Was the American Revolution a Set Up?

The comparison between New France and New England alongside their progenitors on the European continent is not one that can casually discarded by Neoreactionists. Indeed, within the historical situation of that comparison could be found important clues as to the nature of the cultural and institutional systems that we deal in. So, the biggest difference between the British colonies and their crown, and the French colonies and their crown is that in France, the monarchy became a republic and bloodily while in the former the war happened in the Americas, and the British crown was maintained.

So, after acknowledging the difficulties in establishing the class of nobilities in the colonies in previous writings, I will now turn to the fact that strategically minded persons during the Colonial Era likely were aware of such a dilemma and were acting accordingly. If the spread of Communism during the 20^th century is called the Domino Effect Theory by Republicanists, let Neoreactionists commandeer that term for use, at least for the duration of this essay. The “dominoes” falling down are the monarchies jeopardised by the burgeoning third estate, merchant class, which was spreading its technological and societal changes into the homelands of which these same merchants were using as a primary trading partner. There is some historical research that could accompany this perspective but, for now let us continue in the realm of ideas. Primary trading partners they were for those colonial merchants indeed, because of cultural ties to the mother-countries.

I guess it’s hard to believe how much religious sentiment went into the maintenance of the concept of a divine monarch. Probably, that’s how the Kingdom of France fell so quickly, though. With enormous Church “reforms” and extremely bloody, murderous, massacres both under the new law and in impromptu battles it is possible to still catch a glimpse of understanding on how violent or abrupt, those changes came to the French nation. When an idea hits at exactly the right frequency, it can be powerful, and powerful because it can spread so quickly. Often, in the Politically Correct Cathedral, the presentation of new ideas is seen as an unmitigated good, whereas to reactionaries, and in the Neoreactionist community, getting bad ideas in the wrong place should certainly be seen as something to prevent. The tensions on the European continent with its history of a large war after every several generations were high, the hierarchy was well established and ornate, yet at the same time was unsuspecting to this Republicanist virus. Yet, competitive royal bureaucrats were still likely to keep an open ear for new ideas that could increase their status. If, perhaps, good ideas came in the form of military and its technology, what good ideas could come from the merchant class? Except the ideologies from a newly enriched merchant class weren’t good; for the French kingdom, they were very, very bad. A warning, that intellectuals sometimes enjoy seeing themselves as the force behind massive change, but this isn’t always so clear. If Mr. Rousseau’s philosophy spurred on the Tyrant Robespierre, there had to have been fertile ground for that ideology to take hold. Can there be an argument against the fact that New World wealth coming in to Europe could not have possibly weakened the societal norms?

If France ended the 18^th century so badly, how did it go differently in Great Britain? Initially, it can be seen that the kingdom was maintained. As difficult as the regicide in the 17^th century was, it likely had the added effect of making the crown more aware of its vulnerabilities. Advisors, as well as the nobility themselves, would be instructed in not allowing and in fact anticipating actions that could lead to another dethronement. If the colonies had to be provoked into Civil War so as to prevent their undermining ideologies from crossing the Atlantic Ocean, well then so be it. In a matter of life or death, most people will err on the side of caution. Different ways of provocation such as taxation or the “Boston Massacre” could have been designed to allow the colonists room to raise support for a realization of their own identity in the colonies. Denying New England and Mid-Atlantic colonies the right to have representation in Parliament is a way to “let those colonists know who is boss”, sure, but it is also a way to prevent the ideas of those same colonists from reaching close to the British throne. The purpose and intent was to give a cleaner break and to prevent subversion on the British Isles themselves.

If so many people like to think of the victory of those thirteen colonies as surprising, or a “miracle”, why can’t some question be raised whether the British deliberately lost that Revolutionary War? The battles fought could conceivably have been to save face. Remember, the Domino Effect, where one monarchy falls and then the rest fall, obviously what was keeping those monarchies up was social pressure between the noble families throughout Europe to not be seen as weak, or making oneself a target. Remember that the military is under the king and that many time the king, who decorates his successful admirals and generals, is often the titular Commander-In-Chief. And so, in context, it is easier to see why a king had to save face in the situation where he stood to lose the valuable asset of the colonies. The British Navy and Army might have been underplayed and the royal coffers may have been used to buy support to prevent a colonially influenced revolt in England. The British could have held a lot in reserve, knowing that a second political and societal war would have had to be fought on the homefront if the colonies were to be held onto. This problem wasn’t one that was caused by Canada or Australia because of their relatively smaller populations and wealth, and it wasn’t caused at the Indian subcontinent because of racial and cultural differences.

In retrospect, the cynical move by the British crown in the 18^th century likely saved the royal family and a lot of British tradition too. It is hard to underestimate how quickly an idea such as Republicanism could move through a culture that has been primed for it, and while those ideas spread quickly and it may be difficult to do it, a hard and penetrating analysis should be done by traditionalists when one begins to spread. Cut your losses earlier rather than later, and keep some in reserve to allow maneuvering.