preserved hundreds of years from now than a random Cinemaphile shitpost or a facebook status from a literal who
Daily reminder that America won both world wars and saved europoors twice.
>America won both world wars
No
WW1: Germany already dying due to Britain's blockade by the time US soldiers reach Europe
WW2: Britain wins the Battle of Britain singlehandedly, prompting the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union. The RAF destroys the Luftwaffe and the Red Army destroys the Heer. America nukes Japan for a quick victory out of fear of invading Japan.
Keep telling yourself that Nigel.
It's basic historical fact. America turned up late both times. Do you seriously not know this?
The only reason America joined WW1 was so that the British and French could pay them back. The blockade worked, which included American shipping. After years of war the US realised after loaning so much money to the British and French if they lost .... all that money was gone.
There was no other reason why America joined WW1 and since WW1 america has been dominated by bankers
Two words for you buddy: lend lease. No America means the USSR loses which means that the Nazis are able to focus on Britain. Now say thank you.
This. We wouldn't want foreigners invading and ruling England would we?
>No America means the USSR loses
>Now say thank you.
Th-Thanks America
>No America means the USSR loses which means that the Nazis are able to focus on Britain.
The Nazis couldn't beat Britain one on one
The Nazis weren't going to beat Britain, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all at once, while trying to occupy Europe
The Battle of Britain was their chance and they blew it
After losing the Battle of Britain, the RAF or the Red Army would inevitably have ended the Third Reich
America joined world war two because Britain had already won the Battle of Britain
Two words: Bomber Harris
We didn't win shit. We helped the cultural marxists win. And lost by doing so. Propping up the USSR was our greatest sin, and the end of the of the USA.
*sips tea*
They aren’t ready to talk about that yet. They’re still a bit upset we save them so much.
Yes please stop. We can't take any more liberating.
If that's a real quote then I can see why the mandate of heaven passed to the Americans, all of their writing parallel to this proclamation was fricking amazing by comparison. Brits lost it. And not a century had passed since the Pricipia Mathematica, what happened?
>of their writing parallel to this proclamation was fricking amazing by comparison. Brits lost it
What? This proclamation was perfectly written. The "Founding Fathers" and other Americans couldn't stop writing in agonisingly stretched sentences, verbose as frick
No mandate of heaven passed to America, France and Spain won their independence for them and then Europe sold most of America's land to it and massively traded with it instead of seriously trying to destroy it
Even now China's doing as well against America as America was in comparison to the British Empire before WW1, so funny choice of wording, mandate of heaven
I know you think this is an own but like it or not USA was barely 30 years old during that war and you know what? Our 150 year old empire established itself firmly as the most powerful nation on Earth meanwhile neither the English nor French have been able to rival that global dominance. Partly because they didn't have nuclear subs, yes, but partly because they aren't American.
>But China
Has a looming population bomb that will scuttle their 2050 plans, gg no re (literally). All that to say that the founding fathers outsmarted the English bigly in what is essentially another L in the Second English Civil War
>Has a looming population bomb that will scuttle their 2050 plans, gg no re (literally).
I remember reading a book set during the 1800's and an American tells the Brit "One day we'll rule the waves!" And the Brit tells him by that time Britain will rule the skys.
People like to be so sure but its impossible to tell what the future holds.
The population bomb is a mathematic fact that will impact pretty much all industrial nations, it's just that China is set to subtract something insane like 500-700 million from its population where other countries will lose high amounts but nothing that drastic. It's just what happens when people forget you need to have two good kids JUST to maintain, and 3+ good kids to grow. Spent too long in the negative.
>Our 150 year old empire established itself firmly as the most powerful nation on Earth meanwhile neither the English nor French have been able to rival that global dominance.
At the height of the British Empire no nation could destroy Britain in any conceivable way
At the height of US power (today or sometime in the recent past) any dictator in a shithole like North Korea could destroy the USA by pressing a few buttons
Do you actually believe that?
>any dictator in a shithole like North Korea could destroy the USA by pressing a few buttons
Even if the US did nothing to intercept the missiles (from everything to MAD to conventional deterrents in the region to some kind of sci-fi chaff or hypersonic interceptor) and the missiles impacted all the targets they pleased they 1, don't have enough to blow the country up in a way that can't be fixed and 2, forgor about our COG and decentralized global military network. And again, that's assuming the things go off perfectly, which they won't.
>Has a looming population bomb that will scuttle their 2050 plans
So essentially, China is fricked because their population will go from 1.3 billion or whatever to only a billion. America on the other hand, can circumvent this by continuing to import 80 IQ brown people.
