Translate

Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts

Friday, 4 August 2017

A Woman of Destiny and a Product of the British Empire

Speaking to a British nationalist the other day, the conversation turned to our respective origins, as these discussions often do. I declared that I was a product of the British Empire, while he merely happened to be born in Britain.

I am now reflecting on what was said. Of course it was a competition for status. He was dismissively saying that my views did not matter and I could never understand the beating heart of the true Englishman with English blood running through his veins or some such bunkum.

He was saying I should be grateful for the British Empire for otherwise I wouldn't be here. He has also previously suggested that I wished Britons ill because my country had been colonised by the British, but I have never ever denounced empire. Empire is after all an objective measure of human achievement, measured by its expanse and duration. So, no, I do not wish the British ill at all, but am concerned and anxious about them and their future since I now live here and share it.

How does being a product of the British Empire give me a status above him though?

The British Empire is no longer in existence being absent-mindedly acquired and carelessly lost. I washed up on these shores as a result of wanting to examine the English at closer quarters. I could have gone to other parts of the Anglosphere, to Australia, New Zealand, Canada or America, but I chose England. I say England with particularity because I know I was not that interested in the Scots or the Welsh, though they turn out to be quite interesting and engaging in the way they have reacted to their English overlords with their ancestral hatreds.

If I have a status over this British nationalist because I was a product of the British Empire and he merely a native Briton, on what basis is this a higher status? Well, the idea of a world empire upon which the sun never sets because no Englishman can be trusted in the dark is by definition a bigger and stronger idea than being a mere native of Britain. The idea that I represent - of a fallen empire - is still bigger than that of being born here by a mere accident of birth.

I suppose the point is that I do not have to be here, but chose to be here. Having seen the trajectory that this country is currently headed, why do I remain? Why do I stay here if I do not have to be here? Because on the whole this country has become my home and I know it better than my own country of origin.

Also, the problems that afflict this country also afflicts other countries who are similarly the vassal states of America. If the Global Matriarchy is to be toppled, it must be defeated at where it is most obviously present in the form of gay marriage and where patriarchy is most notably absent, for Britain is the opposite of a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers. The Cabinet is more a coven of incompetent witches and cucked men serving sorceresses at sea than a team of senior ministers governing the country rationally and well.

I do not have to be here, but am here. I do not have to stay here but remain here. Some sense of destiny must therefore impel me, and then it dawned on me that it is always a sense of destiny that impels a people or a person to act on principle.

The principles I follow are not particularly grandiose. I wish to live in a country where I can speak the truth as I see it, using logic and moral principles to back my claims and proposals. I had thought it was this country, but this is clearly no longer the case.

It was with horror that I realised that what we are undergoing now - a 21st century process of Reformation from an irrational and degenerate matriarchy into rational patriarchy implementing good government will take about as long as the English Reformation, which was over hundred years. Even if successful, I will not live to see it.

All I can do now is to see to it that the more obvious mistakes are avoided and plan the quickest and easiest route for those who will come after me.

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire





Anti-Semitism discussed from 9:20

From 21st minute: "We can never have a racial policy in Great Britain because we are running a multi-racial empire."















It would be nice to have British historians discussing this, to hear the other side.Will they dare? It is such a political hot potato that historians both Jew or gentile must fear being accused of anti-Semitism whatever they say and however impartial they mean to be towards Jews. 

What I make of The Second Thirty Years' War is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-battle-for-barking-revisited.html

"Why did British people die in the Second World War?" one BNP-supporting householder asked.

"They died to let everyone come in and take over."

Secular Koranism is the antidote to anti-Semitism

Are you an anti-Semite just because Jews hate you? 

Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire

Monday, 9 May 2016

Philip Hammond does not give examples of Britain turning its back on Europe and Nick Robinson did not press him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-brexit-will-increase-risk-of-europe-descending-into-war/


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079mwss from 2:10

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

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



Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Bad parenting and bad blood started WW1?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw7nx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw8ds

Cousins At War was another excuse to go through the family history of the Royals again. Those of us who know, know Britain didn't have to declare war on Germany. Did Britain lift a finger to save the French during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope.

The German Ambassador in London couldn't believe Britain was entering WW1 "over a scrap of paper" - The Treaty of London 1839 - guaranteeing Belgian neutrality.

WW1 was caused by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination, not George V declaring war on Wilhelm II after he had been naughty and annoyed his relations yet again.

I doubt that even if Wilhelm II had been exposed at birth that would have prevented Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

It is breathtakingly dishonest of the British to blame Wilhelm II when it was Liberal Prime Minister Asquith who declared war on Germany in 1914 in the hope increasing the chances of the Liberal Party winning in the General Election of 2015 after a short successful war. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html When the war started to go really badly for Britain, the election was cancelled, as you would expect.

How old was Bismarck when he was sacked by Wilhelm II? 75. How old would he have have been in 1914? 99 years old, but apparently such a super statesman - as these historians seem to believe - that he would have been able to stop Kaiser in his tracks when he declared war on Britain ....

Listen to the British sneering at Wilhelm II in ‪#‎RoyalCousinsAtWar‬, blaming him for their rotten foreign policy which lost them their world empire.

When will the British take responsibility for the loss of their empire instead of forever blaming Germany and the Kaiser? "Look at what you made me do!" says Britain to Germany, for ever and ever ....

Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia (1859-1941), when Prince of Prussia

What was British foreign policy in WW1 & 2? Thwarting the Germans. What do British historians do? Blame the Germans, and never ever take responsibility for their insane foreign policy that lost them their world empire in thirty years.

The British now pretend they sacrificed their world empire to save the Jews. The Jews at least gained Israel, and the biggest loser of WW2 was Britain.

So, if Britain wants to blame the loss of their empire on something or someone they should blame the Liberal Party and Asquith who was Liberal Prime Minister of the time, as well as the operation of democracy.

Remember: British foreign policy is forged on the dunghill that is the indifference, ignorance and arrogance of the average voter on the subject. They are happy to believe any ill of foreigners, as long as they can feel that they or their leaders are not to blame. This policy continues to this day. Having lost their empire, the British are now proceeding to lose their marbles, driven mad by the depth of their folly and the extent of their loss. Their foreign policy seems to be double or quits until they they win or go broke. It is unlikely that they will win.

Saturday, 15 August 2015

Thoughts on #VJDay


Monday, 10 November 2014

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years


http://www.scottmanning.com/content/treaty-of-london-1839/
Can you find any word in the Treaty of London that obliged Britain to go to war against Germany? I can't.

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

The Parliament Act 1911 reduced the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five, however the election that would have been due by 1915 as a result of the Act was not held due to World War I (1914-1918)

At this point, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave suffrage to most of the adult population (men over 21, women over 30).

That was when the thin end of the wedge of feminism was inserted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9602114/The-First-World-War-the-war-that-changed-us-all.html

Gone was the expansive optimism of those Edwardian years, with ludicrously young men bowling up to recruitment offices, broad grins on their faces, as they stood on tiptoe and stuck their chests out to appear older.

In its place came the horror – and the cynicism. Towards the end of the war, officers noticed that men stopped singing the morale-boosting songs they had invented themselves and were reduced instead to the miserable, characteristically English, downbeat cry of “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here.”


'We’ll be home by Christmas’: the departure of the 1st Battalion of the Mid-Kent Volunteers for the front from Royal Tunbridge Wells in 1914

http://www.lchs.museum/ww2/pow.htm




THE KHAVIAN ANALYSIS OF HOW BRITAIN LOST ITS EMPIRE

Because the British ended up destroying their greatest achievement after their reckless participation in two world wars, run on a policy of being nasty to the Germans because they were perceived to be rivals, they had to and still now make themselves believe that it was all worthwhile (because they had to save the Jews or that Hitler would have invaded Britain) because otherwise the truth would be too much to bear.  ("The horror, the horror.")

This brings to mind a game of Monopoly I once played. My opponent tried to thwart my acquisitions by buying up properties he knew I wanted, but in the end found himself so denuded of cash that he could not make the most of his opportunities or pay the rent when he landed on my low-grade hotels in Old Kent Road and the Whitechapel Road.

No sensible German military leader would have taken the trouble to invade Britain because it was a maritime nation with a navy enormously superior to Germany's. The cost would be ruinous and any victory Pyrrhic. Besides, the Germans wanted to expand eastwards towards Russia, not take on a maritime nation by mounting a blockade with its inferior navy.

As for saving the Jews, the British themselves were not too fond of them, if truth be told, and neither were the French or the Poles or the Russians or the Italians etc.

I know Irving is denounced as being a Holocaust Denier, but it is probably because he points out so many uncomfortable truths. It has been pointed out that all the Nazis did was just conduct yet another of the pogroms European Christians periodically mounted on Jews, a bit like a man coming home after a bad day at work and kicking the dog and being irascible to his wife and children.

The Nazis were not planning to exterminate them but to expel them and the Madagascar Plan is evidence of this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

If this is so, Germany was really no worse than Britain during the Edict of Expulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion


It would appear that antisemitism is in fact a problem of Christianity.

I often asked myself why this Christian hatred of Jews is called antisemitism when the Arabs who are Muslims are also a Semitic race.  I believe the answer is this: the hatred was not so much racial as ideological, since both Jews and Muslims because of their religion would necessarily deny the doctrine of the Trinity

Enforcing belief of the Trinity was what the Spanish Inquisition was all about, was it not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Christians were not just nasty to Jews and Muslims, but also nasty to each other with their inter-denominational rivalries. Unitarian Christians and Quakers were also given a terrible time by the Established Church, Catholics were nasty to Protestants eg St Bartholomew's Day, and vice versa eg British in Ireland.

It was only as recently as 1813 that it became legal to doubt the Trinity without the unpleasant consequence of losing one's job.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

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

In Toland's first book Christianity not Mysterious (1696), he argued that the divine revelation of the Bible contains no true mysteries; rather, all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles. For this argument he was prosecuted by a grand jury in London. As he was a subject of the Kingdom of Ireland, members of the Parliament of Ireland proposed that he should be burnt at the stake, and in his absence three copies of the book were burnt by the public hangman in Dublin as the content was contrary to the core doctrines of the Church of Ireland. Toland bitterly compared the Protestant legislators to "Popish Inquisitors who performed that Execution on the Book, when they could not seize the Author, whom they had destined to the Flames".

Britain, being the most successful military nation in the world at the time of WW1 felt they could take on anything, even the Germans on land. British generals probably longed for another war just to keep their troops on their toes and periodically battle-hardened.

War was just a party for the world's most successful military nation.  Indeed, every war was a party as far as the British considered and Britain was the No 1 Party Girl of the world. It was unthinkable not to gate crash or accept invitations for a "party".  No respectable woman should accept every invitation or accede to every request to "party".  In just the same way that a party girl easily becomes a fallen woman Britain has lost her status, respectability and reputation.

Is British foreign policy now being run on saner principles?

I would suggest not.

The other point I want to make is that the reasons why Britain went to war was because it operated a system of government called democracy, which hasn't done it much good either.

If Asquith had not been worried about what the voters would think, would he have entered WW1?

If the democracy, Christianity and Liberalism are unsound ideologies to base our governments on, had we not better consider an alternative sooner rather than later?

After Hubris, there can only be Nemesis and perhaps ISIS ...



On the Avoidability of World War One


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/19/darkest-days-truth-behind-britains-rush-to-war-douglas-newton-review

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...