Overview of the United States.

             It was brought to my attention that my last article may have come across as a little confusing for some people who may not be well versed in the history of the so called New World nations. In this entry I will address some of the popular disinformation, as well as give some historical insight. 

Note: I originally planned to talk about the big picture of the new world nations but then I realized there was too much to say about the USA alone for one entry. Though the story of countries like Canada and Australia are very similar, while countries like Brazil and Argentina are a bit different. 

The United States

Perhaps the most confusing and most lied about nation today is the USA. Historical perspective can help shed some light on it. Its too often suggested that the US was created and intended to be "progressive" but under investigation you may find that none of that is true.

Lets take a brief look into the founding and some of the beliefs of the people who created it in contrast to what people say today.

The US was staunchly anti-Monarchy!

This is a common misconception. If you examine some of the ideas floating around at the time you can see that many prominent founding fathers realized democratic republicanism was not inherently better or more noble than monarchy. However, as a new nation with no possibility of a monarchical system a carefully crafted Republic was the only viable option. This decision was made out of necessity, not out of any strong belief of it being the only answer for society. In the case of John Adams, he actually believed that democracy has never and can never be as durable as monarchy or aristocracy. I will post the full excerpt from a letter he wrote below. 

The solution they came up with to solve the void left by no aristocracy was the constitution and bill of rights. They decided that law had to be the glue that formed the identity, as opposed to older nations which were molded by the leadership of their kings and aristocracy. Most of these people were born in the colonies, but to create and maintain a coherent identity moving forward they used three key things: law, religion, and assimilation. 

The USA is a democracy!

The US has a very limited variant of democracy because it is actually a constitutional republic with democratic channels. In fact, originally it was so restricted that only white male land owners could vote at all. Why? because with no aristocracy in place they had to create a class of people who would genuinely care about the well being and direction of the country. Men who owned land being obviously invested in the country were the natural fit. This didn't really start to change until the 20th century, primarily after WW1. When people claim its a direct democracy they are lying. Often trying to manipulate the mindset into abolishing things like the electoral college so that the more populated states can dominate the country outright. 

The USA is libertarian.

This is only half true. While the belief of low taxation, the constitution and the bill of rights can be viewed as progressive and libertarian for their time period, the other aspects of society were not. The early US culture was dominated by Christian puritans who did not tolerate much deviancy in morality. They also believed in the concept titled "Manifest Destiny" which decreed that it was their God given right to expand and prosper. Whether you agree with that or not is not important here; what is important is to note that these modern ideas justifying homosexuality, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and open borders were not and would not be tolerated in the early United States. Not only would they not be considered libertarians by today's definition, but they would actually be considered "far right" as the current breed of Neo-cons are full of ideas that would not have flown back then. 

The USA was always a melting pot.

This one is a forgery, simply not true. This title was gained from a play written in 1908 by a Jewish immigrant named Israel Zangwill. However even if the idea became popular as early as 1908, it didn't really reflect in political policy until the immigration reform of 1965 and the surrounding civil rights amendments ending segregation and mandating the mingling of tribes.  Perhaps this is the scariest thing about this occurrence.  The gospel of internationalism and demographic decline is just over 50 years old. In 50 years they've managed to completely change the look and mindset of a country that had more or less been a consistent identity for nearly 200 years before that. 

Its a nation of immigrants!

This is a massive bending of the truth, bordering on becoming a lie. The fact is the majority people living in the colonies at the time of the American revolution had already lived there for generations and were born there. Maybe their parents or grandparents were immigrants but by 1776 you already had native born settlers. 

The US did take immigrants over the coming years, but not nearly as much as is suggested. Firstly, immigration was restricted to Europeans only. Which means while you do get Irish and Germans, you don't ever have too big of cultural clashes. Secondly,  the immigrants that did come were detained until proven they could speak English, had a Christian faith, and were willing to assimilate into the American tribe. The only real documented exception to this was a very small of amount of Chinese immigrants to California. The idea that the US would just let as many as 11-20 million people live illegally inside its borders, and grant amnesty to their children and relatives is a post-modern one only. It has no historical basis on truth. 

Separation of Church and state was done to keep Christianity out of politics! 

This is another lie. The idea of separation of church and state was born because many colonial settlers were descended from people who got kicked out of Europe for being religious extremists or "not of the King's church." Puritans themselves were known to be at odds with both Catholics and the Church of England. Because they could be kicked out of their homes or even persecuted for their religious opinions they decided to not allow that in their country. Since the only fathomable religion of their time was Christianity, they called it Separation of Church and State. They could not foresee what the world would become today, if they could they might have done things differently. However that is only my speculation. 

Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends; the design of one being to promote our temporal Happiness; the design of the other to procure the Favour of God, and thereby the Salvation of our Souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature.

-John Dickinson, 1768

Interpret that quote how you will.  I interpret it as protecting the religious from the government equally as much as it is about protecting government from religion, if not even moreso. A move to keep the establishment from corrupting itself too much. 

Lately, the phrase has been hijacked by the "enlightenment" atheists using it to stretch well beyond government with an agenda to remove Christianity from public view. Even more recently internationalists(same people really) have then co-opted it further by forcing in tolerance for more religions than were originally considered when the concept was written. From being mandated to take down Cross monuments, to being told the correct thing to say is happy holidays; the agenda has clearly reached far beyond government and is now being forced into the cultural mindset in ways it was likely never intended to be.