Opinion of the British Empire?

[Joe McCarthy]

This of course refers to the Empire in its heyday.

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/19/hubbert_peak_british_empire.jpg

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/17/1745/6OL3D00Z/posters/map-of-the-world-showing-the-british-empire-coloured-in-red-at-the-end-of-the-nineteenth-century.jpg

http://www.vandamere.com/empire.jpg

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/images/britannia.jpg

http://www.originofnations.org/British_Empire/image002.jpg

http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/images/g/gb_emp-l.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/images/porter_british_empire_1815_map.gif

http://static.wix.com/media/cd60fa588f29c7f8fdeb4146628b8fd6.wix_mp

http://www.friesian.com/history/britania.jpg

[Wyn]

Extremely unfavourable. I'm opposed to imperialism generally.

Option 2: The British Empire was piracy by another name.

[Joe McCarthy]

Extremely unfavourable. I'm opposed to imperialism generally.

Option 2: The British Empire was piracy by another name.

Western Civilization has been built on conquest and imperialism. Without it we'd be a bunch of monks humming in the mountains.

But then again, knowing you, that might actually be more to your liking. :)

[The Ripper]

Are you asking the opinion of the British Empire? They could have done a better job in teaching you colonials good English grammah! :D

I have no strong opinions either way, though I guess I tend to side with the Irish, the Boers and the Maoris in their respective conflicts.

[Joe McCarthy]

Are you asking the opinion of the British Empire? They could have done a better job in teaching you colonials good English grammah! :D


That's assuming they could speak proper English themselves. As Shaw once famously observed, the English are the one nation distinguished by an inability to speak their own language.

But I still like the Empire - I'm just glad we're not in it. Though some wags would now say Britain is in the American Empire. :)

[Loki]

I have mixed feelings. The British Empire undoubtedly inspired (-es, when reading about it) awe and wonderment. They basically brought civilization, railway lines, the means to exploit nature, etc to the farthest reaches of the globe. And there is something majestic about the British Empire that other empires lacked. On the other hand, my people (the Boers) were subjugated when the empire was it its height of power. They were supportive after the war, though, and became close allies (or rather, they forced us to become close allies of them - throwing us in WW1&2 on British side ;) ).

I wouldn't be here if I didn't admire the British (and specifically the English - as it should rightfully be called the English Empire).

[anonymaus]

One of the greatest civilizing forces of mankind for all time. It's PC to be vehemently against empire, but that position becomes difficult to maintain when one takes a more honest view of history.

[Joe McCarthy]

I have mixed feelings. The British Empire undoubtedly inspired (-es, when reading about it) awe and wonderment. They basically brought civilization, railway lines, the means to exploit nature, etc to the farthest reaches of the globe. And there is something majestic about the British Empire that other empires lacked. On the other hand, my people (the Boers) were subjugated when the empire was it its height of power. They were supportive after the war, though, and became close allies (or rather, they forced us to become close allies of them - throwing us in WW1&2 on British side ;) ).

I wouldn't be here if I didn't admire the British (and specifically the English - as it should rightfully be called the English Empire).

I'd say the treatment of the Boers was the low point, though interestingly enough, that ultimate imperialist, Cecil Rhodes, was nicer than other Brits.

In reading about South African history, I was also struck by how the British, though racialists themselves, were more inclined to coddle blacks than the Boers, which was a major point of contention in the 19th century, particularly the early part. As I value race consciousness extremely highly, this gives the Brits lower marks than the Boers in my book.

[Wyn]

Western Civilization has been built on conquest and imperialism. Without it we'd be a bunch of monks humming in the mountains.

Western Civilization being...?



But then again, knowing you, that might actually be more to your liking. :)

Well, you don't know me, but your interest is well received.

[Joe McCarthy]

Western Civilization being...?


Typically defined as the historically Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe and their New World offshoots. I will add that without the British Empire my country would not exist. Though around here that might be seen as a good thing. :)

[Loki]

I will add that without the British Empire my country would not exist. Though around here that might be seen as a good thing. :)

America gets lots of criticism, but is due lots of praise as well. People are less likely to sing its praises, though. Perhaps for another thread.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I go wild for the architecture which we built during the build up to the peak, which was, in real terms, around 1850.

Example:

Brunswick Square, Brighton

http://imganuncios.mitula.net/brunswick_square_hove_92326514083445173.jpg

http://assets2.byteplay.com/b3fbbdf6da78f11221825d77cfdeca854eac072e_354_255.j pg

I do not mind the piracy aspect, but the fact that the wealth was not distributed fairly amongst the British people really spoils it for me, as does knowing that we were already very much enthralled by finance capitalism.

Why were we keeping on territories when we were running them at a loss? To satisfy the finance capitalists, India being an example.

Blood and soil for me.

The profits of war belong to the nation.

14/88 lol

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Fortis in Arduis
Why were we keeping on territories when we were running them at a loss? To satisfy the finance capitalists, India being an example.


Imperialism is as much about glory as anything else. Arguably more about that than anything else.


Blood and soil for me.


Interestingly enough, Herder, the man most closely associated with blood and soil, hated imperialism and was a borderline pacifist. But then he was also something of an anti-racist who specifically drew on India as an example of how non-whites were justified in hating whites, and that whites would one day turn on themselves in self-loathing, feeling shame for imperialism.

He has proven to be a prophet on that last point.

[Osweo]

I have no strong opinions either way, though I guess I tend to side with the Irish, the Boers and the Maoris in their respective conflicts.
The Irish helped build the Empire too. Not every Irishman was independentist. :tsk: Not even in 1916. Gravestones can be observed with
the epitaph XXX O'YYY, of the Kingdom of Ireland. Being part of the Empire meant a lot to many Irishmen, but later history has tended to wrongly downplay their story. :tsk:

On the whole, the Empire was pretty impressive. These things rarely end well, especially for the founders, but that shouldn't detract from a general view completely.

[Foxy]

My opinion is magnificent. If there's something that I'd like to emulate is the British upper class manners of those years.

[The Ripper]

The Irish helped build the Empire too. Not every Irishman was independentist. :tsk: Not even in 1916. Gravestones can be observed with
the epitaph XXX O'YYY, of the Kingdom of Ireland. Being part of the Empire meant a lot to many Irishmen, but later history has tended to wrongly downplay their story. :tsk:

On the whole, the Empire was pretty impressive. These things rarely end well, especially for the founders, but that shouldn't detract from a general view completely.

I will make myself more clear: I sympathize with the independist Irish.

[GregSamsa]

In all honesty, It was a bit too British for my liking... ;)
I would love to say "mine was bigger than yours", but it wouln't be very polite or (sobbing) historically acurate.
Who really cares anyway?
Empires are pretty much like cheap LCD tvs, man made concoctions that may look flashy for a while,but designed to fail after a few years... :P

[Svanhild]

As a matter of fact, I've negative feelings about the former British Empire. Not for the imperalism in the first place, but for its dogma to keep Germany down and prevent it from becoming a second European superpower. Britannia has always been afraid of competition and strong Huns. Inexcusable.

[The Ripper]

As a matter of fact, I've negative feelings about the former British Empire. Not for the imperalism in the first place, but for its dogma to keep Germany down and prevent it from becoming a second European superpower. Britannia has always been afraid of competition and strong Huns. Inexcusable.

While I agree that the British attitude towards a rising Germany contributed greatly to two world wars, its still rather understandable. Leben ist kampf. ;)

[Fortis in Arduis]

As a matter of fact, I've negative feelings about the former British Empire. Not for the imperalism in the first place, but for its dogma to keep Germany down and prevent it from becoming a second European superpower. Britannia has always been afraid of competition and strong Huns. Inexcusable.

It is too easy a scam to employ one has an easily defended land mass to operate from, which is why the US started doing it, and so well. ;)

For me, the wanting to keep Germany down betrays a lack of faith in one's own country.

Britain should be a dynamic competitor with diverse industries, not a saggy, flabby, hard-drinking island which has to over-compensate with finance wars the whole time, but I do not see that changing any time soon.

The offending problem is referred to as 'beggar thy neighbour economics' and nationalists quite rightly reject it.

I do not think that nationalism and imperialism can work alongside each other.

[Svanhild]

While I agree that the British attitude towards a rising Germany contributed greatly to two world wars, its still rather understandable. Leben ist kampf. ;)
What English people never understood and avoid to understand is that a good portion of their population weren't always on that island. Anglo-Saxons -> Angles & Saxons -> Angeln & Sachsen -> Many Germans and many English are of the same flesh. Truth be told, every war between England and Germany was a brother's war and nothing else. English ego: So high and misorientated, they allowed Spain and France to be opposing superpowers but the most close relative alongside the Dutch and Danes is the eternal hostile Hun. It makes no sense. Million of Brits acclaim the Royal family which is essentially a German family. The noble family of Windsor, Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.

If the English people accepted Germany as a partner on the same level, both of our countries could rule Europe and the most important parts of the world till today. If we wanted to, at least. Instead we antagonized each other again and again, kept mutual stereotypes alive and wonder why our countries begin to fall apart. We've weakened each other like only stubborn brothers and sisters can do.

[The Ripper]

What English people never understood and avoid to understand is that a good portion of their population weren't always on that island. Anglo-Saxons -> Angles & Saxons -> Angeln & Sachsen -> Many Germans and many English are of the same flesh. Truth be told, every war between England and Germany was a brother's war and nothing else. English ego: So high and misorientated, they allowed Spain and France to be opposing superpowers but the most close relative alongside the Dutch and Danes is the eternal hostile Hun. It makes no sense. Million of Brits acclaim the Royal family which is essentially a German family. The noble family of Windsor, Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.

If the English people accepted Germany as a partner on the same level, both of our countries could rule Europe and the most important parts of the world till today. If we wanted to, at least. Instead we antagonized each other again and again, kept mutual stereotypes alive and wonder why our countries begin to fall apart. We've weakened each other like only stubborn brothers and sisters can do.

But states don't function in accordance with Romantic, semi-mythical "racial brotherhood", much less so empires. Britannia ruled the waves and didn't want to share that rule with others. Simple.

[Beorn]

Correction needed.


What British people have always understood and never avoid to understand is that a good portion of their population were apparently not always on that island. Anglo-Saxons -> Angles & Saxons -> Angeln & Sachsen -> Many Germans and many British are of the same flesh. Truth be told, every war between Britain and Germany was a cousin war and nothing else. British ego: So high and misorientated, they allowed Spain and France to be opposing superpowers through them being more powerful but the most close relative alongside the Dutch and Danes is the eternal hostile Hun. It makes no sense. Million of Brits (is that English now?????;)) acclaim the Royal family which is essentially a Scottish-German family. The noble family of Windsor, Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.

If the British people gave a fuck for what Europe does and accepted Germany as a partner on the same level, both of our countries could rule Europe and the most important parts of the world till today. If we wanted to, at least. Instead we antagonized each other again and again, kept mutual stereotypes alive and wonder why our countries begin to fall apart. We've weakened each other like only stubborn brothers and sisters can do.

Sounds more truthful there, Svanny :thumb001:

[Loki]

I agree with this assessment. :thumb001:


What English people never understood and avoid to understand is that a good portion of their population weren't always on that island. Anglo-Saxons -> Angles & Saxons -> Angeln & Sachsen -> Many Germans and many English are of the same flesh. Truth be told, every war between England and Germany was a brother's war and nothing else. English ego: So high and misorientated, they allowed Spain and France to be opposing superpowers but the most close relative alongside the Dutch and Danes is the eternal hostile Hun. It makes no sense. Million of Brits acclaim the Royal family which is essentially a German family. The noble family of Windsor, Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.

If the English people accepted Germany as a partner on the same level, both of our countries could rule Europe and the most important parts of the world till today. If we wanted to, at least. Instead we antagonized each other again and again, kept mutual stereotypes alive and wonder why our countries begin to fall apart. We've weakened each other like only stubborn brothers and sisters can do.

[Beorn]

I agree with this assessment. :thumb001:

That's because you need to get yourself a good history book, Loki. Perhaps I'll send you one for X-mas! :thumb001:

[Loki]

That's because you need to get yourself a good history book, Loki. Perhaps I'll send you one for X-mas! :thumb001:

What, you mean mine that says the Saxons came from Germany is outdated? :confused:

[Beorn]

What, you mean mine that says the Saxons came from Germany is outdated? :confused:

There was lots of points made there, Lokes, me old mucka-muck. Was you only twitching for the keywords there? :D

[Loki]

There was lots of points made there, Lokes, me old mucka-muck. Was you only twitching for the keywords there? :D

Well, her main point was one of brotherhood between Germans and English. There is no reason why this cannot be the case. Germans and English have many things in common - most importantly that of mutual respect (if ancestral ties are not good enough for you). It is our politicians and media who have incessantly painted Germans in a negative light, so as to influence future generations - guys like you - who see the German as something foreign and as an enemy. You fell for it hook, line and sinker. Don't be so easily influenced by media-perpetuated stereotypes. ;) But eh, I don't hold the towel scorn on the beach against you, though. :D

[Grumpy Cat]

What? No "kill it with fire" option? :tongue

I kid, I have mixed feelings. I won't repeat what's been said. Read Loki's post but replace "Boers" with "Acadians".

[Wyn]

Germans and English have many things in common - most importantly that of mutual respect (if ancestral ties are not good enough for you).

Do Germans and the English have mutual respect? There's lots of anti-German sentiment in England, which you get at.


It is our politicians and media who have incessantly painted Germans in a negative light, so as to influence future generations - guys like you - who see the German as something foreign and as an enemy.

They aren't the enemy, but they are obviously foreign.

Anyway, I think very highly of Germany/the Germans.

[Beorn]

Well, her main point was one of brotherhood between Germans and English. There is no reason why this cannot be the case. Germans and English have many things in common - most importantly that of mutual respect (if ancestral ties are not good enough for you).

I can't fault the ultimate logic, but initially I wonder why people keep harking to a "brotherhood" which ended very quickly in the late 1800s.


It is our politicians and media who have incessantly painted Germans in a negative light

Not really. Without having the energy to go in-depth with it, but a current book I'm reading titled "The Autobiography of the British Soldier" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autobiography-British-Soldier-Agincourt-Basra/dp/0755315812)you soon see the absolute reasoning behind the distrust, sometimes outright hatred of the Germans (as well as anything not British Isles) and wonder exactly at the myth(?) of political engineering of British v German propaganda.


guys like you - who see the German as something foreign and as an enemy.

