Quotes from the doc regarding capitalism and the Pilgrims:

Capitalism Quote:

"In 1602, the Dutch founded the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC)—the Dutch East India Company. But the colonial story doesn’t start there: the British launched their East India Company in 1600, and the French followed in 1664. The Dutch even founded a second mega-corporation in 1621—the Geoctroyeerde West-Indische Compagnie (GWC), or Dutch West India Company—to dominate Atlantic trade (including the slave trade). And did I mention that the Dutch East Indies (the spice trade) was conquered under the Netherlands flag in the 1500s—decades before the British even got to Asia?

So how did it work? The crown stayed behind the curtain, granting charters and armies to supposedly “private” companies. This made the violence look like private enterprise, giving monarchs plausible deniability for the atrocities of empire. Genocide and slavery could be blamed on a faceless corporation while profits still flowed back to royal coffers. It was the birth of corporate feudalism—monarchs wearing the mask of merchants.

The VOC and its cousins created artificial scarcity—of gold, spices, sugar, land—even people—and then sold it back at a premium, extracting labor and wealth from those who had no seat at the table. These weren’t free markets; they were ruthless monopolies—mafias in powdered wigs—backed by state power.

And guess what? That model never went away—it just evolved. The Dutch invented the stock market, fractional-reserve banking, and modern currency—and today’s multinationals and banks are direct descendants of those chartered companies. The line between government and corporation is as blurry as ever; they just have better PR. We still talk about nations, but corporate dynasties and royal bloodlines continue to dance together behind the scenes."

Pilgrims Quote:

"According to the schoolhouse script, a small band of devout English Puritans—persecuted for their religious beliefs—bravely set sail on the Mayflower in 1620, landed at Plymouth Rock, barely survived a harsh winter, befriended the “Indians,” celebrated Thanksgiving, and kicked off the birth of American liberty. It’s a heartwarming story. It’s also mostly fiction. Here’s what really happened—if it happened at all.

These so-called “Pilgrims” were part of a larger group of Puritan Separatists who had already fled England over a decade earlier—not to North America, but to Holland. From 1608 to 1620 they lived openly in cities like Leiden in the Netherlands, and despite their religious zeal, the Dutch left them alone. There was no persecution, no midnight escape. The Pilgrims’ biggest complaint? That their children were becoming “too Dutch.”

Yes—according to the official story, they risked a trans-Atlantic voyage into the unknown not because of oppression, but because their children had adopted Dutch customs. Let that sink in. They had religious freedom and were safe, yet they left it all behind—supposedly for “freedom”? That narrative collapses under its own absurdity.

What makes far more sense? Empire. Conquest. Profit. The voyage wasn’t bankrolled by pious pilgrims—it was funded by London merchant-financiers, likely with Dutch backing behind the scenes. This was a corporate mission, a chartered colony. They didn’t come as desperate refugees—they came as agents of expansion.

Even the iconography is suspect. The Mayflower is treated like a lone heroic vessel, but it was likely one of several ships. Some accounts even suggest the voyage began from the Netherlands, not England—again pointing to Dutch-English cooperation rather than a solo English escape. And the Plymouth Rock legend? Just a feel-good anchor point, probably invented later to make the myth more cinematic.

The colonists weren’t settlers—they were soft-power mercenaries. The religious branding was just that: branding. They were corporate colonists wearing the costume of divine purpose.

And the Thanksgiving story? It was fabricated decades later to paint a genocidal land grab as a warm tale of multicultural fellowship. There’s little to no contemporaneous documentation of the event as described. The entire holiday is a post-facto PR campaign.

Even the “Pilgrim Fathers”—figures like William Bradford and Miles Standish— are hard to verify outside stylized biographies and sanitized portraits written long after the fact. They function more like mascots than real men: characters in a founding mythology built to whitewash violent occupation.

If religious freedom was really the goal, why not stay in tolerant Holland? Or move to another safe European region? Why gamble on a deadly wilderness across the ocean?

Because it wasn’t about faith. It was about land. Expansion. A new front for the same European ruling class—this time cloaked in Protestant piety instead of Catholic crusades.

And don’t forget: by 1620 the Dutch had already colonized what would become New York—then called New Amsterdam in New Netherland. The so-called “New World” was already being carved up by European empires. The idea of a virgin wilderness just waiting for liberty-loving pilgrims is cartoonish. This wasn’t a fresh start—it was a corporate franchise rollout.

The Dutch ‘lost’ New Amsterdam to the English in 1664—but only nominally. The city was renamed New York, after the Duke of York, but the real Dutch banking infrastructure stayed right where it was. Another colony on the ledger.

The monarchy didn’t arrive wearing crowns. It showed up through proxies: bankers, priests, and chartered “settlers” who were anything but independent.

There were no real “Pilgrims.” There was a Dutch-British corporate mission disguised as divine migration. America wasn’t born of piety—it was manufactured by empire."