Alright I’m finally going to tackle The Royalist Revolution. Introduction: The War of Parliament, or, why Everything You Know about the American Revolution is probably a lie https://twitter.com/swordo9/status/1279868020052164608

“Monarchists, in my Founding Fathers?” It’s more likely than you think!

Eric Nelson proposes the radical idea of understanding history by taking people at their word and how they understood themselves instead of stretching into weird esotericism. If we do, we realize that the Americans Revolution wasn’t just conservative but intensely reactionary.

Just like Lyotard championed postmodernism under the cause of the martyr Louis XVI (I’m not joking, look it up), many American patriots championed the ideas of independence and liberty under the Royalist cause of the martyred Charles I. The Founding Fathers were Stuartists.

The Founding Fathers who championed the Royalist cause against Parliament - most famously Adams and Hamilton - were instrumental in the foundation of the modern Constitution and Presidency. This thread will highlight parallels between the King and the Presidency for good reason.

The American patriots saw themselves as breaking away from Whig historiography to defend the royal prerogative as compatible with liberty of the subjects. This notion led to the creation of a Presidency with a royal prerogative more powerful than any European monarch in its day

“But Swordo, an elected officials can’t be a monarch!” Time for a history lesson kiddos. Just like DeGaulle under the influence of the monarchist Charles Maurras made the French Presidency a kingship without Royal decent (i.e. an elected monarchy) so too did the Founding Fathers

Unfortunately, some of the Founding Fathers and patriots were still libs, but the Chief protagonists that managed to come out on top were the Royalist faction interestingly enough. Regardless, they all hated Parliament.

Reminder that Divine Right of Kings means something completely different than what everyone thinks it does

Charles I understood the monarch as playing a vital role in the legislature as having a “negative voice” (veto) in the passing of bills and the right to independently choose his own ministers (Cabinet) to enforce the laws. Powers pretty similar to the American President

Charles I was a traditionalist who participated in a long line of argumentation from Dante to Charles Marraus and Hoppe about how the monarch is independent of factionalism and who can guard the interests of the country, as his interests are the country’s interests.

Charles I was right. The English Civil War and its consequences have been a disaster for the Anglo race

What boomercons won’t tell you about John Locke was that he was a monarchist proto-Carl Schmitt who believed in the state of exception and that the chief magistrate/monarch needed to be able to pass any law (executive order) in order to maintain peace.

This is what the C*to Insitute is based on

TL;DR history is open to interpretation

Where there is a Whig, there will always be someone to mercilessly clown on them, and one of the first to do so was Montesquieu, who believed that the English monarchy had become too weak to protect the people from tyranny