I wasn't told anything. I knew Germans were foreign, just as a Welshman was foreign. I was brought up in a family which contained German family (Jews to you and the rest) and I never thought of them less than I would my Welsh family. Yet, they were still foreign.


But eh, I don't hold the blanket scorn on the beach against you, though. :D

:D You shouldn't do. I didn't do it and you didn't do it. I'll always meet a man on equal terms till they build their defence. :thumb001:

[Loki]

Do Germans and the English have mutual respect?

I think so, yes. Behind all the jokes and stuff Germans are better respected than, for example, French or Polish. They are admired for their efficiency, work ethic and power.

[Wyn]

I think so, yes. Behind all the jokes and stuff Germans are better respected than, for example, French or Polish. They are admired for their efficiency, work ethic and power.

We'll have to (respectfully ;)) agree to disagree. I've encountered - many times - real anti-Germanism from otherwise ordinary people, young and old.

[Curtis24]

I agree with this assessment. :thumb001:

Yeah, if those things happened European history would have been peachy and happy. Of course, human nature is not like that...

[Austin]

Empires are the light in a very dark room so far as I can tell in human history.

In respect to the British Empire, I think it was fine.


Just because a geopolitical entity doesn't label itself an empire doesn't mean it isn't one....:).... the U.S. comes to mind as does the Soviet Union in this regard.

Call them what you will, if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck then it is a duck.

[Beorn]

* Is wondering when "European brotherhood" started, seeing as every tribe with a sword was gutting each other throughout history *

[SaxonCeorl]

I have mixed feelings; a big reason why Britain (and other colonizers like France) has so many non-European foreigners coming in is because of the colonial period. The British Empire forged connections with India (and Pakistan), Africa, and the Caribbean, which led to citizens of these countries moving to Britain after the fall of the Empire. Same with France; most of their immigrants seem to be from their former colonies. I don't fully understand what caused this; did Britain let these people in because they felt guilty? Were they able to easily immigrate because their countries became Commonwealth countries upon colonization?

Meanwhile, countries without a lot of overseas territories have seen less non-European immigration (Italy, Scandinavia, etc.)

I'm not sure if this hypothesis is correct, because it doesn't explain why Spain doesn't have a lot of immigrants despite their colonial activity in South America.


As a matter of fact, I've negative feelings about the former British Empire. Not for the imperalism in the first place, but for its dogma to keep Germany down and prevent it from becoming a second European superpower. Britannia has always been afraid of competition and strong Huns. Inexcusable.

Indeed; I've been reading a book about how WWII could have and should have been avoided. This is an excerpt:

"Though boastful and belligerent, the Kaiser (Wilhelm II) had never plotted to bring down the British Empire. The eldest grandson of Queen Victoria, proud of his British blood, he had rushed to her bed-side as she sank toward death....He had marched in the queen's funeral procession. The new king, Edward VII, was deeply moved. As he wrote to his sister, 'William's touching and simple demeanour, up to the last, will never be forgotten by me or anyone. It was indeed a sincere pleasure for me to confer upon him the rank of Field Marshal in my Army.' At the luncheon for Edward, the Kaiser rose to declare:

'I believe that the two Teutonic nations will, bit by bit, learn to know each other better, and that they will stand together to help in keeping the peace of the world. We ought to form an Anglo-Germanic alliance, you to keep the seas, while we would be responsible for the land; with such an alliance not a mouse could stir in Europe without our permission.'

'By dint of his mother's teaching and admiration for her family, the Kaiser wanted only good relations with Britain,' writes Giles MacDonogh, biographer of Wilhelm II. It was a 'British alliance for which the Kaiser strove all his professional life.'"

from Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Patrick J. Buchanan, Three Rivers Press, New York (2008).

[Beorn]

Meanwhile, countries without a lot of overseas territories have seen less non-European immigration (Italy, Scandinavia, etc.)

These countries never considered themselves worthy enough to project upon their subjugated colonials.

The only nations able enough were the British, Spanish and French.


I'm not sure if this hypothesis is correct, because it doesn't explain why Spain doesn't have a lot of immigrants despite their colonial activity in South America.

They never had a commonwealth system in which to open arm welcome them.


'I believe that the two Teutonic nations will, bit by bit, learn to know each other better, and that they will stand together to help in keeping the peace of the world. We ought to form an Anglo-Germanic alliance, you to keep the seas, while we would be responsible for the land; with such an alliance not a mouse could stir in Europe without our permission.'

Hmm!? If there is ever an "alliance" it will be forged amongst those who know each other.

For all its vaunted special place amongst the online community, the terms 'Germanic' and the rest is not worth wiping your arse on. Reality is the nature of the game, and reality is so far beyond reach it has to indoctrinate to include people.

Evolution at its best.

[Wyn]

For all its vaunted special place amongst the online community, the terms 'Germanic' and the rest is not worth wiping your arse on..

Arguably, the cold truth. It's been said on many fora that if you told an Englishman he was Germanic he would reply, "I'm not a fucking German", and that is pretty much the case.

[Osweo]

It appalls me to see such deep connections as those described in the term 'Germanic' summarily dismissed, with the only argument being based on widespread ignorance among the English about who they are.

The Kaiser was quite right;
'I believe that the two Teutonic nations will, bit by bit, learn to know each other better, and that they will stand together to help in keeping the peace of the world.'
But the problem is that we never DID get to know each other well enough. :(

NOW, with the internet and shit like that, we DO have the opportunity to start again.

[Wyn]

It appalls me to see such deep connections as those described in the term 'Germanic' summarily dismissed, with the only argument being based on widespread ignorance among the English about who they are.

I don't dismiss them happily. Self-identification is important, and Germanicity doesn't appear on the English radar. And what would be the use if it did? An English conciousness alone would do just fine. We need to start there as it is.

[Aemma]

What? No "kill it with fire" option? :tongue

I kid, I have mixed feelings. I won't repeat what's been said. Read Loki's post but replace "Boers" with "Acadians".

Whereas I come at it from a different angle altogether for a French Canadian. That today, after all these centuries, I can boast that I can still/even call myself a French Canadian says much to me about the model of British Imperialism and how it manifested itself in Canada. By rights I should perhaps be resentful of the English, but I'm not. War is war and that one was fought a helluva long time ago. It was not mine to fight though, yet I have lived to see the ramifications. And to be honest, they aren't that bad. Like I said, I still live today to call myself a French Canadian. Not a bad thing in my books.

[Beorn]

by rights i should perhaps be resentful of the english, but i'm not.

yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck those damned scottish cunts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aemma]

yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck those damned scottish cunts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh you knows I loves ya so STFU now! :D

[Beorn]

Yeah! I know, but those Scottish cunts need to be reminded of what they did to the world, what with their Crowns and Unions. The bastards have got it right up these dickhead Celt nationals that we English are to blame for it all!

A dog born in a stable. You know that famous saying is Irish n'all!?

Ah well! At least they keep perpetuating that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are poofs and the English are hard men.

;)

[Loddfafner]

What? No "kill it with fire" option? :tongue

I kid, I have mixed feelings. I won't repeat what's been said. Read Loki's post but replace "Boers" with "Acadians".

You can also throw in among the victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising) the people from the ancestral homeland of my glorious President.

[Wyn]

Ah well! At least they keep perpetuating that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are poofs and the English are hard men.

The Celtic capacity to war-monger amongst each other and then seek the help of the English is quite astounding.

Why did the Anglo-Saxons come to Britain? Because Vortigern the Celt needed a little help as his kingdom was being ransacked...by other Celts.
Why did the King of England set foot in Ireland? Because Dermot MacMurrough sought military assistance from him and pledged allegiance to him after losing his kingdom...to fellow Irishmen.

A split might be in order.

Edit - to clarify what probably reads quite harshly, this isn't some Englishman on an anti-Celt binge (see profile!), but rather a blunt commentary on Anglo-Celtic history.

[Osweo]

I don't dismiss them happily. Self-identification is important, and Germanicity doesn't appear on the English radar. And what would be the use if it did? An English conciousness alone would do just fine. We need to start there as it is.

We need to start there, but we shouldn't be content to leave it at that. When we take our country back, we'll have to think about its position in a wider world.

Self-identification among the educated has to be accompanied by self-investigation, and that means going to the root of things, and that takes us to Germania as well as Albion. Anglo-Saxon England cannot be understood without reference to continental contemporaries and predecessors.

This takes us much further afield than Germanic alone, though. But Germanic is obviously a major priority.

We cannot allow national awakening to be conditioned by the ignorant as our main point of reference. It needs an intellectual head, as well as visceral instincts. And if the ethnic is brought into a central position in policy considerations, then the metaethnic should not be ignored.

[The Ripper]

In my personal experience, Brits and Germans are quite different in mentality (and as societies), within a European context.

[Joe McCarthy]

I agree with this assessment. :thumb001:

I'm guessing it isn't often you agree with Hitler, Loki, but you have here. Hitler believed that Europe's balance of power system was outdated. He thought it necessary for Germany to align with Britain in order to blunt a rising America. He predicted that by 1980 this Anglo-German alliance would fight a major war with the US for global supremacy.

Of course, as we saw, thanks to Mr. Churchill things worked out a mite differently.

It should be said that the UK can't really be faulted. It had an option to align either with Germany or the US. Though it is very closely related to Germany, it is even more closely related to us. The trouble all started when that Austrian painter started kicking other Europeans around.

[Osweo]

In my personal experience, Brits and Germans are quite different in mentality (and as societies), within a European context.
I can vouch for that with a lot of experience, but differences in mentality are not rare among siblings or cousins, especially when 'brought up in different areas'. But family is family, and if relatives don't give a shit about each other, who will?

I'm not advocating pan-Germanic states or even rigid alliances, but I am in favour of deliberately fostering greater mutual awareness. I would do this first and foremost with other nations of the British Isles, and then with continental neighbours, though. More school exchanges and joint cultural activities would be nice, but all of it with the proper introduction and preparation for it, that a programme of educating our people about our shared heritage would provide.

Considering that this thread is about the British Empire, it might be pertinent to suggest that the absurd 'Commonwealth' leftover that tries to tell us we have anything in common with Kenya, Belize or Papua New Guinea might be the sort of thing we could benefit from if it was drawn on real ethnic lines.

(Just look at how they piss money away here; http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190957/what_we_do/ :tsk: )

I would like every kid to come out of education with at least a vague idea of who their ethnic kin are. Learning the languages is too much to expect of everyone, but there should be awareness of the culture and history of our neighbours.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Austin
Just because a geopolitical entity doesn't label itself an empire doesn't mean it isn't one........ the U.S. comes to mind as does the Soviet Union in this regard.


The US is not an empire, it is a hegemon. I encourage you to study the difference between the two. The US is actually the first non-imperial hegemon in modern Western history, and hence it is often mistaken for both. Moreover, if America is an empire, it is the most benevolent of empires.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by SaxonCeorl
The British Empire forged connections with India (and Pakistan), Africa, and the Caribbean, which led to citizens of these countries moving to Britain after the fall of the Empire. Same with France; most of their immigrants seem to be from their former colonies. I don't fully understand what caused this; did Britain let these people in because they felt guilty? Were they able to easily immigrate because their countries became Commonwealth countries upon colonization?


This is a problem Gobineau spoke of, and it has some validity. At the same time, it doesn't hold absolutely as Sweden is the most immigrant friendly country, yet it never had significant non-white colonies. Interestingly enough, it's former colony, Finland, is its leading immigrant import.

In my opinion the problem was not imperialism, as such, but the destruction of the Western racial ethic, which had little to do with imperialism. Had that not occurred the colonies could never have become independent, much less begin swamping Europe.

Another problem was that WW1 weakened Europe, and gave the colonials hope they could revolt. The defeat of Russia in 1905 by Japan was the beginning of revolt. It destroyed the myth of white invincibility. Interestingly enough, Britain is primarily responsible for insuring that Russian defeat.

[Troll's Puzzle]

A dog born in a stable. You know that famous saying is Irish n'all!?

I actually thought it was said by an englishman who was wrongly accused of being irish (the horror :stop00010:)




Not really. Without having the energy to go in-depth with it, but a current book I'm reading titled "The Autobiography of the British Soldier" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autobiography-British-Soldier-Agincourt-Basra/dp/0755315812)you soon see the absolute reasoning behind the distrust, sometimes outright hatred of the Germans (as well as anything not British Isles) and wonder exactly at the myth(?) of political engineering of British v German propaganda.


That's funny, you'd exactly expect an 'autobiography of the british soldier' to give a negative impression of 'anything not british isles', since the british soldier was all to often a tool of some merchant or king to wage his war for prestege or profit.
If anything, that proves how good the 'propaganda' was, not the opposite.
How many wars did Britain fight against Germans before WWI? barely any (I don't know of even one!)
How many wars were Britain involved with in the last 400 years compared to other european countries? thought so.
How much respect did the British command show to their soldiers during the pointless WWI? thought so.


We need to start there, but we shouldn't be content to leave it at that. When we take our country back, we'll have to think about its position in a wider world.

Self-identification among the educated has to be accompanied by self-investigation, and that means going to the root of things, and that takes us to Germania as well as Albion. Anglo-Saxon England cannot be understood without reference to continental contemporaries and predecessors.

word homie http://forums.skadi.net/images/smilies/skadi_forum/highfive.gif as a note, the 'educated' classes did in fact lead a pro-germanic wave in the 1800's/early 1900's, spurred by the romantic movement and more interest in the 'barbarians from which we are descended', leading to a revival in old english/anglo names, greater respect for the previously maligned anglo-saxons, etc, etc. (as opposed to the previously influential classics (rome, greece) & bible approach, which liked to ignore the 'pagan northern barbarians', big up the romans and claim the brits were a 'tribe of israel' and crrap like that).
This also occured alongside theories of 'germanic superiority' and Houston Stewart Chamberlian's quintessential text of 'pan-germanism' (although, being mixed english-german, he did have a vested interest).

Prior to WWI, (which changed all that), I don't recall there ever being a war between britain and german or one of its parts. The opposite was more common (prussians vs napoleon). There was even a 'anglo-german tradition' in lute music in the 1600's. The hansea league should be also mentioned (although england was on the periphery).
Just because recent events drove a wedge, that doesn't mean things can change quickly. It's all about information, education as you say. Take the example of southern Scots who might hurl racist abuse at 'english', despite having closer historical ethnic connection to northern english than 'true' scots (whoever they are), just because someone has drawn a line on a map and said 'this side is scotland, that side is england'. A simple redrawn line & copule of history classes and that 'deep hostility' would evaporate quickly...

