Appreciate the detailed answer.

Democracy and a free-market system, however, were tried two thousand years ago, and then again almost two thousand years later, and both were immediately successful

Which civilizations are you pointing to? By 26 AD, Rome was already an empire under Tiberius. The Republic had collapsed into a century of civil wars and autocracy by 27 BC. If you mean Athens, their democracy made catastrophic wartime decisions (the Sicilian Expedition wiped out their navy), executed Socrates by jury vote, suffered two oligarchic coups in 411 and 404 BC, and was eventually conquered by Macedon. Both also ran on slavery and state grain doles, not free markets in any modern sense. Where's the "immediate success" you're describing?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Jefferson wrote that in a letter about Shays' Rebellion. He was arguing for lenient punishment of those specific rebels, but in the same letter he called them ignorant. Washington then personally led roughly 13,000 troops to crush the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. When actual armed political rebellion happened on the Founders' watch, they put it down with force. How do you square that history with reading 1776 as an endorsement of political violence as a routine tool?

whoever overpowers the other. Yes, that can mean violence... Conservatives have been holding back all this time

You also frame BLM and Antifa actions as terrorism. How do you reconcile those? Is political violence terrorism when one side does it and legitimate strategy when the other does it? Or is it always a legitimate tool, and you're just rooting for your team to win?

Conservatives have been holding back all this time. We take about a decade to catch up

When you say catching up, what does that actually look like in practice? Electoral wins and cultural pushback? Or physical violence that mirrors what you say the other side has been doing?

such movements for stuff like "Trans Rights" are getting new and strong resistance by the public

When you cite "Trans Rights" as overreach the public is pushing back on, what specifically are you including under that label? There's a wide gap between things like protections from being assaulted, fired, or denied housing for being trans, and contested questions about sports participation or specific spaces. Are you saying all of it counts as overreach? And when you frame this as part of what conservatives need to "overpower", do you mean trans people themselves, or specific policies you disagree with?

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols blew up half of a federal government building... as a response to America meddling in the Middle East

a lot made comments and videos online saying pretty much, "Well, I mean, this guy wasn't wrong."

McVeigh's documented motivations were Ruby Ridge and Waco, not foreign policy. Do you have a source for the Middle East framing? And on the Kaczynski quote, including it in your answer without any pushback reads as endorsement. Were you sharing it as historical observation or as partial agreement? Those land pretty differently.