Tag Archives: British Empire

Boris Johnson, daily blog, diary blog, ethnostate, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Diary Blog, 16 May 2020

22 Comments

Interesting tweets recently seen

https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1261173281157255168?s=20

https://twitter.com/WillowWyse/status/1261077391876730880?s=20

https://twitter.com/BeachMilk/status/1260839358778638336?s=20

https://twitter.com/RAnxius/status/1261373560523644934?s=20

https://twitter.com/RAnxius/status/1261346934440124417?s=20

https://twitter.com/RAnxius/status/1261011970813239297?s=20

https://twitter.com/RAnxius/status/1261006894505832448?s=20

What she is “missing” is that it is the Mayor of London, via Transport for London [TfL] who decides about the London Congestion Charge…but when did lack of basic knowledge ever stop any (well-known or obscure) person from tweeting?

Look at this (below):

https://twitter.com/lubabakhalid/status/1261475383049957382?s=20

The “Lubaba” one apparently lives in Croydon, and is a Student Union officer, so was probably brought up (and born) in the UK, but hates us –meaning hates British, meaning “white”, people– (under cover of hating the British Empire).

She thinks that she and her family would be much better off had her ancestors been left in the primaeval squalor of Central or West Africa…

“Against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain” [Schiller].

I notice that “Lubaba” has flags from Barbados, Trinidad and Palestine on her Twitter masthead, as well as what is presumably the Labour Party rose. No Union Jack. No St. George’s flag. Many of the blacks and browns often seem to just hate us. They really should not be in Europe at all. And they are steadily outbreeding us…

Here are some more untermenschen supposedly “equal” to us…

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/harrowing-footage-shows-bleeding-rotting-22032861

I saw this interesting blog post about the British Empire:

https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/106217350/posts/70147

“Slavery:

Perhaps the most emotive [accusation] concerns slavery. During the 18th century, the peak of the huge and lucrative Atlantic slave trade, British merchants bought slaves from African rulers — on average, 120 people every day by the 1780s — and sold them primarily to French, Portuguese-Brazilian and British planters. Was this the source of Britain’s wealth, and the fuel of the Industrial Revolution? Profit from the slave trade made individuals rich, but accounted for about one per cent of national income. The Industrial Revolution’s key element was coal, of which Britain had a lot.

Where the British Empire’s relationship with slavery was unique was in combatting it. Britain abolished its own slave trade in 1807. In 1834 it abolished slavery throughout the Empire. British subjects were forbidden to own slaves anywhere in the world.”

I have to admit that I was unaware that the slave trade accounted for only 1% of national income (unclear as to whether that 1% was only the actual trade, or including profits made using slaves, eg West Indies cotton and sugar).

More tweets seen

https://twitter.com/Tom73049039/status/1261579174516572161?s=20

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/war-of-words-16-august-2018

Here (above) is a link to that article. It is very true about Wikipedia. I like and use Wikipedia a great deal, but it is very blinkered on certain topics, among which is the so-called “holocaust” fable. Many of Wikipedia’s editors (mostly unpaid volunteers) are Jews (especially American Jews).

Another topic upon which Wikipedia is very biased is anything to do with what the Jews, “antifa” idiots and msm usually term “far Right” politics. You will be misinformed if you rely on Wikipedia for information about that.

Finally, Wikipedia will allow newspaper articles to be cited, but not if the newspaper is the Daily Mail! The Sun? OK. The Daily Mirror? OK. Morning Star? OK. In fact, as far as I know, any newspaper, and certainly any mainstream newspaper, is OK, but never the Daily Mail. On any topic. I am hardly likely to be pro-Daily Mail, as such, having been featured generally unfavourably by that newspaper in the past (2016) but it is no worse than the rest of the msm; and often more informative. 

More tweets

Quite…

Jew thieves

and

https://twitter.com/Seanboy63800243/status/1261386361375821824?s=20

My Arabic is inadequate; in fact it scarcely exists: only enough to do things such as order coffee [see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/when-i-was-not-arrested-in-egypt/] but one can get most of the short clip above without a translation. Very sad.

“Lockdown” protest

https://twitter.com/HeartLondonNews/status/1261645218409058304?s=20

Time was when you could speak freely at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park. In fact I myself spoke there to fickle crowds a few times (in 1978, if memory serves). Not now. (((They))) have killed free speech. At Speakers’ Corner. In print. Online. Toytown police state.