A co-operative, Anglo-German power would be über :thumb001:

[The Ripper]

This is a problem Gobineau spoke of, and it has some validity. At the same time, it doesn't hold absolutely as Sweden is the most immigrant friendly country, yet it never had significant non-white colonies. Interestingly enough, it's former colony, Finland, is its leading immigrant import.

Jesus Christ Mary and Joseph, will you please stop talking out of your ass. Finland was as much a colony of Sweden as Ostrobothnia is a colony of Finland today.

[Osweo]

Another problem was that WW1 weakened Europe, and gave the colonials hope they could revolt. The defeat of Russia in 1905 by Japan was the beginning of revolt. It destroyed the myth of white invincibility. Interestingly enough, Britain is primarily responsible for insuring that Russian defeat.

A little over-exaggeration there? :p Premier Stolypin always urged Nikolai II that Russia could not risk a major way until the social strains there were allowed to disipate (as they well might have done, given his agrarian reforms). And what did Nicky do? TWICE.. :(

But apparently we were sharing intelligence, yes. :(


Anglo-Japanese Intelligence Co-operation
Even before the war, British and Japanese intelligence had co-operated against Russia[19]. Indian Army stations in Malaya and China often incepted and read wireless and telegraph cable traffic relating to the war, which was shared with the Japanese[20]. In their turn, the Japanese shared information about Russia with the British with one British official writing of the "perfect quality" of Japanese intelligence[21]. In particular, British and Japanese intelligence gathered much evidence that Germany was supporting Russia in the war, which led to British officials increasing perceiving that country has a threat to the international order[22].

all foutnotes; Chapman, John W.M. “Russia, Germany and the Anglo-Japanese Intelligence Collaboration, 1896-1906” pages 41-55 from Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy edited by Mark & Ljubica Erickson, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004
:suomut:

The choice was one of having Russia overstretch herself in Manchuria, or having a non-European power enter the 'big league'. Naturally, we paid for it in the 40s. (As did the Dutch, Han, Koreans, Malays, Burmans, ad infinitum) Fuck, eh? :(

[Beorn]

I actually thought it was said by an englishman who was wrongly accused of being irish (the horror :stop00010:)

An Anglo-Norman parading as an Englishman, or British as it was then.


That's funny, you'd exactly expect an 'autobiography of the british soldier' to give a negative impression of 'anything not british isles', since the british soldier was all to often a tool of some merchant or king to wage his war for prestege or profit.

How is it they can be made a tool and prone to propaganda when face to face with them? If not fighting them, they were billeting together, so I reckon it's just an easy way out to excuse the actions of our fighting men, all this talk of them being brainwashed and the sort.


I don't recall there ever being a war between britain and german or one of its parts.

A few squabbles in Europe, but most notably it seems is War_of_the_Austrian_Succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession).

[Aemma]

I can vouch for that with a lot of experience, but differences in mentality are not rare among siblings or cousins, especially when 'brought up in different areas'. But family is family, and if relatives don't give a shit about each other, who will?

I'm not advocating pan-Germanic states or even rigid alliances, but I am in favour of deliberately fostering greater mutual awareness. I would do this first and foremost with other nations of the British Isles, and then with continental neighbours, though. More school exchanges and joint cultural activities would be nice, but all of it with the proper introduction and preparation for it, that a programme of educating our people about our shared heritage would provide.

Considering that this thread is about the British Empire, it might be pertinent to suggest that the absurd 'Commonwealth' leftover that tries to tell us we have anything in common with Kenya, Belize or Papua New Guinea might be the sort of thing we could benefit from if it was drawn on real ethnic lines.

(Just look at how they piss money away here; http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190957/what_we_do/ :tsk: )

I would like every kid to come out of education with at least a vague idea of who their ethnic kin are. Learning the languages is too much to expect of everyone, but there should be awareness of the culture and history of our neighbours.

Would you include or exclude France, more specifically its Northern parts (Normandy and Brittany) in all of this?

I see here that some would exclude it, unfortunately.

[Wyn]

Would you include or exclude France, more specifically its Northern parts (Normandy and Brittany) in all of this?

I see here that some would, unfortunately.

France is an interesting case in Europe. If England and lowland Scotland are sometimes considered Celto-Germanic, Celtic-Germanic etc, a similar appellation is probably needed for certain areas of France, such as Normandy and parts of the North/East.

I don't know, Germano-Gallic? :D

[Paleo]

I have mixed feelings regarding the British Empire. It developed many countries, it discovered, and introduced valuable technology and medicine's. Also it raised the standers of living in most colonies which still often benefit from the industries that where established by the British.

However, there was disgusting atrocities committed to maintain its power. My forefathers both fought for it, and against it. The future has both lost and gained because of it existence. Like most things in history its not entirely one sided as many people would like it to be.

[Loddfafner]

My answer to the question in the poll is that the British Empire was piracy at its most glorious. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2846068/Tilly-War-Making-and-State-Making-as-Organized-Crime)

On a gut level, it brings feelings of nostalgia but my direct experience of it is limited to old maps and postage stamps whose graphic styles evoke a lost world. Much of what I have read about it is from the perspective of those who consider themselves its victims or aim to condemn some broader concept of imperialism.

At this point I try to avoid judging events and historical processes that took place before I was born.

[anonymaus]

At this point I try to avoid judging events and historical processes that took place before I was born.


Isn't the fullness of time the main ingredient in a fair judgement of history?

[Loddfafner]

Isn't the fullness of time the main ingredient in a fair judgement of history?

Taking sides is part of lived experience. With the fullness of time comes a picture of a broader network of relationships among sides and among alternate possibilities within which individual, partisan experiences are shaped.

[Joe McCarthy]

Jesus Christ Mary and Joseph, will you please stop talking out of your ass. Finland was as much a colony of Sweden as Ostrobothnia is a colony of Finland today.

Apparently Finns themselves are fond of 'talking out their ass' in that case:

http://www.multi.fi/~olimex/read_more/amerikafarare.htm


New Sweden was however far from being Sweden's only attempt to establish itself as a colonial power. Finland itself could in some ways be considered as a colony, and on the south side of the Baltic Sweden had by means of war captured an important part of Europe. At the same time as New Sweden, we also had a colony in Africa, Cabo Corso, in what today is Ghana. There were even plans to make the pirate islands of Madagascar and St. Marie a Swedish possession.


Now, it is true that Sweden regarded Finland as an integral part of Sweden, but then the same is true of Portugal's attitude toward Angola. :D

[Eldritch]

Apparently Finns themselves are fond of 'talking out their ass' in that case:


Yes, because all Finns think and act exactly the same.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Osweo
A little over-exaggeration there?

I don't think so. Britain vowed to go to war against any European power that assisted Russia. Wilhelm II, in warning of the Yellow Peril, called for a common front of European powers to aid Russia. The British laughed at him.


But apparently we were sharing intelligence, yes.

More than that. Britain made an alliance with Japan in 1902.


The choice was one of having Russia overstretch herself in Manchuria, or having a non-European power enter the 'big league'.

The Great Game was always about India. The British were deathly afraid Russia would seize it. How justified that was is for others to judge...


Naturally, we paid for it in the 40s. (As did the Dutch, Han, Koreans, Malays, Burmans, ad infinitum) Fuck, eh?

Ahem, WE paid too. I'd say this was one of the real low points of the Empire. :)

[Osweo]

Would you include or exclude France, more specifically its Northern parts (Normandy and Brittany) in all of this?
How could I not!? (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2964)Although this sort of thing depends heavily on local support and interest. And perhaps Identitairien politics will lead many in Neustria and Armorica along this road...

I see here that some would, unfortunately.
Let them eat cake, Aem. :cool:

[The Ripper]

Apparently Finns themselves are fond of 'talking out their ass' in that case:

http://www.multi.fi/~olimex/read_more/amerikafarare.htm

Although commonly assumed, Finns are not unerring.


Now, it is true that Sweden regarded Finland as an integral part of Sweden, but then the same is true of Portugal's attitude toward Angola. :D

:rolleyes:

[Eldritch]

Although commonly assumed, Finns are not unerring.



:rolleyes:

http://blastr.com/assets_c/2010/01/gi_joe_animated-thumb-550x413-32103.jpg

[Cato]

Well.. It was a hell of alot better than what Britain's become now.:eek:

[Bridie]

I think it's sad that she had to crumble, instead of possibly evolving to become something better than she was. The end result has obviously not been positive for many... well not many ethnic British anyway. I'm sure the Jamaicans, Indians, Pakis etc. are happy enough.

[Cato]

From the prologue of Romance of Three Kingdoms:

The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity.

[Nglund]

The British Empire was glorious

We tend to forget the enormous impact that Empire has on our daily lives, but it's that very daily status which unfortunately makes us forget its greatest achievements. We are more enclined to remember the bloody, horrible bits of the British Empire.
But I can't complain, History is about unusual and thus violent events after all.

I strongly recommend this book for a more detailed view of the Empire:


http://tangleofwires.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/empire_cover.jpg

Ferguson gives us a more honest view of the Empire IMO, it's worth reading :thumb001:

Or if you are too poor or lazy to get the book:


rSbMBh0YC1c

Reading the book and watching the tv documentary afterwards was a much better experience, mind you:p!

[The Lawspeaker]

Mixed feelings. The British nicked South Africa from us and subjugated the Boers (which are our kin). But the British also left their culture and language throughout the world.

I am against imperialism but some of the offspring cultures of mainly the British and the Dutch are rather interesting.

[Joe McCarthy]

Mixed feelings. The British nicked South Africa from us and subjugated the Boers (which are our kin). But the British also left their culture and language throughout the world.

I am against imperialism but some of the offspring cultures of mainly the British and the Dutch are rather interesting.

As Emerson, an opponent of our war with Mexico noted after it was over: most of history's great feats have been great crimes. Without these crimes human progress would have been impossible.

[Don]

Soy Español.

My answer is obvious.

They forced us with innumerable actions to think this way.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/blasdelezo6.jpg

[Albion]

I don't care about the rest of the Empire, but the white nations should have united into a federation. Losing the empire was the worst thing that ever happened to Britain and the loss of the European empires led to the situation we are in now - having to form a club of countries (the EU) to keep Europe relevant.:(
Its an awful feeling when the countries you once ruled surpass you :( On a more positive note though at least it was America, Britain's unruly offspring and hey, at least the Brits founded a ruck of white nations before the empire declined (Aus, NZ, Canada, 13 colonies):thumb001:


The Irish helped build the Empire too. Not every Irishman was independentist. :tsk: Not even in 1916. Gravestones can be observed with
the epitaph XXX O'YYY, of the Kingdom of Ireland. Being part of the Empire meant a lot to many Irishmen, but later history has tended to wrongly downplay their story. :tsk:

On the whole, the Empire was pretty impressive. These things rarely end well, especially for the founders, but that shouldn't detract from a general view completely.

Correct, my Irish ancestors helped us keep India under wraps. :p:thumb001:

Once America goes into serious decline (remember, all empires fall eventually) it should join with its buddies in the white commonwealth to create a new federation (a lose one) of America, Britain, Australia, Canada and NZ.


The Great Game was always about India. The British were deathly afraid Russia would seize it. How justified that was is for others to judge...

That is true.


Mixed feelings. The British nicked South Africa from us and subjugated the Boers (which are our kin). But the British also left their culture and language throughout the world.

Yes, I feel bad about that. Kitchener and co were in it for themselves.


I am against imperialism but some of the offspring cultures of mainly the British and the Dutch are rather interesting.

Yes, I call the Boers, Australians, Kiwis and Canadians one thing - result :p:D:thumb001:

[Wyn]

a new federation (a lose one) of America, Britain, Australia, Canada and NZ.


Sorry, but fuck that.

[Albion]

Sorry, but fuck that.

Loose as in EU or EFTA loose, well more of a confederation.

[Wyn]

Loose as in EU or EFTA loose, well more of a confederation.

I honestly don't see the point. Having a "white commonwealth" simply for the sake of having one is senseless IMO. If we need to trade with them we can do so without a bureaucratic union/federation etc. In all likelihood it would probably just be Britain and the US as top dogs telling the others to fetch, sit, and play dead, which wouldn't be fair on them and isn't what they need (does the world in general need any greater unity between the British and American governments? That can't end well.).

[Magister Eckhart]

The British Empire is far from dead because it represents merely a part of the greater Anglo-American international force that continues to dominate international politics with Viking economics and spiritual piracy.

Colonialism represents nothing more than the organised sacking, rape, and pillage of foreign peoples for material gain at the cost of a peoples' tie to their homeland. Of course it was the British who excelled most at this, pioneers as they were of the mercantile spirit that marked the end of Western cultural creativity and the dawn of civilisational decay and collapse for the entirety of the Occident.

Colonialism, Capitalism, and what we call "Imperialism" (which is really just a combination of the first two) represent the domination of the Viking spirit - not because it is Norse, but rather because it is representative for the Occident of the same spiritual drive of which the Vikings were representative for the Norse. It is the sacrifice of spiritual grounding in a blood-and-soil Weltanschauung in favour of material greed and wanderlust. Today the growth of Anglo-American world power has stagnated, but the blood-and-soil spirit of the Occident's Carthage has forever been suppressed by the Anglo-American Rome. The Anglo-American world power needs only to establish a Caesar and define its boundaries and the Winter will begin in earnest, or, as is more likely, it will continue to commit acts of organised piracy beyond its means, until it withers and dies in the face of coloured revenge, and the Occident is brought to an untimely end.

The British Empire is directly responsible for the death of the West.

[Albion]

The British Empire is far from dead because it represents merely a part of the greater Anglo-American international force that continues to dominate international politics with Viking economics and spiritual piracy.

Its dead in the sense of being British, Britain just plays second fiddle to America, its their empire now. It became America's undeclared empire when Australia asked American to defend it. The rest is history.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

They helped us to subjugate the Two Sicilies one century and a half ago, and I still can't say whether overall that has been a good or bad thing.

[Albion]

They helped us to subjugate the Two Sicilies one century and a half ago, and I still can't say whether overall that has been a good or bad thing.

