What Charles should now say about comparing Putin to Hitler

Proposed Statement from Charles:

"I really don't know what came over me. Of course Putin isn't like Hitler, unless anyone who invades another country is like Hitler, and I do not feel, now that I have thought things through properly, that the British who once had a world empire and is even now behaving in a way that can only be described as an unedifying display of unseemly military aggression disguised as liberal interventionism, is in a position to get on their high horse on this matter. The British are after all these days merely poodles of America.  If the Americans want us to bark at the Russians then we bark at the Russians.

When we fought the Crimean War in 1834 it was was against the Russians, and they have always regarded the Crimea as their backyard.

As for what I said about Hitler, I can only say that I really really really did not mean anything by it.  I was in the presence of a Jewess who was also a Holocaust survivor. This situation made me feel socially obliged to bring Hitler into the conversation to show that I sympathised with her on the one hand, and on the other relate it to something that was topical.  That really was all. Although that tiresome man Edward Lucas has rushed to my defence at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635617/Hitler-Putin-Charles-right.html there really was no need, and I entirely disagree with him about Winston Churchill, who lost the British their world empire in his fits of drunkenness, depression and the desire to take reckless risks in order to aggrandise himself as a wartime leader.  

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1 then what was WW1 really about? Belgian neutrality? Surely not.  The military opportunism the Germans displayed during WW1 was probably because they felt left out in the scramble for Africa and wanted a place in the sun over which they could place their towel, but they are good people really. Perhaps we should blame ourselves for not being more nicer to the Germans who are after all our Teuton cousins who also brew good beer. It seems incredible that the British could have lost their empire over something as trivial as Belgian neutrality.  I suspect the British lost their empire because their policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans turned around and bit their sorry asses.  It is now perhaps time to question our political system that allows only fools and knaves to govern us. There.  Why don't you people put that in your pipe and smoke it?"

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677 

Why the Red Poppy is Bad for Britain and Bad for the British Military

Why don't the British ask themselves whether they should have fought WW1 instead of rehashing the usual sentimental sludge again?

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1, then what was WW1 about?

What was Belgian neutrality to the British in 1914?

How relevant was the Treaty of London 1839
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm to Britain in the geopolitics of 1914?

Did Britain lose her world empire over a "scrap of paper"?

Was the most militaristic nation in the world looking upon every European war as a party she simply must go to?

Did Britain think she was the biggest party girl of the whole wide world?

Now she is a washed up old woman with an ambivalent attitude towards her past.

 It is of vital importance that the people of this country understand how this country lost its world empire.

Think of the Accumulator Principle, but of it working in reverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_(bet)

The Red Poppy is like the British worshiping the thing that brought them low.

It is a bit like Christians worshiping the Cross.

If Jesus was executed by electric chair would Christians be wearing electric chairs round their necks?

It is like watching people with the bubonic plague wearing a rat round their necks.

I despise the mawkish sentimentality and the nauseating hypocrisy every year when everyone wears their poppy and heart on their sleeves.

Only the world's most militaristic and sentimental nation would do it.

At least the Russians and the Chinese do it by marching properly and having rousing military parades displaying their weaponry.

Give a dead soldier a poppy after he dies in yet another stupid war as you sentence a live soldier for "murdering" an enemy combatant!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10436149/Royal-Marine-faces-life-in-jail-for-captive-execution.html

This is how the British respect their military.

Next year, the British will be celebrating the centenary of WW1 - the year of the beginning of their folie de grandeur - when they started to lose their marbles in a big big way.  It was a weak and Liberal Prime Minister who allowed it to happen, and now we have a Conservative Prime Minister who wants the world to adopt gay marriage.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-export-gay-marriage-around-the-world-says-David-Cameron.html

It is hoped that someone will start a Rafflesia Campaign to commemorate the folly of the British.

The Rafflesia Corpse Flower

The Koran v Rawls - the case *against* liberal interventionism

The days of Britain's gunboat diplomacy died with Palmerston and the loss of the British Empire, you would have thought.

The British lost their empire after their pyrrhic victory of WW2.

The historian A J P Taylor said WW2 was a continuation of WW1.  What was WW1 really about?

No one quite knows.  If you told the Modern Briton - even one who has passed his GCSE history or who even has a degree in it - he will not seem to know that the British fought WW1 over the issue of Belgian neutrality.

What had the Treaty of London 1839 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) to do with the Britain of 1914?  No one really knows.

The awful truth is that the British simply muddled into world war after world war, without pausing once to examine their reasons or really counting the cost.

If Britain were a man, he could be said to be now in a drunken stupor which has lasted decades after he has mortgaged and remortgaged his home, been abandoned by his wife and family, and sold the family silver.

Perhaps the moral of this story is that one must not accept every invitation one receives, else we fall into bad company and are caused needless inconvenience and expense as a result.

Having lost their empire and in hock to the Americans after borrowing heavily to fund their war, the British decided to call this master and servant relationship a "Special Relationship".  It was important to the British to be seen to be dining at the top table with the most powerful nation in the world, though the rest of the world sniggered at them for being America's poodle.

Anyone who has tried to keep up with friends much wealthier than we are would know that it is financially ruinous to do so if you really do not have the wherewithal to do so.

This mania for liberal interventionism seems to come from Rawls, who "claimed, controversially, that violations of human rights can legitimize military intervention in the violating states, though he also expressed the hope that such societies could be induced to reform peacefully by the good example of liberal and decent peoples."

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

The Law of Peoples

By 'Law of Peoples’, Rawls means "a particular political conception of right and justice that applies to the principles and norms of international law and practice" . This political conception of justice is arrived at through the device of the 'original position' – a hypothetical arrangement whereby representatives of each of the peoples get together with the aim of determining principles that will govern the terms of their association. The principles yielded by this process make up the content of the Law of Peoples. The eight principles are:

1. "Peoples (as organized by their government) are free and independent, and their freedom and independence is to be respected by other peoples."
2. "Peoples are equal and parties to their own agreements."
3. "Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to war."
4. "Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention."
5. "Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings."
6. "Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions on the conduct of war (assumed to be in self-defense)."
7. "Peoples are to honor human rights."
8. "Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Law_of_Peoples


Convoluted, impractical, idiotic and utterly laughable.

Compare his convoluted shit with the Koran, which says, quite simply, that we may not attack another nation unless it attacks us, so that all wars must necessarily be defensive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

The point to note that the British suffer from a collective neurosis about their foreign policy and this neurosis, or even dementia to be more accurate, is long-standing and bone deep.  

Only when they stop worshiping Churchill - the man who lost the British their world empire in one reckless throw of dice - will their dementia lift.   

The proper and rational foreign policy for any self-respecting nation must be Palmerstonian:

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

America is not our Special Friend.  In fact, it is its own worst enemy.