Coronavirus, “lockdown”, and the toytown police state (that might become a real police state)

It is alarming. For example, Devon and Cornwall Police: “On 1 April, Devon and Cornwall Police released a statement saying that, regardless of the guidance from both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, it would not be changing its position on people travelling by car to a place for exercise. ‘Our interpretation is that it is not reasonable, for the majority, to drive miles to a specific place such as a beauty spot. It is also not within the spirit of what we are trying to achieve if you drive from Devon to the coast of Cornwall for surfing, regardless of whether that is “lawful” or not.’”

In other words, the Devon and Cornwall Police, among others, are going to try to “interpret” the will of the Government, and apply that, regardless of whether that has the force of law or not…

https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2020/05/12/the-state-of-emergency-as-paradigm-of-government-coronavirus-legislation-implementation-and-enforcement/

The above is a good example of the Common Purpose attitude (“Leading beyond authority“) which has infected the police and public services generally over the past 30 years: the police actually purporting to decide what is the law, and even saying, straight out and brazenly, that they are going to allow or disallow X, Y, or Z whether X, Y or Z are lawful or not!

https://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose

Then there is the police “nark on a neighbour” idea, which at one time was attracting nearly 6,000 quasi-Stalinist denunciations daily!

EX43oYYWkAA87D4

Other tweets

The island of sheep

John Buchan once wrote a book, one of his least famous, called The Island of Sheep. It was an adventure thriller set on an island full of (real) sheep. The sheep I am talking about here, though, are metaphorical sheep (aka some British people) and “the island of sheep” is Britain.

Look at the tweets below, from a woman who thinks of herself, looking at her Twitter profile and “pinned tweet”, as an independent thinker…

yet she tweets thus:

She displays no real thought at all. The latest estimate was that 24 people a day in London, a city of about 9 million inhabitants, are being infected with the Chinese virus. That is 3 people out of every million living in London.

Another example?

Very “Soviet”. Government decides, journalists then obediently transmit and explain the decision to the broad masses…

In fact, that is more or less what has happened up to now, but this shambolic government of fools, led by a part-Jew public entertainer who seems to live an unmeritedly charmed life (so far), is floundering, driven more by public relations than by “the science”, let alone common sense.

She shows herself, like so many on Twitter, and particularly the pseudo-socialist ones (this lady herself is in fact a supporter of Corbyn-style Labour), as almost begging to be told where to go and not go, what to do and not do. She is brainwashed by the “virus” scare to the nth degree. “Independent”? About as much as any marionette or automaton…

Actually, I should not spend too much time on this lady, though she is typical of so many on Twitter, but she is rather “the gift that keeps on giving”:

As a child in the early to mid-1960s, I was only ever given Lucozade (the original one, in a large glass bottle with yellow cellophane wrapping) when unwell. It was thought to aid recovery and maybe it did, because it was indeed high in glucose. Where the tweeter above goes wrong is in saying that Lucozade caused obesity. Hardly. Most children only had about 2 bottles a year, if that!

I see people like that on Twitter daily, the ones who think of themselves as thinking people, often (as in her case) socialist or rather pseudo-socialist (well-meaning perhaps, so be it…). They make about 9 silly points for every 1 good point.

 

 

animal welfare, Defence, environment, historical, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized, wildlife

If Only “The War” Had Never Happened

1 Comment

I happened to see the second tweet below, the one showcasing an opinion poll from November 1947:

You see, here we are 73 years later, and the Jewish lobby with the compliant msm are constantly putting forward the idea that the 1930s were backward, poor, basically terrible, but that “the war” changed all that. In reality, the latter part of the 1930s was a time of general economic and social advance.

Looking mainly at the UK, the second part of the 1930s was a time when, at least in the South and Midlands, there were job opportunities, new towns and roads being constructed, air routes being laid out, both across Europe and, via Imperial Airways etc, worldwide, using safe and comfortable flying boats.

Across the South of England, people were moving into the detached and semi-detached suburban housing still considered desirable property today, 80-90 years later.

More than that. Advanced thinkers were already laying the intellectual foundations for the Welfare State: decent public housing, a National Health Service etc.

Then came the war. It has been said that, under strict WW2 rationing, perhaps as much as a quarter of the UK population was actually better-fed than it had been in the 1930s, an indication of the social inequality rampant before the war. However, in general, the war impoverished the whole nation (how could it not?). Britain suffered under rationing of various types until the mid-1950s! There is no doubt that poverty and indeed inequality would overall have been ameliorated quicker had the war not “frozen” the social situation.

Before 1939, Britain was taking steps to grant independence to the colonies. The White colonies had already achieved Dominion status. The colonies of black Africa and elsewhere might have been given independence later but on a more secure basis, after sufficient Africans (etc) had achieved the stature capable of running advanced societies and economies. Sadly, that never happened.

“The War”, as UK people still call WW2, was disastrous for most of the peoples, animals, birds etc of the world. Environmental degradation today continues apace, a result, ultimately, of the corruption and inefficiency of the “independent” states formed after WW2.

The peoples of the former colonies have suffered wars, civil wars, banditry, rapacious officialdom, you name it. All because of premature decolonization. Not only in the former British Empire, which attained its greatest territorial extent after the First World War, in 1918. About a third of the world was under British control at that time. Also, there were the colonies of the other European states in Africa and elsewhere, those of France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and the former German colonies (South West Africa, Tanganyika).

How much better a world would we now have were those formerly colonized lands still under European rule, or ruled in collaboration with a large enough and cultured enough African elite built up by the colonial powers over time …Look at Rhodesia up to 1979, and then its decrepit successor-state, Zimbabwe…

This is not just a question for the UK. It is a problem, historical and contemporary, for the world.

In Europe, the UK (and France) might have not given the Poles the worthless “guarantees” of 1939, which led the Poles to imagine that Britain and France would actually fight for Poland. Never happened.

Likewise, after the Fall of France in 1940, Britain might have secured an honourable armistice with the German Reich, so saving the peoples of Western and Central Europe from the massive destruction caused, mainly, by the Allied and Soviet forces during, again mainly, 1941-45. It would also have meant no Soviet takeover of the East and most of the Centre of Europe by Stalin’s Soviet Union in the mid-1940s.

We hear much (much too much) of the Jews, who were, prior to WW2, being allowed to emigrate from Germany and its allied or vassal states. Indeed, the Germans were glad to be rid of them. Well, had there been an armistice in 1940, that emigration would have continued: to the USA, Australia, Palestine etc.

Terrorism after WW2 was a product of the terrorists or “guerrillas” during that war, both those trained and funded by the shambolic British organization, SOE, and by the Soviet Union (the “partisans”). Most postwar “terrorism” from 1945 through to recent times can be traced back readily enough to British, American and Soviet sources.

Had “the War” (in the West) never happened, or been stopped in its tracks in 1940, the Soviet Union would probably have collapsed by 1942, there would have been no massive destruction by Soviet forces (or by the UK/USA air fleets) in the Europe of 1941-45, no Cold War, no Berlin Wall, no East-West proxy wars. The Israeli state and the arrogant Arab and Iranian oil states would have all either been strangled at birth, or kept on a tight rein.

In Britain itself, the neglected historian Correlli Barnett [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett] has made the point that, because of Britain’s having been bled dry by the War, it could not do more than one, or at most two, of its three main policy aims after 1945:

  • keep the Empire;
  • regenerate UK industry and commerce;
  • introduce a Welfare state.

In the end, Britain tried to do all three, but could not fully succeed in any, eventually almost abandoning the Empire and its remnants.

If only there had been no “War”, or a war lasting only a year…

If only.

Defence, historical, Russia and Russian relations, Uncategorized

The Imperial Vacuum in the Middle East and Near East, and Its Consequences

7 Comments

Initial Thoughts

I have been reading about what appears to have been the appalling and unusually cruel murder of a dissident Saudi journalist, supposedly cut up while still alive by some kind of Saudi Arabian “security” team in the Consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul.

This news item made me once again muse on the unsatisfactory position in the “Levant”, the Middle East and also what was once called the Near East.

The region is not one that I know well personally. I have been to Qatar twice on short visits, once in 2001 (when Doha was a rather pleasant and rather sleepy place) and again in 2008 (by which time it had become a horrible, dystopian and skyscraping sprawl). I spent less than a week in the Luxor Hilton in 1994, and another three months in Egypt in 1998 (Aswan, the Red Sea, Alexandria and the oasis of Siwa). I have also spent about 4 months in Turkey and Turkish North Cyprus.

