America's Revolutionary Spirit: Threat or Menace?

When Frank asked if America's revolutionary spirit is gone, I couldn't help thinking that the problem is not that it's gone but that with time it became even worse and more progressive. I was reminded of one of Mencius Moldbug's posts from a while ago which summarized the American revolution from a reactionary point of view. Here are a few choice bits.

And the American Revolution was, in my own personal opinion, more or less, basically, a criminal outrage of the mob - led by leaders who were either unscrupulous, deluded, or both.

. . . the rebels in the American Revolution were motivated by an ideology that was utterly deluded, that amounted to no more than a wacky conspiracy theory. The point is not even slightly arguable. Their interpretation of British politics simply had no basis in reality.

Since this delusional interpretation was the linchpin of their argument for rebellion, and since their reliance on street violence and paramilitary formations is indisputable, they can fairly be classed as unscrupulous or deluded mob leaders - regardless of any classification in the scruples department, a historical task which often verges on the impossible.

. . . In other words, our Founding Fathers were more or less the Troofers of their day. Or, to put it differently, America obtained its independence because of a war that was started by people who were genuinely terrified of the 18th-century equivalent of black helicopters.

. . . Britain was not on a path to a weird, 1984-like future with gold braids and epaulets, crushed under the iron heel of the King, the Church of England and the Lords. Rather, the power of throne and altar and fief in Britain had been dwindling almost monotonically since Mary Tudor - a process which of course has continued to this day.

If you want to understand why he holds this somewhat unpopular opinion, I'm afraid you'll have to read the whole thing which is in Moldbug's consistently long-winded style. If you are wondering what the hell all this is about but can't deal with his writing style, last year I condensed the whole of the Moldbuggian worldview into a single post.

To all our American readers we wish a happy Fourth of July. Hopefully a few of you will get sufficiently drunk at your parties to start spouting anti-revolutionary and anti-democratic rhetoric. Throw in a little secessionism, too. That should be fun.

Trackback:

http://www.corrupt.org/trackback/2500
Tags:

Bit revisionist, no?

Ah, revisionist history, the best kind...

It's always easy to look back from a current period and say "things were always this bad, we just didn't know it". That's not the case. We had slavery in our "free" nation until the mid to late 1800s, so crowdism/freedom/liberalism wasn't a priority until at least that point. And it wasn't until a hundred years later until those same former slaves gained equal rights - and women somewhere along the way.

But remember, rights does not equal liberties. The people who fought for equal rights, that was your "revolution" in the sense that corrupt.org usually rails against. These people should have been fighting for equal liberties under the rule of law in our land, but instead we implemented silly ideas like busing only black students from cities to suburbs and equal opportunity nonsense, messing with the economy along the way.

It does make sense if you're a strict constitutionalist, but I prefer to think that we once had strong leaders who led a parallelism-style society. Remember, all rights not specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution were supposed to be property of each state to handle. We've gravitated away from that idea and instead want Alabama to treat people and land and etc. etc the same way as Massachusetts, and there's your crowd-logic. This is a newer phenomenon not intended by our Founders.

Liberty

I put the American Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Magna Carta etc. all in the same category of replacing royal power with more diffused and distributed authority. Terrible ideas all of them. At least I'm consistent about this. Not all liberties are bad, but political liberties certainly are.

consistent, not right

Yay for consistency... :)

Still, the situation was different, and America was better off without the "royal power", which was actually by proxy.

What you had was a bunch of governers and landowners that looked around and said, "hey, we can rule these people better and more efficiently than the king; plus we'd be free to trade with whom we wanted, set our own tariffs and tax rates, and make out in the deal". Again, can't blame them in the slightest.

Of course I can blame them

I can understand it if a province or colony rebels successfully and becomes a proper independent country with its own ruler, but your particular set of rebels instead put in one of those democracy things. That's just terrible.

democracy must have had a different meaning back then...

...because we both know what was put in place then and what is practiced now are two completely different forms of gov't. Once again, revisionist history.

No, it didn't

Having people vote in order to elect their rulers - that's just a bad idea. It was bad then and is bad now, bad in the USA and bad in North Korea etc.

Actually, it did

The Founding Fathers weren't too keen on democracy, so there is a point to what Frank is saying:

In the beginning America was a constitutional republic. Then we degenerated into a democracy. Let me explain.

It would be an understatement to say that the Founding Fathers hated democracy. They warned against it vehemently and relentlessly. They equated it – properly – with mob rule.

Someone far wittier than I once remarked that, in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.

http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/hated.html

Of course, they weren't exactly preaching monarchy or aristocracy, so I think this debate is a sidetracker, although I love seeing you guys argue :-)

It's very simple

I don't like constitutional repulics either; the power is still far too diffused, in other words they're way too democratic for my liking. But that's exactly the kind of government you can expect to be set up by, you know, "people who were genuinely terrified of the 18th-century equivalent of black helicopters".

Yup, this is fun!

hmmm

you're oversimplifying and glossing over my larger points, but...well, you're Martin, you do that :)

© 1998-2010 Corrupt.org | FAQ | Sitemap