Socialism was merely a new word for the same old shit = “individuals are the property and slaves of the state” … There is a reason people “fear” it.
Why do the new-age governments fear an armed population?
The USA was formed with the express intent of keeping the population armed (the Second Amendment) to help dissuade further abuse by socialist, dictatorial governments (as was the case with England at the time).
That’s not actually what socialism is, you know. Socialism is the fair allocation of resources. In capitalism, individuals are the property and slaves of corporations.
If you think the British government of the 18th century was socialist then you seriously have no idea what you’re talking about.
It was the vested capitalist interests in the colonies that provoked the revolt, when they objected to helping to pay for the war that the British government had just fought on their behalf against a French plan to conquer them. Those same interests have controlled you ever since.
Yeah, yeah, right. And that is why almost the entire US Constitution was very specifically anti-British methodology and the French were immediate allies.
You are going to believe what your country wants you to believe. I don’t have issue with that. Just don’t try to convince the USA that England was in any way altruistic. Socialist states are only altruistic when they are the underdogs in a war (which usually they created themselves).
The French had very recently been enemies of the American colonies. During the Revolution, though, they supported them, in order to undermine the British. At the time, France was an absolutist, monarchical state. A pretty good role model then, for the Americans. Britain was a parliamentary state, with the monarch’s power strictly limited.
States are rarely altruistic, though usually tend to support their own people against foreign aggression. The American colonists, of course, were our own people. Fully a third of them migrated to Canada after the Revolution in order to remain British subjects.
The American Revolution was a capitalist coup. Its propaganda about freedom and the rights of man was completely disingenuous, as is proved by the retention of slavery afterwards, not to mention the treatment of the Indians, whose land was blatantly stolen from under them.
The French, like the Brits, were enemies with everyone.
“Limited”??
At that time King George III was still trying to conquer all of Europe and the Americas.
The American colonists were of the entirety of Europe, not merely the English.
Which, no doubt, is why they spoke French …
Bullshit. Slavery was still everywhere throughout Europe and got introduced into the USA by SOCIALIST schemers using economic strategies as a part of the later socialist financial coup that stopped the USA from ever having any hope of its prior freedom and legitimate constitutional rule.
You honestly have no idea of history, do you? George III was not an absolutist monarch, and real power lay with parliament.
At that time, the American colonists were mostly British, that is, English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. It was only later that large numbers of others were let in.
The French colony in Canada long predated the American Revolution. The influx of American colonists after the Revolution is why the majority of Canadians today speak English.
Slavery had already been banned within Britain itself and it was the British Empire, later on, that stamped it out around the world. If you think slavery was introduced by socialists then I can only assume that by “socialist” you mean capitalist land owners who wish to exploit the masses.
You are merely proving the point. Even with the parliament (which is what made it more socialist dictatorship than a monarchy), they were still out trying to conquer the world. The only thing being limited was the masses, still being referred to as the “sheep”, “ewe” (later to become “you”).
England literally invaded the Americas with the intent of conquering all of it. The French invaded and colonized the high North, the Spanish, the low North and South, and England invaded the middle. The people got fed up with it. Socialist Godwannabes always over extend their tyranny.
Slavery remained legal in England until the 1800’s when the Abolition Act of 1833 was enacted, some three generations after the USA was constitutionalized.
+++Some historians believe the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism in the Thirteen Colonies, by parties on both sides of the slavery question who wanted to establish independent government and law. The southern colonies wanted to protect slavery and expanded its territory dramatically in the decades after independence was won.+++
Yeah, yeah, England is really the true altruistic country and the rest of the world is evil and conned (just as all little girls know).
Spain, France, and England were all led into the attempt to conquer the world by the same people who later led Germany into it. And with the Nazis, the house of cards finally came down just as planned … by those same people.
What did the Jews have to do with it all such that they come out on top, if they had not been long supporting it all from the bottom (just as had been noted by very many)? They owned all of the money loans financing the wars from all sides. And with the FED established in 1913, the USA became the bargaining chip for the Balfour Declaration.
The Jewish contribution to the advancement of arts and sciences in Western history has generally been a positive one. I suspect you’re just jealous of their success. The idea that they were behind Nazism, though, is nothing short of disgraceful.
It’s you who evidently no nothing of actual history. You are creating a convenient scapegoat, to explain away the failings of your own society, just like the Nazis did.
It comes from their own boastings, not merely those who can see so very much more than you.
But I imagine this is a bit too far off topic, even though the use and availability of guns and those who create rebellions and wars are related topics.