The Gulf

What many younger people fail to realize is just how recent (in present form) are the phenomena we know as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Qatar etc. Take Abu Dhabi: when I was at school in England, aged 14, in 1970, there were a couple of rather unpleasant boys whose father was chief of police in Abu Dhabi, which was at the time a dusty desert enclave just beginning to profit from its huge hydrocarbon wealth. The British still supplied the senior military, police and other officials in Abu Dhabi at that time. Abu Dhabi, which had been known (right up to the Second World War) only for its pearls and for the slave trade, first struck oil in 1958 (or rather BP, as concession-holder, did). That first strike was followed by others, in 1959, 1962 and 1965.

The growth of Abu Dhabi in terms of population can be judged by the following progression: in 1960, the entire resident population of the city itself was 25,000. That grew to 50,000 by 1965 (though falling back to 46,400 by 1969). By 1995, the population was 398,695, and by 2014 was apparently 1,205,963, an increase of 31% even on the previous year! The latest estimate for the (entire) Abu Dhabi population (2018) is nearly 3 million! Abu Dhabi city (which contains about two-thirds of the entire population) was planned in 1967 for 40,000 inhabitants, which was changed in the 1970s (i.e. less than a decade later!) to a projection of 600,000. The present (2018) population of the city is said to number about 2 million. About 90% of the population of the emirate is foreign.

Qatar, likewise, is a very recent phenomenon in its recent form. Oil was discovered only in 1940, after which successive oil and gas finds in later decades transformed the small enclave once populated by a few thousand fishermen and pearl divers. The population of the entire sultanate in 1970 was 108,000, whereas in 2018 it is between 2.5 million and 3 million. As with Abu Dhabi and other Gulf Arab “states”, something like 90% of the population is foreign and that 90% does almost all of the work (from banking to street-sweeping), and has few rights.

I was once told, around 1977, by a construction person who spent his time in the Gulf, that he was engaged on constructing a new airport (I forget exactly where) there. He told me that the growth in the region (even then) had been phenomenal. I asked him where he thought that the Gulf Arabs would be by some date in the future (probably 2000, but I have in fact forgotten which year I specified) and he answered, cynically, “back riding their camels”! Well, he was wrong (if 2000 was the year), but I wonder whether he will be so wrong when looked back at from, say, 2050 or even 2030.

The Gulf “states” or statelets have no resilience: 90% of their population consists of expats, many of whom are from poor parts of Asia. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait showed that, for all their expensive Western military toys, the Gulf rulers and their forces are men of straw.

Some Gulf states are running out of hydrocarbons, others have understood that the demand for oil may have peaked with the development of other energy sources, and so have begun to diversify economically. However, in the end, the future for these socially-backward societies with their “ready-to-wear” (bought) Western toys and expertise may be not so good.

The Main Part of the Middle East

We have seen that, from the time of open proclamation of the New World Order [NWO] immediately after 1989, the NWO has destabilized the Middle East and North Africa. Israel is of course pivotal. The destabilization has, overall, helped Israel. Its major opponents militarily (Syria, Iraq) have been cast into chaos, Iran has been embroiled in conflict in Iraq, Yemen and Syria, Egypt has been further suborned and placed under NWO-controlled dictatorship, while even Libya (peripheral, but wealthy and always anti-Israel) has been broken up internally. There are now no regional armies able to pose an immediate threat to Israel, the “Zionist entity”.

Turkey

Turkey was, for much of the past century, a relatively static and relatively neutral player on the geopolitical stage. That was the genius of Ataturk, to make Turkey militarily-strong without (usually, much) using that power externally. Now, Turkey risks being drawn into the sphere of destabilization.

The Big Picture

The combined region of the Middle East and Near East has always been the stage for empires, among them the Alexandrine Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantine Romans, the Ottomans, the British; the French too (from Napoleon’s day until 1945). There were attempts by others to exercise imperial power: the Russians under both Tsarism and Sovietism; also, briefly, Iran under the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s. Now, beyond the strictly regional squabbling players, there are attempts at larger-scale control: Russia, the USA (i.e. the NWO), as well as, on a more limited level of power than the first two (and also than under the Shah), Iran again.

