I'm not technically disagreeing with part one, and certainly not with the last part, but don't forget that a great deal of Britain's wealth came from two things: colonialism, and government trade monopolies like the John Company / British East India Company.
In the former case, for instance, you had resources pouring in from places like North America, India, and what is now South Africa. In the latter, a lot of people who tried going around the John Company got smashed. And while they did indeed end slavery in Britain thirty years before America's Civil War, they also preserved and protected their colonial outposts' various systems of discrimination, like the Kaffir / Bantu separation from whites in South Africa. A lot of the changes in British policy came from Parliamentary dissent following Britain's loss of its American colonies
( ... )
I'm not technically disagreeing with part one, and certainly not with the last part, but don't forget that a great deal of Britain's wealth came from two things: colonialism, and government trade monopolies like the John Company / British East India Company.
All European Powers practiced this in the 16th-18th centuries. The general term for it is "mercantilism." What Britain did differently was to practice less mercantilism in the 18th century, and to learn from Adam Smith -- and the American Revolution -- that mercantilism was a bad idea. Britain adopted freer trade faster than any other Powers in the late 18th-early 19th century, and she benefitted from this during the Long 19th century when she enjoyed one of the most productive industrial and commercial economies in the history of the world.
Fighting Continental tyranny: Also don't forget that the biggest sticking point against peace between America and Britain in the early 19th century was the fact that Britain was impressing U.S. sailors in their fight against Napoleon.
( ... )
I'm quite aware of this. But in the larger context, Britain was fighting a far worse tyranny -- that of Napoleonic France. Ironically, America in defending her sailors' freedom found herself fighting on the wrong side of the Napoleonic Wars, though that's not the way the American history books usually choose to put it, for obvious patriotic reasons.
I remember being struck by this when watching Amazing Grace: "William Wilberforce just freed the slaves and started the War of 1812. Wow."
Something of a tangent... it's worth noting that, whatever its moral position relative to Napoleon, British impressment was unjustified and wrong. It's also worth noting that this sort of behavior materially damaged Britain in the years to come.
These is a lesson that bears remembering in our own conflicts.
I largely agree with this, aside from the section on WWII.
The last part is particularly scary, how Britain attacks its own people who try to defend it from Muslim assimilation. Its really a horrible sickness, this extreme liberal attitude of hating one's own culture so much that they would fight to see it destroyed by Islam. I wouldn't mind the fascist Britain so much, if most of their activity was internal, I wonder if that may be the only think that may save British people and British culture.
The last part is particularly scary, how Britain attacks its own people who try to defend it from Muslim assimilation. Its really a horrible sickness, this extreme liberal attitude of hating one's own culture so much that they would fight to see it destroyed by Islam.
See, that's not what the British elites think is happening.
They are so arrogant that they assume that "of course" they and people who look and think like them will stay on top, no matter demographics or patterns of differential law enforcement. They imagine that what they're doing is being generous to newcomers. They don't get that the newcomers despise them and view their generosity as weakness.
(and it also helps that they're being "generous" with other people's rights -- the kind of Muslims who the elites interact with are university-educated intellectuals, not rampaging street thugs -- it's the poor British who have to put up with the most abuse).
I wouldn't mind the fascist Britain so much, if most of their activity was internal, I wonder if that may be the
( ... )
I agree with what you've said. The Muslims do see it as weakness and why shouldn't they? Really, how can the Muslims respect the British when they don't even respect themselves
( ... )
The heirs of the BUF, the BNP, ARE gaining strength in Britain on just that platform: Overthrow the upper-class twits and drive out the Muslims in the name of the British common folk.
Re: Well ...jordan179September 29 2008, 07:40:06 UTC
The heirs of the BUF, the BNP, ARE gaining strength in Britain on just that platform: Overthrow the upper-class twits and drive out the Muslims in the name of the British common folk.
The best hope for a liberal (small-l) solution to Britain's Muslim problem would be if the Tories were able to form a Government, move a bit to the right, and enforce existing laws on the Islamists. If the BNP ever gets to the point of forming a Government -- especially on its own -- things will get nasty.
Re: Well ...eric_hinkleSeptember 29 2008, 17:09:15 UTC
OT but what are some of the other British far-right groups? I've heard of some very oddball outfits that want to set up Pagan-Satanist communes for 'pure British whites' in the Cotswolds (?) and elsewhere in the parts of England once called the Danelaw.
Conservatives and libertarians tend to have a markedly cooler approach to politics, and are less concerned with the emotions of the matter. Nonetheless, I have to say that when I look across the Atlantic at what's happening to the lands of my forefathers, I can't help but feel sad. So much has been lost.
Still, I suppose it reminds those who love liberty that we have to fight that much harder to hold the line in our own country. The liberals and socialists bitterly grumble about moving to Canada (or Cuba!) when they lose an election or a vote in Congress, but we're increasingly aware that we have no fallback point. If we don't preserve this Republic, here and now, that's it for us.
Comments 55
In the former case, for instance, you had resources pouring in from places like North America, India, and what is now South Africa. In the latter, a lot of people who tried going around the John Company got smashed. And while they did indeed end slavery in Britain thirty years before America's Civil War, they also preserved and protected their colonial outposts' various systems of discrimination, like the Kaffir / Bantu separation from whites in South Africa. A lot of the changes in British policy came from Parliamentary dissent following Britain's loss of its American colonies ( ... )
Reply
All European Powers practiced this in the 16th-18th centuries. The general term for it is "mercantilism." What Britain did differently was to practice less mercantilism in the 18th century, and to learn from Adam Smith -- and the American Revolution -- that mercantilism was a bad idea. Britain adopted freer trade faster than any other Powers in the late 18th-early 19th century, and she benefitted from this during the Long 19th century when she enjoyed one of the most productive industrial and commercial economies in the history of the world.
Fighting Continental tyranny: Also don't forget that the biggest sticking point against peace between America and Britain in the early 19th century was the fact that Britain was impressing U.S. sailors in their fight against Napoleon. ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I remember being struck by this when watching Amazing Grace: "William Wilberforce just freed the slaves and started the War of 1812. Wow."
Something of a tangent... it's worth noting that, whatever its moral position relative to Napoleon, British impressment was unjustified and wrong. It's also worth noting that this sort of behavior materially damaged Britain in the years to come.
These is a lesson that bears remembering in our own conflicts.
Reply
The last part is particularly scary, how Britain attacks its own people who try to defend it from Muslim assimilation. Its really a horrible sickness, this extreme liberal attitude of hating one's own culture so much that they would fight to see it destroyed by Islam. I wouldn't mind the fascist Britain so much, if most of their activity was internal, I wonder if that may be the only think that may save British people and British culture.
Reply
See, that's not what the British elites think is happening.
They are so arrogant that they assume that "of course" they and people who look and think like them will stay on top, no matter demographics or patterns of differential law enforcement. They imagine that what they're doing is being generous to newcomers. They don't get that the newcomers despise them and view their generosity as weakness.
(and it also helps that they're being "generous" with other people's rights -- the kind of Muslims who the elites interact with are university-educated intellectuals, not rampaging street thugs -- it's the poor British who have to put up with the most abuse).
I wouldn't mind the fascist Britain so much, if most of their activity was internal, I wonder if that may be the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
The best hope for a liberal (small-l) solution to Britain's Muslim problem would be if the Tories were able to form a Government, move a bit to the right, and enforce existing laws on the Islamists. If the BNP ever gets to the point of forming a Government -- especially on its own -- things will get nasty.
Reply
Reply
Still, I suppose it reminds those who love liberty that we have to fight that much harder to hold the line in our own country. The liberals and socialists bitterly grumble about moving to Canada (or Cuba!) when they lose an election or a vote in Congress, but we're increasingly aware that we have no fallback point. If we don't preserve this Republic, here and now, that's it for us.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment