No idea if I’m the Anklebiter in question, especially as my main goal is to tear down contemporary constitutional theory of the American Revolution, but I talk about it a lot so I might have been misunderstood on this. I look to assert three fundamental things when it comes to the American war for Independence. 1. That it was far more about Independence than Revolution, that is to say, far more about grounded, real grievances than it was about any kind of ideological movement. That the American people had underwent a distinctive ethnogenesis that even by 1776 had rendered the settlers as people who were not the same as 2. That of the Founding Era politics that existed, they were far different than is commonly understood as something completely divorced from reality and just drawn out of the aether in 1776, but in fact rooted in traditions and are reflections of a specific people which can trace back in blood and culture to the Saxon Kingdoms and their distinctive form of government and principles, and that blood and culture are interlinked. 3. To extol the great men of my people, to look to their virtues and to continue to frame them as incredibly remarkable men and heroes who managed to defeat the greatest empire on the planet through a combination of their own intelligence, capacity for war, and the Providence of God. To solidify that we earned our sovereignty of our land through the blood of our ancestors, and that this alone makes it worth defending. That is my position. I reinforce this position through examination and bringing back 1st hand source documents of the 18th century to show just how utterly different the actual beliefs and actions of the Founding Fathers are from what pop culture and the mainstream conservative movement have said they are. Curtis Yarvin, to frame his beliefs as charitably as I can, believes that modern liberalism is at the root of our problems, and stems directly from the American Revolution, and therefore it must be relitigated to understand that the Patriots were wrong because that will then get us to reject modern liberalism. I have three primary issues with this. The first is that this framing is largely born out of pop culture and the mainstream conservative ideas of the Revolution, and not at all an examination of what the actual ideas and beliefs of the founding era are. It is essentially just agreeing with this view of American history, and then saying "and that's a bad thing" when the entire framing itself is what is wrong. It is not actually rooted or grounded in the actual American tradition, or in a deep understanding of history, but through the deliberate and purposeful twisting of a handful of cherry picked sources and the ignorance of the vast majority of what actually occurred. And this was done deliberately through the actions of specific men to achieve a specific outcome that most heavily coalesced in the 1960s. Which then gets me into my secondary issue. The modern understanding of the American war for Independence was propagated deliberately through the actions of men, and is not in fact some natural completely natural outgrowth of an ideology. Ideology does not drive history. Men do. History is the biography of men, of Great men in particular, and it is driven by deliberate actions and not just by some idea because ideas, and ideology, have no agency in and of themselves. Men do not fight for a Revolution. They fight for the Revolutionary. Men do not care as much about ideas. They care about the man who espouses these ideas. Marxism is the easiest proof of this. The ideology itself is radical egalitarianism, secularism, a tearing down of all that came before to achieve a state of true equality. And yet, examine it's name. Marxism, that is to say, the ideas of Karl Marx, who was a great man of history, because great does not necessarily describe morality, but rather the impact and weight that certain individuals carry over nations. And that gets into my final issues, which is that this itself, of focusing so heavily on ideology above people, above nations, is itself incredibly modernistic thinking. It is to elevate thoughts and ideas and seeing the world almost entirely through the lens of the transmission of said ideas, rather than seeing history as a story of heroes, of villains, of tragedies and triumphs, of narratives for nations of people to hold to and to know and to understand things for their own people and who they actually are and what they belong to. That view of history is the one that is the most ancient, the most outside of modernity, and that is what must fundamentally be recovered first and foremost. That is how you actually defeat modern liberalism particularly in the realm of history. And it's also why you must uphold the American war for Independence. That is the marking point of my peoples sovereignty. Where we were able to have a country of our own to govern for our particular people, a nation which transformed from a backwater colony of Yeoman settlers into the most powerful one on the planet. It is marked in history in 1776, when it took the leap govern itself, for itself. To have an America for Americans. And they did not make this decision lightly, and they certainly were not driven by ideology. The very points which Yarvin is confused on show this. I've been exploring Washington on a short series with @bedeofbritannia, whom you all should follow and check out his stuff as its great, but as he said "It was a painfully conservative movement." The initial push against Parliament and looking to the King, was because Parliament was the one who was passing the laws, Parliament was imposing itself upon the colonies to the objective detriment of the American people. And so at that point they very much looked to the King, whom their most ancient of agreements, the Virginia Charter was with. And this idea of duties, agreements, of specific things being owed to specific people is also ancient, and can be found echoed in ancient Saxon law. It is an outgrowth of our specific people, of even Hengist and Horsa, the brothers from whom our people descended from as much as the English. And our divergence, to then shift to rejecting that King, came naturally. It was not some bait and switch. It comes from about a decade of seeking the King for help against the actions of Parliament. And his rejection after two olive branch petitions left us with no real choice except to move forward. And in the Declaration of Independence, we explain why. "All men are created equal" is pure window dressing. The bulk, the majority of that document, is outlining very specific grievances that were highly grounded in reality. It was not some radical notion of egalitarianism or anti-monarchical worldviews which drove these men, whom were composed of frontier warlords, plantation owners pretending to be Romans, Christian fanatics, and smugglers. And all of that is absolutely awesome and I embrace all of it. But the decision to move towards war was simply because they were being exploited, their old way of life upended and violated, in service of the interests of those across an ocean, for whom they had just finished shedding immense amounts of blood for, about 10,000 soldiers in the French and Indian war, more than what was lost in the GWOT for a population less than 1/100th what it was then. And so they decided to once more go to war, as these specific grievances had been decided not to be addressed, either by Parliament or by the King, and so they instead decided to appeal to Heaven and to their own force of arms for redress. And they won this war. Providence willed us to victory, as our people understood then, as they should understand now. Simple as.