# Ashamed to be British?



## CnC Bartok

My mood tonight. Rather says it all.


----------



## Guest

Not ashamed, but not proud either. Brexit is a monumental mistake. 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-pointless-masochistic-ambition-history-done


----------



## mikeh375

Was it me, or did that 'We're Out' graphic they transmitted in Trafalgar Sq last night spell..._Were_ Out. (along with the apostrophe apparently). I'm surprised it didn't say something like...'So, Were super Out'.

Should we drop the 'Great' in Great Britain and the 'United' in the United Kingdom?


----------



## Taplow

mikeh375 said:


> Should we drop the 'Great' in Great Britain and the 'United' in the United Kingdom?


The Divided Kingdom of Not-so-great Britain and Bordered Ireland.


----------



## Jacck

on the other hand, UK likely saved EU, because the brexit chaos helped to stop the populist and eurosceptic wave over Europe. We also had some Kremlin-sponsored euroskeptic parties here, some of them advocating czexit. After brexit, no one wants to leave anymore and the support for EU increased some 10%
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...opean-union-pew-research-center-a7793821.html
people actually need to see, that elections and referendums and the election of populists and demagogues have consequences. I am sorry for the UK citizens, since they will suffer through it 
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...st-in-trade-talks-says-kim-darroch-ambassador
so maybe after 10-15 years, the UK decided to rejoin the EU.


----------



## Merl

..................


----------



## Jacck




----------



## CnC Bartok

Jacck said:


> on the other hand, UK likely saved EU, because the brexit chaos helped to stop the populist and eurosceptic wave over Europe. We also had some Kremlin-sponsored euroskeptic parties here, some of them advocating czexit. After brexit, no one wants to leave anymore and the support for EU increased some 10%
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...opean-union-pew-research-center-a7793821.html
> people actually need to see, that elections and referendums and the election of populists and demagogues have consequences. I am sorry for the UK citizens, since they will suffer through it
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...st-in-trade-talks-says-kim-darroch-ambassador
> so maybe after 10-15 years, the UK decided to rejoin the EU.


A mighty nation falls on its sword for the good of its neighbours and friends? A drobeček of comfort in there, Jacck.......


----------



## Room2201974

January 31, 2020. Putin celebrates twice.


----------



## Jacck

Room2201974 said:


> January 31, 2020. Putin celebrates twice.


yes, all according the Kremlin playbook (published in 1997)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content


----------



## elgar's ghost

Sorry, but I'm not ashamed at all - more annoyed due to amount of time it's taken. I've been a Eurosceptic ever since John Major shackled us to the Maastricht Treaty. Had the referendum gone the other way I like to think that I would have accepted the outcome without spitting my dummy out like so many Remainers have continued to do. The UK is strong enough to take any short-term economical fall-out, and if Norway can do nicely without being part of the EU then so can we.


----------



## Room2201974

Jacck said:


> yes, all according the Kremlin playbook (published in 1997)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content


Thanks for that optimistic view.


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> Sorry, but I'm not ashamed at all - more annoyed due to amount of time it's taken. I've been a Eurosceptic ever since John Major shackled us to the Maastricht Treaty. *Had the referendum gone the other way I like to think that I would have accepted the outcome without spitting my dummy out like so many Remainers have continued to do*. The UK is strong enough to take any short-term economical fall-out, and if Norway can do nicely without being part of the EU then so can we.


I don't think it is comparable. Had the referendum gone the other way, nothing much would have changed in your life. But the Remainers can now expect dramatic changes in their lifes. The easiest part of brexit (the populist promises) is done, the actual real brexit and its fallout is yet to begin.

BTW: the main reasons Norway does good are the oil reserves. Historically it was one of the poorest nations in Europe. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jacck said:


> I don't think it is comparable. Had the referendum gone the other way, nothing much would have changed in your life. _But the Remainers can now expect dramatic changes in their lifes_. The easiest part of brexit (the populist promises) is done, the actual real brexit and its fallout is yet to begin.


It certainly won't be as bad for as many British people as it was in 2009 when the global economy flatlined. The UK recovered from that as well.

Jacck, let's see where we (and other European nations) are a few years down the line - I bet no-one will even notice we aren't there. I still wish all of Europe well - and if the UK leaving makes pro-EU sentiment on the continent even stronger then that is a positive, surely?
I for one am confident that there will be far less instability than what the doom-mongerers are prophesying.


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> It certainly won't be as bad for as many British people as it was in 2009 when the global economy flatlined. The UK recovered from that as well.
> 
> Jacck, let's see where we (and other European nations) are a few years down the line - I bet no-one will even notice we aren't there. I still wish all of Europe well - and if the UK leaving makes pro-EU sentiment on the continent even stronger then that is a positive, surely?
> I for one am confident that there will be far less instability than what the doom-mongerers are prophesying.


I also wish you good luck and I am curious, how the UK will manage. No doubt the rest of the EU will be watching. If you become a success, then maybe more countries will be tempted to exit, if you become a failure, then you will serve as a scarecrow for the rest.


----------



## mikeh375

Jacck said:


> I also wish you good luck and I am curious, how the UK will manage. No doubt the rest of the EU will be watching. *If you become a success, then maybe more countries will be tempted to exit,* if you become a failure, then you will serve as a scarecrow for the rest.


This is the reason the forthcoming negotiations are going to be particularly tough for the UK (as opposed to Canada and similar nations). Johnson was clever putting a deadline into law, but the EU views its cohesion with the utmost seriousness.
I was a remainer, but am glad its now progressing. ElgarG could be right, it might just work if we want it to.


----------



## Jacck

mikeh375 said:


> This is the reason the forthcoming negotiations are going to be particularly tough for the UK (as opposed to Canada and similar nations). Johnson was clever putting a deadline into law, but the EU views their cohesion with the utmost seriousness.
> I was a remainer, but am glad its now progressing. ElgarG could be right, it might just work if we want it to.


We will see. You need to negotiate trade deals with 3 major blocks (EU, US and China) and in all 3 cases, you will be the (much) weaker partner. And these 3 partners will force you into geopolitical conflicts. For example the US says: "If you want a trade deal with us, you have to ban Huawei" and China will say "if you want a trade deal with us, you need to allow Huawei". And Boris will be forced to do these kinds of decisions. The whole world nowadays is organizing into bigger geopolitical and economic blocks, because small nations stand no chance. The UK thinks it is exceptional. But what is your economy actually based upon? Finanancial services? That might have worked, because you were a gateway into Europe. But all of that might change now. 
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/investing/brexit-financial-industry/index.html


----------



## Merl

Whilst I joke about it, of course I accept the result (I am not a bitter remainder, EG) . Who knows what the future will hold? I hope I'm wrong for the sake of my children. I have no problem with anyone who had a Eurosceptic viewpoint. They had valid arguments against the EU that were economic. Unfortunately there was a significant rise in racist rhetoric during Brexit, which I found particularly disturbing and worrying. Whilst we were on holiday I was lumbered with a pair of such neanderthals for a few hours. Their argument against the EU? "Too many foreigners, here!" they said (ironically we were sat outside a Spanish bar at that moment). Utter morons. No economic argument, no free trade argument.... Just jingoistic, xenophobic comments based on race and nationality. The same pair of idiots now own a villa in Spain but refuse to learn the language because "We are English".


----------



## Jacck

my opinion is, that out of the 3 big blocks, the EU is still UK's best option for a close ally, and the UK will likely be forced to chose either the EU or the US. The massive problem for Boris is the unfortunate fact, that Trump occupies the White House
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/31/business/brexit-trade/index.html
so the best course of action for Boris is to try to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and delay the US trade talks after the US elections. But I am sure Trump will be exerting pressure on the UK to do some kind of "deal" before the elections.


----------



## mikeh375

mikeh375 said:


> Was it me, or did that 'We're Out' graphic they transmitted in Trafalgar Sq last night spell..._Were_ Out. (along with the apostrophe apparently). I'm surprised it didn't say something like...'So, Were super Out'.
> 
> Should we drop the 'Great' in Great Britain and the 'United' in the United Kingdom?


I was mistaken about that apostrophe, in my defence I was emotionally compromised and hungover.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jacck said:


> my opinion is, that out of the 3 big blocks, the EU is still UK's best option for a close ally, and the UK will likely be forced to chose either the EU or the US. _The massive problem for Boris is the unfortunate fact, that Trump occupies the White House_
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/31/business/brexit-trade/index.html


For five more years maximum, assuming he a) runs again and b) actually wins. At the end of a second tenure he will be 78 years old - he may well pack up before then.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> I was mistaken about that apostrophe, in my defence I was *emotionally compromised and hungover*.


Hah! This is what Priavte Eye magazine calls being "tired and emotional".


----------



## Room2201974

Sorry, I misread a post above!

Real sign in a Dublin bar last night:


ALL BRITS

Must be accompanied by a European after 11 pm.
Except Scots. They're Sound!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Room2201974 said:


> Sorry, I misread a post above!
> 
> Real sign in a Dublin bar last night:
> 
> ALL BRITS
> 
> Must be accompanied by a European after 11 pm.
> Except Scots. They're Sound!


Only the Celts can get away with a gag like that and still make it seem funny. :lol:


----------



## Iota

I've accepted the Leave vote, but it still seems absurd, utterly pointless and bereft of almost any benefit to its supporters or anyone else. I very much hope I'm wrong, I'd like things to work out.


----------



## KenOC

I’m betting the UK will cleave to the US in preference to Europe. There’s a sort of a mystical bond in language. For instance:

“The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence… In spite of continued controversy over its methods, the Five Eyes relationship remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history.” (Wiki)

This sort of thing is quite handy. Each nation has laws largely prohibiting its intelligence agencies from spying on its own citizens. So some log-rolling takes place. For instance, the US spies on specified UK citizens and shares the intel, while the UK returns the favor by spying on US citizens.


----------



## Guest

I think the UK will end up just fine after a short period of transition. For all the bluster out there, I really don't think the EU wants to completely ignore a potential trade partner sitting right off their shore, especially one that is a pretty simple trade partner. Negotiating trade with the UK is not fraught with the same kind of periods as with such prickly partners as China and other such Nations. And the US will also want to trade. Even with the rocky start we had back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we have very close with the UK and can't imagine any reason for that to change. If anything, I think Americans would be even more willing to trade with an independent UK than one that was subservient to the EU.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> I'm betting the UK will cleave to the US in preference to Europe. There's a sort of a mystical bond in language.


possibly, though the UK has about 3 times as much trade with the EU as with the US. And although you may feel you have some special relationships, I still feel the UK is culturally closer to continental Europe than US. Look at the healthcare systems. Do you think the UK public will enjoy, when the US healthcare sharks start dismantling the NHS for profit? And these are exactly the kinds of deals that the US will try to push the UK into. And even the defense alliance has become strained lately
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-...dership-world-qassem-soleiman2020-1?r=US&IR=T


----------



## Jacck

and another likely consequence of brexit will be, that the US will lose some leverage over the EU. The UK has at times served as a US "trojan horse" in the EU. For example a long-term US policy has been to keep EU from developing its army, and they have likely been using the UK to veto such proposal. Now the obstacle is gone
https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/will-the-eu-form-its-own-army/


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> possibly, though the UK has about 3 times as much trade with the EU as with the US. And although you may feel you have some special relationships, I still feel the UK is culturally closer to continental Europe than US. Look at the healthcare systems. Do you think the UK public will enjoy, when the US healthcare sharks start dismantling the NHS for profit? And these are exactly the kinds of deals that the US will try to push the UK into. And even the defense alliance has become strained lately
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-...dership-world-qassem-soleiman2020-1?r=US&IR=T


That's a pretty baseless claim. We've been trading with Canada for a long time now and have never made their national health system an issue for trade negotiations. You are repeating a lie that Corbyn told in the most recent elections, which was proven patently false given that Johnson pledged to pump even more money into the NHS.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> and another likely consequence of brexit will be, that the US will lose some leverage over the EU. The UK has at times served as a US "trojan horse" in the EU. For example a long-term US policy has been to keep EU from developing its army, and they have likely been using the UK to veto such proposal. Now the obstacle is gone
> https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/will-the-eu-form-its-own-army/


The EU doesn't want to build up their armies.Trump has been pressuring our NATO allies to actually increase their defense spending because most of them were spending less than they pledged to under the NATO treaty. That hardly sounds like a policy of limiting militaries.


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> and another likely consequence of brexit will be, that the US will lose some leverage over the EU. The UK has at times served as a US "trojan horse" in the EU. For example a long-term US policy has been to keep EU from developing its army, and they have likely been using the UK to veto such proposal. Now the obstacle is gone
> https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/will-the-eu-form-its-own-army/


Lol an EU army? To do what, exactly? Force Hungary to take their 'fair share' of African boat people? Who would join this army, what would bind them, and what would they fight for? Even the US imperial army is strained, having dubious legitimacy and existing primarily as a social welfare program for the displaced working class. As an American I can barely perceive what I'd fight for, and to whom I owe allegiance - and I live in what is ostensibly a real nation with real interests.

