The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
O Tommy Tommy Tommy's Trans Outreach Didn't Do Him Much Good
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

contrasts

So Tommy Robinson is getting sent to prison for 13 months for standing outside a courtroom where a grooming case trial is proceeding and talking about said grooming case. Or, more specifically, breaking the conditions of a suspended sentence, which he had in turn gotten for reporting on another grooming case, which barred him from reporting on any further grooming cases until the conclusion of the original case.

Supercharging this impressive recursion is a ban on reporting Tommy Robinson’s reporting bans, to which end many articles have been scrubbed of the affair:

cernovich-video

It would have been cool for, say, RT to violate the ban and dare the Britbongs into shutting it down. But RT is full of cowards (Error 404). In fairness, Breitbart was no better.

What I find amusing is that in principle Tommy Robinson is a moderate with views that mostly align with Western and British establishment interests. He likes free speech and invites trannies to sing at his rallies (ok, they’re not so cool on the former, rhetoric aside). He’s a staunch supporter of Israel. He counter-signals against ethno-nationalists. As he wrote in his book Enemy of the State, he considers Putin to be a dictator. Ultimately, his only problem is that he doesn’t share the elite’s Islamophilia, but that is more than enough for those vengeful ideological maximalists, which is why he is getting sent down to prison where he has a bounty on his head.

PS. Good Twitter thread on the UK’s abuse of reporting restrictions:

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, United Kingdom, Western Hypocrisy 
Hide 110 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I wonder if anybody has done comparative studies about “hate speech” trials and the like. Britain nowadays seems like one of the most authoritarian Western countries in this regard. Which is odd, given that tradiontally it was always presented as being much more liberal than the continent.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  2. I find it strange that in the UK a judge can prevent the press from reporting on her own judgment. I guess similar things did happen in the USSR or other communist countries, but how did a free country get to the point where it’s even legally possible?

  3. Why were the articles that were already written deleted? I thought the British legal system (even despite their stringent restrictions on ‘hate speech’) frowned upon ex post facto situations.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @notanon
  4. Betlo says:

    Priceless!

    I am quite sure that i read an interview with some liberal journalist shrill during the first Ukrainian imbroglio (neither the first nor the second deserve to be called “revolution”) that Ukraine was a dictatorship because media was given a spreadsheet each week what to not report about….

  5. @German_reader

    https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/united-kingdom

    “UK Press Freedom: 1(the best)
    Political Rights: 1(the best
    Civil Rights: 1(the best)”

    On the upside, I think that Mr. Karlin has specifically mocked Freedom House before.

  6. By the way, does anyone know why Britain lacks a significant nationalist movement despite being similar to other Western European countries in most aspects?

    It seems like after Brexit and UKIP falling apart (not that they didn’t have serious cuck-outs at times) all the nationalist energy in Britain disappeared.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @DFH
    , @notanon
    , @dfordoom
  7. Mitleser says:
    @Hyperborean

    British commenter Randal explained it.

    Well, nationalism’s complicated in this country. Should one be British nationalist, or English nationalist? Should one go along with those who seek to align British or English nationalism with anti-muslim sentiment, basically to benefit Israel and the jewish lobby? A real British nationalism would recognise the problems caused by all over-influential foreign cultures, especially including both islam and judaism. Is the primary threat immigration from racially and religiously different continents, or is it absorption into Europe?

    And of course most “nationalist” politicians are quite happy to kowtow to the corrosive doctrines of political correctness on every issue other than their own personal hobgoblin. Thus a fanatically anti-muslim supposed nationalist will happily condemn “racists”, “antisemites” and “homophobes”, promote feminism just because muslims tend to be conservative in that area, and share a platform with a sexual deviant.

    More vitally, a real British nationalism would (as Enoch Powell did) recognise the importance of the most immediate and damaging, and generally unrecognised (precisely because it is so all-pervasive), foreign influence – US political and economic power and American cultural pollution.

    Sadly, hostility to American power and influence is mostly on the political left, for historical reasons.

    Mass immigration is clearly a priority issue for right-thinking nationalists (ie not leftist Catalan/ScotNat style “nationalists”) anywhere.

    Essentially there is no coherent nationalist movement in England today.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/absolute-state-of-britbongia/#comment-2330698

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @DFH
    , @Hyperborean
    , @Randal
  8. DFH says:
    @Hyperborean

    Historically Britain has had one of the larger post-war nationalist movements in Northwestern Europe.

    It is currently at a low ebb becasue of Brexit, while German nationalism has gone from very little to a high point with the AFD becasue of Merkel’s refugees. The German (and similarly I believe in the Netherlands and Scandinavia) PR system also advantages the AFD, meaning that they can get many seats in parliament now while UKIP, which had at least as much support at its peak, could get only two MPs.

  9. DFH says:
    @Mitleser

    Most of those features don’t explain the divergence with other European parties though. The only ones specific to the UK are the English/British distinction (which is a significant issue for virtually no-one) and Europe (which has side-tracked British nationalism, despite leaving the EU obviously being good in itself).

    US political (although not cultural) influence has very little to do with Britain’s current cultural and mass immigration problems (if you disagree with this, then please actually point to instances of how it is instead of making vague, allusive assertions).

  10. @Mitleser

    Thanks. From my (albeit limited) knowledge of the history of British nationalism it seems that while some issues are old and been festering for a long time other issues have recently either only emerged or become significant.

  11. @DFH

    Historically Britain has had one of the larger post-war nationalist movements in Northwestern Europe.

    What’s the basis for that, were National Front and BNP ever more than fringe movements?
    Agree about the voting system, that’s a crucial difference and a big obstacle for any nationalist movement in Britain.

    • Replies: @DFH
  12. @DFH

    Well, I was thinking more in a recent timeline. After Brexit it seems like UKIP ballooned and the Tories have become even more liberal even though the influx of at least part of UKIP’s base should have had the opposite effect.

    • Replies: @DFH
  13. songbird says:

    I don’t know how many in the US remain of pure English stock, but what I would do is try to find a young woman like Brittany Pettibone – preferably a young couple like her and Sellner – but of pure English stock – perhaps with a family tree connecting them to some culturally eminent English person. Shakespeare’s line died out, but perhaps someone else.
    Find them and arrange things so they have a profile which causes them to be denied entry into the country of all their ancestors.

  14. @Daniel Chieh

    I guess the modern version would be a shitlord being purged from a picture of gamers.

  15. songbird says:

    Robinson ought to have been flanked by two singing trans bodyguards; that was his mistake.

  16. songbird says:

    It is remarkable how many people are under the illusion that free speech is widespread. There is a Pinkerian psychosis today.