Lol, how's that our fault? :D You should have left it to us, it'd have made a nice addition to Malta. :thumb001:

[Joe McCarthy]

The British Empire is far from dead because it represents merely a part of the greater Anglo-American international force that continues to dominate international politics with Viking economics and spiritual piracy.

Colonialism represents nothing more than the organised sacking, rape, and pillage of foreign peoples for material gain at the cost of a peoples' tie to their homeland. Of course it was the British who excelled most at this, pioneers as they were of the mercantile spirit that marked the end of Western cultural creativity and the dawn of civilisational decay and collapse for the entirety of the Occident.

Colonialism, Capitalism, and what we call "Imperialism" (which is really just a combination of the first two) represent the domination of the Viking spirit - not because it is Norse, but rather because it is representative for the Occident of the same spiritual drive of which the Vikings were representative for the Norse. It is the sacrifice of spiritual grounding in a blood-and-soil Weltanschauung in favour of material greed and wanderlust. Today the growth of Anglo-American world power has stagnated, but the blood-and-soil spirit of the Occident's Carthage has forever been suppressed by the Anglo-American Rome. The Anglo-American world power needs only to establish a Caesar and define its boundaries and the Winter will begin in earnest, or, as is more likely, it will continue to commit acts of organised piracy beyond its means, until it withers and dies in the face of coloured revenge, and the Occident is brought to an untimely end.

The British Empire is directly responsible for the death of the West.

Here was the record of British imperialism and capitalism when Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man in 1871:


"Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority. On the other hand, the children of parents who are short-lived, and are therefore on an average deficient in health and vigour, come into their property sooner than other children, and will be likely to marry earlier, and leave a larger number of offspring to inherit their inferior constitutions. But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."



The British Empire and colonialism, in concert with the new racial values brought into being by the Englishman Darwin, resulted in Western, mainly British, supremacy over nearly the entire world, and further brought into being America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Rhodesia. The trouble began when Germany attempted to challenge British supremacy, and the subsequent death match between these two helped bring on the present crisis.

Rather than blame Britain, we might ask who has rivaled her in accomplishments? I don't think it's an accident that it is usually Germans and those of German descent that are the loudest in denouncing Britain. Germany lost the contest, which it largely created, and now wallows in ressentiment and accusations.

[Liffrea]

All empires are built upon exploitation, promotion of a creed and superiority, the British Empire was no different. Amazing that people are shocked about this reality and also that there are people stupid enough to believe that we simply walked away from benign interest, we walked because the option was to be pushed (mostly by our allies the USA, Roosevelt didn’t fight to preserve the world’s biggest trading block from American business), the collapse of the empire was inevitable, the British showed more foresight than the French in accepting a reality of the post-1945 world. Rome benefited Europe greatly, yet how many delicate types today who bask in a civilisation heavily influenced by Rome could stomach a reality built by brutalised (and thus brutal) young men obliterating entire cultures in the name of Rome?

It is somewhat childish to label an entire period of history or an institution as “good” or “evil” such nonsense has no place in mature understanding of phenomenon. The British Empire simply was, the modern world cannot be understood without understanding it. In India British rule costs thousands of lives, yet India today wouldn’t be the power it is without British rule, its government and infrastructure are our gift to that state. Britain dominated the globe in the mid-19th century, which is why Indian princes (like Celts in the Roman Empire) were more than willing to help in their own enslavement; the benefits were often too good to pass up.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Liffrea
All empires are built upon exploitation, promotion of a creed and superiority, the British Empire was no different

Indeed, and ultimately the only real difference between Britain and, say, Germany, is that Britain was better at imperial brinkmanship. Germany was involved in the imperial sweepstakes too, it just got in the game late and acquired fewer colonies.

In the end the criticism of Britain boils down to: 'You were more effective at being pirates than we were, and you beat us'. It's not altogether different in character from the black criticism of whites to tell the truth.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy
Indeed, and ultimately the only real difference between Britain and, say, Germany, is that Britain was better at imperial brinkmanship. Germany was involved in the imperial sweepstakes too, it just got in the game late and acquired fewer colonies.

Well it is telling that Hitler admired the ruthlessness of the British the most…..and then singly failed to understand it.

There are posts on this thread about England and “Germanic” identity, it is something I’ve often encountered in German writers (and also in German members on forums) but it is something I’ve never encountered outside of the writings of men like Cecil Rhodes and Carlisle, amongst the English. I’ve read German newspaper clippings (in translation) from 1914 about how the Germans felt betrayed that their English brothers had sided with the French and Russians against them, amusing really the English have never seen Germany as anything other than just another European power to deal with on our own terms, France we have had a love/hate (we love the French they hate us) relationship with for centuries, Germany (pre-1914) we just tended to shrug in indifference. Hitler professed admiration of this yet failed to keep it in mind, maybe as Nietzsche wrote the English are just better barbarians. But maybe, as I believe, it is a simple misunderstanding; England is an island nation, xenophobic to which Europe usually means “trouble” we look to the Atlantic and outward. Our foreign policy was largely ensuring that Europe was divided enough not to pose a threat to us. Hitler believed England a “Germanic isle” the English thought Hitler a somewhat comic fool. Hitler even offered German soldiers to defend the British Empire, Roosevelt vowed not to let a single American soldier die to protect it, the Americans have kept at least part of their Anglo-Saxon heritage! You’re even more pragmatic than we are.

The irony is, though, that England and Germany could have had good relations built upon Realpolitik rather than romantic nonsense. Bismarck was a wise man, what need Germany of colonies in Africa? They were an industrial powerhouse as it was without the useless and pointless edition of south-west African desert to “Germania”, Wilhelm wanted respect and lost it by his idiocy. Bismarck would never have sanctioned colonial ventures let along trying to beat England in a naval arms race in order to protect colonies Germany didn’t need. The English saw France as their main opponent and the Russians just beyond the north-west frontier, Germany could have been a natural counter balance.

[Albion]

Well it is telling that Hitler admired the ruthlessness of the British the most…..and then singly failed to understand it.

There are posts on this thread about England and “Germanic” identity, it is something I’ve often encountered in German writers (and also in German members on forums) but it is something I’ve never encountered outside of the writings of men like Cecil Rhodes and Carlisle, amongst the English. I’ve read German newspaper clippings (in translation) from 1914 about how the Germans felt betrayed that their English brothers had sided with the French and Russians against them, amusing really the English have never seen Germany as anything other than just another European power to deal with on our own terms, France we have had a love/hate (we love the French they hate us) relationship with for centuries, Germany (pre-1914) we just tended to shrug in indifference. Hitler professed admiration of this yet failed to keep it in mind, maybe as Nietzsche wrote the English are just better barbarians. But maybe, as I believe, it is a simple misunderstanding; England is an island nation, xenophobic to which Europe usually means “trouble” we look to the Atlantic and outward. Our foreign policy was largely ensuring that Europe was divided enough not to pose a threat to us. Hitler believed England a “Germanic isle” the English thought Hitler a somewhat comic fool. Hitler even offered German soldiers to defend the British Empire, Roosevelt vowed not to let a single American soldier die to protect it, the Americans have kept at least part of their Anglo-Saxon heritage! You’re even more pragmatic than we are.

Before the two world wars the English used the Anglo-Saxon part of their ancestry to feel superior to the other peoples of the British Isles, they saw themselves as mostly or completely Anglo-Saxon, Germanic (aka "Teutonic") and superior to the other nations of the British Isles.
Two world wars with the "Teutons" unsurprisingly made the English look to their neglected Celtic roots, today both are acknowledged by most.

[Germanicus]

I have mixed feelings. The British Empire undoubtedly inspired (-es, when reading about it) awe and wonderment. They basically brought civilization, railway lines, the means to exploit nature, etc to the farthest reaches of the globe. And there is something majestic about the British Empire that other empires lacked. On the other hand, my people (the Boers) were subjugated when the empire was it its height of power. They were supportive after the war, though, and became close allies (or rather, they forced us to become close allies of them - throwing us in WW1&2 on British side ;) ).

I wouldn't be here if I didn't admire the British (and specifically the English - as it should rightfully be called the English Empire).


In retrospect, if the British had'nt colonised and brought civilsation to the outskirts of the world, some other nation would have done it, if you had a quick vote i would imagine most people would have wanted the British rather than some Latin speaking country... Could you imagine a spanish speaking South Africa Loki, or a Russian speaking America Joe McCarthy?

[Albion]

In retrospect, if the British had'nt colonised and brought civilsation to the outskirts of the world, some other nation would have done it, if you had a quick vote i would imagine most people would have wanted the British rather than some Latin speaking country... Could you imagine a spanish speaking South Africa Loki, or a Russian speaking America Joe McCarthy?

That's a good observation. None of the other European powers except for maybe Spain and perhaps Italy really settled colonies with Europeans on the scale that the British did.
And talking of other civilizations what if it hadn't been the British or Europeans at all, but instead the Chinese or Japanese settling the world and ruling us (Europe)?

[Joe McCarthy]

In retrospect, if the British had'nt colonised and brought civilsation to the outskirts of the world, some other nation would have done it, if you had a quick vote i would imagine most people would have wanted the British rather than some Latin speaking country... Could you imagine a spanish speaking South Africa Loki, or a Russian speaking America Joe McCarthy?

Had Spain settled the United States we'd be Mexico. Had Russia settled it we'd be arguably more backward still. I think you have my answer.

[Magister Eckhart]

Had Spain settled the United States we'd be Mexico. Had Russia settled it we'd be arguably more backward still. I think you have my answer.

Backward? We'd not exist. The Russians did not share the Western liberal penchant for conquest and extermination of peoples continents away; world conquest was not a cultural impetus and remains not a cultural impetus of the Russian High Culture.

Someone here used the term "ruthless" in regards to the British; I do not think that is inaccurate at all. Indeed, it takes ruthlessness and a cold mind for business to pursue the sort of organised piracy that was represented by the British Empire.

I dare say, however, that, in answer to your accusation that I only hate the British because I'm German (which I'm not; actually the majority of my ethnic stock is not even continental), perhaps the reason you seem so attached to the British Empire is your love of the exploitative capitalism that was born from and nurtured by the British and their Empire?

[Beorn]

LOL at the animosity that comes out from those of Irish and Scottish descent (ie: The British).

[Osweo]

LOL at the animosity that comes out from those of Irish and Scottish descent (ie: The British).

:D

The feller in question has Scottish descent from the most ENGLISH part of Scotland (solidly Bernician Angle), and as for the Irish bit, he reckons it's 'Hiberno-Norse', when the majority of Hibernicised Norsemen ended up on the Isle of Man, in Dumfriesshire, Galloway, or North-West England.... ;)

[Magister Eckhart]

:D

The feller in question has Scottish descent from the most ENGLISH part of Scotland (solidly Bernician Angle), and as for the Irish bit, he reckons it's 'Hiberno-Norse', when the majority of Hibernicised Norsemen ended up on the Isle of Man, in Dumfriesshire, Galloway, or North-West England.... ;)

Why should ethnicity have anything to do with the way one looks at the British Empire? Is it really so satisfying for you people to insult my intelligence in this low-brow way?

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by The Wagnerian
Backward? We'd not exist. The Russians did not share the Western liberal penchant for conquest and extermination of peoples continents away; world conquest was not a cultural impetus and remains not a cultural impetus of the Russian High Culture.


Russia had designs on California (so did Britain for that matter), seized Alaska, and 'oppressed' the indigenous peoples there. What you ascribe to a lack of Russian impetus was due more to backwardness and inferiority.


I dare say, however, that, in answer to your accusation that I only hate the British because I'm German (which I'm not; actually the majority of my ethnic stock is not even continental), perhaps the reason you seem so attached to the British Empire is your love of the exploitative capitalism that was born from and nurtured by the British and their Empire?

I don't have a problem with capitalism, correct, and neither have most serious nationalists now or historically. As A.J.P. Taylor noted, capitalism rose in concert with nationalism. The general alignment was bourgeoisie-liberalism-capitalism-nationalism vs. aristocracy-reaction-feudalism-empire. The successful nationalist parties in Europe today - that is those who are succeeding in reducing immigration - are more capitalist than their open borders opponents. This anti-capitalist kick among fringe nationalists is mostly a product of the fascist legacy and a simplistic view that blames capitalism for mass immigration.

[CelticTemplar]

I am willing to put aside your dealings with pirates *cough* Drake *cough* and your ultimatum you issued to my country in Africa, in order to say that your empire was in fact the greatest I have ever seen.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Backward? We'd not exist. The Russians did not share the Western liberal penchant for conquest and extermination of peoples continents away; world conquest was not a cultural impetus and remains not a cultural impetus of the Russian High Culture.

They didn't have overseas colonies because they had a huge land area to expand out and conquer (northern and central Asia, plus eastern Europe and the black sea region), also they did not have any major ports or seafaring culture, aside from Peter the Great building St. Petersburg in an attempt to compete with the other European powers.

[Albion]

American backstabbers told us to get rid of it or they'd cut of the Marshall loans so it was either get rid of it or starve.
The empire was a great thing, if it wasn't for the British and Russian empires then Europeans would still be confined to this little piece of the world, Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

Or the Dutch empire.. :) It's a shame we lost South Africa to the Brits though.

[Magister Eckhart]

Or the Dutch empire.. :) It's a shame we lost South Africa to the Brits though.

Don't forget New Amsterdam. I always wonder what New York would look like if it were still Dutch.

[Albion]

Or the Dutch empire.. :) It's a shame we lost South Africa to the Brits though.

Yeah, it should have remained part of the Netherlands and we should have taken Southern Rhodesia instead and then built a great big wall around both (think great wall of china for height).

[The Lawspeaker]

Don't forget New Amsterdam. I always wonder what New York would look like if it were still Dutch.
Nah. I am glad we got rid of that place. :thumb001:

[Magister Eckhart]

Nah. I am glad we got rid of that place. :thumb001:


Any particular reason?

I wonder if you would be as decidedly anti-American if the thirteen colonies flew orange-white-blue instead of red-white-blue.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8887/1000brusa.png

[Groenewolf]

Don't forget New Amsterdam. I always wonder what New York would look like if it were still Dutch.

Which would be unlikely. It could not be optimally defended, surrounded as it was by enemy territories.

[Magister Eckhart]

Which would be unlikely. It could not be optimally defended, surrounded as it was by enemy territories.

The British held it very well during the Revolutionary War, despite being poorly supplied. I don't think the islands are so difficult to defend as you make them out to be.