I'm really glad this project is crashing head-on into the brick wall of human nature during my lifetime. It's like being alive for the fall of Rome. Maybe a real nation can emerge from the USA, I'm not sure. I'm more hopeful for Europeans.


----------



## KenOC

bz3 said:


> ...As an American I can barely perceive what I'd fight for, and to whom I owe allegiance - and I live in what is ostensibly a real nation with real interests.


You can give up your citizenship at any overseas American embassy. There is a nominal fee. Maybe you can join all those Hollywood types who said they were going to flee America when Trump won. Of course they're still around... :lol:

As to the "displaced working class," suggest you check out the unemployment stats.


----------



## bz3

KenOC said:


> You can give up your citizenship at any overseas American embassy. There is a nominal fee. Maybe you can join all those Hollywood types who said they were going to flee America when Trump won. Of course they're still around... :lol:
> 
> As to the "displaced working class," suggest you check out the unemployment stats.


I am from a military family and am military myself, I count myself among those I referenced - I am perfectly patriotic if you're implying otherwise.

What I referenced is the fact that no wars this country fights are in our interests, most of them are antithetical to our domestic interests, and the fights we should be having are either ignored or actively abdicated. I seriously doubt any of America's leaders like or care about the historical American nation or its people. Perhaps you disagree, which you likely do and I know many on 'both sides' of the alleged poltical spectrum who do, but my views I feel are borne out in this nation's deterioration - something that is undeniable no matter your political perspective.


----------



## KenOC

bz3 said:


> ...Perhaps you disagree, which you likely do and I know many on 'both sides' of the alleged poltical spectrum who do, but my views I feel are borne out in this nation's deterioration - something that is undeniable no matter your political perspective.


To the extent I agree, I'd bet that I'd cite evidences far different from yours. BTW, what _are _your evidences of the nation's deterioration?


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> I am from a military family and am military myself, I count myself among those I referenced - I am perfectly patriotic if you're implying otherwise.
> 
> What I referenced is the fact that no wars this country fights are in our interests, most of them are antithetical to our domestic interests, and the fights we should be having are either ignored or actively abdicated. I seriously doubt any of America's leaders like or care about the historical American nation or its people. Perhaps you disagree, which you likely do and I know many on 'both sides' of the alleged poltical spectrum who do, but my views I feel are borne out in this nation's deterioration - something that is undeniable no matter your political perspective.


Then I don't understand. Military service is not compulsory in the United States. You have claimed it is an "imperial army." You have further stated that "no wars this country fights are in our interests, most of them are antithetical to our domestic interests." So why did you join the military? It is completely voluntary. You chose to serve in the military.

I never understand this claim that we are imperialists. The last speck of land we claimed from military conquest was, what - the Phillipines? And I'm pretty sure we gave up those claims long, long ago. Sure, we have military stationed around the world. Not quite the same. None of those countries are part of an American "empire." In fact, quite a few of them have governments that regularly do things that conflict with American interests. Hardly indicative of imperialist power.

A civil war where we were literally at war with one another was not able to destroy this nation. Over half a million Americans died in that conflict. A lack of historical perspective drives people to falsely believe that things are worse now than they have ever been. That is simply not supported by the facts.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Not ashamed, but not proud either. Brexit is a monumental mistake.
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-pointless-masochistic-ambition-history-done


Certainly ashamed of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ter-tells-residents-of-flats-to-speak-english


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> The EU doesn't want to build up their armies.Trump has been pressuring our NATO allies to actually increase their defense spending because most of them were spending less than they pledged to under the NATO treaty. That hardly sounds like a policy of limiting militaries.


that is only half-truth. It is true that the NATO members have been spending less than the 2% on defense and most of them now pledged to increase the spending. But the REAL reason the US wants the EU increase the spending budget is not for the EU to become self-reliant in defense, but that the EU buys more weapons from the US. It has been a long term US policy to keep the EU dependend on US for security and do not let it become self-reliant. The problem with Trump is that he is running the country or NATO as a protection racket, ie either you pay the US/buy our weapons, or we will not come to your defense. So he eroded trust in the alliance. Many people question, if their country was attacked, if Trump would actually come to their defense. And with the ever present danger of Russia or with the rise of Turkey, the EU needs to protect itself. 
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/05/europe-is-ready-for-its-own-army/


----------



## haydnguy

bz3 said:


> I am from a military family and am military myself, I count myself among those I referenced - I am perfectly patriotic if you're implying otherwise.
> 
> What I referenced is the fact that no wars this country fights are in our interests, most of them are antithetical to our domestic interests, and the fights we should be having are either ignored or actively abdicated. I seriously doubt any of America's leaders like or care about the historical American nation or its people. Perhaps you disagree, which you likely do and I know many on 'both sides' of the alleged poltical spectrum who do, but my views I feel are borne out in this nation's deterioration - something that is undeniable no matter your political perspective.


This is true. The U.S. has not been mortally threatened (publicly anyway) since the end of WWII. (Perhaps the Cuban missile crises was an exception.) We've been in countless "wars" and trillions of dollars wasted because of these. Then there is the 1%. We don't do anything about taxing wealth. Only labor.

Bringing jobs "back" from China will bring minimum wage jobs. If they arean't minimum wage, it will cost the 99% much more.

-----

We are not an empire? Why did George H.W. Bush send 500,000 troops into the Gulf? To protect Kuwait? Hardly. I (along with a lot of other people) gave Bush the benefit of the doubt because, after all, I"d never heard of Kuwait and there must be a good reason to be there. Why don't we leave Iraq when they ask us to leave? At that point we are an "occupying country".

The U.S. has been in relative decline since the early '70's. The main reason is because we keep kicking our problems down the road. From the oil "crises" in the '70's to capitalistic/government surveillance today, the big problems are ignored while we waste time, effort, and resources on less important things because of domestic political expediency.


----------



## Jacck

TalkingHead said:


> Certainly ashamed of this:
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ter-tells-residents-of-flats-to-speak-english


next all foreigners will be required to wear yellow badges. These patriots likely do not even realize that UK economy is totally dependent on immigrants
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-rudd-tory-conference-speeches-a7346121.html


----------



## CnC Bartok

TalkingHead said:


> Certainly ashamed of this:
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ter-tells-residents-of-flats-to-speak-english


Sadly, that's mainstream mentality now.....


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Sadly, that's mainstream mentality now.....


And not just in the UK, CnC Bartok! I've seen social media and YouTube postings from other anglophone countries (Australia, notably) where yobbos and _yahoos_ berate fellow travellers on public transport for _daring_ to speak a foreign language.


----------



## Jacck

Brexit 2020: Everything you need to know about Boris Johnson's trade deal nightmare
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/20...rything-you-need-to-know-about-johnson-s-trad


----------



## CnC Bartok

It's not about The Economy, it's what this whole thing has unleashed. Proud of this??? (From 15 doors in a block of flats in Norwich) Just in case the Grauniad article above doesn't get opened....









One step away from "No Dogs, No Jews"?


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> It's not about The Economy, it's what this whole thing has unleashed. Proud of this??? (From 15 doors in a block of flats in Norwich) Just in case the Grauniad article above doesn't get opened....
> One step away from "No Dogs, No Jews"?


the whole thing seems to be driven by some kind of English nationalist delusions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/18/england-eu-referendum-brexit
some people feel that their national identity is being eroded and destroyed by immigrants, or taken over by the EU, and they want to stop it and "take back control" and become "great again". It is a very familiar pattern throughout history. These are indeed the same kind of nationalist forces that propelled Hitler. It will likely not end up in the same kind of bloodshed as in Germany, but it might take a decade for the people to wake up from these delusions.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> It's not about The Economy, it's what this whole thing has unleashed. Proud of this??? (From 15 doors in a block of flats in Norwich) Just in case the Grauniad article above doesn't get opened....
> 
> View attachment 129746
> 
> 
> One step away from "No Dogs, No Jews"?


I think we needn't imagine that _every_ pro-Brexit-voting Brit is a screaming neo-Nazi! Nevertheless, the poster affixed in the tower block referenced above is of course depressing and reminiscent of those posters outside B&Bs in the 1960s that declared "No Dogs, No Irish". 
What we have to do CnC Bartok is to take a stand and oppose such sentiments at every opportunity. We do so here, on this forum - and we need to do so in our private spheres. 
*!No pasaran!*


----------



## bz3

KenOC said:


> To the extent I agree, I'd bet that I'd cite evidences far different from yours. BTW, what _are _your evidences of the nation's deterioration?


Young people die earlier, have more debt, are not patriotic or religious comparatively , and are less optimistic about the future. The most populous state and one of the wealthiest states in the union is less than a quarter white among children, 40% of the nation's largest city wasn't even born in America, and immigrants are record highs.

So we have a nation whose native population no longer resides in population centers in numbers larger than not, a nation whose children are not native, and whose population is experiencing an existential crisis, financial debt, and epidemic levels of death from suicide and substances. That seems like a nation in decline to me.


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> Then I don't understand. Military service is not compulsory in the United States. You have claimed it is an "imperial army." You have further stated that "no wars this country fights are in our interests, most of them are antithetical to our domestic interests." So why did you join the military? It is completely voluntary. You chose to serve in the military.


Why did you do what you did as a young man? You get a lot of answers from various people - patriotism, money, etc. but probably the most accurate answer for me is because it's in my blood. People often do what their parents did.



DrMike said:


> I never understand this claim that we are imperialists. The last speck of land we claimed from military conquest was, what - the Phillipines? And I'm pretty sure we gave up those claims long, long ago. Sure, we have military stationed around the world. Not quite the same. None of those countries are part of an American "empire." In fact, quite a few of them have governments that regularly do things that conflict with American interests. Hardly indicative of imperialist power.


I have no idea how to address someone who doesn't realize America is an empire.



DrMike said:


> A civil war where we were literally at war with one another was not able to destroy this nation. Over half a million Americans died in that conflict. A lack of historical perspective drives people to falsely believe that things are worse now than they have ever been. That is simply not supported by the facts.


I never said America is at its worst. There are many great things about this country, and I am grateful to my ancestors for building it to be what it is. But the problems we are confronting are pervasive and manifest. It's difficult to address problems (such as why our last President went to war with as few as 3 nations and as many as 7 or 8 directly after his predecessor had begun wars in 2 nations that had not concluded and all against nations that had never attacked us) if you cannot even admit that this is imperial behavior and cannot be explained any other way.


----------



## elgar's ghost

TalkingHead said:


> I think we needn't imagine that _every_ pro-Brexit-voting Brit is a screaming neo-Nazi! Nevertheless, the poster affixed in the tower block referenced above is of course depressing and reminiscent of those posters outside B&Bs in the 1960s that declared "No Dogs, No Irish".
> _What we have to do CnC Bartok is to take a stand and oppose such sentiments at every opportunity. We do so here, on this forum - and we need to do so in our private spheres._
> *!No pasaran!*


Fine. I agree that incidents like this are reprehensible. But will you also even the balance by condemning the latest case of people being stabbed in what appeared to be another act of terrorism in London? Or will you criticise the police for shooting the attacker dead?


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> Fine. I agree that incidents like this are reprehensible. But will you also even the balance by condemning the latest case of people being stabbed in what appeared to be another act of terrorism in London? Or will you criticise the police for shooting the attacker dead?


multiculturalism is a debt that many former powers pay for their imperial past. It has no good solution. Germany wants to atone for its past fascist sins with its "Willkommenskultur", but it might backfire again in the future. The reality is, that many people are tribal and will always devide the world into "us" vs "them", creating enthnic and cultural conflicts. Right-wingers or conservatives have differently wired brains
https://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/se..._conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> Fine. I agree that incidents like this are reprehensible. But will you also even the balance by condemning the latest case of people being stabbed in what appeared to be another act of terrorism in London? Or will you criticise the police for shooting the attacker dead?


I can barely believe that you think there is an _equivalence_ to be made between poorly educated xenophobes whining about languages they don't understand (poor dears, booh-hooh) and criminal acts of stabbing and terrorism. Of course I condemn such criminal acts. And bloody good job the cops shot the bastxxxx dead. Did you really think I wouldn't? What point are you trying to make?


----------



## elgar's ghost

TalkingHead said:


> I can barely believe that you think there is an _equivalence_ to be made between poorly educated xenophobes whining about languages they don't understand (poor dears, booh-hooh) and criminal acts of stabbing and terrorism. Of course I condemn such criminal acts. And bloody good job the cops shot the bastxxxx dead. Did you really think I wouldn't? _What point are you trying to make?_


None. I just wanted reassurance. Thanks for your reply.


----------



## CnC Bartok

elgars ghost said:


> Fine. I agree that incidents like this are reprehensible. But will you also even the balance by condemning the latest case of people being stabbed in what appeared to be another act of terrorism in London? Or will you criticise the police for shooting the attacker dead?


I am very happy to congratulate the police for shooting him dead, as much as I am immensely impressed by those who cornered and pinned down the murderer on London Bridge a few months back. Both these and the Norwich sign are acts of hatred. But they are not even remotely connected or comparable, certainly not in terms of origins. I would like to think (kid myself?!) I'd have done the same, independent of the availability of narwhal tusks!

Those Norwich posters are a direct result of the bigots of this country being emboldened by the Brexit vote, and I am afraid it needs more than a few tsk tsks from those who voted for the same to fully distance themselves from such actions. Many foreigners in this country in this country now feel unwelcome, - the most important person in my life included - unwelcome at best, frightened too. I am emphatically not clairvoyant, but this was not hard to predict, any more than the loss of Scotland, a united Ireland, a Spanish Gibraltar or an Argentinian Falklands will be. As I said, the economic arguments are six of one, the moral ones are harder to justify.


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> Sorry, but I'm not ashamed at all - more annoyed due to amount of time it's taken. I've been a Eurosceptic ever since John Major shackled us to the Maastricht Treaty. Had the referendum gone the other way I like to think that I would have accepted the outcome without spitting my dummy out like so many Remainers have continued to do. The UK is strong enough to take any short-term economical fall-out, and if Norway can do nicely without being part of the EU then so can we.


You've tapped into something significant here. What we're seeing is the withdrawal of 'loser consent' - an integral part of a working democracy where the people accept the will of the majority and fall into line with and 'consent' to their vote (no matter how slim that may be). This was the biggest and most troubling aspect of the Brexit referendum; the fact that educated elites and bien pensant were calling for a second vote because the plebs, 'oiks' and 'deplorables' couldn't be trusted with the vote.

This is now a feature - swept in by the Left with its authoritarian impulses and antagonisms - of the 'democracies' of the USA ('we was robbed'), the UK and now Australia. Our Left media cannot tolerate the idea that its chosen government wasn't elected last year and has been on the warpath ever since. Let that media cohort never be confused with objective, fact-driven, intelligent journalism. Those things are very serious because of the huge wave of intolerance sweeping over the polity, ironically by the very people who wear the ostentatious 'tolerance' badges themselves (and who parse people into endlessly fractionated identity groups and then accuse conservative governments of being 'divisive'). *You couldn't make up this stuff*!! I'm in Brendan's corner:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/31/a-glorious-victory-for-democracy/

Another deep irony; the voting public understands the withdrawal of 'loser consent' and that's why they will end up voting 'the wrong way' every time. As long as they're still 'allowed' to vote, that is, and not be disenfranchised because of colour (white), IQ, not belonging to the right group or signalling the correct virtues.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> This was the biggest and most troubling aspect of the Brexit referendum; the fact that educated elites and bien pensant were calling for a second vote because the plebs, 'oiks' and 'deplorables' couldn't be trusted with the vote.


I have doubts about the legitimacy of the referendum, just like I have doubts about the legitimacy of the election of Trump. An adversarial foreign power (Russia) and a company that stole data from Facebook (Cambridge Analytica) interfered in those outcomes. Trump if fact lost the election by 3 million votes and "won" because some antiquated electoral college. The brexit referendum was totally unprepared, the public uninformed/misinformed, and it won by a very narrow margin (a standard way to do such a referendum would require a supermajority). So no wonder that the "loser consent" is severely eroded.


----------



## Strange Magic

bz3 said:


> Young people die earlier, have more debt, are not patriotic or religious comparatively , and are less optimistic about the future. The most populous state and one of the wealthiest states in the union is less than a quarter white among children, 40% of the nation's largest city wasn't even born in America, and immigrants are record highs.
> 
> So we have a nation whose native population no longer resides in population centers in numbers larger than not, a nation whose children are not native, and whose population is experiencing an existential crisis, financial debt, and epidemic levels of death from suicide and substances. That seems like a nation in decline to me.


This is an excellent recruiting statement for the Aryan Nation, especially the issue of non-white children, My understanding of the United States of America and its founding principles as expressed by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address is that we are a nation of Ideas rather than a nation of Race Purity. This is more and more a minority view among many on the New and Extremely Dangerous Right.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I have doubts about the legitimacy of the referendum, just like I have doubts about the legitimacy of the election of Trump. An adversarial foreign power (Russia) and a company that stole data from Facebook (Cambridge Analytica) interfered in those outcomes. Trump if fact lost the election by 3 million votes and "won" because some antiquated electoral college. The brexit referendum was totally unprepared, the public uninformed/misinformed, and it won by a very narrow margin (a standard way to do such a referendum would require a supermajority). So no wonder that the "loser consent" is severely eroded.


There are always myriad excuses why the people do not have to conform to 'loser consent', ensuring that democracy survives. The "antiquated electoral college" system of which you complain was the very one in existence during the election of former presidents. We shall see if the people of the USA agree with you and comprehensively throw out Trump - which is their constitutional right.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jacck said:


> I have doubts about the legitimacy of the referendum, just like I have doubts about the legitimacy of the election of Trump. An adversarial foreign power (Russia) and a company that stole data from Facebook (Cambridge Analytica) interfered in those outcomes. Trump if fact lost the election by 3 million votes and "won" because some antiquated electoral college. The brexit referendum was totally unprepared, the public uninformed/misinformed, and it won by a very narrow margin (_a standard way to do such a referendum would require a supermajority_). So no wonder that the "loser consent" is severely eroded.


Put another way, as long as the result wasn't massively in favour of Leave then any other outcome should be deemed a victory for Remain? Unless I've misunderstood what you are saying (if I have then I apologise) then that doesn't sound like a very democratic way of going about it to me. If we take that approach then we may as well lump all those who couldn't be bothered to vote at all into the Remain camp. It may be like a pair of sevens beating a pair of sixes but a victory is still a victory, however unconvincingly narrow it may be.


----------



## Guest

Not to those who'll find myriad excuses to justify withdrawal of loser consent. It's the authoritarian impulses behind this thinking which is the most ominous. Fortunately, the British people have had Farage (yes, he's annoying) and Johnson on the case. I hope he lives up to the expectations of the working class people who 'lent' him their vote this time. 

I saw erstwhile PM Blair interviewed a couple of weeks ago and he lamented the "disastrous" Brexit decision; if only they'd listened to him and his infinite wisdom.


----------



## KenOC

TalkingHead said:


> I think we needn't imagine that _every_ pro-Brexit-voting Brit is a screaming neo-Nazi! Nevertheless, the poster affixed in the tower block referenced above is of course depressing and reminiscent of those posters outside B&Bs in the 1960s that declared "No Dogs, No Irish".


The evident rise of xenophobia among the Brits reminds me of a story told by humorist P.J. O'Rourke, writing of his visit to Heritage USA, a Christian-themed destination park in South Carolina. He said he was following two older ladies along a path when a family walked by in the opposite direction talking among themselves in some unknown foreign language.

One of the older ladies turned to the other and sniffed, "I don't know why they don't just speak English like Jesus did!"


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> The evident rise of xenophobia among the Brits reminds me of a story told by humorist P.J. O'Rourke, writing of his visit to Heritage USA, a Christian-themed destination park in South Carolina. He said he was following two older ladies along a path when a family walked by in the opposite direction talking among themselves in some unknown foreign language.
> 
> One of the older ladies turned to the other and sniffed, "I don't know why they don't just speak English like Jesus did!"


Almost as droll is the statement made to a reporter at the recent Trump rally in Wildwood NJ by a middle-aged demurely dressed woman. When questioned as to what about Trump attracted her to him, she replied, "Because his morals are just like mine.". This with a grave, straight face exhibiting perfect sincerity.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Almost as droll is the statement made to a reporter at the recent Trump rally in Wildwood NJ by a middle-aged demurely dressed woman. When questioned as to what about Trump attracted her to him, she replied, "Because his morals are just like mine.". This with a grave, straight face exhibiting perfect sincerity.


She just didn't have the exquisite morality of somebody like HRC who put pressure on lots of women raped or assaulted by Bill Clinton to keep their mouths shut so that they could win elections. That takes a particular kind of, er, morality. The woman in your quote has more honesty, that's all.

A tip, old boy. If you continue to digest "The Guardian" and its cant you will continue to be patronized, feel grievance and you will remain in your current situation with no means of seeing a way out. I've been around many years and one thing I've realized is that the Left loves people it can control, manipulate and patronize. Move out of that and start to think for yourself; that's the real path to progress and growth. I say this without malice or evil intent; I've just sadly seen too many who adopt the grievance tic and people see it from a mile off - particularly employers and other employees. Except if you work in a university where you'll only be punished for having original ideas. Do some wider reading yourself. There are lots of clever people out there who write about democracy, the human condition, personal responsibility and the flaws and failings of government. If you wait for perfection your life will ebb away in disappointment.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Ashamed to be British?
I was born in GB and live here, but 'being British' has been reshaped as something (nationalist, exceptionalist, bigoted) that I am not and never will be.


----------



## KenOC

Christabel said:


> ...Our Left media cannot tolerate the idea that its chosen government wasn't elected last year and has been on the warpath ever since...


"A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot."

Has Bernie Sanders gone into hiding? Anyway, this is a bit much, even for Republicans, even in Montana. If you remember Sam Neill wanted to move there and drive a pickup truck. And odds-on he was a socialist, even if a bit of a submarine thief.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> She just didn't have the exquisite morality of somebody like HRC who put pressure on lots of women raped or assaulted by Bill Clinton to keep their mouths shut so that they could win elections. That takes a particular kind of, er, morality. The woman in your quote has more honesty, that's all.
> 
> A tip, old boy. If you continue to digest "The Guardian" and its cant you will continue to be patronized, feel grievance and you will remain in your current situation with no means of seeing a way out. I've been around many years and one thing I've realized is that the Left loves people it can control, manipulate and patronize. Move out of that and start to think for yourself; that's the real path to progress and growth. I say this without malice or evil intent; I've just sadly seen too many who adopt the grievance tic and people see it from a mile off - particularly employers and other employees. Except if you work in a university where you'll only be punished for having original ideas. Do some wider reading yourself. There are lots of clever people out there who write about democracy, the human condition, personal responsibility and the flaws and failings of government. If you wait for perfection your life will ebb away in disappointment.


Wonderful stuff! This is why i don't put people on Ignore--I would be depriving myself of this sort of material. Again, an excellent exhibition of Whataboutism, which can be applied equally back in time to Warren Gamaliel Harding, Grover Cleveland, and many others; the point of my little story was the juxtaposition of a woman of undoubted rectitude (in her own mind anyway) with a lifelong and especial moral grotesque like Trump--an intrinsically funny pairing. What would be even more ludicrous would be if she asserted that he were a Christian just like her. Hilarious!

But it did give you a chance to give your little sermon, and you feel better. I don't read the Guardian regularly but perhaps I should.


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> Put another way, as long as the result wasn't massively in favour of Leave then any other outcome should be deemed a victory for Remain? Unless I've misunderstood what you are saying (if I have then I apologise) then that doesn't sound like a very democratic way of going about it to me. If we take that approach then we may as well lump all those who couldn't be bothered to vote at all into the Remain camp. It may be like a pair of sevens beating a pair of sixes but a victory is still a victory, however unconvincingly narrow it may be.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
_"A supermajority in a democracy can help to prevent a small majority from eroding fundamental rights of a large minority. Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature. Parliamentary procedure requires that any action of a deliberative assembly that may alter the rights of a minority have a supermajority requirement, such as a two-thirds vote. "_

supermajority is a standard proceidure to implement severe changes such as constitutional changes. The referendum should have required at least 60% of more votes for the brexit. 
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/w...ote-require-a-supermajority-for-leave-to-win/
now you are a divided nation where the young hate the old and the cities hate the countryside
it is of course none of my business, just my opinion.


----------



## Guest

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/03/the-remainer-elites-are-the-true-bigots-of-brexit-britain/


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Wonderful stuff! This is why i don't put people on Ignore--I would be depriving myself of this sort of material. Again, an excellent exhibition of Whataboutism, which can be applied equally back in time to Warren Gamaliel Harding, Grover Cleveland, and many others; the point of my little story was the juxtaposition of a woman of undoubted rectitude (in her own mind anyway) with a lifelong and especial moral grotesque like Trump--an intrinsically funny pairing. What would be even more ludicrous would be if she asserted that he were a Christian just like her. Hilarious!
> 
> But it did give you a chance to give your little sermon, and you feel better. I don't read the Guardian regularly but perhaps I should.


I'm glad you liked it.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Christabel said:


> https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/03/the-remainer-elites-are-the-true-bigots-of-brexit-britain/


The Living Marxist mouthpiece of Farage's Brexit Party? Seriously? Well that must be a credible source of valid news and viewpoints......a bit like asking for safeguarding advice from Jimmy Savile.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

We love merry ol' England .


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> It's not about The Economy, it's what this whole thing has unleashed. Proud of this??? (From 15 doors in a block of flats in Norwich) Just in case the Grauniad article above doesn't get opened....
> 
> View attachment 129746
> 
> 
> One step away from "No Dogs, No Jews"?


Do you have confirmation this is real and not a hoax? Hate crime hoaxes are, sadly, not that uncommon. Like the Jussie Smollet "hate crime" that wasn't. Random pictures of supposed evidence in this day and age should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> multiculturalism is a debt that many former powers pay for their imperial past. It has no good solution. Germany wants to atone for its past fascist sins with its "Willkommenskultur", but it might backfire again in the future. The reality is, that many people are tribal and will always devide the world into "us" vs "them", creating enthnic and cultural conflicts. Right-wingers or conservatives have differently wired brains
> https://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/se..._conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/


Do you realize the irony in what you typed here? Talking about how so many people are tribal and want to divide the world into "us" vs "them," and then doing just that by your final statement, "Right-wingers or conservatives have differently wired brains." That is textbook otherizing and dividing into tribes.


----------



## bz3

Strange Magic said:


> This is an excellent recruiting statement for the Aryan Nation, especially the issue of non-white children, My understanding of the United States of America and its founding principles as expressed by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address is that we are a nation of Ideas rather than a nation of Race Purity. This is more and more a minority view among many on the New and Extremely Dangerous Right.


Ah yes noticing that 'native' children of a 'nation' (which is from a Latin word referring to being born) are in decline is basically a flashing neon billboard for the KKK and probably the Nazis too I mean why not.

I have noticed elsewhere in this thread that a certain cohort undergo this sort of routine one often finds on the internet where they repeat an incantation about Aryans, or else Nazis, or else white supremacists, or else Vladimir Putin, or else some other vague bogeyman almost as a sort of spell that they think will somehow cast out ideas or, as in this case, observable facts that they regard as beneath their strict moral order. To me it's just childish name-calling, and I'd return the favor but it breaks forum rules.


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> Do you realize the irony in what you typed here? Talking about how so many people are tribal and want to divide the world into "us" vs "them," and then doing just that by your final statement, "Right-wingers or conservatives have differently wired brains." That is textbook otherizing and dividing into tribes.


Doublethink often requires doublethink to even understand, per Orwell.


----------



## Strange Magic

bz3 said:


> Ah yes noticing that 'native' children of a 'nation' (which is from a Latin word referring to being born) are in decline is basically a flashing neon billboard for the KKK and probably the Nazis too I mean why not.
> 
> I have noticed elsewhere in this thread that a certain cohort undergo this sort of routine one often finds on the internet where they repeat an incantation about Aryans, or else Nazis, or else white supremacists, or else Vladimir Putin, or else some other vwague bogeyman almost as a sort of spell that they think will somehow cast out ideas or, as in this case, observable facts that they regard as beneath their strict moral order. To me it's just childish name-calling, and I'd return the favor but it breaks forum rules.


Your original post speaks clearly for itself.


----------



## CnC Bartok

DrMike said:


> Do you have confirmation this is real and not a hoax? Hate crime hoaxes are, sadly, not that uncommon. Like the Jussie Smollet "hate crime" that wasn't. Random pictures of supposed evidence in this day and age should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.


Well, I suppose it's possible this is staged. I wasn't there when it happened, so I cannot bet my life on its 100% genuine. No more than I can be certain the moon landings didn't happen, or the Kennedy assassination was an elaborate CGI exercise. Naively, i trust the truth behind the sources, namely the evil Marxit BBC and the beard corduroys and bad breath Grauniad.

There was a particularly unpleasant hate crime hoax when we were in France a few years ago, a woman claimed to have been beaten up on the Paris Metro for being Jewish. Never happened, she made it up; so I am aware of the possibility, however remote it is.

I will say the response of other locals in Norwich was quite heartening to see.....


----------



## haydnguy

CnC Bartok said:


> Well, I suppose it's possible this is staged. I wasn't there when it happened, so I cannot bet my life on its 100% genuine. No more than I can be certain the moon landings didn't happen, or the Kennedy assassination was an elaborate CGI exercise. Naively, i trust the truth behind the sources, namely the evil Marxit BBC and the beard corduroys and bad breath Grauniad.
> 
> There was a particularly unpleasant hate crime hoax when we were in France a few years ago, a woman claimed to have been beaten up on the Paris Metro for being Jewish. Never happened, she made it up; so I am aware of the possibility, however remote it is.
> 
> I will say the response of other locals in Norwich was quite heartening to see.....


Better to believe first, otherwise you'll become a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## CnC Bartok

haydnguy said:


> Better to believe first, otherwise you'll become a conspiracy theorist.


Nothing wrong with paranoia









They're not playing rugby, they are talking about YOU!!!


----------



## Jacck

In wake of Brexit, EU to put Cayman Islands on tax haven blacklist


----------



## Jacck

The BBC is nearly 100 years old. Will it survive the next decade?
I find it disturbing, how all these right-wing neofascists follow a very similar pattern all across Europe. We have exactly the same assault on our public broadcasting media in Czech Republic and similar assaults happened in Hungary or Poland. In my country, most of these assaults come from Kremlin-backed politicians. These assaults always come from politicians like BoJo, who came to power through lies and manipulation. A very disturbing trend to completely control all media.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Jacck said:


> In wake of Brexit, EU to put Cayman Islands on tax haven blacklist


But Turkey is not. Makes sense! Lol!


----------



## Jacck

HenryPenfold said:


> But Turkey is not. Makes sense! Lol!


what makes sense is to crack down on these tax evasion schemes set up to steal money and Britain has been one of the worst world's offenders. Some time ago I watched the documentary The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire
_
"How Britain transformed from a colonial power into a global financial power. At the demise of empire, City of London financial interests created a web of offshore secrecy jurisdictions that captured wealth from across the globe and hid it behind obscure financial structures in a web of offshore islands."_

one of the proposed hidden reasons behind brexit is that the elites in the UK wanted to evade the EU's control over these money laundering enterprises.

And why Turkey was not included? Likely Realpolitik


----------



## TMHeimer

No one is supposed to be ashamed of their ethnic backround. Everyone is supposed to be 100% proud of their roots. Everyone is supposed to be thoroughly interested in the ethnicity of everyone else on Earth and make it clear to others that they are. 
Aren't those the current rules?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Jacck said:


> one of the proposed hidden reasons behind brexit is that the elites in the UK wanted to evade the EU's control over these money laundering enterprises.


There are a great number of reasons why British people left the EU. Some reasons are better than others.


----------



## Guest

It seems to me that, as a sovereign nation, it was not in Britain's interests to let such countries as Italy or Greece or Germany to have a say in what they could and couldn't do, beyond the normal limits the community of nations expect of one another.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> It seems to me that, as a sovereign nation, it was not in Britain's interests to let such countries as Italy or Greece or Germany to have a say in what they could and couldn't do, beyond the normal limits the community of nations expect of one another.


it is like a marriage. By marrying, you obtain some advantages, but you also restrict your freedoms and you must do compromises. And Britain decided that it wants a divorce. Whether it is in Britain's interests only time will tell. Boris Johnson does not look like someone who knows what he is doing.


----------



## Belowpar

Not British but have lived 99% of my life in the UK. 

Although I've been depressed at times with the level of debate, the fact that such a momentous decision (I voted remain) can be taken and seen through, is something of which the whole Nation should be proud. 

History suggests violent protests often occur at much lesser changes. Thankfully history is wrong. 

Time to be optimistic that the Nation can continue to evolve, look after its citizens and keep punching well above its size.

"Mustn't grumble" and keep moving.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> it is like a marriage. By marrying, you obtain some advantages, but you also restrict your freedoms and you must do compromises. And Britain decided that it wants a divorce. Whether it is in Britain's interests only time will tell. Boris Johnson does not look like someone who knows what he is doing.


Really? The guy who outfoxed the Brexit opposition and squashed Labour? Doesn't know what he is doing? On the contrary, he looks like he handled this situation masterfully. He promised all kinds of thing that I think are detrimental to a conservative party to outflank Labour, but then European conservatives are different than American ones.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Politicking, Johnson (and Gollom Cummings) know exactly what they're doing. Exposing Labour's inherent weaknesses and flaws, squelching Farage's new Brexit Party have indeed been done masterfully.

Actually getting a sensible trade arrangement with the rest of Europe, getting something with Trump, getting something with the Chinese that doesn't involve serious security issues, repairing the damage we have done to the Irish (now I understand why they dislike us...) maintaining the influence we have in the world, and keeping the traditional Labour voters of the north sweet, are all another matter. Johnson doesn't know what he's doing there, but I doubt he cares.

I see precious little to be proud of in any of that. Defecating on your neighbours to (perhaps, we'll see?) get your own way, is something I can only feel grotesquely ashamed of.


----------



## starthrower

bz3 said:


> I have no idea how to address someone who doesn't realize America is an empire.


That realization would require the acknowledgement of over a 120 year history of annexation, and regime change via coup de tat and military force.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> That realization would require the acknowledgement of over a 120 year history of annexation, and regime change via coup de tat and military force.


120 year history of annexation? What all have we annexed since 1900? And helping overthrow other governments without moving in and making them part of our "empire" is not evidence that ours is an empire. That the best argument you have on the subject?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Jacck said:


> Boris Johnson does not look like someone who knows what he is doing.


Deceptive, isn't he? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> 120 year history of annexation? What all have we annexed since 1900? And helping overthrow other governments without moving in and making them part of our "empire" is not evidence that ours is an empire. That the best argument you have on the subject?


Perhaps the 120 years in question did not begin in 1900 and end in 2020. Describe the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and the curious history of the Mexican War. Hawai'i?


----------



## Guest

Good lord but that is pathetic. The Philippines? And you get on me for talking about Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic party's earlier opposition to anti-lynching laws? Fine. The United States is still an empire just like the Democratic party is still the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. Except that those sins of the Democratic party are much more recent than what you are talking about.


----------



## haydnguy

DrMike said:


> It seems to me that, as a sovereign nation, it was not in Britain's interests to let such countries as Italy or Greece or Germany to have a say in what they could and couldn't do, beyond the normal limits the community of nations expect of one another.


This is what I thought too originally but they kept their currency and now that they have been in the E.U. so long I would probably stay. It really hasn't hurt them and pulling out of the E.U. now will be painful to ordinary Brits.


----------



## Jacck

HenryPenfold said:


> Deceptive, isn't he? :lol:


oh yes, he is. He deceived his voters


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jacck said:


> oh yes, he is. He deceived his voters


And Corbyn wouldn't have, of course? :lol:

I notice Diane Abbott has left the Shadow Cabinet - probably anticipating being fired by whoever is Corbyn's successor anyway. Perhaps that will now give her and Corbyn more opportunity to reminisce on the back benches about their student days when they visited East Germany together.


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> And Corbyn wouldn't have, of course? :lol:
> 
> I notice Diane Abbott has left the Shadow Cabinet - probably anticipating being fired by whoever is Corbyn's successor anyway. Perhaps that will now give her and Corbyn more opportunity to reminisce on the back benches about their student days when they visited East Germany together.


I do not know Corbyn that much, but I find reports that he was a communist agent worrying. It is simply a choice of lesser evil. Johnson is Trump lite, the same kind of personality, but slightly more decorum
I was Boris Johnson's boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister


----------



## elgar's ghost

I have little truck with Corbyn's views and his vision for the Labour Party but I would always be willing to have a beer with him - unlike Diane Abbott who would probably start haranguing me after 10 minutes.

What about in your country, Jacck? Are there any controversial political figures who are taken seriously by large portions of the electorate? The Czech Republic strikes me as being a nation which doesn't have the same kind of political polarity as some other European countries - am I wrong?


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> I have little truck with Corbyn's views and his vision for the Labour Party but I would always be willing to have a beer with him - unlike Diane Abbott who would probably start haranguing me after 10 minutes.
> What about in your country, Jacck? Are there any controversial political figures who are taken seriously by large portions of the electorate? The Czech Republic strikes me as being a nation which doesn't have the same kind of political polarity as some other European countries - am I wrong?


we have also our dear president who is also very polarizing and who is also a Kremlin troll, furthering Putin's agenda and undermining our intelligence agencies
https://kafkadesk.org/2018/12/10/cz...ligence-agency-over-russian-espionage-report/
and we also have a crooked populist prime minister - oligarch Babiš, who bought several media. And these two have formed an unholy alliance and try to undermine our democracy.
https://globalriskinsights.com/2018/06/czech-communists-comeback-kscm/

the single biggest factor in this polarization is age. Both of them were overwhelmingly elected by the older postcommunist generations nostalgic for the "old orders". In case of the president, he was also elected with 51% of votes with a significant help from the Kremlin. Within 10 years, all these old communists will start to die off, not only in Czech Republic, but also in Poland and Hungary, and I expect the situation to improve (or at least I hope)

a lot of young people are protesting against these two
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/world/europe/czech-republic-protests-andrej-babis.html
to place in into perspective. And comparable demonstration comprising the same percentage of population would have 6.6 millions Americans or 1.7 millions UK citizens protesting in the streets.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Good lord but that is pathetic. The Philippines? And you get on me for talking about Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic party's earlier opposition to anti-lynching laws? Fine. The United States is still an empire just like the Democratic party is still the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. Except that those sins of the Democratic party are much more recent than what you are talking about.


You will of course note that A) No assertion was made that the US is currently an empire. It may be, but that assertion was not made yet you leapt to it instinctively with Pavlovian enthusiasm. B) No assertion was made that the period in question was 1900-2020: You leapt to that conclusion immediately, did you not? C) Describe the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and the curious history of the Mexican War. Hawai'i?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> You will of course note that A) No assertion was made that the US is currently an empire. It may be, but that assertion was not made yet you leapt to it instinctively with Pavlovian enthusiasm. B) No assertion was made that the period in question was 1900-2020: You leapt to that conclusion immediately, did you not? C) Describe the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and the curious history of the Mexican War. Hawai'i?


Post #48, bz3 said:


> I have no idea how to address someone who doesn't realize America is an empire.


That is what started this whole discussion, it is what I originally replied to. That statement is in the present tense. So that takes care of your part A.

Secondly, if you refer to a 120 year period and don't specify a different starting or ending point, it then can reasonably be inferred that the reference is to the most recent 120 years.

All of that then brings me back to what I said. America is not an empire. The reasons provided by others do not make it so, because they really have nothing to do with what makes an empire. And if you are seeing so based on long ago history, then again I assert that we are an empire in the same way the Democratic party is the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. And if we are to forever label it an empire because of past actions from long ago, then we will also do so with the Democratic party, because apparently with you, misdeeds of the past are ever new.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Thanks for the links. Also, I had no idea that there were so many parties represented in the Czech parliament.


----------



## haydnguy

The original post was about Britain not the United States. 

Britain has nothing to be ashamed of. I don't know the full story of Brexit because I only read what the classical music people from Britain say on Twitter. But Britain has nothing to be ashamed of IMHO.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> 120 year history of annexation? What all have we annexed since 1900? And helping overthrow other governments without moving in and making them part of our "empire" is not evidence that ours is an empire. That the best argument you have on the subject?


If you read America's foreign policy history it's pretty obvious. It's not my opinion. Washington overthrowing democratic and other uncooperative governments and installing puppet regimes is empirical conquest by any other name. You don't remember Iraq just 17 years ago? And how about Iran in the 1950s? And Chile in 1973. And Haiti? To name a few.


----------



## elgar's ghost

So the argument here is whether there is or isn't any real difference between actual territorial acquisition on the one hand and political interference in order to bring in/keep another country within its sphere of influence on the other?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> If you read America's foreign policy history it's pretty obvious. It's not my opinion. Washington overthrowing democratic and other uncooperative governments and installing puppet regimes is empirical conquest by any other name. You don't remember Iraq just 17 years ago? And how about Iran in the 1950s? And Chile in 1973. And Haiti? To name a few.


Strange Magic, take note: bz3 and starthrower were talking about empire in the present tense, and starthrower WAS talking about the 20th century. Try and keep up with the discussion next time before throwing in your $0.02.

Starthrower - clearly this isn't accepted as fact, as there is disagreement. Stating it is "pretty obvious" and not just your opinion is not a basis for establishing fact. I remain unconvinced this represents the establishment of an empire. Now, if you were talking about the Westward expansion and other such things, you would have more of a leg to stand on. But your simple assertion that anytime we work to unseat a government that is hostile to us is empire building is kind of flimsy. How is Iraq part of our "empire?" Exactly how is theirs a puppet regime now? They do our bidding?

Look, messing with the leadership of other countries may leave a bad taste in the mouth, but I don't really think you can honestly call Iraq, Iran in the 1950s, Chile in 1973, or Haiti part of the American "empire." When you keep defining down such terms it causes them to lose all meaning - kind of like when people label every bad thing a "holocaust" cheapens that word. I get that you are using it for the emotional impact it has for your argument, but that does not make it a good argument. So now we are going to call any meddling in the affairs of foreign powers "empire building?" That is farcical.


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> So the argument here is whether there is or isn't any real difference between actual territorial acquisition on the one hand and political interference in order to bring in/keep another country within its sphere of influence on the other?


See? We already have a term for it - "sphere of influence." There is a difference between that and "empire." They are two distinct things. The Roman Empire and the British Empire were much more than those two governments interfering politically with other countries to bring them into their sphere of influence. They actually subjected them to their own government and made them an actual part of the empire, and didn't simply exert influence over them.


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> Look, messing with the leadership of other countries may leave a bad taste in the mouth, but I don't really think you can honestly call Iraq, Iran in the 1950s, Chile in 1973, or Haiti part of the American "empire." When you keep defining down such terms it causes them to lose all meaning - kind of like when people label every bad thing a "holocaust" cheapens that word. I get that you are using it for the emotional impact it has for your argument, but that does not make it a good argument. So now we are going to call any meddling in the affairs of foreign powers "empire building?" That is farcical.


I am not going for anything except the truth. Iraq is a current US imperial project, one of the major ones. Did the fact that the Brahmins still ruled India during the British empire preclude India from being a part of the British empire? Of course not. It's a convenient lie that the fledgling Iraq government is 'independent' but considering the US President just assassinated the next imperial target's top general on Iraqi soil without asking and to no consequence (ie we didn't get kicked out) sort of proves the point.

But all this is pointless hairsplitting. All I have to point out is that the US military is currently located in over 150 nations in the world - and there only 195 nations in the whole world. If the US was not an empire then why do we have forward deployment in over 3/4 of the world? Because everyone thinks we're so swell that they want us there? Hah!


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> I am not going for anything except the truth. Iraq is a current US imperial project, one of the major ones. Did the fact that the Brahmins still ruled India during the British empire preclude India from being a part of the British empire? Of course not. It's a convenient lie that the fledgling Iraq government is 'independent' but considering the US President just assassinated the next imperial target's top general on Iraqi soil without asking and to no consequence (ie we didn't get kicked out) sort of proves the point.
> 
> But all this is pointless hairsplitting. All I have to point out is that the US military is currently located in over 150 nations in the world - and there only 195 nations in the whole world. If the US was not an empire then why do we have forward deployment in over 3/4 of the world? Because everyone thinks we're so swell that they want us there? Hah!


So many problems with this statement. I'll just focus on Suleimani. He was a military leader who had orchestrated military actions against Americans. He was in his official capacity in a foreign country. That was no more an assassination than it would have been an assassination had Montgomery killed Rommel in North Africa.

Most of our troops around the world are where they are because they have officially been welcomed there. There are only a few exceptions.

The Brahmins may have ruled India but they still were subject to Great Britain. There is a difference if you were not trying to be obtuse in order to make your tortured point.


----------



## Room2201974

I still have a bag of dried banana slices from United Fruit, but I never liked them much. They taste rather dull(es).


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> So many problems with this statement. I'll just focus on Suleimani. He was a military leader who had orchestrated military actions against Americans. He was in his official capacity in a foreign country. That was no more an assassination than it would have been an assassination had Montgomery killed Rommel in North Africa.
> 
> Most of our troops around the world are where they are because they have officially been welcomed there. There are only a few exceptions.
> 
> The Brahmins may have ruled India but they still were subject to Great Britain. There is a difference if you were not trying to be obtuse in order to make your tortured point.


We aren't welcome, we're tolerated. Pax Americana benefits most national economies and the god of Mammon is the only god we have today. Things are changing quickly, however, and one day people will consider this notion of stationing troops in over 3/4 of the world's nations as bizarre as the Pax Romana filling Byzantium with Europeans while abandoning Rome to foreigners.

As to Suleimani, I dont' want to create an off topic discussion but we assassinated a foreign general on foreign soil (not enemy soil) during peacetime. Your comical, boomer-tier WW2 parallel is completely out of place. It was straight murder for the empire. And I say this as someone who voted for Trump in 2016 and will almost certainly vote for him again.


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> We aren't welcome, we're tolerated. Pax Americana benefits most national economies and the god of Mammon is the only god we have today. Things are changing quickly, however, and one day people will consider this notion of stationing troops in over 3/4 of the world's nations as bizarre as the Pax Romana filling Byzantium with Europeans while abandoning Rome to foreigners.
> 
> As to Suleimani, I dont' want to create an off topic discussion but we assassinated a foreign general on foreign soil (not enemy soil) during peacetime. Your comical, boomer-tier WW2 parallel is completely out of place. It was straight murder for the empire. And I say this as someone who voted for Trump in 2016 and will almost certainly vote for him again.


He was a foreign military leader who had orchestrated military attacks that led to the deaths of American soldiers and civilians. He was killed on foreign soil, not on his own soil. While you may object to the US being in Iraq, we at least have official permission to be in the country. Is the Iranian military allowed to conduct military operations in Iraq? I'm not aware of any such arrangement. Was he there conducting official business for the Iranian government? No. He was meeting with militia leaders who have attacked American soldiers.

As to my historical reference - I can't help if you treat the day you were born as year 1. I'm in no ways a boomer - Gen X, actually. Born during the Ford administration (tail end). But I do think that it is important to study history and learn from it. That's why I think these ahistorical comparisons of the U.S. to empires is comical, in addition to being erroneous.


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> He was a foreign military leader who had orchestrated military attacks that led to the deaths of American soldiers and civilians. He was killed on foreign soil, not on his own soil. While you may object to the US being in Iraq, we at least have official permission to be in the country. Is the Iranian military allowed to conduct military operations in Iraq? I'm not aware of any such arrangement. Was he there conducting official business for the Iranian government? No. He was meeting with militia leaders who have attacked American soldiers.


I've seen credible reports that he was there for a variety of reasons. I would agree it was stupid for him to be there unless he wanted to deliberately martyr himself but I don't think even Iran thought that the US would do something so flagrant as to assassinate a top official of a foreign country. And the reason we have permission to be in Iraq is because we invaded it. The reason he had permission was because the Iraqi government gave it to him without any arm-twisting that we know of, and they were very displeased when he was murdered.

In any case it should be noted that the Trump administration said a lot of things and have provided nothing to back them up in the wake of his assassination. The media do not talk about it now, which tells you what side they fall on. If it was so obvious that he was planning imminent attacks you'd think we'd have more than accusations by now - particularly since many of our allies are incensed. Alas, Obama set the tone in this administration - the US government is allowed to extrajudicicially murder anybody including American citizens and they do not have to answer for it.



DrMike said:


> As to my historical reference - I can't help if you treat the day you were born as year 1. I'm in no ways a boomer - Gen X, actually. Born during the Ford administration (tail end). But I do think that it is important to study history and learn from it. That's why I think these ahistorical comparisons of the U.S. to empires is comical, in addition to being erroneous.


It was comical because Britain was actually at war with Germany in your hypothetical, and you made it only in order to invoke Godwin's law and Nazis thinking absolutely nobody could object to killing Nazis; that is, unless you're somehow saying that it would have been okay to murder Rommel before WW2 started which of course I would disagree with. We are not at war with Iran, if we want to murder their officials then we should declare war.

Now here I go being a boomer and thinking people should follow laws and norms. I guess we're going to have re-learn the hard way why European civilization did not traditionally engage in assassinations - it's a really big pandora's box.


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> I've seen credible reports that he was there for a variety of reasons. I would agree it was stupid for him to be there unless he wanted to deliberately martyr himself but I don't think even Iran thought that the US would do something so flagrant as to assassinate a top official of a foreign country. And the reason we have permission to be in Iraq is because we invaded it. The reason he had permission was because the Iraqi government gave it to him without any arm-twisting that we know of, and they were very displeased when he was murdered.
> 
> In any case it should be noted that the Trump administration said a lot of things and have provided nothing to back them up in the wake of his assassination. The media do not talk about it now, which tells you what side they fall on. If it was so obvious that he was planning imminent attacks you'd think we'd have more than accusations by now - particularly since many of our allies are incensed. Alas, Obama set the tone in this administration - the US government is allowed to extrajudicicially murder anybody including American citizens and they do not have to answer for it.
> 
> It was comical because Britain was actually at war with Germany in your hypothetical, and you made it only in order to invoke Godwin's law and Nazis thinking absolutely nobody could object to killing Nazis; that is, unless you're somehow saying that it would have been okay to murder Rommel before WW2 started which of course I would disagree with. We are not at war with Iran, if we want to murder their officials then we should declare war.
> 
> Now here I go being a boomer and thinking people should follow laws and norms. I guess we're going to have re-learn the hard way why European civilization did not traditionally engage in assassinations - it's a really big pandora's box.


Oh no, you are saying killing him might open a Pandora box? What might they do - kill hundreds of Americans on foreign soil? So we shouldn't have killed the guy who was killing our people because it might lead to our people being killed? What kind of logic is that?


----------



## Guest

Referring back to the OP, here is a fugue that makes me very proud to be British:


----------



## Forsooth

Edit: I made the original image smaller because the larger one showed too many wrinkles.


----------



## bz3

DrMike said:


> Oh no, you are saying killing him might open a Pandora box? What might they do - kill hundreds of Americans on foreign soil? So we shouldn't have killed the guy who was killing our people because it might lead to our people being killed? What kind of logic is that?


Are you saying you don't understand why assassinations were taboo in European wars or what? I really don't know whether you're trying to say there are no downsides to assassinations as a military option or whether you're being glib by saying (with no evidence) that somehow Suleimani was 'killing our people' and therefore any moral judgment is off the table and the ends totally justify the means.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Forsooth said:


> Edit: I made the original image smaller because the larger one showed too many wrinkles.


Goodness, hasn't she read any Thomas Mann? Then again that was set a long time ago, and I cannot imagine that these days large areas of Northern Italy would be closed off to prevent the spread of an unpleasant disease.....


----------



## elgar's ghost

In general I appreciate ET's stance on certain environmental issues but I can't agree with her support for any organisation which has a propensity for disruption and vandalism such as Extinction Rebellion.


----------



## haydnguy

I'm a boomer that was born during the Eisenhower administration.

During that time the U.S. has done some good things and questionable things.

Gerald Ford was the right President at the right time. He may not be considered a great President or the worst. But what he did was to give the country time to take it's breath.

The country had been in turmoil from Vietnam, Watergate, Civil Rights, etc. Ford had a quiet demeanor that seemed reassuring. I was on my way to Washington with my parents when Ford took office. I remember seeing a picture of Ford swimming in the White House pool. A much welcomed picture compared to the pictures we had seen for years coming out of Washington and elsewhere.

Again today we see more turmoil. I can only hope that the country will get a break from the turmoil the same as when Ford became President.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Back to the bashing the UK, is it time to get rid of the monarchy? Does anyone buy into the idea of kings and queens in 2020?


----------



## Jacck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Back to the bashing the UK, is it time to get rid of the monarchy? Does anyone buy into the idea of kings and queens in 2020?


why? They are kind of cute. I do not know how exactly they work and what powers they have, but I perceive them analogous to the function of a president in European countries (far less power than the US president, more a representative figure)


----------



## haydnguy

Bwv 1080 said:


> Back to the bashing the UK, is it time to get rid of the monarchy? Does anyone buy into the idea of kings and queens in 2020?


I follow the monarch a bit. I actually enjoy reading about them. Harry needs to seriously consider his present course of actions however.


----------



## Room2201974

There was supposed to be a lesson learned. And the lesson, that no one is above the law, is one that is widely lacking in today's world. RMN should have spent the rest of his days rotting in prison. It would have been a helluva image to deter future over-reach. It also would have been justice. And I've known a number of Vietnam vets who've told me that he should have been fragged...not for what was on tape in 1972....but for what was on tape by the summer of 1968. 

So, no, Gerald R Ford was a septic tank backing up, the smell of which hasn't cleared yet.


----------



## haydnguy

Room2201974 said:


> There was supposed to be a lesson learned. And the lesson, that no one is above the law, is one that is widely lacking in today's world. RMN should have spent the rest of his days rotting in prison. It would have been a helluva image to deter future over-reach. It also would have been justice. And I've known a number of Vietnam vets who've told me that he should have been fragged...not for what was on tape in 1972....but for what was on tape by the summer of 1968.
> 
> So, no, Gerald R Ford was a septic tank backing up, the smell of which hasn't cleared yet.


I'm not sure if you were born then. I said I didn't think he would go down as being a great President. I merely said that he was the right person at that time.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I can't say I'm a monarchist, but in my lifetime there has been more than enough to prevent me from being one. There have been many instances when they have been a complete embarrassment - not least due to Prince Philip's tactlessness and his parental style which at times was a throwback to the Victorian era. What kind of father pushes his least robust son into joining the Royal Marines, for Christ's sake? Pictures of Prince Edward struggling badly through his basic training were shown across the world and I think that made the Royal Family - and therefore Great Britain by default - a laughing stock. 

Before that you regularly had the late Princess Margaret partying hard and rather too indiscreetly with some very dubious people and then came the high-profile separations and subsequent divorces of Princes Charles and Andrew, with a lot of dirty linen aired in each case. Then came the death of Princess Diana - I'm no conspiracy theorist as a rule but on this occasion I wouldn't be at all surprised if her death was somewhat less than accidental.

At its worst it's been the 1790s all over again - a Regency-era soap opera updated for the modern era and perpetually providing a gilt-edged meal ticket for caricaturists and gossip columnists alike. I'm not saying abolish the monarchy altogether but they should be stripped of a number of their privileges and assets and made to live a more low-key and certainly less pampered existence as other monarchies in Western Europe seem to do. Hopefully when William eventually becomes king (I have a feeling Charles will refuse the crown bearing in mind how old he already is) his reign will be quieter, with family issues far less controversial than the kind which has dogged Elizabeth's reign on and off since the 1970s. Of 'the old guard', the Queen and Princess Anne are the only ones I have any kind of time for.


----------



## Bwv 1080

And dont forget the Nazi who abdicated and the rapist Duke of York.

There is an easy solution to all of this:


----------



## elgar's ghost

Nahhh...far too French...


----------



## KenOC

elgars ghost said:


> Nahhh...far too French...


I'm by no means English, but perhaps a visit to the Tower and inversion in a butt of malmsey?


----------



## mikeh375

KenOC said:


> I'm by no means English, but perhaps a visit to the Tower and inversion in a butt of malmsey?


Yeah, I'm in if the manacles and rack are included. 
One of those Royals should be visiting the FBI, but then again someone over there should be volunteering to see the police over here....fancy a swap?


----------



## Strange Magic

Room2201974 said:


> There was supposed to be a lesson learned. And the lesson, that no one is above the law, is one that is widely lacking in today's world. RMN should have spent the rest of his days rotting in prison. It would have been a helluva image to deter future over-reach. It also would have been justice. And I've known a number of Vietnam vets who've told me that he should have been fragged...not for what was on tape in 1972....but for what was on tape by the summer of 1968.
> 
> So, no, Gerald R Ford was a septic tank backing up, the smell of which hasn't cleared yet.


Nixon was the beginning of the new Improved sort of creatures that the Republican Party began to run for POTUS after ideologues Buckley and Goldwater made racism and retrogression "intellectually" acceptable in the GOP. Let's look at then-previous Republican choices: the internationalist Wendell Wilkie; the successful and progressive NY governor Thomas Dewey; the mostly apolitical, pragmatic Eisenhower. These were replaced by Goldwater, then Nixon, the hapless Ford, then The Great Communicatir Reagan who began the process of destroying tax-and-then-spend and replacing it with today's borrow-and-spend catastrophe to which now both parties are wedded (the Trump Party, though, favors always lowering taxes on the very wealthiest Americans--it's called Voodoo Economics). The world turned upside down--Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt would never recognize the "republican" (Trump) party of today--dedicated to guns, White Supremacy, culture wars, religious fanaticism combined with deep cynicism, bigotry, and "guided" by a sick boy regarded as a living god.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Nixon was the beginning of the new Improved sort of creatures that the Republican Party began to run for POTUS after ideologues Buckley and Goldwater made racism and retrogression "intellectually" acceptable in the GOP. Let's look at then-previous Republican choices: the internationalist Wendell Wilkie; the successful and progressive NY governor Thomas Dewey; the mostly apolitical, pragmatic Eisenhower. These were replaced by Goldwater, then Nixon, the hapless Ford, then The Great Communicatir Reagan who began the process of destroying tax-and-then-spend and replacing it with today's borrow-and-spend catastrophe to which now both parties are wedded (the Trump Party, though, favors always lowering taxes on the very wealthiest Americans--it's called Voodoo Economics). The world turned upside down--Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt would never recognize the "republican" (Trump) party of today--dedicated to guns, White Supremacy, culture wars, religious fanaticism combined with deep cynicism, bigotry, and "guided" by a sick boy regarded as a living god.


Setting aside your perpetual Trump Derangement Syndrome - your other argument that the GOP is nothing like the original party is pointless. The Democratic party is also nothing like its founding. Jefferson would never recognize the Democratic party of today and its betrayal of classical liberalism. Nor would any of the 19th century Democratic presidents recognize a party poised to nominate a "Democratic Socialist" who wasn't even a registered Democrat until he wanted to run for the presidency. The party of Wilson and even Johnson (LBJ) wouldn't recognize a party that nominated Obama. The party of Scoop Jackson wouldn't recognize the party of today.

Guess what - parties evolve over time. Show me any political party that bears any resemblance to its founding ideas and platforms 100 years later. What point you think you are making with this perpetual critique is beyond me. At any rate, regardless of where Trump has taken the GOP, it is not the party of White Supremacy, culture wars, religious fanaticism, or your other attempts to "otherize" Republicans. You have some rabid need to paint all of those who disagree with you politically as not only wrong, but purely evil. That is because, abandoning actual religion, you have turned politics into your secular religion, and so you see everything in politics as good and evil, and political actions that you oppose as sin, and you seek to create your own vision of heaven here on earth by technocracy and progressivism, and anybody who is opposed to that worldview is the evil adversary.


----------



## Strange Magic

Parties evolve over time. Some get better (Democratic Party). Some decay into putrescence and then mutate into the Party of Trump: guns, White Supremacy, culture wars, religious fanaticism combined with deep cynicism (the hallmark of The Doctor's politics), bigotry, and guided by a sick boy regarded as a living god. DrMike much prefers the latter, does he not?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Parties evolve over time. Some get better (Democratic Party). Some decay into putrescence and then mutate into the Party of Trump: guns, White Supremacy, culture wars, religious fanaticism combined with deep cynicism (the hallmark of The Doctor's politics), bigotry, and guided by a sick boy regarded as a living god. DrMike much prefers the latter, does he not?


Democrats don't seem to want to give me a real choice. 4 more years of Trump vs a potential socialist in the White House? I'll probable end up sitting this election out as well.

But then you worship at the altar of big government, so you deserve every garbage politician that comes along. Trump is the result of giving too much power to the government. You want to prevent what you view as damage from Trump? Give government less control, not more. You are foolish enough to think that you can both grow the size and power of government and also control who runs it. Just as stupid as Reid opening the door to ending judicial filibusters. Short-sighted. But that is your god, and you are willing to wage your jihad for it.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DrMike said:


> Democrats don't seem to want to give me a real choice. 4 more years of Trump vs a potential socialist in the White House? I'll probable end up sitting this election out as well.
> 
> But then you worship at the altar of big government, so you deserve every garbage politician that comes along. Trump is the result of giving too much power to the government. You want to prevent what you view as damage from Trump? Give government less control, not more. You are foolish enough to think that you can both grow the size and power of government and also control who runs it. Just as stupid as Reid opening the door to ending judicial filibusters. Short-sighted. But that is your god, and you are willing to wage your jihad for it.


Liberals never want to see the government getting smaller. The average liberal wants the government to make every decision for them. If liberals in the U.S. are not careful they will end up like the liberal party in England.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Democrats don't seem to want to give me a real choice. 4 more years of Trump vs a potential socialist in the White House? I'll probable end up sitting this election out as well.
> 
> But then you worship at the altar of big government, so you deserve every garbage politician that comes along. Trump is the result of giving too much power to the government. You want to prevent what you view as damage from Trump? Give government less control, not more. You are foolish enough to think that you can both grow the size and power of government and also control who runs it. Just as stupid as Reid opening the door to ending judicial filibusters. Short-sighted. But that is your god, and you are willing to wage your jihad for it.


Where is the diatribe against the democratic socialist living hells of northern and Western Europe? Don't bother The Doctor with comparative statistics on health, education, infant mortality, wealth and income inequality, or even--think about it--measures of contentment or even, gasp, happiness. No, 2020 America represents the pinnacle, the acme of socio-economic perfection. How could things get better when they're already fabulous? (If you're rich and white in America.)


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Liberals never want to see the government getting smaller. The average liberal wants the government to make every decision for them. If liberals in the U.S. are not careful they will end up like the liberal party in England.


Caught in the middle between Left and Right?


----------



## mmsbls

Temporarily closed to let people get back to Brexit and the UK (even though that's political as well).


----------



## adriesba

I'm confused.  What exactly is this thread about? Why be ashamed about being British?


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> I'm confused.  What exactly is this thread about? Why be ashamed about being British?


Was created the day the UK government won a vote in parliament leaving the European Union.
So simple is it.


----------



## Guest

Good lord that feels like forever ago now. I wish we could get back to those simpler days.


----------



## adriesba

Rogerx said:


> Was created the day the UK government won a vote in parliament leaving the European Union.
> So simple is it.


 Oh... I see. :lol:
I am only partially British (genetically that is). I suppose this thread is for folks across "the pond". :lol:


----------



## Kieran

adriesba said:


> I'm confused.  What exactly is this thread about? Why be ashamed about being British?


You're right to be confused. There's no reason to be ashamed at all to be British. Many of my British friends voted leave, many voted stay, but thankfully none of them define themselves so narrowly that "this is what it is to be proud to be British." it's childish and semi-delusional to be "proud" to be British because they were in the EU, any more than you should feel shame to leave the EU. The basis of this argument is both temporary and unfortunately very shallow...


----------



## atsizat

England is a powerful country. I would be proud to be English.


----------



## atsizat

Also, your language is the international language of the world. Nothing but English.

I would be way so proud if I was English.