  17. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    The NF was always fringe but was still relatively big in the late 60s and early 70s. The BNP also won several council seats and got an MEP in the early 2000s, which I believe is more electoral success than any other Western European party of similar extremity (since it was a notch to the right of the FN). Not much in absolute terms, but a lot for ethnic nationalist parties, especially given how small nationalism was at the time in most of Europe (I may well be underrating this in the rest of Europe becasue of a lack of knowledge).

    Then there is UKIP’s success since the late 2000s, peaking with getting the largest share, 27.5%, of the vote in the 2014 Euro elections and 12.6% of the vote in the General Election.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  18. DFH says:
    @Hyperborean

    After Brexit it seems like UKIP ballooned and the Tories have become even more liberal even though the influx of at least part of UKIP’s base should have had the opposite effect.

    It’s not surprising; the threat of UKIP on the right was what forced them to tack harder to the right on Europe and to a much lesser extent on immigration. Now that the threat doesn’t exist, they have no need to even make rightward gestures.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  19. Dmitry says:

    The primary distinction in Great Britain is known to be social classes.

    The national question was probably historically less acute as higher classes would view the rest as some indistinguishable cattle that plough the island.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @songbird
  20. utu says:

    ban on reporting Tommy Robinson’s reporting bans, to which end many articles have been scrubbed

    They are playing areal hardballs. And it seems they will get away with it. To fight it you need a team of good lawyers plus media exposure. Who will show outrage? Anybody in Parliament?

    • Replies: @Gordo
  21. @DFH

    Is Brexit really the only thing people care about? Despite the disappointing Tories it seems like all the attempts to create any kind of ‘NEWKIP’ electoral coalition have been floundering?

    • Replies: @DFH
  22. DFH says:
    @Hyperborean

    Is Brexit really the only thing people care about?

    No, British people have generally cared about immigration as much as elsewhere (although Islam per se has been less of a political topic) but Brexit has been the focus of politics since the Referendum in a way that’s distracted from any other issue. I think winning the Referendum also led to complacency among many less engaged potential nationalist voters.

    A lot of the problem with UKIP is also due to its long and tedious leadership struggles since Farage selfishly stepped down as leader.

  23. DFH says:
    @Dmitry

    The national question was probably historically less acute as higher classes would view the rest as some indistinguishable cattle that plough the island.

    This is obviously retarded. The 19th British ruling class showed more concern for the working class than in other large European states. Britons were at least as nationalistic as any other people (although not as much as in the 18th century) in the sense of prioritising Britain’s interests. The reason that ‘British nationalism’ per se didn’t exist as a movement is that the existence of Britain as a nation was simply assumed rather than being an important subject of political discussion, since Britain wasn’t divided like Germany or Italy or part of a larger empire like Ireland, the Czechs etc.
    Even having said that, around the turn of the 20th century there was a movement led by politicians like Joseph Chamberlain for greater unity among the white colonies, which was something of a nationalist movement.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    , @Mitleser
  24. songbird says:
    @Dmitry

    I’ve wondered a bit whether one of the problems with European monarchy was the history of international marriages, based on class. The Windsors actually took the name “Windsor” some time around WWI to hide their German descent. Odd as it seems, even with the palaces, there is a kind of rootlessness in European royalty compared to the Japanese Imperial Family.

    Of course, all that is probably placing too much importance on weak monarchies, but it is kind of interesting as a thought experiment. If there was a 2500 y.o. tradition of marrying British peasants (meritocratically) but from the four corners of Britain, I think the royal family would have been much better stalwarts of tradition.

    • Replies: @DFH
  25. DFH says:
    @songbird

    The problems with European monarchy were rarely to do with monarchs lacking a sincere concern for their people (which almost all of them had, from what I’ve read) but with them making misjudged decisions. The best thing for them to do was let competent elites rule.

    I suppose the Protestant German princes were generally married to other Protestant Germans and ended up (as far as I know) being more reactionary than average (although generally in a detrimental way).

    If there was a 2500 y.o. tradition of marrying British peasants (meritocratically) but from the four corners of Britain, I think the royal family would have been much better stalwarts of tradition.

    The early Romanovs had something like that (but with beauty pageants). It’s probably a good thing that British monarchs weren’t more protective of tradition, sinceas the Stuarts and George III show it tended to go badly both for them and tradition.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  26. Hibernian says:
    @DFH

    We might say that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are following early Romanov tradition.

  27. Dmitry says:
    @DFH

    The elite of the UK were geniuses in “the sense of prioritising Britain’s interests”. Most countries would dream to have the successes – in terms of national interests – of the UK of the early 19th century.

    But the 19th century nationalism of other countries, came not from lack of prioritizing of interests – but from injustice-sense of occupied, disunited and oppressed peoples, which (at least) English part of UK was not.

    The British imperialists were obviously aware of the different strengths and characteristics of the many nationalities they ruled in their empire. They were aware of the differences and behaviours of other nationalities, which they categorized in encyclopedias.

    But in the island itself – the complex structure of social class distinction was the dominant obsession.

    This is my impression also reading any English literature or novels of this era – social distinctions condition everything, and the existential project of many characters seems simply to be differentiating themselves from lower cattle. But national question is rarely discussed in English literature and seems not to be considered very interesting.

    Maybe you are aware of historical English novels discussing national questions.

    I have not read so many English novels yet though, so I could be missing some one.

    Two I have not read yet:

    Daniel Deronda – is focusing on national questions (the Jewish question)?

    Kim – has some focus on the Indian Question?

  28. Anon[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Hate laws are liberticidal. How else to stop men from speaking ..

  29. @Dmitry

    The UK didn’t have much nationalism because they were so successful. I cannot think of an important nationalist demand which Britain lacked. They had their own country, the official language was their own language (not Latin like in early 19th century Hungary), no foreign oppression, no national disunity, no serious problems with the border (problems like Alsace for France), no backwardness (like in almost all other countries), no humiliating military losses, nothing whatever. They were the strongest and richest country on the planet. Also one of the freest. No immigration to speak of until maybe the last few decades of the century.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  30. Mitleser says:
    @DFH

    The BNP also won several council seats and got an MEP in the early 2000s, which I believe is more electoral success than any other Western European party of similar extremity (since it was a notch to the right of the FN).

    It does not sound like that they are more successful than the German NPD which is more right than the AfD and won seats in state parliaments and got a MEP too.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @DFH
  31. Mitleser says:
    @DFH

    Britain wasn’t divided like Germany or Italy or part of a larger empire like Ireland, the Czechs etc.

    It was part of a larger empire. It is just that British were at the top.

  32. Mitleser says:
    @reiner Tor

    The UK didn’t have much nationalism because they were so successful.

    Well, that changed in the second half of the 20th century.

  33. @Mitleser

    Besides, nobody takes European elections seriously anyway.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  34. neutral says:

    I am not understanding the RT removal of the story, how is a Russian news site in any way subject to the authority of a British judge???