[SaxonCeorl]

The empire was a great thing, if it wasn't for the British and Russian empires then Europeans would still be confined to this little piece of the world, Europe.

True, but that might not be such a bad thing :thumb001:

[Cato]

The Empire was glorious up till it began to treat Englishmen in the colonies like thralls.

Then it went downhill.

[Gaztelu]

In my opinion, the British Empire was apex of Western might. There is only one other state in the world that built a worldwide empire comparable to that of the British. Even then, that particular state does not come close to matching the lasting influence that the British Empire had throughout the world.

[Cato]

Fuck king George.

A real English king should be named Alfred.

[Óttar]

Fuck king George.
Now. Now. I'll not have you heaping such violence and scorn upon our most noble and august monarch. :tsk:

(British-German Relations)
It might make sense that 'Britain doesn't give a flying f_ck about what the continent does and so sees Germans as foreigners', but the fact that Britain opted to side with the bloody French over the Germans in both world wars, that's just asinine.

[Cato]

Now. Now. I'll not have you heaping such violence and scorn upon our most noble and august monarch. :tsk:

It might make sense that 'Britain doesn't give a flying f_ck about what the continent does and so sees Germans as foreigners', but the fact that Britain opted to side with the bloody French over the Germans in both world wars, that's just asinine.

LOLZ. :P

[Albion]

The Empire was glorious up till it began to treat Englishmen in the colonies like thralls.

Then it went downhill.

You don't know what thralldom is, we're the one's who still live beside a Norman-descended aristocracy.


In my opinion, the British Empire was apex of Western might. There is only one other state in the world that built a worldwide empire comparable to that of the British. Even then, that particular state does not come close to matching the lasting influence that the British Empire had throughout the world.

Yes, its either the British Empire or the country that got away (USA). But since the country that got away was a result of the empire I'd say the empire has the lasting legacy.


Fuck king George.

A real English king should be named Alfred.

Agreed.

[Agrippa]

In the end, Britain ruined Europe, by preventing any greater unity and power in Europe first and introducing their awful societal and financial system to the rest of the world, finally, not in the name of the English people, but that of the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy, their corrupted upper class together with English and Jewish "social climbers" which became rich and powerful by exploiting the communities with the financial system which was introduced latest with William III (Orange) and the foundation of the Bank of England:


William's decision to grant the Royal Charter in 1694 to the Bank, a private institution owned by bankers, is his most relevant economic legacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England

If nothing else happens and the English as a people are long dead, this foul legacy of the "British Empire" will still be there and infect other people and corrupt humanity as such.

The FED-system is just an offshot of the British crime and the American "next generation" in the direct tradition of this corruption brought upon the world by the English.

So while the British Empire had man glorious periods and great achievement, its culture and legacy is the reason for the decline of Europe and the slow death of the European people, in a more and more genocidal process - Liberalcapitalism and Cultural Marxism would have been unthinkable without this system - even the Plutocratic Oligarchy could use the base in Britain, in the City of London, to this day to their favour and to maximise power and profits like they could have nowhere else.

An independent England died with the Bank of England and William Orange, after that, it became from year to year more clear, that the British Empire is an Anglo-Jewish enterprise.

Just look at the "great sons and founders of British Colonialism", people like Cecil Rhodes:


was an English-born businessman, mining magnate, and politician in South Africa. He was the founder of the diamond company De Beers, which today markets 40% of the world's rough diamonds and at one time marketed 90%


In October 1871, Rhodes and his brother Herbert left the colony for the diamond fields of Kimberley. Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, over the next 17 years Rhodes succeeded in buying up all the smaller diamond mining operations in the Kimberley area. His monopoly of the world's diamond supply was sealed in 1889 through a strategic partnership with the London-based Diamond Syndicate. They agreed to control world supply to maintain high prices


While attending Oriel College, Rhodes became a Freemason in the Apollo University Lodge. Although initially he did not approve of the organization, he continued to be a Freemason until his death in 1902. The failures of the Freemasons, in his mind, later caused him to envisage his own secret society with the goal of bringing the entire world under British rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

That is and always was "British" Colonialism since the Bank of England was founded!

Rhodes even had good ideas, but what did they turn out? They resulted in almost nothing, while the Plutocratic grip and legacy lasted.

This what we can say about the British Empire as a whole: What was good and European about it, true English, lasted only occasionally, but the grip the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy get on the English people, the Americans and finally the world, THIS LASTED and is therefore the TRUE LEGACY of this "British" Empire.

Still I voted for mixed, because the achievements and certain positive trends (for a time) were so huge, that one can't ignore it. But in the end and on the long run, the whole balance is truly and totally on the negative side - unfortunately.

[ariaka]

Some people have said things that seem to imply the normans are somehow distinct in a way but from what I have read they are very similar genetically to other various white peoples who populated England. Does anyone have any information that would demonstrate the normans are genetically distant from the jutes, danes, anglos, and saxons who also settled England?

[Agrippa]

Some people have said things that seem to imply the normans are somehow distinct in a way but from what I have read they are very similar genetically to other various white peoples who populated England. Does anyone have any information that would demonstrate the normans are genetically distant from the jutes, danes, anglos, and saxons who also settled England?

Only insofar, as they were partly mixed with local French, yet that doesn't made them much more different than an Anglo mixed with local British Celts.

The problem which the Normans brought, if one could even say so, was of a different - a socio-cultural nature, like discussed in this thread already:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=230844

Especially:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=230844&postcount=17
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=230979&postcount=32

[Albion]

In the end, Britain ruined Europe, by preventing any greater unity and power in Europe first and introducing their awful societal and financial system to the rest of the world, finally, not in the name of the English people, but that of the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy, their corrupted upper class together with English and Jewish "social climbers" which became rich and powerful by exploiting the communities with the financial system which was introduced latest with William III (Orange) and the foundation of the Bank of England:

Even though it was France and America that pressured Britain to adopt free trade... Free trade existed within the British Empire before that but that was simply internal trade.


Almost all of today's rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries in the earlier stages of their development. It is particularly important to note that Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

Contrary to the popular myth, Britain was an aggressive user, and in certain areas a pioneer, of activist policies intended to promote its industries. Such policies, although limited in scope, date back to the 14th century (Edward III) and the 15th century (Henry VII) in relation to woollen manufacturing, the leading industry of the time. At the time, England was an exporter of raw wool to the Low Countries, and Henry VII for example tried to change this by protecting woollen textile producers, taxing raw wool exports, and poaching skilled workers from the Low Countries.

Particularly between the trade policy reform of its first Prime Minister, Robert Walpole, in 1721 and its adoption of free trade around 1860, Britain used very dirigiste trade and industrial policies, involving measures very similar to what countries like Japan and Korea later used in order to develop their economies. During this period, it protected its industries a lot more heavily than did France, the supposed dirigiste counterpoint to its free-trade, free-market system. According to a study by Joseph Nye, the average tariff rate of France was significantly lower than that of Britian throughout the first half of the 19th century. Germany, another country frequently associated with state interventionism, had much lower tariffs than Britain during this period, although the German states tended to use other means of economic intervention more actively. Given this history, argued Friedrich List, the leading German economist of the mid-19th century, Britain preaching free trade to less advanced countries like Germany and the USA was like someone trying to 'kick away the ladder' with which he had climbed to the top.

The USA, today's supposed champion of free trade, was even more protectionist than Britain throughout most of its history before the Second World War. According to the authoritative study by Paul Bairoch, between the Civil War and the Second World War, it was literally the most heavily protected economy in the world.

Notice the second to last highlighted section. That is it in essence - kicking away the ladder. But it doesn't work when the British and Americans have come to actually believe in free trade themselves.


If nothing else happens and the English as a people are long dead, this foul legacy of the "British Empire" will still be there and infect other people and corrupt humanity as such.

No they're not, they still exist even if a lot do insist at being called "British". Tell me Agrippa, what has your nation done for the world and in what ways has it ruined it?


The FED-system is just an offshot of the British crime and the American "next generation" in the direct tradition of this corruption brought upon the world by the English.

So while the British Empire had man glorious periods and great achievement, its culture and legacy is the reason for the decline of Europe and the slow death of the European people, in a more and more genocidal process - Liberalcapitalism and Cultural Marxism would have been unthinkable without this system - even the Plutocratic Oligarchy could use the base in Britain, in the City of London, to this day to their favour and to maximise power and profits like they could have nowhere else.

We have a conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes2: Liberalism and Cultural Marxism aren't associated with the UK, they developed across the Western world because of bleeding heart types feeling sorry for the poor little Africans.
What of the Nazis and their love of Islam, what of the French and their mission to civilize Africa, to make Africans the equals of Frenchmen? Is that not Cultural Marxism?




Just look at the "great sons and founders of British Colonialism", people like Cecil Rhodes:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

That is and always was "British" Colonialism since the Bank of England was founded!

Rhodes even had good ideas, but what did they turn out? They resulted in almost nothing, while the Plutocratic grip and legacy lasted.

This what we can say about the British Empire as a whole: What was good and European about it, true English, lasted only occasionally, but the grip the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy get on the English people, the Americans and finally the world, THIS LASTED and is therefore the TRUE LEGACY of this "British" Empire.

Still I voted for mixed, because the achievements and certain positive trends (for a time) were so huge, that one can't ignore it. But in the end and on the long run, the whole balance is truly and totally on the negative side - unfortunately.

And Cecil Rhodes is representative of the whole empire is he? Sure he was very influential but to say it was all Jews running the empire is stupid.
Perhaps if Germany and Central Europe hadn't exported their Jews all over Europe then maybe they wouldn't be so entrenched everywhere.


Some people have said things that seem to imply the normans are somehow distinct in a way but from what I have read they are very similar genetically to other various white peoples who populated England. Does anyone have any information that would demonstrate the normans are genetically distant from the jutes, danes, anglos, and saxons who also settled England?

Yes, as Agrippa has said - genetically they were related to btoh Anglo-Saxons and Celts but culturally they took a dump on Anglo-Saxon society and completely destroyed it.

[Agrippa]

Notice the second to last highlighted section. That is it in essence - kicking away the ladder. But it doesn't work when the British and Americans have come to actually believe in free trade themselves.

Well, that is similar to Americans re-educating Germans and trying to condition the world about "their moral" - yet the crap came back to them and some people in the background obviously wanted it that way.

So of course, if you indoctrinate your people, they begin to believe in the propaganda-crap you told them and in the case of the British and Anglo-Americans it was even worse because of the Calvinist religious influence, which fostered radical Capitalism in certain interpretations like no other truly Christian and European belief.


No they're not, they still exist even if a lot do insist at being called "British". Tell me Agrippa, what has your nation done for the world and in what ways has it ruined it?

I might mention many things and many great people which did something to bring progress to this world, but such a discussion is meaningless and similar to comparing pictures of people - pointing to the better or worse.

But fact is, my people never spread that memetic virus - they didn't invent and they didn't spread it, the corrupted English upper class and Jews did.


We have a conspiracy theorist

You can call it like you want, but the facts spreak for themselves and one doesn't have to use too much imagination any more to see the truth.


Liberalism and Cultural Marxism aren't associated with the UK

Sure they were. To begin with, many English philosophers adopted a certain point of view on society which could be best described as abandoning the community and embracing radical Individualism, property rights and a Capitalist society.

Also wasn't Adam Smith an English?

And who fostered Capitalism more than the English, before the Americans became important?

If it was for their own benefit or not, they just did it and the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy wanted it that way, not just because of short term interests and that is for sure...

On continental Europe, radical Capitalist and Libertarian ideas were never that strong, only exceptions here or there, you can't even compare the situation with that in England or the United States.


they developed across the Western world because of bleeding heart types feeling sorry for the poor little Africans.

Well, that's a rather naive perception, isn't it? Who were the religious sects which made up what Neo-Christianity is about? Mostly Calvinist inspired Anglo-groups.

And who helped Mr. Karl Marx to do his job, so that no other Socialist ideas could come up?

Even the real Cultural Marxism and radical Feminism as part of it was born in English spreaking lands primarily, much worse than original Marxism, much more unhealthy and destructive:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17073

And "political correctness" as a practical consequence? Same for that...


What of the Nazis and their love of Islam

They didn't "love" Islam, they just preferred it in comparison to some other "beliefs". And who cares for treating Muslims nice, if they stand out of Europe and being under European hegemony?

Liberalcapitalism and Cultural Marxism made muslims a thread to Europe. A healthy and group oriented European culture has nothing to fear from Islam, because they will always win and never lose against the Islamic world.

If Europeans ever fall to Islam, it will be because of this weak and sick spirit, this un-European pestilence which spread itself like memetic poison in Europe and has zero to do with Germany as a promotor.


what of the French and their mission to civilize Africa, to make Africans the equals of Frenchmen? Is that not Cultural Marxism?

Most of the time they made clear that the African is still not on eye level with a true French.

And when this attitude changed, it was a French systemic defect, but still something like that is by far not as dangerous as this memetic and structural poison which was spread from the City of London - by the British Empire.


And Cecil Rhodes is representative of the whole empire is he?

Yes, he is representative in a way - still a healthy core was alive in him, but he became corrupted, manipulated and his legacy is that of the Plutocracy ALONE - and if something went wrong, they can even blame "English Colonialism" and "the English" - never speaking about those who financed things and even used blackmail to bring their interests forward, often with a much harder grip on "the Colonised".

Just look at the "Belgian Congo" and Leopold - they always talk about Leopold, but how often do they mention by whom he was in debt and wanted the money with interest and compound interest?

They always ignore who owns the debt and how this could have happened to begin with:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26699

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26490

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20481


Sure he was very influential but to say it was all Jews running the empire is stupid.

Not running it, but profiting most, especially on the longer run.

And yes, the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy is not just Jewish - there is the corrupted Anglo-part in it, members of the English Aristocracy and upper class, all the small "believing minions from the bourgeoisie" as well.

If they wouldn't have played the game with the Jewish AND European banksters, the thing would have never worked out. Yes, these corruption is the true reason for the downfall of Europe, that the English became so totally corrupted - it started LATEST with the Calvinist influence, William Orange and the Bank of England, but parts of that weakness were older, as can be seen in the Norman approach to individualism and property rights.


Perhaps if Germany and Central Europe hadn't exported their Jews all over Europe then maybe they wouldn't be so entrenched everywhere.

Blame the Dutch who were leading the Financial-economic circle before the English - now it is the Americans.

The current Financial-interest circle is going to end, let's see what kind of reform they will use or where they will move next.

It wasn't all about Jews, even if looking at the older circles, you can see it in Italy and there were MANY JEWS, but also many Europeans involved in creating the Financial System. And both many of those Jewish and European families moved directly from Italy, some with a "short visit in Spain", to the Netherlands and then England...

From there they moved to the Netherlands and from the Netherlands they managed to get their foot on England, which ruined everything as we saw.

Now fact is, as long as the Europeans were in charge and the rulers could just take away the Jewish privileges, dispossess them, take back the banks and debts, things were often bad since the European leaders didn't really control the financial system, but not as bad.

Once they were granted full rights and the right of property being secured, there was a problem, because this accumulated wealth and power could not be broken any more, without something like a "revolution".

And if you let the Plutocrats run your state's bank, having to make debts for money which they create and get interest for, you are in serious trouble.

Even if there were more Jews in some other countries, more important is which ones and which power they have.

Insofar, many parts of Europe with a much higher rate of Jewish inhabitants were less "Jewicised", especially if considering the "Calvinist spirit" and the pity minded bourgeois spirit.

Also, to me, it matters little if the people corrupting Europeans are Jews which don't care for Europeans or even Europeans themselves which don't care for other Europeans and the greater whole.

Actually it is easier to forgive the first, since Europeans are not "their people", than the latter, which are traitors - something which can be said for the Anglo-Plutocracy for sure, which are, sometimes, even spiritually, "worse than Jews in the Jewish way", if that makes sense to you, but I guess you understand, because finally, the biggest problem is not the confession or ancestry on paper, but what people actually do.

Like you said, it is not possible to blame everything on the Jews, since we should never forget the Europeans which corrupted their OWN PEOPLE and unfortunately, some of the greatest and most important traitors were among the English.

That the USA are now the leading mercenary and centre of the Plutocracy doesn't change that, after all it's the child of this "Anglo-Jewish, Calvinist-Jewish liaison..."

[_______]

mixed feelings- a glorious achievement but at what cost?
:)

[Albion]

Sure they were. To begin with, many English philosophers adopted a certain point of view on society which could be best described as abandoning the community and embracing radical Individualism, property rights and a Capitalist society.

Individualism has only ever been perpetuated by Americans and a few writers here.


Also wasn't Adam Smith an English?

Scottish, a Scot who founded the bank of England. How ironic. They're called the Scottish raj.


And who fostered Capitalism more than the English, before the Americans became important?

The Dutch. Although I much prefer mercantilism that they also were very good at.


Well, that's a rather naive perception, isn't it? Who were the religious sects which made up what Neo-Christianity is about? Mostly Calvinist inspired Anglo-groups.

Calvinism had its roots throughout Northern Europe (Netherlands, UK - more so Scotland, Switzerland).


And who helped Mr. Karl Marx to do his job, so that no other Socialist ideas could come up?

No one. London wasn't kind to him if that's what you're hinting.


Blame the Dutch who were leading the Financial-economic circle before the English - now it is the Americans.

And who next, who's the next victim? China? Would the Chinese even let them in?

[Wulfhere]

We gave the world our language, our culture, our laws, and even the sports they play. In return, they have given us the dregs of humanity, crowding into our cities and turning them into hellholes.

[Peyrol]

British Empire, in its structure, was the only true heir of the Roman Empire.

Not USA, not France, not Germany...but Britain.

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves...

[Agrippa]

Individualism has only ever been perpetuated by Americans and a few writers here.

If you look at things from the current perspective, probably, but if you look at things from the traditional or "old European" one, then you instantly see how much of an individualist culture the English had for quite some time...


Scottish, a Scot who founded the bank of England. How ironic. They're called the Scottish raj.

Well, the Scots played their inglorious battle as well, that is very true, so did the Italian Plutocrats, the Dutch ones and some other people which CAME TO ENGLAND.

Was it the fault of the simple English farmer or small trader? As a rule, of course not!

But still, the system on the island changed the way described and it is typical that many negative elements gathered there, in this "centre of the New World", especially after the last TRUE KINGS were gone - William Orange was really a milestone!

Back to the Scottish, they also had their connections and were of great importance in Freemasonry.


The origins and early development of Freemasonry are a matter of some debate and conjecture. A poem known as the "Regius Manuscript" has been dated to approximately 1390 and is the oldest known Masonic text.[5] There is evidence to suggest that there were Masonic lodges in existence in Scotland as early as the late 16th century[6] (for example the Lodge at Kilwinning, Scotland, has records that date to the late 16th century, and is mentioned in the Second Schaw Statutes (1599) which specified that "ye warden of ye lug of Kilwynning [...] tak tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof, of everie fellowe of craft and everie prenteiss according to ayr of yr vocations").[7] There are clear references to the existence of lodges in England by the mid-17th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

They came out into the open and broad daylight almost at the same time as the Bank of England made the bankers rule official, what "coincidence" again, but of course, I don't want to be too much of a "conspiracy theorists", so I stop here...


The Dutch. Although I much prefer mercantilism that they also were very good at.

Yeah, they played their role too, as mentioned...


No one. London wasn't kind to him if that's what you're hinting.


Marx returned to Paris, which was then under the grip of both a reactionary counter-revolution and a cholera epidemic, and was soon expelled by the city authorities who considered him a political threat. With his wife Jenny expecting their fourth child, and not able to move back to Germany or Belgium, in August 1849 he sought refuge in London


Marx moved to London in May 1849 and would remain in the city for the rest of his life. It was here that he founded the new headquarters of the Communist League

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Well, good enough for him to stay and "work" there to undermine European traditions and other Socialist efforts than that of him and his colleague Engels - something which would have been, at that time, more difficult in various other places.


And who next, who's the next victim? China? Would the Chinese even let them in?

Well, these Plutocrats were always at least Europid by race, so they could intermingle with the locals, to a certain extend, if they moved from Italy to the Nethelands, to Britain or the United States.

This is the first time they would HAVE TO leave the Europid sphere of race and culture, which is a great jump. Even India is easier to manage and closer in certain respects, China is just different.

But in the modern context, just a few people and strings are needed to control a system, if being in charge.

This brings me back on some other posts of mine, in which I described the current struggle between the Western Plutocratic Oligarchy and the Chinese autocratic Oligarchy.

The Chinese might be some of the last "free people" in the sense of determining THEIR OWN FATE by THEIR OWN PEOPLE - even if they are less free as individuals and the struggle for power, profits and ressources goes on:


The crucial question will be if they get the turn demographically and ecologically, get rid of the worst effects of corruption and Capitalism, and can, through economic growth and a better distribution of wealth, keep the population more or less satisfied.

If they manage that, what is hard to do, especially if there would be a major economic crisis, the Plutocrats might even provoke, they can really become one or even the leading power of the world, with the current regime transforming into a high level technocracy, they might be best system and strongest state on this planet.

The question is just, IF they can manage that, and the next decades will be crucial.

I don't think the Plutocrats want them to get that far, so somewhere in between, the showdown must come...

If the Plutocrats can't make it through conspiracy and undermining the Chinese state and culture, what is what they try now, because they can profit from it the same time and blackmail Europeans with the cheap labour camp China, they might use "economic weapons" and if these fail too...

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=387847&postcount=20

The Plutocrats just play the age old game of making first contacts, starting to make the other side dependent and then infiltrating and corrupting the people, to change them to a state from which they will accept their rule.

Now that game might go wrong there, we will see - or probably not, because we don't live long enough ;)

Also, the means now are different and the Chinese effort might just collapse, while the Eura-American structures are still very strong and could be back on track in just a short period of time with enough liquidity and efforts.

So this is all a great game, gambling for the future of the world and mankind and the true Europeans are just a tool, not led nor represented by an own and independent spiritual elite which actually cares for its people, but the rulers of the Plutocratic Oligarchy...

[Cato]

mixed feelings- a glorious achievement but at what cost?
:)

For me: mixed, even hostile feelings even to this day about the mother-country of America. Yes, I don't really believe in any "special relationships" and, as an Angloamerican, I've often been mistreated by the "purer" Englishmen of England (who want to eat their cake but would prefer that I eat from a dog dish). The supposedly special relationship betwixt the U.S. and the U.K. is a load of bollocks, an outgrowth of the period of global colonialism and the world wars. Oh and let's not forget Zionist influence. :grumpy:

My loyalty is to an England that is long since dead, i.e. the England of men like Alfred and Harold Godwinson.

[Murphy]

My opinion on the British Empire is negative. It was nothing but a vehicle for dominance by a small Protestant/Judaic merchant elite. I am not impressed by the "civilisation" they "brought to the world". The industrial revolution introduced to the world by Britain is quite possibly one of the single biggest disasters of human history.

It ranks up there with the fall of our First Parents.

[Joe McCarthy]

American backstabbers told us to get rid of it or they'd cut of the Marshall loans so it was either get rid of it or starve.


Then why was the Atlee government using Marshall Plan funds to maintain the Sterling Area?

In addition, the British government obtained a $4 billion loan from the US (over a billion more than total British Marshall Plan outlays) which it used to maintain its empire into 1947.

More here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Then we have the well established Anglophilia of the Truman administration:

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm


Orders that were being prepared for U.S. ships and marines to take Hong Kong and turn it over to the Chinese, were aborted. Other plans to prevent the French from retaking Indochina were cancelled, and American troops in the area were told to stand aside. The imperial flags went back up, as Churchill had been demanding, all over the world.

Later that same month, in San Francisco, the American delegation to the United Nations conference voted against proposals that were aimed at placing the British and French colonial possessions under international supervision and with a definite timetable for independence. America, said delegation leader Harold Stassen, had but one true ally, the British, and we must always stand by her side.


On Eleanor Roosevelt's opposition to Truman's pro-British policy:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/teach-er-vk/lesson-plans/notes-er-and-cold-war.htm


Yet, unlike Truman, Churchill and DeGaulle, she opposed the propping up of former British and French colonies in India, Africa, and Indochina.

FDR was indeed an enemy of the British Empire, but his schemes died with him.

Here is the man that destroyed the British Empire:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00681/adolf-hitler-joke-4_681576c.jpg

Though he lost the war, beating him destroyed Britain financially, thus preventing it from being able to maintain its empire.

But then maybe we can add the anti-American victim cult to the anti-British victim cult also on display on this thread. :rolleyes:

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
So while the British Empire had man glorious periods and great achievement, its culture and legacy is the reason for the decline of Europe and the slow death of the European people, in a more and more genocidal process - Liberalcapitalism and Cultural Marxism would have been unthinkable without this system - even the Plutocratic Oligarchy could use the base in Britain, in the City of London, to this day to their favour and to maximise power and profits like they could have nowhere else.


The British Empire had nothing to do with a gaggle of kikes in Frankfurt, Germany. It's ludicrous to blame the British for people Germany produced.

[Magister Eckhart]

Here is the man that destroyed the British Empire:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00681/adolf-hitler-joke-4_681576c.jpg

Though he lost the war, beating him destroyed Britain financially, thus preventing it from being able to maintain its empire.

But then maybe we can add the anti-American victim cult to the anti-British victim cult also on display on this thread. :rolleyes:

Wrong.

Here is the man that destroyed the British Empire:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/17/article-0-0061385500000258-624_233x322.jpg

But, truly, you could feasibly trace loss of faith in the Empire and therefore its ultimate collapse to Victoria and her silly feminine obsession over Albert's death. She neglected her duties for excessive and unwarranted grief - the portait of the sort of selfishness that began the destruction of the reputation of the monarchy (helped along later by the adulterer Edward) and allowed republicanism to thrive in spite of Disraeli's best efforts.

[poiuytrewq0987]

British Empire, in its structure, was the only true heir of the Roman Empire.

Not USA, not France, not Germany...but Britain.

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves...

Perhaps so but I shudder to think about the British Caliphate that would've stood in the place of the British Empire had the Byzantines failed to defend the Gates of Europe.

Western civilization... would have been lost long ago were it not for the Hellenes who stood heroically in face of countless barbarians from the East overflowing Anatolia with their ilk.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I read that Hitler destroyed the British Empire financially. How? The Empire still had control of important colonies such as India and Australia. How could they be destroyed financially when rebuilding was going to be an easy task with those colonies still in Empire's hands?

[Albion]

FDR was indeed an enemy of the British Empire, but his schemes died with him.

FDR was who I was generally referring to (yeah, my comment was a bit broad)


Here is the man that destroyed the British Empire:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00681/adolf-hitler-joke-4_681576c.jpg

Though he lost the war, beating him destroyed Britain financially, thus preventing it from being able to maintain its empire.


Yes, without the two world wars it might have actually survived. Thanks for the reading material, I'll have a look at that.

[Joe McCarthy]

I read that Hitler destroyed the British Empire financially. How? The Empire still had control of important colonies such as India and Australia. How could they be destroyed financially when rebuilding was going to be an easy task with those colonies still in Empire's hands?

I don't have the figures right in front of me but the balance of payments from before the war to the war's end contracted radically. Britain went from very well off to being heavily in debt. They couldn't afford to maintain the troop presence.

[Agrippa]

The British Empire had nothing to do with a gaggle of kikes in Frankfurt, Germany. It's ludicrous to blame the British for people Germany produced.

First of all, they were never really strong in Germany or Continental Europe, just a fringe group, it was the Americans primarily and the British secondarily which made them to what they became.

Secondly, they were still transitional and the "modern forms" of Cultural Marxism were present in just some of them and it wasn't complete yet, British scholars made it to the crap it is now, with even more Individualisation, stripped from most of the economic demands and largely an ideology of "political correctness", Multiculturalism/Multiracialism, "Plural Society" and radical "Feminism".

If they would have let Continental Europe go its way, NEVER EVER such crap + Radical Capitalism under the rule of the Plutocratic Oligarchy would have dominated what is now left of our "culture".

[Albion]

I read that Hitler destroyed the British Empire financially. How? The Empire still had control of important colonies such as India and Australia. How could they be destroyed financially when rebuilding was going to be an easy task with those colonies still in Empire's hands?

It was not enough. Australia, NZ, Canada and SA were still young and already semi-independent, they didn't have GDP's near what they have today and were still forming.
India became a burden, especially once that little trouble maker Ghandi started kicking up shit. I
ndia generated a lot of wealth but the world was moving on before even WWI or II, the trade within the empire was being competed with by the other nations of Europe and the USA.

The cost and mobilization needed to keep a crumbling empire of that scale together were immense, some of my ancestors served with the British administration in India as Mountbatten and Co. were getting ready to release it, if it hadn't have gone there'd have only of been a revolution or war.

Britain hoped that Australia, Canada, NZ and SA would stay loyal because of their British ethnic ties but it didn't quite work out like that and Britain finally gave up on sustaining trade with the empire when it joined the EU.
The Commonwealth up until Britain joining the EU was what the British and some people in the colonies hoped would bind the former empire together, that the UK, Australia, NZ, Canada and SA could all be autonomous within a confederation whilst still forming some sense of empire. There was even talk of an imperial federation but it didn't work out.

Canada got drawn into economic ties with America (which already existed), SA got isolated and Australia and NZ remained relatively loyal till the idea until Britain joined the EU which is when they realised they'd have to go it alone.
After Britain joined the EU, that is when Australia and NZ stopped think of themselves as 'British Australians' and 'British Kiwis' and simply 'Australians and Kiwis'.
As for my ancestors who were in India as British rule disappeared, some went to Australia and a few back to England and Ireland where they originally came from.

[poiuytrewq0987]

First of all, they were never really strong in Germany or Continental Europe, just a fringe group, it was the Americans primarily and the British secondarily which made them to what they became.

Secondly, they were still transitional and the "modern forms" of Cultural Marxism were present in just some of them and it wasn't complete yet, British scholars made it to the crap it is now, with even more Individualisation, stripped from most of the economic demands and largely an ideology of "political correctness", Multiculturalism/Multiracialism, "Plural Society" and radical "Feminism".

If they would have let Continental Europe go its way, NEVER EVER such crap would have dominated what is now left of our "culture".

What's happening to Western Europe happened to the Haemus 500 years ago. Either you rise up and fight back or keep your head down and do nothing... will decide the fate of your country just as ours were.

[Agrippa]

What's happening to Western Europe happened to the Haemus 500 years ago. Either you rise up and fight back or keep your head down and do nothing... will decide the fate of your country just as ours were.

True, but the "victorious" nations look now - partly - even worse than German lands, which is symptomatic for the betrayal.

And still many of the English, Anglo-Americans and French believe in their system, even think their ancestors were right in what they did, learnt nothing while being now slaves of the Plutocratic Oligarchy like us Germans.

That is what is most frustrating about this issue, that the Americans/Anglos still think about their "Libertarian-pseudo-conservative solution", perceive "the state, taxes and Socialism" as the greatest threats the world ever faced and some British really believe it was "their empire", when it, in reality, just worked out for this Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy (especially on the longer run) which gives a shit about its English countrymen, as all the political moves of the last centuries show us - and of course even less about other European nations and its people or a better solution and situation for mankind as a whole...

As the situation is, Europeans should rise up together (other's welcomed too), or they will, like Germany, being crippled and enslaved by force with the other Europeans even being used and abused as mercenaries and force of the Plutocracy - like the Americans in particular in the last 100 years...

[Treffie]

I'm not apologetic about the omnipresence of the British Empire. In fact, it was quite a feat for such a small country to be so dominant in world politics, trade etc.

[Joe McCarthy]

My opinion on the British Empire is negative. It was nothing but a vehicle for dominance by a small Protestant/Judaic merchant elite. I am not impressed by the "civilisation" they "brought to the world". The industrial revolution introduced to the world by Britain is quite possibly one of the single biggest disasters of human history.

It ranks up there with the fall of our First Parents.

Had the industrial revolution not occurred in Britain it would have occurred somewhere else, most probably the Ottoman Empire, as Lodd rightly observed once.

I dare say that's an alternative history scenario even the Irish wouldn't prefer.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Also wasn't Adam Smith an English?


he learned his system from the French school (the 'Physiocrats') having spent extensive time in France.
Basically he systemised and popularised the work of French 'liberty-loving' economists.
and yeah, he was Scottish, not English.



Scottish, a Scot who founded the bank of England. How ironic. They're called the Scottish raj.


I don't think Smith founder the bank or worked for it or anything like that, and it was founded by english 'upper class' (albeit patterned on a Scot's earlier design).

Scots certainly got their fingers dirty, much moreso than the English, IMO. Maybe the most infamous being John Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_%28economist%29).

Smith is overrated as the founder of 'evil, asocial, capitalism' IMO (he also wrote moral werk in the (excellent) british tradition of 'moral sense theory' which stressed the role of social mores in shaping behaviour, and also gave support to certain institutions for 'social' reasons), although his work certainly has strenghtened the position of 'evil, asocial capitalists'.
I find it in that regard funny that uber-capitalist jude Murray Rothbard (the most extreme capitalist person ever?) called Smith 'proto marxist (http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/Q11_5.pdf)', lol.
Unfortunately and to me bizzarely, extreme individualism & krapitalism a la crazed j00z liek rothbard and rand eminating from amerika is becoming very popular on the 'net including with 'pro white' people to the extent it's becoming a dogma, I just don't get it myself (although I think I got some light on it when someone said it was because to american racists, government = anti discrimination laws, affirmitive action, and taking tax monies to spend on blacks, hence why they are anti government).


Most of the time they made clear that the African is still not on eye level with a true French.

Neither were they on eye level with a 'true English' in the British empire either.
Just like other europeans weren't (remember the funny cartoons of irish people as the 'missing link' between africans and english ubermensch? ;))
or the 'anglo elite' view in which 'white people' (the best people) basically ment English and even swedes were not 'white'.
We can make an analogue to not uncommon contemporanious German attitude to Poles & other Slavs (in case you wanted to make an issue of this sillyness by 'WASPs' 100+ years ago ;))

I think the impact of French thought ("Liberté, égalité, fraternité", "the noble savage" and related crap) has provided a much more negative groundwork for european future than anything produced by the English and you understate it (also consider how influential those lines of thought were on America & the american revolution as well as the French).

[Magister Eckhart]

Had the industrial revolution not occurred in Britain it would have occurred somewhere else, most probably the Ottoman Empire, as Lodd rightly observed once.

I dare say that's an alternative history scenario even the Irish wouldn't prefer.

The Ottoman Empire?? Industrial Revolution?? I never thought I'd ever hear a suggestion so absurd. Try Germany. The Rhineland was the other epicentre of industry outside of England, and I've no doubt most industrial inventions would have been Westphalian exports.

Either way all this is pure speculation and fantasy - the reality is that something like the British Empire had to come into existence and it had to be born from Westerners. The Ottomans could never have done it, nor the Russians -- they're too culturally distant from Faustian outward-reaching expansion. Imperialism and Industrialisation are - were - are necessary growths of the cancer that eats away at and eventually destroys all civilizations.

[Óttar]

Here is the man that destroyed the British Empire: (A.H.)
False. Hitler was (initially) sympathetic to the British. He even offered to help defend the empire with German troops. Hitler did not want Britain as an enemy. Churchill insisted violently upon maintaining a bellicose attitude toward Germany.

[Agrippa]

I think the impact of French thought

Sure Rousseau and the French revolution made up a lot of problems - did some good things as well though.

But funnily, that happened because the French lost the war against the English, were deeply in debt and French came into contact with the American revolution as well at least.

One can't blame everything on the British island of course, but fact is, the rule of the Plutocracy and Capitalism was practically nowhere as entrenched and deeply rooted as in the Anglos and Calvinists.

There were and are parts of the world which are as worse or much worse actually than the British in treating their own people and workers or the like, but it is in the mentality and customs of the Anglos and related Calvinist groups in general in which lies the difference, which made things much worse, because there wasn't a real opposition from a certain sociocultural level on to the Liberalcapitalist society and Plutocratic rule, the whole bourgeois and Neo-Christian "values" from a certain time on - or so little that it is a shame at least.

Compare that with the French, in which there was always much more of a dispute and the path wasn't as clear - but if you look at the English development, that is a straight path almost and they just ended where they were heading for since William Orange and the Bank of England LATEST.

One can also not ignore the role the City of London played if talking about the Plutocratic Oligarchy even far away from England, it was just the centre of all these developments and it prevented alternatives from happening on continental Europe on various occasions, sometimes for good even probably, but finally always with the aim to keep Europe divided, often at war and in debt.


Basically he systemised and popularised the work of French 'liberty-loving' economists.

Even if Marx was a German Jew and many theoreticians were real Germans, never forget, it is not just about where an idea was born, that is sometimes even less important, but where it became important!

If a typical bankster character being born into a state in which the system and people would eliminate him as soon as he overstretch things and becomes a threat to the people - and therefore moves on to the "great nations" of England or the United States, where his kind being treated like gods no matter how corrupt or destructive they are, as long as nobody can prove them not following the laws by the word - the meaning being lost for most anyway in the Western legal system these days - it really doesnt matter that this bankster came from the country X - what's really important is, that some countries react healthy in the face of such a threat, while others even help him doing his dirty work.

And the City of London was for quite some time THE CENTRE for all those dirty guys doing their dirty jobs throughout Europe and the world.

Germany was the cradle of many "ideas", so was France, but just think about which became successful, how and where.

It's typical that, talking about politics, many of better ones never really made it fully in the USA, whereas the crappist once became much more successful, just like it was useful...for some.

[Agrippa]

False. Hitler was (initially) sympathetic to the British. He even offered to help defend the empire with German troops. Hitler did not want Britain as an enemy. Churchill insisted violently upon maintaining a bellicose attitude toward Germany.

That's true, he was actually much too mild and pretty naive about England. One of his greatest mistakes was to think of the English as Germanic brethren - POLITICALLY - he should have known better and see the true Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy as what it was - a power and enemy which would have never tolerated a greater continental power, other than their own!

That is why all kinds of European "unions" where destroyed over centuries and only this, economically Liberal and morally Liberal-Cultural Marxist construct could be accepted.

As bad as it was from the start, de Gaulle not unproblematic himself, was right when he didn't wanted the British in, because they would just spread even more American and Plutocratic influence in Europe, which is exactly what they did, preventing anything useful from taking place and pushing the Neoliberal-Plutocratic and "politically correct" agenda forward.

Also typical, as bad as Social Democrats were in the past, they at least had a social function, but now, they all adapt to the "New Labour model", just somewhat softer Neoliberals - again a copy of a corrupted construct from the British island.

I think if looking at the bigger picture and at things on the longer run, there is a very clear pattern and the role of the Anglos is not the nice one - yet they had great technical, certain economic and some societal advancements of value, but all of them being corrupted by the greater structures in which these took place and most of it could have been done by continental Europeans without being infected the way they were.

[Joe McCarthy]

Wagnerian, world history isn't always reducible to Spenglerian mumbo-jumbo. During the War of the Roses the Ottomans were more technologically advanced than England and had industrialism not hit Manchester it would most likely have landed in Bursa, a major manufacturing center. I've actually read a couple of works on the Ottomans recently and their 'Egyptian' wealth wasn't simply a matter of nomadic plunder, as many seem to assume.

[Curtis24]

he was actually much too mild

..Hitler was too mild?

[Iron Will]

False. Hitler was (initially) sympathetic to the British. He even offered to help defend the empire with German troops. Hitler did not want Britain as an enemy. Churchill insisted violently upon maintaining a bellicose attitude toward Germany.

You are right about Churchill and his fevorous facet towards the Germans which was so ridden within his speeches as well as his documented "private" existence, it was as if he was playing a game of Chess with Hitler and could not give up his so called "kingly" views as his other pieces were not in harmony with them while unbeknowst of who was to checkmate. Of course nascently I think Hitler was also aware of the oligarchy of Britain then and now as well as the wealth worshipping ways of the UK as Agrippa stated about Plutocracy of the English parliament, maybe he just underestimated certain dual nations forces against the almighty Panzer Divisons.

[Magister Eckhart]

Wagnerian, world history isn't always reducible to Spenglerian mumbo-jumbo. During the War of the Roses the Ottomans were more technologically advanced than England and had industrialism not hit Manchester it would most likely have landed in Bursa, a major manufacturing center. I've actually read a couple of works on the Ottomans recently and their 'Egyptian' wealth wasn't simply a matter of nomadic plunder, as many seem to assume.

Actually, it is. That's rather the point of "world history": it is reducible to a system. The sooner you realise this the sooner you'll drop all that liberal idiocy you've attached yourself to and see clearly that the market is not the driving force of history and the future.

[Osweo]

had industrialism not hit Manchester it would most likely have landed in Bursa, a major manufacturing center.

:lol:

No.
Jesus, where to begin?

Cotton was King. Cloth is something everyone needs, and can be shipped easy enough, and its manufacture lends itself well to early mechanisation. Such a trade was necessary to stimulate the growth in other areas. Bursa is simply too dry a place to go spinning threads from cotton. Manchester was perfect from this point of view, but even there, there was a risk of friction causing terrible mill fires. (Most of my ancestors since the 1700s were involved in this process, and my Dad was one of the last firemen to deal with these sorts of fires)

My great great grandad William Varley came down to Manchester in about 1875 to mine our coal here. Manchester is surrounded by coalfields.
http://www.coalpro.co.uk/images/coalmap.jpg
http://mappery.com/maps/Turkey-Fules-and-Minerals-map.mediumthumb.jpg
Turkey's coal is shoved up on the north coast, and the relief of the country simply doesn't allow for canals to transport stuff. The sea route isn't really conducive to prompting work on steam power anyway.

Not to mention the agrarian revolution that saw us all driven from the land, and surpluses harvested to support proletarian workers. Turkey's peasantry are barely at the 1790s stage even now.

Scientific curiosity in England had little parallel in the Ottoman Empire. Where was the Sultan's 'Royal Society' in Charles II's day?

This isn't an ordered list of factors, but I hope it's clear that the Turks were lacking in all the prerequesites for industrialisation.

[poiuytrewq0987]

What the hell, Osweo? What is with the British propaganda that their coal was oh so superior? I thought you was more intelligent than that. :tsk:

[Magister Eckhart]

:lol:

No.
Jesus, where to begin?

Cotton was King. Cloth is something everyone needs, and can be shipped easy enough, and its manufacture lends itself well to early mechanisation. Such a trade was necessary to stimulate the growth in other areas. Bursa is simply too dry a place to go spinning threads from cotton. Manchester was perfect from this point of view, but even there, there was a risk of friction causing terrible mill fires. (Most of my ancestors since the 1700s were involved in this process, and my Dad was one of the last firemen to deal with these sorts of fires)

My great great grandad William Varley came down to Manchester in about 1875 to mine our coal here. Manchester is surrounded by coalfields.
http://www.coalpro.co.uk/images/coalmap.jpg
http://mappery.com/maps/Turkey-Fules-and-Minerals-map.mediumthumb.jpg
Turkey's coal is shoved up on the north coast, and the relief of the country simply doesn't allow for canals to transport stuff. The sea route isn't really conducive to prompting work on steam power anyway.