----------



## Rogerx

We are talking about the United Kingdom, that is more then England alone.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

To be fair, Rog, it's a bit like saying Russia rather than the Soviet Union back in the day - and who didn't do that? England is by far the largest constituent of the UK/Great Britain and English is the official language so I can understand why some call it one and the same (even though it tends to annoy the Welsh and Scots!). The waters get muddied even more when people think that the Union Banner is the flag of England - many English people used to think so before the St. George's flag made a comeback in the 1980s.


----------



## elgar's ghost

double post - please ignore.


----------



## haydnguy

I follow Brits on Twitter and before Brexit they talked about Democracy a lot more than Americans do. I personally believe that the United States is an oligarchy. But, of course, what do I know?

I know that what they taught us in Civics 101 was totally bull. That was the "ideal". I was naive enough to believe it. Of course, as I grew and experienced more I realized the error of my ways. Anyone who wants to believe we are a democracy of course you have every right to do so as I have my belief.


----------



## KenOC

America is not and never has been a democracy, and its Constitution was not designed for it to be one. Or so my Civics 101 course taught.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> America is not and never has been a democracy, and its Constitution was not designed for it to be one. Or so my Civics 101 course taught.


Correct. But the progressive movement had been trying for over a century to make it so, from the direct election of senators to now the push to eliminate the electoral college.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Correct. But the progressive movement had been trying for over a century to make it so, from the direct election of senators to now the push to eliminate the electoral college.


Who should be denied the right to vote? The authoritarianism and discomfort with democracy among several TC members of a strongly ideological bent is increasingly on display. It is an ugly thing to behold, and linked with a profound cynicism usually but wrongfully attributed to atheism.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Who should be denied the right to vote? The authoritarianism and discomfort with democracy among several TC members of a strongly ideological bent is increasingly on display. It is an ugly thing to behold, and linked with a profound cynicism usually but wrongfully attributed to atheism.


Who said anybody should be denied the right to vote?

I am uncomfortable with democracy because it is mob rule. According to democracy, 50% +1 of the people can do whatever they want to the remaining population. Democracy means you would have to put every action up to a vote. All government would be run like California's proposition system, where everything must be voted on by everyone. I much prefer a representative constitutional republic with checks in place to limit what the majority can do to the minority.


----------



## Room2201974

DrMike said:


> I much prefer a representative constitutional republic with checks in place to limit what the majority can do to the minority.


Instead, we shall be governed by the *minority* limiting what the *majority* wants....like the present day cluster, Fascist Lite® currently in place in DC.

Shine up your jackboots fellas, the southland shall rise again.


----------



## Guest

Room2201974 said:


> Instead, we shall be governed by the *minority* limiting what the *majority* wants....like the present day cluster, Fascist Lite® currently in place in DC.
> 
> Shine up your jackboots fellas, the southland shall rise again.


So you don't think the majority should be limited in what they can do to the minority? Interesting.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC probably thought that he was being both clever and accurate in stating that America was not intended to be a "pure" democracy. Yet we have, until recently, done well as a country and as a social experiment--a "shining city on a hill"-- by our several centuries' expansion of the people's right and ability to vote. Perhaps Ken's intention was to provoke this very response from myself and others who believe in popular sovereignty. It instead triggered a growing realization of the link among ideologues of the Right between their cynicism and their often unstated but often implied belief in Social Darwinism--let the strongest, most powerful predators prevail and rule--it is the proper Way of the World.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> KenOC probably thought that he was being both clever and accurate in stating that America was not intended to be a "pure" democracy. Yet we have, until recently, done well as a country and as a social experiment--a "shining city on a hill"-- by our several centuries' expansion of the people's right and ability to vote. Perhaps Ken's intention was to provoke this very response from myself and others who believe in popular sovereignty. It instead triggered a growing realization of the link among ideologues of the Right between their cynicism and their often unstated but often implied belief in Social Darwinism--let the strongest, most powerful predators prevail and rule--it is the proper Way of the World.


Ideologues of the left have been trying to undo the foundation of our form of government for over a century. From the changing in how we elect senators, to FDR's court packing, to the latest push to eliminate the electoral college (and the renewed call to pack the courts). Conservatives are trying to conserve our form of government.

Social Darwinism was also an ideology of the progressive movement, who initially tried to implement it with brutal eugenics tactics. I find it comical that people are still claiming the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful. If we lined up all the wealthiest in this country, I think that they are overwhelmingly in one party, and it isn't the GOP. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg. The numerous Hollywood millionaires. The majority of wealthy athletes. Woke executives of major companies.

And if anybody actually believes that any of those who rule over us are the fittest, I've got a bridge in Chappaquiddick I'd love to sell you.


----------



## Strange Magic

Aah, now we're getting somewhere. Tell us how, today, senators ought to be elected. And tell us how concentrating vast quantities of wealth among a small percentage of the population and the political power and influence that wealth buys is not Social Darwinism but rather the fulfillment of popular democracy. Where in the Constitution is the number of SCOTUS justices spelled out? You're right about a certain number, a handful, of America's richest men choking and gagging at the inequities of the system that they see enriched them while draining resources from the rest of the population--and kudos to them for their candor and for their efforts to get the tax codes changed. No, my arrow strikes home truly--the cynicism and Social Darwinism bred by Rightist ideology is, in many ways, the actual core of that ideology: the "intellectual" veneer laid over it by Buckleyan quasi-intellectuals notwithstanding.


----------



## mmsbls

Temporarily closed.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is now open again.


----------



## Flamme

World is such a mess lately. I dig britain and watch BBC whenver I can.


----------



## pianozach

*UK government changes its tune.
*

January 24 "The clinical advice is that the risk to the public remains low" - Matt Hancock

March 2 "We already have a fantastic NHS, fantastic testing systems" - Boris Johnson

March 12 "We no longer need to identify every case. People who are remaining at home do not need testing" - Chris Whitty

March 16 "We do intend to scale up testing" - Chris Whitty

March 17 "I think we need a big increase in testing. That's what I'm pushing for very hard" - Sir Patrick Vallance

March 18 "On testing we are moving up to 18,000 a day" - Boris Johnson

March 19 "We are massively increasing the testing . . . up at 250,000" - Boris Johnson

March 19 "We can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks" - Boris Johnson

March 25 Prince Charles tests positive for COVID-19

March 27 Prime Minister Boris Johnson tests positive for COVID-19


----------



## bz3

Flamme said:


> World is such a mess lately. I dig britain and watch BBC whenver I can.


I listen to BBC World Service frequently, one of the very few MSM platforms I tune into on any platform. They talk about Africa too much, I tune in for news in England and on the continent.


----------



## Flamme

However ''weak'' britain looox atm, I will never forget one of my first lessons in comparing law systems in my law school, that u can actually call upon a Precedent from 1300th year reagarding say, property issue and the judge was obliged to rule in your favour if the situation is Similar. Coming from a country that never actually had a rule of law or democracy this was very refreshing and alluring for me...It would be such a waste if it all goes down, maybe equal to fall of Roman civilisation/empire.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


>











or just hold a Union Jacck


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklaviertube.com/watch?v=p5SGdWWu0sI[/video said:


> or just hold a Union Jacck


How's that Brexit doing? Over here in the States I haven't heard.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Neither have we - in the recent media pecking order it's been behind the easing of lockdown, BLM and the return of football (soccer).


----------



## Luchesi

elgars ghost said:


> Neither have we - in the recent media pecking order it's been behind the easing of lockdown, BLM and the return of football (soccer).


BLM is in the news over here (heart-breaking for environmentalists). I don't know what BLM is over there.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Ashamed to be British?


No. But shame/pride aren't really a dimension I'd recognise (wrt to being 'British'). Looking at this from another angle, I wouldn't expect any citizen of another country to be 'ashamed' of their nationality.


----------



## bz3

MacLeod said:


> No. But shame/pride aren't really a dimension I'd recognise (wrt to being 'British'). Looking at this from another angle, I wouldn't expect any citizen of another country to be 'ashamed' of their nationality.


You've clearly never met any of the nutted out drones our universities have been churning out over here stateside, then.


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> You've clearly never met any of the nutted out drones our universities have been churning out over here stateside, then.


In Australia we've recently made an attempt to control those drones. Our government has put a premium on arts and social science degrees; they're now more costly than studying STEM, Law or Medicine!! That's fair.


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> You've clearly never met any of the nutted out drones our universities have been churning out over here stateside, then.


Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you.


Would Native Americans, Aboriginals and Blacks have been better off if Europeans hadn't taken over the Americas and Australia?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Would Native Americans, Aboriginals and Blacks have been better off if Europeans hadn't taken over the Americas and Australia?


Quite possibly, but a redundant question.

I reserve 'shame' for things for which I have personal responsibility and over which I can exercise some degree of control. Why should I be ashamed of my nationality which is an accident of birth; or ashamed of my nation's history which has been and gone and to which I have made no contribution whatsoever. I can still believe that imperial conquest and slavery were wrong - but they don't come with shame attached.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Quite possibly, but a redundant question.
> 
> I reserve 'shame' for things for which I have personal responsibility and over which I can exercise some degree of control. Why should I be ashamed of my nationality which is an accident of birth; or ashamed of my nation's history which has been and gone and to which I have made no contribution whatsoever. I can still believe that imperial conquest and slavery were wrong - but they don't come with shame attached.


It seems it's taught that way here. When my kids were young they felt shame. I think they've rationalized it like you have now.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> It seems it's taught that way here. When my kids were young they felt shame. I think they've rationalized it like you have now.


'Here' being...?

Pride is, let's say, acquired, as children grow up - whether it is taught explicitly or not. I have been raised in that context - imperial history, Churchill, sporting prowess, kings and queens. etc. Obviously ashamed we lost the 13 colonies to you guys.

Despite all that, I now have a more internationalist outlook (yes, in other words, I'm a commie!)


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> 'Here' being...?
> 
> Pride is, let's say, acquired, as children grow up - whether it is taught explicitly or not. I have been raised in that context - imperial history, Churchill, sporting prowess, kings and queens. etc. Obviously ashamed we lost the 13 colonies to you guys.
> 
> Despite all that, I now have a more internationalist outlook (yes, in other words, I'm a commie!)


Lost them? We wrenched them away from you bullies. Well, that's our perspective.. Having an expensive royalty these days? Well let's not go into that, unless you want to defend it. I'm listening...since you have communist sensibilities. You're funny..


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Lost them? We wrenched them away from you bullies. Well, that's our perspective.. Having an expensive royalty these days? Well let's not go into that, unless you want to defend it. I'm listening...since you have communist sensibilities. You're funny..


I'm a republican - we're generally in a minority here - so I'll not defend the Royal family.

No, Lord North was an incompetent, and we gave them up to you. At least, that's what I remember from my history lessons when I was 13. I didn't take that subject to any exam level, and I've not read about that War since, so don;t count on me to get it right!


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I'm a republican - we're generally in a minority here - so I'll not defend the Royal family.
> 
> No, Lord North was an incompetent, and we gave them up to you. At least, that's what I remember from my history lessons when I was 13. I didn't take that subject to any exam level, and I've not read about that War since, so don;t count on me to get it right!


There's many ways to look at history. He was incompetent. We were heroic behind a just cause.

I think you would have held on to the colonies if we didn't talk like you and look like you. But you won't hear that when you're in school at 13.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Just as well the British government weren't so heavy-handed with Canada or no doubt they'd have lost that as well.


----------



## Luchesi

Just heard that Harry is thinking of taking up painting full time after stepping down from the Royal family.He'll be the artist formerly known as Prince.


----------



## Guest

It's possible to feel 'shame' about your own nation; absolutely. For me shame attains to weakness and fecklessness and right now the USA has this in spades. Britain not so much. There's something uniquely poignant about 'end-of-empire' decline; the hubris that once attached itself to nations strong and purposeful but now brought low by self-loathing and internal strife. This is the modern face of America, I'm sad to say. They are done and there's no other way to put it. Nothing on offer by way of leadership and the vanquishing of the middle class because of the twin burdens of debt and globalism; all self-inflicted.

I'm sorry for your pain.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> You're funny..


Thanks. Looking forward to my first stand-up gig next week.

(Quick, tell me how, so I can bottle it and use it!)



Christabel said:


> It's possible to feel 'shame' about your own nation; absolutely. For me shame attains to weakness and fecklessness and right now the USA has this in spades.


It's _possible_, but it's a personal decision, regardless of your country's situation. A 'country' is an abstract, diffuse thing, and it can't feel shame.

(But if I was an American, I might not feel quite so inclined to be put in my place in this way).


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Thanks. Looking forward to my first stand-up gig next week.
> 
> (Quick, tell me how, so I can bottle it and use it!)
> 
> It's _possible_, but it's a personal decision, regardless of your country's situation. A 'country' is an abstract, diffuse thing, and it can't feel shame.
> 
> (But if I was an American, I might not feel quite so inclined to be put in my place in this way).


A country is a collective entity eminently capable of feeling shame: BLM. Tearing down statues.

America is the agent of its own problems; they own the lot of it. You are perfectly free to feel proud of the situation in that country; nobody is stopping you.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> A country is a collective entity eminently capable of feeling shame: BLM. Tearing down statues


Countries can't feel shame. Citizens of a country can, and yes, collectively, they can. But not "a country".