  35. DFH says:
    @Mitleser

    The NPD only got 1% of the vote, the BNP got 6%. They even got similar results in regional elections and about 2% of the national vote.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  36. Mitleser says:
    @German_reader

    Our ruling parties do, hence repeated attempts to re-introduce the electoral threshold in European election in order to shut out the smaller democratic competition.

    https://jungefreiheit.de/politik/deutschland/2018/bundesregierung-will-neue-prozenthuerde-bei-eu-wahl/

  37. Mitleser says:
    @DFH

    The NPD only got 1% of the vote, the BNP got 6%.

    In 2009. Afterwards, UKIP stole their thunder. AfD does the same to the NPD.

    They even got similar results in regional elections and about 2% of the national vote.

    1,9% in 2010, comparable to the NPD’s 1,6% in 2005.

  38. songbird says:
    @Dmitry

    Don’t know what you would count as historical, but “A Passage to India” (1924) would be a pretty famous one. I myself would not recommend it, nor in particular “Kim.” But take that with a grain of salt, for I dislike most books which appear on regular lists of literature.

  39. notanon says:
    @reiner Tor

    how did a free country get to the point where it’s even legally possible?

    originally to protect pedophile politicians

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. notanon says:
    @Hyperborean

    they still don’t understand their political class is consciously betraying them and believe (wrongly) that Brexit was the start of fixing the problem – i imagine it will bounce back quite rapidly after a lull.

  41. notanon says:

    Tommy’s Trans Outreach Didn’t Do Him Much Good

    he’s been putting quite large (relatively speaking) crowds together recently – in particular getting the soccer hooligan element to behave nicely so they don’t put off the middle class UKIP types.

    that’s probably why the UK govt are trying to get him killed in prison.

  42. @reiner Tor

    I find it strange that in the UK a judge can prevent the press from reporting on her own judgment.

    Free speech is an American fetish. The British like our First Amendment even less than our Second. At least the latter has some roots in their country.

  43. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Hyperborean

    By the way, does anyone know why Britain lacks a significant nationalist movement despite being similar to other Western European countries in most aspects?

    Britain has a long history of parliamentary democracy, a system designed to keep power safely in the hands of the Establishment. It’s a system that inevitably breeds a nation of cucks and cowards.

    The British people have been trained over the course of centuries to do what they’re told. They’re very obedient.

  44. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dmitry

    But the 19th century nationalism of other countries, came not from lack of prioritizing of interests – but from injustice-sense of occupied, disunited and oppressed peoples, which (at least) English part of UK was not.

    Yep. There’s no British nationalism because Britain was an imperial power. They were the ones crushing other people’s nationalist aspirations (including the Welsh and the Cornish).

    The problem is that the British are too dumb to figure out that their Empire is gone and that they’re now subject peoples of the American Empire. They’re now the oppressed instead of being the oppressor. But they just won’t accept it. They still cling to their sad little imperial dreams. They still cling to the pathetic Churchillian delusions of the Special Relationship and the partnership of the English Speaking Peoples.

    The British are going to get a taste of their own medicine, of the humiliation they inflicted on other nations. Hopefully they’re going to get it good and hard.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @Mitleser
  45. ussr andy says:

    The 19th British ruling class showed more concern for the working class than in other large European states.

    I thought the social question was way more acute in Britain.

  46. DFH says:
    @dfordoom

    It’s a system that inevitably breeds a nation of cucks and cowards.

    This is laughable, or do you think that Trafalgar and the Peninsular war was won by cowards?

    They were the ones crushing other people’s nationalist aspirations (including the Welsh and the Cornish).

    These people haven’t had any national aspirations since at least 1500. Their language and cultural associations were never banned. This contrasts to almost any ethnic and linguistic minority in continental Europe.

    The British are going to get a taste of their own medicine, of the humiliation they inflicted on other nations.

    The only nation that could possibly have anything to complain about with relation to Britain is Ireland.

    • Replies: @Anon
  47. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    The “judge” in the case,

    Denise Marson, QC

    is – not surprisingly – an ambitious woman QC (“Queen’s Counsel,” i.e. senior court attorney).

    QCs are sometimes allowed to preside over trials on a probationary period to show that they have what it takes to become one of Her Majesty’s judges: i.e., unprincipled submissiveness to political masters and PC fashions du jour, agility in the art of corrupt expediency arrayed in mellifluous rhetoric, and utter lack of principle.

    Family or sexual connections to senior office holders are indispensable at the higher reaches of the judiciary.

    The other “judge” involved in the current phase of the Tommy Robinson persecution is:

    “Her Honour [sic] Judge Heather Norton”

    Surprisingly (not), another judgette.

    Connoisseurs of 20th century tyrannies will be familiar with the archetype of the vicious, hyper-loyal female functionary, typically at the lower reaches of the hierarchy.

    Typically, these WOMEN commissars avenge their under-endowment in the looks department by vicious thoroughness in persecuting “enemies of the revolution/the people/the working class” etc.

    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
  48. @Anonymous

    The tweeter was mistaken. The judge in the case is actually Geoffrey Marson QC.

    Probably a relative – Marson is not a particularly common surname.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  49. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @jimmyriddle

    The judge in the case is actually Geoffrey Marson QC.

    Same difference.

    Another brown-nosing QC (senior attorney) trying to “earn” a judgeship by doing the bidding of his masters, the law and principles be damned.

    Before she was found “reliable” enough to be a judge, Heather Norton once prosecuted “Boy George” and saw fit to crack a somewhat lame joke at his expense.

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/lawyer-heather-norton-who-prosec-a65294/

  50. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    In 2017, the probationary “judge” behind the Tommy Robinson scandal, Geoffrey Marson QC, handled part of a child porn case against a former Lord Mayor of Leeds, England. The final sentencing was handled by another judge.

    The defendant, Neil Taggart, had been a city councillor for more than 30 years and was also at one time chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Authority.

    Taggart’s professional profile suggests that he may have been part of a local pedophile group – as chairman of the local police authority, he would have enjoyed virtual impunity for all but the most egregious crimes.

    Pedophilia appears to be highly addictive, hence the desperate need for addicts to secure senior positions in police forces or in politics to gain some degree of personal immunity.

    The conviction of child porn possession may mask participation in rather more serious offenses.

    Was Geoffrey Marson QC assigned the Tommy Robinson case because his “sensitive” handling of the earlier Taggart case had demonstrated to higher-ups that Marson is a “sound chap” who can be relied on to protect establishment figures?

    https://theukdatabase.com/2017/06/06/neil-taggart-garforthleeds/

  51. Mitleser says:
    @dfordoom

    Churchill and his cult are a major reason for it.