Not to mention the agrarian revolution that saw us all driven from the land, and surpluses harvested to support proletarian workers. Turkey's peasantry are barely at the 1790s stage even now.

Scientific curiosity in England had little parallel in the Ottoman Empire. Where was the Sultan's 'Royal Society' in Charles II's day?

This isn't an ordered list of factors, but I hope it's clear that the Turks were lacking in all the prerequesites for industrialisation.

Coal was in fact the principal reason for my arguing that the Rhineland would be the epicentre of the industrial revolution had it not occurred in Britain - aside from Pennsylvania, the Rhineland is the only place on earth where Anthracite coal can be mined, the hardest, hottest, and longest-burning coal in the world. Such a resource makes Westphalia a prime point for the beginning of a major railway industry.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Coal was in fact the principal reason for my arguing that the Rhineland would be the epicentre of the industrial revolution had it not occurred in Britain - aside from Pennsylvania, the Rhineland is the only place on earth where Anthracite coal can be mined, the hardest, hottest, and longest-burning coal in the world. Such a resource makes Westphalia a prime point for the beginning of a major railway industry.

I don't get it, why does it matter who starts the Industrial Revolution first? I'm not very well-versed in Anglo-Saxon history to recognize the significance.

[Magister Eckhart]

I don't get it, why does it matter who starts the Industrial Revolution first? I'm not very well-versed in Anglo-Saxon history to recognize the significance.

Go back through the thread and you'll see why we're arguing about this. Murphy and Joe McCarthy started it.

[Eldritch]

It seems that the "would have happened anyway" hypothesis is true after all, but only regarding non-American innovations. I guess they aren't a product of divine provenance.

[Treffie]

What the hell, Osweo? What is with the British propaganda that their coal was oh so superior? I thought you was more intelligent than that. :tsk:

It's true. British coal was the best quality coal you could get.


Magister Ekhart
aside from Pennsylvania, the Rhineland is the only place on earth where Anthracite coal can be mined

Not quite, South Wales has a history of anthracite mining. It was anthracite that made South Wales wealthy, but ultimately destroyed the place.

[Magister Eckhart]

It's true. British coal was the best quality coal you could get.



Not quite, South Wales has a history of anthracite mining. It was anthracite that made South Wales wealthy, but ultimately destroyed the place.

Really? I had always heard that the Lackawanna and Rhine river valleys were the only places anthracite was mined in the world. Well if that's the case British coal might have claim to be the "best quality" - but only if that's the case. Bituminous is significantly lower quality than anthracite and the only two kinds of coal mined in Britain (aside from South Wales, if you are correct) were bituminous and peat.

[Treffie]

Really? I had always heard that the Lackawanna and Rhine river valleys were the only places anthracite was mined in the world. Well if that's the case British coal might have claim to be the "best quality" - but only if that's the case. .

Yep. Deep mines were very common in South Wales. They're now usually museum pieces.

Geography of South Wales. (http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/place/geography%20of%20south%20wales.asp)

[Jack B]

dm69TUoSCkw

A folk song I know about mining, perhaps a young Irish man working in Britain (Wales)

Note the third verse

Come on then Dai, it's almost light,
Time you were off to the anthracite,
The morning mist is on the vally,
It's time you were on your way,
Time you were learning the miners job
And earning the miners pay

Dai is a Welsh name btw

[Magister Eckhart]

Yep. Deep mines were very common in South Wales. They're now usually museum pieces.

Geography of South Wales. (http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/place/geography%20of%20south%20wales.asp)

That's how it is in Pennsylvania - except that the Southern fields are all flooded now, so there's no way to make museums of them. There's essentially a honey-comb of tunnels underneath Northeastern PA, though, and regular cars and trucks and houses regularly subside into the mines in heavy rains. I don't know how frequent happenings like that are in Wales.

I see German miners are complaining that their anthracite mines are finally going to shut down in 2018. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463172,00.html)

Which I think proves my hypothesis conclusively that if not England, Westphalia. Can you imagine a German world empire fuelled by steel, steam, and anthracite? I have to admit (with some embarrassment), the thought of most of the world speaking German today makes me giddy.

[Treffie]

dm69TUoSCkw

A folk song I know about mining, perhaps a young Irish man working in Britain (Wales)


I think that the Irish made up quite a bit of the influx of worker migrants. Irish names are everywhere in South Wales.


Immigrant workers flocked to the mining areas in search of work. They came from Ireland, the English Midlands and from Scotland. In 1801 the population of Monmouthshire was 45,000.

Data Wales (http://www.data-wales.co.uk/valley1.htm)

[Magister Eckhart]

I think that the Irish made up quite a bit of the influx of worker migrants. Irish names are everywhere in South Wales.



Data Wales (http://www.data-wales.co.uk/valley1.htm)

Ironically, most anthracite miners in the US are all Irish too... I wonder why the Irish are so drawn to the work - it's not as though there are a great many mines in Ireland.

[Treffie]

Ironically, most anthracite miners in the US are all Irish too... I wonder why the Irish are so drawn to the work - it's not as though there are a great many mines in Ireland.

Perhaps they honed their skills in Wales first, before moving on to Pennsylvania?

Songs and Ballads of the Anthracite Miners (http://www.mustrad.org.uk/reviews/anthract.htm)

[Albion]

What the hell, Osweo? What is with the British propaganda that their coal was oh so superior? I thought you was more intelligent than that. :tsk:

He never said that but it is. You see there's another type of coal, brown coal which is found in a lot more areas than the higher quality stuff. Brown coal is found throughout a lot of Europe, the high quality coal seams are concentrated in only a few places such as Northern England, South Wales, Central Scotland and the Rhineland for example.


I don't get it, why does it matter who starts the Industrial Revolution first? I'm not very well-versed in Anglo-Saxon history to recognize the significance.

As often with nations, whoever posses the best technology can get ahead, manufacture better products, make things faster and in larger quantities and require less labour force. That is how the industrial revolution allowed Britain to get ahead, but it was far more gradual than some people think.
For example today - China has many resource which Europe lacks (especially some rare earths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element)and yet Europe and America posses a lot of technology which they lack (and desperately try to copy).

[Osweo]

I think that the Irish made up quite a bit of the influx of worker migrants. Irish names are everywhere in South Wales.
Interesting...

I heard that the North-Eastern (Durham, Tyneside) coalfields got a lot of Irish early on from the estates of the Duke of Londonderry in Ulster, him being a big landlord in both regions. Are there any such link for the Welsh Valleys? Was any particular region of Ireland involved?

I was speaking to a woman from Cork the other day in Manchester, and she remarked that there were few Cork people in the North-West, for some odd reason, most of them having joined the London Irish. Seems there are some interesting tendencies to Irish immigration that might not be fully documented and analysed yet.

Could you at least give a few common Irish surnames, as a clue for the Hibernologists here to guess at a region? :p

[Barreldriver]

I believe the British Empire was glorious, without it my family would not have prospered in what is now the United States and I owe the former wealth of my family to the British Empire, after the Colonial Revolt that wealth dwindled and was further diminished after the war between the states a war that would not have happened if those "patriots" did not harbor feelings that later inspired Unionists and Secessionists alike (the patriots inspiring the whole toss your toys out of the cott mentality among the folks like Calhoun, the patriots inspiring the whole idea of a "United States of America" among the Unionists).

Plus had the colonies stayed with the Empire we wouldn't have much of the debt we have today, the "United States" were nearly crushed in infancy due to the debt caused by the revolution, things were surely better prior to the revolution, after all molasses was only 3 pennies per drum in those days of the Sugar Act! A huge decrease from the previous 6 pennies! Oh the inhumanity. :D

[Odoacer]

Oh the inhumanity.

Should be the caption on your avatar. :thumb001:

[Joe McCarthy]

You seem to have overlooked some rather pertinent details, Osweo. Bursa was on the western end of the Silk Road and was both a hub of international commerce and a major textile manufacturing center. The location of coal was relatively unimportant as it was already ideally located as a mass production-export city. The coal could simply have been brought in, as it later was anyway. Moreover, you seem to be under the usual Western assumption that the Ottomans were unthinking coons. They were innovators in manufacturing and military technology. Assuming England hadn't hit paydirt first, Bursa was probably the best situated. To say they had none of the prerequites for industrialism is false.

[GeistFaust]

I think the British Empire was a brilliant piece of work. They overstretched themselves I think during the late 19th century and early 20th century but the effects they had on Europe was profound. Its amazing how much power could be controlled and mastered from a tiny island. The British Empire kept things in check for the most part and then came the Americans who have given the world predominantly disorder and chaos. The British Empire gave us a good sense of law and order which other European countries tried to replicate. Overall the British gave Europe a healthy model for a good society and culture on the other hand their American counterparts have become a sore eye for society and culture and a disgrace to any sense of a proper system of justice and honesty in part because Americans have no real identity me included.

[Joe McCarthy]

Actually, since 1945 America has provided a measure of peace and stability that Britain never could, and this has been due to the superiority in American hegemony's relative power over Britain in its heyday. America has stopped world war with its power. That is something Britain could not do.

[Agrippa]

Actually, since 1945 America has provided a measure of peace and stability that Britain never could, and this has been due to the superiority in American hegemony's relative power over Britain in its heyday. America has stopped world war with its power. That is something Britain could not do.

Well, one of the major differences since then are effective ABC-weapons obviously.

Without those, various "regional wars" would have escalated much easier...

[Joe McCarthy]

The main factor, along with American pressure to stop fighting, has been the post-WW2 free trade regime which has made the world economically interdependent to the point that war is much less economically beneficial (this idea, too, came from Britain in its origins - specifically liberal anti-imperialists such as William Cobden). Empire was seen as causing wars due to European rivalry over territory, and as we've seen, the post-war order has been a world war stopper - as it was intended to be. Indeed, the US deliberately sought to integrate Europe post-war in order to prevent Europeans from starting yet another global conflict.

[Agrippa]

The main factor, along with American pressure to stop fighting, has been the post-WW2 free trade regime which has made the world economically interdependent to the point that war is much less economically beneficial (this idea, too, came from Britain in its origins - specifically liberal anti-imperialists such as William Cobden). Empire was seen as causing wars due to European rivalry over territory, and as we've seen, the post-war order has been a world war stopper - as it was intended to be. Indeed, the US deliberately sought to integrate Europe post-war in order to prevent Europeans from starting yet another global conflict.

While that's true in a way, it is the "friendly version", because in reality, they re-educated and re-shaped Europe to something which became just another Liberalcapitalist and Plutocratic colony.

Also, while I must agree with your arguments about the worldwide trade, that was less of a reason in the first decades after World War Two and still, without nuclear weapons, various conflicts would have escalated much easier, I'm absolutely sure about it.

This relative "worldwide peace", if ignoring regional conflicts and the Americans-British + slaves acting like the "world police" if someone goes a different way, being a "nuclear peace" to say it blunt.

[Joe McCarthy]

Three points - 1. Nuclear weapons are an American development and obviously they have been a component of American power in this post-war Pax America we live in. 2. The limited wars that the Anglo-American alliance has engaged in have often been conducted with realist concerns in mind - fear conflicts would get worse or spread. Kosovo was such a case. 3. The reeducation wasn't directed at Europe generally but Germany specifically. Ever since unification Germany's power, warlike propensity, and territorial ambitions made it a destabilizing force in Europe. America set out to turn them from Lebensraum seeking Nazis to Cobden- like liberal democrats. I don't see that as a bad thing on the whole, though like in any democratic system subversive elements are able to show their true face openly.

[Osweo]

Ironically, most anthracite miners in the US are all Irish too... I wonder why the Irish are so drawn to the work - it's not as though there are a great many mines in Ireland.
Hoho... More a matter of PUSH rather than pull factors, I should imagine!

Lots of Irish happened to have been booted off the land at the same time in history that the mines started to develop and need more manpower.

Most early bearers of my surname in England ended up in the coalmines of Cumberland and the Wigan area of West Lancashire. I gathered a lot of records of the buggers, only to realise that MY branch are a separate immigration that by-passed that industry all together, being tailors and general labourers, van drivers, gasmen and brickies. :shrug:


You seem to have overlooked some rather pertinent details, Osweo. Bursa was on the western end of the Silk Road and was both a hub of international commerce and a major textile manufacturing center. The location of coal was relatively unimportant as it was already ideally located as a mass production-export city. The coal could simply have been brought in, as it later was anyway. Moreover, you seem to be under the usual Western assumption that the Ottomans were unthinking coons. They were innovators in manufacturing and military technology. Assuming England hadn't hit paydirt first, Bursa was probably the best situated. To say they had none of the prerequites for industrialism is false.

What you get with that recipe is just another Venice or Genoa. :shrug:

You don't seem to get the background to the technological innovations required. Free artisans, free to travel around, between regions and industries. Middling people willing to invest in things. A big enough concentration of SEVERAL industries in one place, for the cross-pollination of ideas.

I make no secret of not being madly in love with Turks, but I don't take them for fools. Far from it - they're a threat cos of how crafty they can be, with nasty religion and a good sense of identity and mission in the world, that can all be used against us. I just don't see them producing George Stephensons and the like at the period you point to.

[Raskolnikov]

2. The limited wars that the Anglo-American alliance has engaged in have often been conducted with realist concerns in mind - fear conflicts would get worse or spread. Kosovo was such a case.
There is something to this because the person who fears the rest are going to attack him, unbeknownst to himself attempts to strangle everyone else.

[Treffie]

Interesting...

I heard that the North-Eastern (Durham, Tyneside) coalfields got a lot of Irish early on from the estates of the Duke of Londonderry in Ulster, him being a big landlord in both regions. Are there any such link for the Welsh Valleys? Was any particular region of Ireland involved?


Never really looked into it because I'm so used to having Irish surnames all around me. Found a couple of links though - here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/migration_ireland.shtml) and here (http://www.ballinagree.freeservers.com/restsobergd9.html).

[Johnston]

I have mixed feelings. My family came to America when Britain was at her height.:speechless-smiley-0