Christabel said:


> You are perfectly free to feel proud of the situation in that country; nobody is stopping you.


Which 'you' are you talking about?


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Countries can't feel shame. Citizens of a country can, and yes, collectively, they can. But not "a country".
> 
> Which 'you' are you talking about?


I'm talking about you. Which part of the modern USA is causing you to feel pride!? I think we'd all like to know.

You are hair-splitting about the country versus the individual, for reasons best known only to yourself. America is putting itself 'in its place'; nobody else.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I'm talking about you. Which part of the modern USA is causing you to feel pride!? I think we'd all like to know.
> 
> You are hair-splitting about the country versus the individual, for reasons best known only to yourself. America is putting itself 'in its place'; nobody else.


First, I responded to this thread because I'm British and have a view about whether I can/should be ashamed.
Second, it's not splitting hairs to say that a country can't be ashamed.
Third...I have already said that I'm not going to take a view on whether the citizens of other countries should feel pride or shame about their homeland. It's none of my business what they feel.
Last, I realise that I mistakenly introduced the idea of a 'country feeling shame', when what I should have said is that a country isn't something one can feel shame about.


----------



## mikeh375

Ashamed to be British? Well if I am, at least it's a world beating feeling of shame that's also being experienced by some of the best minds in the world....right Boris?


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> First, I responded to this thread because I'm British and have a view about whether I can/should be ashamed.
> Second, it's not splitting hairs to say that a country can't be ashamed.
> Third...I have already said that I'm not going to take a view on whether the citizens of other countries should feel pride or shame about their homeland. It's none of my business what they feel.
> Last, I realise that I mistakenly introduced the idea of a 'country feeling shame', when what I should have said is that a country isn't something one can feel shame about.


Germany 1939-1945.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Christabel said:


> Germany 1939-1945.


Tell me I've missed something, surely Godwin's law must have kicked in earlier?? :lol:


----------



## HenryPenfold

I'm rather proud to be British, but I think we should be discrete about it and not show off. It's what we have given the world that far outweighs the not so nice things we've done. If one limits our gifts to the world to just two - habeas corpus and the rules of Association Football - it will keep our book in credit for millennia!


----------



## elgar's ghost

HenryPenfold said:


> _I'm rather proud to be British, but I think we should be discrete about it and not show off._


I think that should equally apply to those SJWs who never seem to tire of telling us that they are not.


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> I think that should equally apply to those SJWs who never seem to tire of telling us that they are not.


Where are the SJWs at TC? They seem in short supply.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Where are the SJWs at TC? They seem in short supply.


And what's an SJW? Somebody who should feel ashamed? I'm being told every day that I should be ashamed of my own country and have little time left over for Great Britain, so sorry.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> And what's an SJW? Somebody who should feel ashamed? I'm being told every day that I should be ashamed of my own country and have little time left over for Great Britain, so sorry.


Oh come on Ken - Google! - I had to.

You're lucky. I'm being told I'm American and should be ashamed - doubly annoying!


----------



## Jacck

HenryPenfold said:


> I'm rather proud to be British, but I think we should be discrete about it and not show off. It's what we have given the world that far outweighs the not so nice things we've done. If one limits our gifts to the world to just two - habeas corpus and the rules of Association Football - it will keep our book in credit for millennia!


I would not be proud about the British Empire. It was founded in piracy, stealing gold from the Portuguese and Spanish, and maintained and grown by dealing drugs (sugar, tobacco, tea and opium). I also have a feeling, that like the Russians, the English base a lot of their modern identity on WW2 mythology - Russians call it the "Great Patriotic War" and in England, Churchill attained sainthood. I doubt European culture would be much different without Britain and the net effect of British imperialism is likely negative. If I were English, I would be proud of people like Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell etc.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Oh come on Ken - Google! - I had to.
> 
> You're lucky. I'm being told I'm American and should be ashamed - doubly annoying!


Yes it is ironic, I'll agree. Usually it's the Left telling people they should be ashamed and to shoosh up!!


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I would not be proud about the British Empire.


How can I, an individual living in 2020, be either proud or ashamed about "The British Empire"? I played no part in its growth or in the reprehensible acts carried out in its name. I am not responsible.

Arguably, I'm guilty by assocation, as I hold a UK passport and pay taxes to the UK government, but if I were to take the extraordinary step of renouncing my UK citizenship on the grounds that I wished to end that association, I'm not sure where that would get me. Except to some far flung corner of the Earth where I've found a community that is spotless.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Yes it is ironic, I'll agree. Usually it's the Left telling people they should be ashamed and to shoosh up!!


Will you please refrain from your factional political jibes.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> How can I, an individual living in 2020, be either proud or ashamed about "The British Empire"? I played no part in its growth or in the reprehensible acts carried out in its name. I am not responsible.
> Arguably, I'm guilty by assocation, as I hold a UK passport and pay taxes to the UK government, but if I were to take the extraordinary step of renouncing my UK citizenship on the grounds that I wished to end that association, I'm not sure where that would get me. Except to some far flung corner of the Earth where I've found a community that is spotless.


the less pride one finds in his own life, the more he needs to be proud of the collective he is part of. Hitler made the Germans proud after the humiliation of WW1, that is why many Germans voted for him. Most nationalist patriotic ideologies are based on natiol pride. Personally, I am neither particularly proud nor ashamed of my nationality.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Will you please refrain from your factional political jibes.


The prosecution rests.


----------



## elgar's ghost

MacLeod said:


> Where are the SJWs at TC? They seem in short supply.


I wasn't referring to TC in particular - compared to some other sectors of social media this is a bastion of moderation.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Jacck said:


> _I would not be proud about the British Empire. It was founded in piracy, stealing gold from the Portuguese and Spanish_


Spain were arguably the biggest threat to England's liberty ever since Mary Tudor's attempts to return England to the bosom of Rome, and her marriage to Philip II of Spain exacerbated that. Spain were already chastising the protestant Netherlands which were under her control and given the opportunity England would have been next. Philip II maintained that, as Mary's widower, he had claim to England and wanted it as part of his realm, and that claim was substantiated with the blessing of the Vatican as the pious Philip was adamant that he would do God's work (i.e using the terror of the Inquisition to forcibly convert a stubborn England back to Catholicism).

Going to war directly with Spain was out of the question - like the Netherlands, England had too small an army and it would also have meant being at loggerheads with the added might of the Holy Roman Empire which, like Spain and her dominions, was controlled by the Habsburgs. England had little option but to nettle Spain as best as she could by tampering with Spanish trade, and using the navy was the only way that could be achieved. It wasn't 'playing by the rules', but it worked.

As regards the empire which followed I wonder if those lands would been better off under anyone else, or exploited any the less?


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> As regards the empire which followed I wonder if those lands would been better off under anyone else, or exploited any the less?


of course we do not know the alternate history, so no one can be sure. My personal feeling is that colonialism caused many problems all around the world, especially in Asia, Middle East and Africa. It destroyed the traditional societies and their ability to self-government and replaced them with colonial rule and puppet governments. Once the colonial era ended, the nations were plunged into chaos. And also, many artificial states were created - India and Pakistan, Israel, and many artificial states in Africa, which contained ethnic groups that hated each other, so seeds of problems were planted. Many of the 20th century conflicts and wars were a result of this

And Churchill certainly was not such a saint. He is likely responsible for the deaths of millions. He was Brittish chauvinist. After the war, he forcefully repatriated back to Russia hundreds of thousands of Russian POVs and thus sentenced them to certain death
https://newspunch.com/churchill-russians-death-camps-ww2/
(a more reputable source of this is the Gulag Archipelago)
His policies also caused famines in India
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/29/asia/churchill-bengal-famine-intl-scli-gbr/index.html


----------



## elgar's ghost

I certainly wouldn't beatify Churchill - WWII and its aftermath was full of dirty secrets and there were probably few that he was unaware of. The situation with the Soviet prisoners was tragic but what were the options? The UK was near enough bankrupt so she could hardly allow them to remain here _en bloc_, and then there was the stumbling block of the British and Commonwealth POWs who had been liberated by the Soviets - how else could they have been repatriated? Stalin held most of the aces post-1945 and only the USA could have bargained on the prisoners' behalf with any real clout - the UK had pretty much became a bit-part player overnight. Perhaps it would have been better had the Soviet prisoners been given the option to settle in what was to become West Germany - at least that country was to benefit by being rebuilt with limitless US dollars and hopefully they would have been out of Stalin's reach.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I would not be proud about the British Empire. It was founded in piracy, stealing gold from the Portuguese and Spanish, and maintained and grown by dealing drugs (sugar, tobacco, tea and opium).


Except the Opium War was one of the best things they ever did - the Qing empire was established by the tyrannical Manchu barbarians who overthrew the Ming empire, which was the authentic Chinese dynasty that sought harmony with its neighbors. Qing was a tyrant by comparison. The Brits should have come sooner to punish them.


----------



## Jacck

hammeredklavier said:


> Except the Opium War was one of the best things they ever did - the Qing empire was established by the tyrannical Manchu barbarians who overthrew the Ming empire, which was the authentic Chinese dynasty that sought harmony with its neighbors. Qing was a tyrant by comparison. The Brits should have come sooner to punish them.


I don't know the exact history that well, but I read that
The British Empire Colonized The World By Becoming Its Drug Dealer


----------



## Jacck

elgars ghost said:


> Spain were arguably the biggest threat to England's liberty ever since Mary Tudor's attempts to return England to the bosom of Rome, and her marriage to Philip II of Spain exacerbated that. Spain were already chastising the protestant Netherlands which were under her control and given the opportunity England would have been next. Philip II maintained that, as Mary's widower, he had claim to England and wanted it as part of his realm, and that claim was substantiated with the blessing of the Vatican as the pious Philip maintained that he would do God's work (i.e using the terror of the Inquisition to forcibly convert a stubborn England back to Catholicism).


protestantism seems to be a real issue in the UK. I remember the Trainspotting movie





the Czech were the first protestants in Europe. Actually, Jan Hus got his ideas from England, from John Wycliffe. After the Hussite wars, we stayed protestant for 200 years and then lost a battle in 1620 against the Habsburgs and were forcefully recatholized. Nowadays, we are one of the most atheist nations in the world, and most people dont care about religion at all.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Most probably don't care here either - one of my Northern Irish friends once said that Sectarianism in Northern Ireland was largely perpetuated by tribal estate gangs who were only ever likely to see the inside of a church during a wedding or a funeral.


----------



## HenryPenfold

A republican friend of mine was surprised to learn that in the 2019 world democracies index, a whopping 7 out of the top 10 democracies are headed by a monarch. 

And that's without constitutional monarchies like The United Kingdom and Spain, that don't even make the top 10.

Places 1-4 are all thus occupied. It's amazing that by no coincidence, royalty gives us fairer, more open and just societies. 

So, if you want democracy, and plenty of it, get yourself a king or queen.


----------



## Jacck

HenryPenfold said:


> A republican friend of mine was surprised to learn that in the 2019 world democracies index, a whopping 7 out of the top 10 democracies are headed by a monarch.
> 
> And that's without constitutional monarchies like The United Kingdom and Spain, that don't even make the top 10.
> 
> Places 1-4 are all thus occupied. It's amazing that by no coincidence, royalty gives us fairer, more open and just societies.
> 
> So, if you want democracy, and plenty of it, get yourself a king or queen.


you mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:2019_Democracy_index.svg

I visited some of these countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. They are monarchies and democracies. In all of these countries any critics or disrespect of the monarch is strictly prohibited. Try to disrespect the king in Thailand and you will go to jail. Not exactly how I imagine a free country.

here
A Thai court sentenced a man to 20 years in prison Wednesday for sending text messages deemed insulting to the monarchy
https://www.rfi.fr/en/asia-pacific/20111123-thai-court-jails-61-year-old-20-years-disrespect-king
is this a democracy?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Jacck said:


> you mean this?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:2019_Democracy_index.svg


No



> I visited some of these countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. They are monarchies and democracies. In all of these countries any critics or disrespect of the monarch is strictly prohibited. Try to disrespect the king in Thailand and you will go to jail. Not exactly how I imagine a free country.


You best stay at home



> here
> A Thai court sentenced a man to 20 years in prison Wednesday for sending text messages deemed insulting to the monarchy
> https://www.rfi.fr/en/asia-pacific/20111123-thai-court-jails-61-year-old-20-years-disrespect-king
> is this a democracy?


It's the exceptions that prove the rule

P.S. Don't take these sorts of posts too seriously


----------



## Guest

HenryPenfold said:


> A republican friend of mine was surprised to learn that in the 2019 world democracies index, a whopping 7 out of the top 10 democracies are headed by a monarch.
> 
> And that's without constitutional monarchies like The United Kingdom and Spain, that don't even make the top 10.
> 
> Places 1-4 are all thus occupied. It's amazing that by no coincidence, royalty gives us fairer, more open and just societies.
> 
> So, if you want democracy, and plenty of it, get yourself a king or queen.


I'm sure there's no shortage of queens.


----------