You realise China is still going to have a smarter, more homogenous and larger population size right?
No. China will be a nation of Personal Support workers outnumbered by their ancient charges.
As opposed to America that has the same situation but with young brown charges.
At least the demographic burden of too may old people eventually ends.
>As opposed to America that has the same situation but with young brown charges.
America doesn't have the same situation because it never implemented a horrible, short-sighted one child policy. No other country on Earth did. Many countries are dealing with issues of aging populations, but no other country will be affected by it like China.
>it never implemented a horrible, short-sighted one child policy
America never explicitly did that, but it did intentionally choose economic policies that it's very aware lowers birth rates. It's functinally the same thing as evidenced by the fact that America has the same demographic crisis.
America does infact have too many old people and not enough young people capable of taking up the slack
What policy did USA intentionally inflict to mimic a one child policy? From all the writing on the topic, it was basically an unforseen consequence of basically, becoming too rich. I know the typical answer is "life is too expensive" but poor people breed the most, rich people the least, and comparatively speaking American poor are globally some of the richest people there are. It's a "killed with kindness" scenario where we just got too rich and comfy. China on the other hand will suffer the fate of industrialization along with the triple combo meal of Maoist policy and probably another attempt at collectivizing in the coming decades once some uppity mid-tier party member sees an opportunity to advance himself.
>From all the writing on the topic, it was basically an unforseen consequence of basically, becoming too rich
Really? It's vee studied since pe WW1 and I've never encountered something like that. Can you point me in the direction of what you're talking about?
And Israel managed to increase to above replacement. It's not like being rich prevents it. You basically just need to delay careers for women until 35 and take measures against precarity for young people in rural areas
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/
There are lots of sources but just trawl YouTube searching for "population bomb" or "population crisis" or something similar and look for someone who has credentials and has already read all the relevant papers and done the math. There's a documentary that is about to have it's second part come out, something like "quiet world" or "birth gap" that was pretty succinct as well. The tldr is that economic freedom allows for lifestyle choices that just kill fertility with a near 100% hit rate, and even kills immigrants with traditionally high birth rates within one generation.
I think they were looking for the "unforseen" part. I am too. It was a hot topic on the 1850sto 1910s so I don't see how "unforseen" could be possible to claim
People predicted a population drop off as a result of the industrial revolution, despite birth rates jumping as a result of the industrial revolution and continuing on to climb and produced a generation literally called, "the baby boomers?" Are you sure you're not thinking of that guy, I forget his name, who predicted like carrying capacity juxtaposed to resources and said that was the bottle neck? I know people predicted resource issues leading to depop but I've never seen people predict comfiness would kill us. I think the unforseen part really is just that nobody predicted that making life better meant people would no longer make life.
>Yes we know that and we know there are policies that effect it.
Right except the policies that effect it are quality of life policies, that IMPROVE people's everything. Education, healthcare, wages, standard of living; all of that went UP and fertility went DOWN. You're telling me a juncto of anti natalists accurately predicted an inverse relationship between quality of life and fertility and then labored to move heaven and earth to make people so comfortable that they would stop breeding, with the logical conclusion ultimately being the inability to maintain the machine that made them comfy to begin with, which would likely result in another population boom once we're forced to return to a relatively local agrarian society?
Israel solved it. You can have both.
How did they solve it and how would you apply those techniques to other countries?
>Are you sure you're not thinking of that guy, I forget his name, who predicted like carrying capacity juxtaposed to resources and said that was the bottle neck?
Malthus? No, I wasn't thinking of him. He died in 1834. I was speaking of the generaton after him, although he did get the topic into popular discourse
I think he had a point regarding resources and while we're certainly not post-scarcity I think we've shown that a post-scarcity society won't last more than a couple generations for simple lack of will to live and repopulate. Evidence being that we've got plenty of resources now, and no babies to show for it.
What policies lead to a 3.0 fertility rate then? Because it isn't as if we haven't tried. Many countries even had superliminal "go have babies" campaigns.
>What policies lead to a 3.0 fertility rate then
Israeli ones. It mostly focuses on not economically crushing young people with student loans and impossible mortgage down payements. Sponsoring IFV treatments is a meme in terms of impact but I don't see the harm in it. Every bit counts.
It objectively is working right now and you can read any Israeli news about it. All you need is policy and incentives
>You're telling me
I'm telling you it's a solved problem not being addressed, and therefore a matter of policy.