    • Replies: @DFH
  52. El Dato says:

    That should not be 404 but 451

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7725

    This status code indicates that the server is denying access to the resource as a consequence of a legal demand.

    The server in question might not be an origin server. This type of legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs and search engines.

    Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes of person and resource it applies to.

  53. DFH says:
    @Mitleser

    The sentimentalism about Churchill is nauseating, but, unless Hitchens thinks that Britain should have allied with Germany (which I doubt), I fail to see how Churchill made Britain a vassal of the US.

    The fact that Hitchens thinks that the US destroyed the British empire is just embarassing; in fact the gigantic loans made to Britain by the US were the only thing that allowed the empire to keep going after the war. His belief that the empire contributed to British national strength is also incorrect.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @Eagle Eye
  54. El Dato says:

    Googling

    “Tommy Robinson arrested for ‘breaching the peace’ outside court during grooming trial”

    brings up quite a few Brit Papers (including The Independent, The Metro and The Sun) dishing out the info now. Has the court order been rescinded?

    E.g.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

    ‘I haven’t said a word…I’ve done nothing,’ far-right figurehead pleads as he is detained by officers – Lizzie Dearden Home Affairs Correspondent – @lizziedearden – 2 days ago

    The Mirror

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/english-defence-league-founder-tommy-12594167

    still 404s (OOPS) though even through search. Maybe there is no-one in the office. Apparently they have had the Mother of all Thunderstorms on Saturday evening on the Isles.

    There is nothing at the Torygraph either: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/search.html

    • Replies: @notanon
  55. Mitleser says:
    @DFH

    The sentimentalism about Churchill is nauseating, but, unless Hitchens thinks that Britain should have allied with Germany (which I doubt), I fail to see how Churchill made Britain a vassal of the US.

    That is what he did. That he did not have much of a choice does not change that.

    The fact that Hitchens thinks that the US destroyed the British empire is just embarassing; in fact the gigantic loans made to Britain by the US were the only thing that allowed the empire to keep going after the war.

    On behalf of America which it means it was not much of an empire anymore.

    His belief that the empire contributed to British national strength is also incorrect.

    Why do you think so?

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  56. Mitleser says:

  57. DFH says:
    @Mitleser

    On behalf of America which it means it was not much of an empire anymore.

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. In any case it was more of an empire than without the American loans, in which case it would have simply not existed, so America can hardly be blamed. But saying that it existed ‘on behalf of America’ is too vague to be able to properly respond to. The only instance in which Britain significantly sacrificed for American purposes was in Korea, but that had little to do with the Empire. It’s main Cold War purpose was to exclude Soviet influence from the Middle East, which Britain would have done anyway and was consistent with a hundred years of British policy.

    Why do you think so?

    It required a huge investment of resources in defence and maintaining the Sterling area, but provided virtually nothing in return. The only economically significant area by that time was Malaya. It was kept alive for so long only because of the British elite’s sentimental attachment to imperial prestige. Correlli Barnett explains it very well in his ‘The Collapse of British Power’.

  58. El Dato says:

    RT reports: UK wants to unlock century-old secret fund to pay off national debt

    The UK government intends to force open a £475 million ($640 million) charity fund untouched since 1928. It wants to put the money towards paying off national debt.

    The National Fund was established 90 years ago when an anonymous benefactor donated £500,000 on the condition that it must stay untouched until it was large enough to pay off the entire national debt.

    The fund currently stands at £475 million, representing just 0.06 percent of the country’s total debt. UK’s total public debt is estimated at £1.7 trillion ($2.3 trillion), about twice the level it was before the 2008 financial crisis.

    pennyless_pepe.jpg

    Looks like they have no real wealth to buy those F-35s to equip those two carriers they are building.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @dfordoom
  59. Mitleser says:
    @El Dato

    It could be worse.

    Imagine what would have happened if they had joined the Eurozone.

    The combined effect is striking. Had Italy shared the U.K. government’s low cost of capital and exchange-rate flexibility, it would be about 10% better off now. Conversely, if the U.K. had been saddled with Italy’s membership in the euro, its living standards would be about 10% lower now.

    Italians are not living in the best of all possible worlds. If they had never joined the euro, their current woes would not have been replaced with the economic problems of Argentina, Brazil, or Turkey. They would not be doing well—Italy is the only major rich country to have done worse than the U.K. in the past decade—but they would be doing better than they are now.

    https://www.barrons.com/articles/italy-without-the-euro-would-not-be-argentina-or-turkeyit-would-be-the-u-k-1527078883

  60. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    the Peninsular war was won by

    in various proportions, non-elite English, Scots, Irish, Spaniards, and Portuguese.

    Hey DFH, if you object so much to Pakistanis, Nigerians, and Chinese, what were you guys doing in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Hong Kong?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  61. Gordo says:
    @utu

    No establishment person will condemn this, media, academic or political.

    Alison Chabloz is going to prison for holocaust denial, which is not illegal, but she’s going anyway.

    It’s getting quite scary here.

  62. Sean says:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-trade-unions-latest-special-branch-blacklist-support-group-ipcc-construction-industry-a8270036.html

    The police ignored Rotherham and countless other similar scandals, but have infiltrated the environmental protest movement and even construction unions. They find it very much easier to control movements like the EDL because of the quality of its membership and leadership. In the old telly series about an MI5 like department, Callan, there was a Red File for those to be killed and a White File for “those to be put out of action by sending them into divorce courts, bankruptcy, prison or mental homes.”

    Unfortunately people like Robinson and (C) company usually already have a record of failed marriage, gaol, unpaid debts and instability. Far right organizing is their only source of income, and hence police can make a tempting offer to keep them on top. Even if the mark refuses to play ball, Special Branch can easily neutralise anyone they don’t control with court cases or by formenting internecine conflicts, (or threats from thugs given tacit permission to mete otut beatings to the far right) so leadership inevitably falls into the hands of police informers. If still heading the EDL he would certainly be working for Special Branch, but I would not be very surprised if he was anyway, because this stuff is his full time job now.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @utu
  63. notanon says:
    @El Dato

    Has the court order been rescinded?

    not sure about the court order but iirc the d-notice system is technically voluntary and it seems the independent ignored it

    as the news got out on the internet maybe they gave up?

    • Replies: @Randal
  64. Eagle Eye says:
    @DFH

    in fact the gigantic loans made to Britain by the US were the only thing that allowed the empire to keep going after the war

    Remind me – what were those “gigantic loans” FOR?

    That’s right – for (then) “Great” Britain to get involved in a massive war on the Continent that did not implicate real British interests. The “lights went out” all over Europe in 1914.

    Churchill’s World War II spectacle was just a repeat performance. The unadmitted truth is that in many ways, Great Britain LOST World War II in a much more profound sense than did Germany. The destruction of British traditions in WW I precipitated the slow slide into ruin that started in the 1940s and 50s and has proceeded through different phases ever since.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @utu
  65. Anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Special Branch can easily neutralise anyone they don’t control with court cases or … thugs given tacit permission to mete out beatings … so leadership inevitably falls into the hands of police informers.

    Exactly. This is how the British Secret Service (MI6) controlled the neo-Nazi/revisionist “far-right” party in post-war West Germany, then de facto controlled by the Western Allies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Thadden

  66. DFH says:
    @Eagle Eye

    That’s right – for (then) “Great” Britain to get involved in a massive war on the Continent that did not implicate real British interests.

    I was actually talking about the vast loans after the Second World War. But anyway, it is ridiculous to suppose that German expansion did not affect British interests. Stopping the creation of a hegemonic power on the continent had been a goal of British foreign policy since 1688.

    The unadmitted truth is that in many ways, Great Britain LOST World War II in a much more profound sense than did Germany

    ‘In a profound sense’ = not really

    Britain lost the peace by frittering away its money and industrial advantage after the war creating the welfare state and keeping a pointless empire for another two decades instead of reinvesting it in British industry and infrastructure.

    The destruction of British traditions in WW I precipitated the slow slide into ruin that started in the 1940s and 50s and has proceeded through different phases ever since.

    The fact that an almost identical process happened in countries which were neutral in the World Wars (e.g. Sweden) indicates that it wasn’t Britain specific.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    , @Anon
    , @Randal
  67. LondonBob says:
    @Anon

    Jealousy is such an ugly emotion.

    • Replies: @Anon
  68. Eagle Eye says:
    @DFH

    The fact that an almost identical process [of decline as in Great Britain] happened in countries which were neutral in the World Wars (e.g. Sweden) indicates that it wasn’t Britain specific.

    Interesting point.

    Certainly, similar forces of anti-Christian totalitarianism were at work in both cases, but Britain’s headlong rush into TWO pointless wars greatly increased the vulnerability of its society and institutions.

    Anti-Christian totalitarianist movements go back at least to the French Revolution, especially the Vendée massacres. In the 19th century, Hegel, Marx, Bakunin and the whole ménagerie of power-hungry characters refined the message and linked it to other causes of social discontent.

    POWER was always in the foreground, and SEX was never far in the background with these paragons of altruism.

  69. utu says:
    @Sean

    You have a very sober and realistic view of it. Police forces had centuries to develop techniques of how to control ‘troublemakers.’ I wonder if somebody wrote a book about it. There are many interesting examples from 19 century France and 19/20 century Russia you sometimes encounter in literature and memoirs form that period about revolutionaries and anarchists.

    Sometimes it backfires like in Germany when they could not prosecute Neo-nazis for real violent crimes they committed because judges refused to try cases where basically everybody was a police informant. Apparently in Germany they still hold traditional view on entrapment, aiding and abetting. By German standards most convicted terrorists and mafia cases in the US would walk free.

  70. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @LondonBob

    You are entirely correct.

    Is it your habit to break into conversations at random with general platitudes?

    I don’t think this is a bad habit at all and I will continue: “Pride goeth before a fall.”

  71. utu says:
    @Eagle Eye

    Hitler did not have intention to bring down the British Empire but Roosevelt had. In the Lend-Lease program the ‘Lease’ part was the first hint of it. Hard to say if Stalin had similar bold vision as Roosevelt but certainly after the WWII the USSR hand in hand with the US proceeded with the decolonization. Certainly the UK government was instrumental in starting the WWII but it seems they were strongly egged on by the US government even though Joe Kennedy was an ambassador in London during the most critical period.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  72. I’m sorry, but screw this peaceful protest BS. Britain is a tyranny now, and it’s time for every unemployed* nationalist to march down to where he’s being held, and bust his ass out.

    *If you don’t have a job, they can’t take it away from you. And I’m sure there is already no shortage of unemployed nationalists in England.

  73. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mitleser

    The fact that Hitchens thinks that the US destroyed the British empire is just embarassing; in fact the gigantic loans made to Britain by the US were the only thing that allowed the empire to keep going after the war.

    On behalf of America which it means it was not much of an empire anymore.

    It became a branch office of the American Empire. Which it still is. A wholly owned subsidiary.

    Britain did make one feeble attempt to maintain a semblance of independence (the Suez adventure), but the US made it clear that such disobedience would not be tolerated in future.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  74. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mitleser

    That is what he did. That he did not have much of a choice does not change that.

    I blame Chamberlain. In 1939 he abandoned his own very sensible foreign policy in favour of reckless adventurism. The guarantee to Poland was a blunder of epic proportions. Chamberlain’s folly started the war. Tens of millions of people died just because Chamberlain thought that Hitler wasn’t a gentleman.

    Churchill on the other hand played a major role in dragging Britain into the First World War, the war that started Britain on the path to decline and eventually to becoming a US vassal.

  75. dfordoom says: • Website
    @El Dato

    Looks like they have no real wealth to buy those F-35s to equip those two carriers they are building.

    But they must have those carriers and those F-35s to defend the Empire!

  76. Anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Britain’s fate was sealed soon as they tried to destroy Sati.

    History will not mourn its passing,

  77. syonredux says:
    @dfordoom

    Britain did make one feeble attempt to maintain a semblance of independence (the Suez adventure),

    In concert with the Israelis…..

    And Anthony Eden was flying high on benzedrine the whole time……

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  78. Dan Hayes says:
    @syonredux

    syonredux:

    Peter Hitchens has mentioned how serious America was to reign in England’s Suez misadventure. Namely that a US admiral was willingly eager to do battle against and wipe out the English fleet.

    Those definitely were the days my friend!

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Daniel Chieh
  79. Eagle Eye says:
    @utu

    Hitler did not have intention to bring down the British Empire but Roosevelt had.

    There may be something to this thesis.

    Dunkirk certainly did not evince any deep-seated urge to destroy Britain. FDR certainly never seemed to have any particular fondness for British culture and traditions. (Nor should he have.)

    FDR was a lifelong scam artist (as even Conrad Black’s sympathetic biography admits) who desperately NEEDED a war to justify his third and fourth term in office.

    Without the importance of office, psychopaths like FDR typically die within months.

  80. @Dan Hayes

    In the context of the Cold War, and in light of the later power of the Israel lobby, its pretty incomprehensible.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  81. Dan Hayes says:
    @reiner Tor

    reiner Tor:

    I agree that in light of later history it’s hard to believe that America would act in such a resolute manner.

    BTW, Arleigh Burke was the US admiral who was eager to confront the British navy.

  82. Not everyone on the right thinks Robinson is genuine. Many think that he is an agent provocateur, used by the security services to get ever more restrictive laws on freedom of speech passed and precedents set.
    In fact, just like “Jez” Turner. See the May 17 article in TRAD NEWS about the latter.

    https://trad-news.blogspot.com/

    FAKE WHITE NATIONALIST JAILED FOR MILD COMMENTS TO SET SOFT TYRANNY PRECEDENT IN UK – Trad News

    • Replies: @Randal
  83. Randal says:
    @notanon

    Seems highly unlikely this would have involved a D-notice.

  84. Randal says:
    @Verymuchalive

    Many think that he is an agent provocateur, used by the security services to get ever more restrictive laws on freedom of speech passed.

    Seems pretty implausible to suggest the security services would need to use an agent provocateur in order to get someone convicted. Why not just pick any one of probably hundreds of examples of similar speech by anyone holding views taboo-ised and disapproved by the pc lobbies (and in particular the jewish lobby, which appears to be the main driving force on censorship at the moment, in view of the convictions for speechcrime in just the past couple of months of Turner, Alison Chabloz and the dog training buffoon)?

    And why would it matter if they were agents provocateurs anyway? Why not address their convictions as the outrages they are without trying to undermine resistance to the rising tide of criminalisation of speech by muddying the waters? (I like mixed metaphors – sue me).

    Seems to me we need two things to be campaigned for in the UK right now. First is an equivalent to the US First Amendment that makes clear that freedom of speech is not to be “balanced” against other people’s supposed “right” not to be offended or upset or any other such nonsense. Second, we need to start campaigning about special treatment and conditions for genuine political prisoners such as Turner and Chabloz (once they are actually inside).

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @dfordoom
  85. Randal says:
    @DFH

    But anyway, it is ridiculous to suppose that German expansion did not affect British interests. Stopping the creation of a hegemonic power on the continent had been a goal of British foreign policy since 1688.

    Turns out they were worrying about the wrong continent.

    Circumstances and context change, and by the early C20th if not before the old concern with preventing a hegemonic power in continental Europe was clearly out of date, and indeed (as the conflicts with Germany proved) counterproductive. In trying to prevent the domination of Europe by Germany, Britain ended up creating a world dominated by two implacably hostile (to the British Empire) superpowers in any case, and in which Britain was no longer a superpower because it had exhausted its resources and its energy fighting Germany for the benefit of the US and the Soviet Union, and the lobbies that supported them.

    Britain lost the peace by frittering away its money and industrial advantage after the war creating the welfare state and keeping a pointless empire for another two decades instead of reinvesting it in British industry and infrastructure.

    That a different political course could have changed the outcome is obviously true to some extent, but it is implausible to suggest that any remotely plausible different political approach in Britain after WW2 could have significantly changed the reality that the world in 1945 was run by two superpowers and Britain was not one of them.

    The fact that an almost identical process happened in countries which were neutral in the World Wars (e.g. Sweden) indicates that it wasn’t Britain specific.

    The twin catastrophes of WW1 and WW2 clearly smashed the old orders right across Europe and contributed hugely to the triumph of radical politics and policies. That the trivial minor neutrals on the cultural fringes were swept up in the current is hardly surprising.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @DFH
  86. Randal says:
    @Mitleser

    British commenter Randal

    Just to highlight one of the issues I mentioned previously, I nowadays tend to think of myself as English at least as much as British.

    That said, I’ve just spent a week with friends in Scotland including in the very beautiful Ardnamurchan and Mull areas, and happened to have a very enjoyable chat with a retired Scottish couple from Perthshire whose political opinions made mine look like those of a politically correct socialist (and who by the way hate the SNP with a vengeance), so that tends to push me back towards Britishness.

    National identity is complicated.

  87. DFH says:
    @Randal

    Circumstances and context change, and by the early C20th if not before the old concern with preventing a hegemonic power in continental Europe was clearly out of date

    Not true. Imperial Germany was powerful enough to attempt to challenge British naval supremacy, which would have left Britain at Germany’s mercy if it had been succesful, and Hitler tried to invade Britain. If either of them had controlled the entire continent, they would have been able to coerce Britain into doing anything they wanted.

    Britain was no longer a superpower because it had exhausted its resources and its energy fighting Germany for the benefit of the US and the Soviet Union

    The USSR controlled parties in Britain were actually against Britain joining the Second World War.

    In trying to prevent the domination of Europe by Germany, Britain ended up creating a world dominated by two implacably hostile (to the British Empire) superpowers in any case, and in which Britain was no longer a superpower because it had exhausted its resources and its energy fighting Germany for the benefit of the US and the Soviet Union, and the lobbies that supported them.

    The First and Second World wars of course weakened Britain, but the alternative of a German-dominated continent would have left Britain relatively more powerless.
    Britain not being a superpower anymore was because she had a population several times smaller than that of the other leading powers, and was in the long-run inevitable once she lost the industrial headstart over the other European nations and the US decided to exert herself.
    The USSR’s contribution to the destruction of the British empire was very trivial, and at most can have only marginally exacerbated a pre-existing anti-imperialism in native populations. The USA during the Cold War was not ‘implacably hostile’ as you suggest, but in fact prolonged the British empire for a couple of decades after the Second World War, since the vast loans and financial aid supplied to Britain were the only thing that allowed Britain to pay for it.
    By that time the British empire was a net drain to Britain’s strength anyway.

    I would reccomend Correlli Barnett’s quartet, in particular ‘The Collapse of British Power’ on this subject.

    • Replies: @Randal
  88. Randal says:
    @DFH

    Not true. Imperial Germany was powerful enough to attempt to challenge British naval supremacy, which would have left Britain at Germany’s mercy if it had been succesful, and Hitler tried to invade Britain. If either of them had controlled the entire continent, they would have been able to coerce Britain into doing anything they wanted.

    A German imperium completely dominant in Europe – if they could have achieved it and sustained it against the forces of European nationalism – would certainly have been a strong rival to British power, but the idea that it would have “been able to coerce Britain into doing anything they wanted” is just silly, and typical of the kind of alarmist propaganda routinely used to scaremonger people into confrontations and conflicts.

    The German decision to try to challenge British naval supremacy was a clear error on their part, since it pushed them towards conflict with their British rivals rather than defusing the risk of such conflict, and was always likely to fail, since it left them competing against Britain’s main strength. The response by Britain with hindsight should better have been to just continue to outcompete them in that area, rather than to try to defeat them in Europe itself. It’s arguable that a British distancing from continental affairs in the late C20th might have led to defeat by a unified European power, but it also might not have, whereas the policy of fighting Germany in Europe certainly led to disaster and the end of British power.

    Britain’s naval supremacy was ultimately overturned by the US anyway.

    The USSR controlled parties in Britain were actually against Britain joining the Second World War.

    This would appear to have no relevance to the point to which it is ostensibly addressed.

    The First and Second World wars of course weakened Britain, but the alternative of a German-dominated continent would have left Britain relatively more powerless.

    There is no evident reason to accept this assertion.

    Britain not being a superpower anymore was because she had a population several times smaller than that of the other leading powers, and was in the long-run inevitable once she lost the industrial headstart over the other European nations and the US decided to exert herself.

    Britain was no longer a superpower because Britain was in effect no longer the British Empire. That was a result directly of WW1 and WW2. It can be argued that it would have happened anyway, but it is by no means certain that it would have.

    The USSR’s contribution to the destruction of the British empire was very trivial, and at most can have only marginally exacerbated a pre-existing anti-imperialism in native populations. The USA during the Cold War was not ‘implacably hostile’ as you suggest, but in fact prolonged the British empire for a couple of decades after the Second World War, since the vast loans and financial aid supplied to Britain were the only thing that allowed Britain to pay for it.
    By that time the British empire was a net drain to Britain’s strength anyway.

    The US was absolutely implacably hostile to the existence and power of the British Empire so long as the term had any meaning (which does not mean they were not willing to cooperate with British power where it was to their benefit to do so). Of course, once the remainder of the Empire was merely another means by which US global power was maintained via a subordinate UK state, that US hostility was largely reduced to theoretical and emotive hostility with little practical relevance or application and mostly overruled for reasons of realpolitik.

    Suez was the final end to dreams that the UK could any longer act independently in any meaningful matter.

    By that time the British empire was a net drain to Britain’s strength anyway.

    As I noted, it was the twin catastrophes of WW1 and WW2 that ended British power.

    Whether British power could have been sustained by choosing another course than fighting Germany over Europe is open to question, but it’s clearly possible, whereas we know what the outcome of fighting Germany over Europe was – the end of British power.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @dfordoom
  89. @Dan Hayes

    Things were more fun without so many smartphones.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  90. DFH says:
    @Randal

    A German imperium completely dominant in Europe – if they could have achieved it and sustained it against the forces of European nationalism – would certainly have been a strong rival to British power, but the idea that it would have “been able to coerce Britain into doing anything they wanted” is just silly

    Do you think that weaker powers without useful allies and on the doorstep of much larger powers (especially those like Imperial or Nazi Germany which had a history of coercing weaker neighbours) usually have much independence?

    Britain was no longer a superpower because Britain was in effect no longer the British Empire

    Don’t know what you mean by this. The fundamentals of British/American/Russian economic power I mentioned weren’t affected by the World Wars. The Second World War cost the USSR far more, yet didn’t affect her standing as a great power.

    The US was absolutely implacably hostile to the existence and power of the British Empire so long as the term had any meaning (which does not mean they were not willing to cooperate with British power where it was to their benefit to do so). Of course, once the remainder of the Empire was merely another means by which US global power was maintained via a subordinate UK state, that US hostility was largely reduced to theoretical and emotive hostility with little practical relevance or application and mostly overruled for reasons of realpolitik.

    I will repeat again, the British empire was only kept going by post-war American loans. Without American loans, Britain would have been unable to pay for the empire (which was a huge drain of resources). If America had been opposed to the British empire’s existence, they could have made the loans conditional on decolonisation.

    Also the British empire (the parts which were directly ruled, not the dominions) was a drain on British power by the time of the First World War

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @Randal
  91. notanon says:

    blaming the US for the UK’s decline is dumb

    the banking mafia betrayed Britain to the US as part of moving their base of operations from London to New York

    and the banking mafia are currently betraying US to China as part of moving their base to Hong Kong

    the banking mafia are a parasite and they behave like a parasite: horizontal transmission with virulence

    it’s what they do

  92. Mitleser says:
    @DFH

    If America had been opposed to the British empire’s existence, they could have made the loans conditional on decolonisation.

    Conditions were not necessary because decolonisation was going to happen, anyway.
    Losing India, one of the pillars of the Empire meant that most of the rest was going to be lost as well.
    Loans ensured that Britain could not even keep a more limited independent empire.

    Also the British empire (the parts which were directly ruled, not the dominions) was a drain on British power by the time of the First World War

    India was a net drain?
    Also, by the time of WWI the dominions were still parts of the British Empire.

    • Replies: @DFH
  93. DFH says:
    @Mitleser

    Conditions were not necessary because decolonisation was going to happen, anyway.

    I agree, that is why it’s bizzarre to blame America which kept the empire going for an additional couple of decades.

    Losing India, one of the pillars of the Empire meant that most of the rest was going to be lost as well.

    Indian independence had been inevitable since at least after the First World War when the Indification process was started. I don’t see how the loss of India itself made the rest of the empire any more unsustainable though, although it might have made it (even more) pointless

    India was a net drain?

    By that time it had no effect on the budget in itself, but it required a huge amount of resources to defend. Nor did it serve as a captive market for British goods at that time, which had largely been displaced by Japanese, or for investment, since there was less private British capital invested there than in Argentina. The only useful area of the empire was Malaya. In The Collapse of British Power there is a lot of information about this.

    Also, by the time of WWI the dominions were still parts of the British Empire.

    I didn’t mean they weren’t, but they are a separate issue from the non-white areas and the relationship with them didn’t depend on the non-white empire.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  94. Randal says:
    @DFH

    Do you think that weaker powers without useful allies and on the doorstep of much larger powers (especially those like Imperial or Nazi Germany which had a history of coercing weaker neighbours) usually have much independence?

    Germany was not in 1913 a “much larger power” relative to the British Empire, and the latter was protected by being a sea power. Certainly the idea that Germany would become sufficiently more powerful than Britain to reduce it to satellite status in the way you suggest is fanciful at best. The far more powerful US did indeed manage to do that, but it was enabled in doing so by the devastation of two world wars and an already largely dual loyalty business and cultural elite (such as Churchill).

    Don’t know what you mean by this. The fundamentals of British/American/Russian economic power I mentioned weren’t affected by the World Wars. The Second World War cost the USSR far more, yet didn’t affect her standing as a great power.

    The idea that the “fundamentals” of British/American/Russian economic power weren’t affected by the world wars seems, again, fanciful. As far as Britain and the US are concerned, Britain spent itself into near bankruptcy which it avoided only by desperate measures – massive, sustained deficit spending financed by debt and liquidation of wealth, and US assistance that itself carried heavy pricetags – to say such action could somehow not affect dramatically the economic fundamentals between the two powers is simply unreasonable. Russia is a rather different case, because of the dramatic changes wrought by the revolution and post-WW1 industrialisation. But in 1913 Tsarist Russia was still regarded (rather grudgingly) as a great power, but was not seen as a superpower, whereas in 1945 the Soviet Union certainly was viewed as the latter.

    Reading Churchill’s own account of the runup to Lend-Lease and his pleading letter to Roosevelt in December 1940 gives a good indication of the scale of desperation involved.

    I will repeat again, the British empire was only kept going by post-war American loans. Without American loans, Britain would have been unable to pay for the empire (which was a huge drain of resources). If America had been opposed to the British empire’s existence, they could have made the loans conditional on decolonisation.

    Also the British empire (the parts which were directly ruled, not the dominions) was a drain on British power by the time of the First World War

    This is based upon over-simplistic economic analysis that misses the fact that the British Empire was British power. It was Britain’s control of India, primarily, but also huge swathes of admittedly relatively primitive and undeveloped lands literally all over the world, that made London still the centre of world power rather than the rising American alternative. It’s not just a financial matter of profit and loss in a particular version of the national budget, but rather it was manpower, access to resources, bases, trade issues (such as Imperial Preference that the US was so keen to see ended as a quid pro quo for their support), experience, influence and information.

    There’s a lot of diplomatic obfuscation of the inconvenient truth (in the light of later Cold War priorities), but US pushing of self-determination reflected Roosevelt’s (and many others’) ideological hostility to British Imperial power. Enoch Powell recognised this basic truth from meeting Americans in WW2, and had an unusually clear-eyed view on the issue, as on certain other issues.

    It’s one thing to argue that Britain is better off without the Empire, quite another to try to claim that the loss of the Empire did not equate to a loss of British power.

  95. @DFH

    I don’t see how the loss of India itself made the rest of the empire any more unsustainable though

    Loss of the Indian army was a major blow, it meant that there was no prospect of using Indian troops to suppress independence movements in other parts of the empire, e.g. in Burma the British had to just hand over power to the very people who had collaborated with the Japanese.
    And in an ideological sense the Americans were clearly opposed to British colonialism (iirc the Atlantic charter of 1941 is generally seen as an important milestone in this regard, giving renewed hope to anticolonial movements), even if after WW2 they decided to prop it up for a time due to the communist threat. But the end goal always was decolonization for them.
    That being said, you’re probably right, the empire wasn’t worth much, it would have been better for Britain if its elites had given up earlier and more decisively on it.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  96. @Randal

    Seems pretty implausible to suggest the security services would need to use an agent provocateur in order to get someone convicted

    Implausible to some, but that’s what Jack Sen and others think about Jeremy Bedford Turner. You don’t seem to have read the article, which I found convincing.

    Why not address their convictions as the outrages they are

    I totally agree with you. They are outrages and must be overturned.

    First is an equivalent to the US First Amendment that makes clear that freedom of speech is not to be “balanced” against other people’s supposed “right” not to be offended or upset or any other such nonsense.

    I agree with you. This has been obvious for a long time.

    Also, completely outrageous are the Fake News stories by Western Governments and the MSM, from WTA 800 to WTC 7 to the Skripal Case to “Assad’s Chemical Warfare”. to name but a few. These must be challenged and disproven. Likewise, the use of Security “actors” like Turner and, I strongly suspect, Robinson. Chipping away and exposing these actors is not only good for Freedom of Speech, but also exposes the utter depravity of those who control the state and the media. It is not a trivial matter, but very important on its own.

    • Replies: @DFH
  97. @German_reader

    Half German Reader, You obviously haven’t read the Correlli Barnett series. Only Malaya, Ceylon and New Zealand made a profit pre-war. India did not make a profit and could not defend itself. Barnett would have got rid of India and nearly all other colonies pre-war. Result: more troops to defend Britain, and no War with Japan.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  98. DFH says:
    @Verymuchalive

    Jack Sen

    Jack Sen is the most likely of all to be a state agent, since he came out of nowhere, uses various aliases, and exists to attack other nationalists. Having said that, Jez Turner is ex-military. The fact that Tommy seems to have actually gone to prison would suggest that he isn’t, since that doesn’t happen to actual state agents like David Myatt.

    • Replies: @Randal
  99. @Verymuchalive

    India did not make a profit.

    That’s true (and I didn’t claim otherwise), but Indian troops were the backbone of at least Britain’s Asian empire. As I wrote above, without them Britain simply lacked the means of coercion to keep other places like Burma under British control.
    As for India not being able to defend itself…I don’t know, Indian troops were certainly pretty important at Imphal and Kohima.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Verymuchalive
  100. Randal says:
    @DFH

    Jack Sen is the most likely of all to be a state agent, since he came out of nowhere, uses various aliases, and exists to attack other nationalists.

    That makes sense.

    Personally I’m not familiar enough with the individuals or the scene to judge them or to judge allegations against them. It just seems to me we that in the case of actual convictions of those broadly on the conservative/nationalist side for speechcrimes we should be simply condemning them without qualification.

    I suppose given the known predilection of government security agencies for fielding agents provocateurs in conservative/nationalist organisations, some mutual suspicion is inevitable, but instilling that is of course one of the motivations for using such agents. It correlates interestingly for me with Karlin’s comments about the low trust tendencies of those on the conservative/nationalist side.

  101. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    India did not make a profit for Britain. However, India produced plenty of profit for certain Britishers. This is the key to understanding British colonial policy.

  102. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Seems to me we need two things to be campaigned for in the UK right now.

    I’ve always felt that we should learn from the successful tactics used by our enemies back in the 60s and 70s, but there is a problem with that. Back then the cultural left already had considerable elite support and considerable support within the media. That allowed them to use all sorts of very effective tactics such as provoking over-reactions from the authorities. They could rely more often than not on sympathetic media coverage, and at the very least they could rely on getting publicity.

    Today we have zero elite support and zero support within the media. It’s not clear what kind of tactics we can use successfully in such a situation. We can organise protests but if the media ignores the protests then they might as well have not happened.

    It looks to me as if a certain British activist who must not be named is trying to use provocation tactics that would work very well in a sympathetic media environment but just won’t work in today’s Airstrip One. He also seems to think that sucking up to Israel will work. It won’t.

  103. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    I’ve used up my Agree button ration for the moment but I totally agree with this postr.

  104. @German_reader

    Indian troops were the backbone of at least Britain’s Asian empire

    Get rid of the Empire in Asia, and you don’t need troops to defend it. With no empire in Asia, there would be no war with Japan.
    Roosevelt and his clique wanted to provoke war with Japan. Let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  105. @Verymuchalive

    Get rid of the Empire in Asia, and you don’t need troops to defend it.

    Sure, that probably would have been more rational. By the 20th century the empire was probably mostly a burden on Britain and not very beneficial to Britain.
    18th century empire with its utter ruthlessness and exploitative attitude was much more efficient and profitable.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS