Sunday, January 24, 2016

Anti-Trump outcry and the state of Britain

Proof? As far as I can tell from the article, it's basically just the PM, one Labour MP, and a former Scottish official mouthing off, not the British government or people. Half a million signed a petition, out of a population of 64 mil. (Class/virtue-signaling? "All right-thinking people, my set of course, look down on Trump.")

Anyway, I'm not impressed. Britain is no longer a world power. (Prince Charles to Putin: "You're like Hitler!" Putin to the prince: "Your country hasn't mattered at least since 1945. Mine still spans 11 time zones and we control our own nukes." Prince: "Ow.") It can tell off the rest of Europe and still act like a world power because it's an American protectorate, thanks to the "special relationship" in which the empire still exists but the ex-colony is in the driver's seat. Been so at least since World War II; leaders in each country were already planning for it, since before World War I. Want to tell off Trump if he's elected and go it alone vs. Germany, et al.? God have mercy on you. And the British telling off Trump probably boosts his support from his American populist base. (Like the National Review attacking him. Free advertising that raises his cred with his base, fed up with the Establishment Republicans' games, and hurting NR as people cancel their subscriptions.) Then there are the British nationalists (UKIP and the English Defence League) who'd be simpatico with Trump. (Blowback from the "migrants"/"refugees": northern Europe is getting fed up.)
Britain's decline started with the abdication of Edward VIII.
Actually the Rhodes Group, now the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), got started before World War I as British leaders realized the empire as then constituted would end, running out of money and resources. The plan, with the American elite: secretly shift its center to America. Promoting Anglo-American relations was part of the plan. Why there are Rhodes scholarships for Americans. Why we got into WWs I and II. (WWII was also Communists in our government helping the Soviets win, the true story of the war that the movies don't tell you. It wasn't really John Wayne saving us from speaking German or Japanese.) The double whammy of WWI and the Depression (years apart of course) bankrupted Britain so in 1931 it started divesting, making its white colonies such as Canada and Australia independent. (Financially still in bad shape, it did so with its nonwhite ones after WWII.) So by the time of Edward VIII, who's only a footnote in history, the change was well under way even though the old empire was still on paper.

Before the change, American foreign policy and popular sentiment understandably feared the mother country as a threat to independence (the War of 1812: we tried to steal what's now Canada and the British gave us a good thrashing); the countries had a naval arms race and last-ditch invasion plans (to be fought in Canada) as recently as the 1920s.

Irony: the United States is more conservative and more religious, but the change marked a defeat for the traditional(ist) trappings of Britain, the monarchy, the lords, and the English church with its coped bishops crowning kings/queens and officiating at royal weddings (the symbols remain and are even popular but stripped of power). For centuries the Popes didn't want republicanism of the American or Irish kind (but we can work with that) but rather that this old structure be reconciled with the church, union from the top down, because hierarchy and indeed establishment are in themselves good.

10 comments:

  1. When you interact with decent law-abiding Muslims on a daily basis, as many of us do here in the UK, it's hard to take the comments of somebody like Trump very seriously. There are racist morons in the town I live, but on the whole most people judge Muslims by what they do rather than by their religion or their skin colour.

    Accuse me of virtue signalling if you want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A friend has been to India and Pakistan and describes lax, easygoing Muslims. I imagine such newcomers and their British-born children and grandchildren being fine in Britain. Then again there are Muslim-controlled parts of British and other European cities that are no-go zones for the police and any non-Muslims. Obviously the new "migrants" are a weapon out to bait us Westerners so we'll invade their homeland where they can slaughter us, fulfilling a prophecy of their faith.

      By the way, Enoch Powell wasn't ignorant; he was a scholar who spoke Urdu thus understanding the cultures he was talking about very well.

      Delete
    2. This idea of 'no-go zones' is very misleading. It's not about religion.

      Most countries have deprived inner city communities where police and outsiders are at risk. I imagine there are communities in the USA where white people aren't going to be made welcome. The no-go zones are about race and deprivation not religion.

      Bringing up Enoch Powell is very misleading. Powell did not mention Islam once in his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. His concerns were directed as much against black Caribbean people as Pakistanis.

      Powell was not worrying about religion, he was worrying about race. He wrongly believed that people with dark skin couldn't get on with white-skinned people.

      He has been proved wrong. While there is still a lot of racism in Britain today, for the most part Britain is a colour-blind nation. The Afro-Caribbean community that terrified Powell has been largely assimilated and is so integrated that it is getting difficult to distinguish it from the wider British population.

      The fact that we are talking about Islam and not black or Indian people shows Powell had been barking up the wrong tree.

      Delete
    3. Matthew, you do know that there are indeed white Muslims? Many Bosnian Muslims are actually blond with blue eyes, descendants of Christians forcibly converted by their Ottoman, Muslim overlords. The fact that you attempt to make this racial simply shows you are a fool and fairly ignorant as well.

      Delete
    4. Would you be happier if he replaced "race" with "ethnicity?" "Demographic?" The main point I saw, which is true, is that you don't need any particular religion to have violent "no-go" zones.

      Delete
  2. Well, I don't know who Mr Cameron thinks he is. I thought Her Majesty The Queen spoke for the British people? I'm not against Mr Trump. I'm not for him either. American politics is nothing to do with me. I certainly wouldn't want Mr Trump barred from entering the UK, but I'd certainly like some other people barred from entering.

    I thought it was the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 that sealed it for the Empire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put. Bretton Woods seems to have eroded national sovereignty generally.

      Delete
  3. Funny that the other British person to comment on this is Patrick Sheridan. I can't imagine anyone with more diametically opposed views to mine on this (or more wrong-headed views).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I can't imagine anyone with more diametically opposed views to mine on this (or more wrong-headed views)."

      On what, exactly? EU membership? Well, that's fair enough. You're a member of a Marxist "europhile" political party. Whether Mr Cameron speaks for the British people? Who is he? He's a nobody. The Queen is the Head of State and speaks for the people.

      Delete
    2. Be careful Patrick, soon Matthew will be calling you not only evil, but a racist because you have to be "wrong-headed" if you dare to disagree with him. Name calling seems to be the last resort of a scoundrel.

      Delete

Leave comment