>The tldr is that economic freedom allows for lifestyle choices that just kill fertility with a near 100% hit rate, and even kills immigrants with traditionally high birth rates within one generation.
Yes we know that and we know there are policies that effect it. It's a solved problem if there's any political will to do so.
It's LIHOP policy.
All China's one-child policy did was accelerate the process so that they're now in the same position Japan was over a decade ago.
>invade canada to stop Indians invading from the midwest
Is anyone else confused by this
>agonisingly stretched sentences, verbose as frick
That's just how, in those days, amongst those men granted such powers as to articulate such proclamations, between honorable members of prominent and righteous governments, did so frequently and confidently, within the authorities thus defined and responsibilities thus accepted between and among the parties in question, write, dictate, and engage in drafting and modification of contracts and treaties, with the objectives of achieving absolute clarity in language, as pertains to the multitudinous and variegated objectives and desires of those parties thus plainly involved, with the object of dispelling all possible confusion and providing, as much as was within their power and mandates, ample detail and particularity in the wording of such sentences, such that upon future review, by any such appropriately empowered official of legal, governmental, or judicial authority, that figure of such authority, may, upon perusing the great documents, come to a proper and correct conclusion, as pertains to the purposes of the writings and determinations themselves, how such treatises are to be carried out in respect to such purposes, when confronted with any such question, regardless of complexity or specificity, regarding the implementation, enforcement, original rationale, future amendment, confirmation, repudiation, or termination, relating to such documents and thereby, through this textual investigation, ensure for all peoples, heretofore, a great and prosperous peace through ensuring that the writ of law, is justly upheld.
This is too wordy and contrived, not an accurate representation of how they drafted and published political documents of legal ordinance in the 18th and 19th century.
Based. I read the whole thing. I hope you wrote it, otherwise your mother will die in her sleep tonight.
I do here declare this AHEHAH John Adams thread to order!
FRICK BRITAIN!
FRICK FRANCE!
FRICK JEFFERSON!
FRICK HAMILTON!
FRICK FRANKLIN!
FRICK VIRGINIA!
FRICK GEORGIA!
FRICK NEW YORK!
FRICK BANKERS!
The US revolution was a crime
It was a rebellion led by masonic slave-owners against their ethnic homeland, with foreign support, over taxes
one digit shy of killing the United States
As for me; Give me Liberty, or give me death!
>In respectful response to His Majesty and Parliament; on behalf of The United States of America, I do post and proclaim the following as their envoy and ambassador:
>No, u.
Funny thing is George had nothing to do with any of that shit. He was basically a figurehead. By that time parliament ruled the country.
This. No UK monarchs have had any significant power since the English Civil War in like 1660. Ameritards just want to pretend the revolution was a good vs evil story of underdog farmers vs tyrannical king. Reality is that it was actually a bunch of aristocrats who didn't want to pay taxes vs a democratically elected parliament.
The parliament was not elected by those it represented in America
Monarchy is cringe but liberal democracy is pure evil
It was rejected by Americans because they said that the travel time would make them worthless
>a democratically elected parliament
The response of parliament to the American demand for representation was unironically "Less than 5% of our male population is allowed to vote but Parliament still looks out for everyone else anyways. Why should you get special treatment?"
Pretty valid response. Considering Americans who weren't white male property owners couldn't vote after the revolution anyway
The normal American of the time was a white, male property owner. It wasn't like how it is today where boomers make it impossible for average people to buy houses.
Estimates say that only around 20% of americans met the criteria to vote after the revolution. Considering the low population of the colonies at the time, that's very few people.
>Estimates say that only around 20% of americans met the criteria to vote after the revolution.
that is a good thing actually
only people who has shit to lose should be able to vote
poor scum and women just vote for gibs and destroy the country
No they weren't. The average American were the landless poor who got ripped of on pay for fighting for it in the first place.
>Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.
>And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
He's literally shitposting about purity spirals in the full context. He's making fun of people who say shit like Swedes aren't White enough
why is he in the black lodge
Is this from the John Adams miniseries?
Yes.
The first two episodes of this show are kino, after that it's utter shit.
From what I understand England was already in the grips of the Rothschild banksters at this time, who had essentially taken over the nation. Breaking away from them was a good thing. But the foundations were heavily masonic. It seems scheming men were mixed up with good men pursuing their own interests. One things for sure, it's always the bankers that are behind any conflict. The Rothschilds were terrified of a new and powerful nation that was not under their control. When they were rebuffed in their designs to privatize the money system in the US with a central bank 1812 they essentially said they were going to get hurt. And the next thing that happens England declares war on them again.