It is clear that the only solution to the problems of the regions, particularly of the core Middle East, likely to last long, will be the imposition of a supervening imperium which can subordinate all existing states to its control. That means that the Arab states and Israel would be ruled by this quasi-imperial power. It is equally clear that such an imperium does not exist. The Americans have huge destructive resources, but lack the imperial will and desire which would enable them to succeed the British, the Ottomans, Byzantium, Rome etc. That is also true of the Russians, who also can be described as largely “defensive” (wishing to defend their Southern flank as much as anything). The Iranians have not the power to make a substantial difference in this arena.

The conclusion is, to me, obvious: the future of the region is not another imperial or quasi-imperial chapter, but large-scale destruction only.

 

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

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/abu-dhabi-population/

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

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

 

Defence, historical, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, Uncategorized

There Should Have Been An Honourable Peace in 1939 or 1940

Leave a comment

The Background

September the 9th, 2018. 79 years and 8 days since the famous German attack on the Polish radio station at then Gleiwitz; 79 years and 6 days since Britain (and so the entire British Empire) and France declared war on Germany; about 78 and a bit years since the German defeat of France, since the British retreat from Dunkirk; 78 years since the air Battle of Britain.

What weakens the usual System-history narrative about the history of those times is the a priori assumption or, if you like, a Grundnorm [basic underlying concept or belief, often unquestioned or deliberately made impossible to question], that the declaration of war by Britain and France was unquestionably both “the right thing to do” and unavoidable.

The typical, conventional System view, as displayed above, is of course grounded on an even deeper-held belief or Grundnorm, that is that the German government of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP was so evil that it had to be destroyed. That view (at the time and really until the 1970s at least –talking about British attitudes–) was based on the opinion that Germany was again trying, for the second or third time in memory, and as a continental power, to take over mainland Europe. More recently, the more Jewish-influenced attitude has held sway, because of the Jewish control or veto over the worlds of publishing, academia, politics, msm etc in the West: that Germany had to be confronted and defeated because of its policy re. Jews.

The whole “Germany had to be defeated because of the ‘holocaust'” nonsense is of quite recent date. Not often (i.e. never) mentioned to the brainwashed masses or to their equally brainwashed offspring in British schools, is the fact that not one of the world leaders or the most important military leaders (e.g. Churchill) made any mention of “extermination programmes” or “gas chambers” in their spoken remarks or post-war written memoirs. The Jewish-Zionist element has taken control of the historical narrative and completely twisted it. That is why “they” hate any historical revisionism. They present a weight of mutually-quoting fakery as if it were a weight of evidence. In any case, even the Zionist propagandists do not claim any German “extermination plan” or programme for the Jews  until 1941.

Returning to war and peace in 1939-40, we see that the big picture shows a world far more than today split between European empires. The British Empire ruled between a quarter and a third of the world. Most of the rest (leaving aside the Soviet Union, the USA and China) was ruled by other Europeans: empires of the French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Belgians. The depredations of the early imperial days had begun to give way to the idea of stewardship. The native peoples were beginning to be looked after, the wildlife the same. All that (which became so positive in the 1950s) was ruined by the Second World War and its aftermath. Decolonization, globalist finance-capitalism etc have been disastrous for the peoples and environment of Africa, South America, Asia.

In Europe too, we see how disastrous was the decision to go to war in 1939. Immense destruction, huge loss of life (some estimates say 80 million), cruelties, hardship etc. Also massive economic dislocation.

We often hear half-baked nonsense about how “the war” stimulated inventions and technological progress. Most of this is either not true or is at best half-true. In both Europe and USA, huge strides were being made in the 1930s. What the war did was to change priorities: planes built for speed rather than comfort, housing built on a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic basis etc.

In the UK, much nonsense is talked about the Welfare State in this regard. In fact, social housing (which had existed in limited forms for centuries) was being created on quite a large scale in the UK of the 1930s, particularly in and around London. As for the NHS etc, that was already being prepared in studies etc, though the war may have concentrated minds and so on.

The Phoney War

The Phoney War, also called the Bore War and (in Germany) Sitzkrieg, lasted from September 1939 to April 1940. At that point, few people, even in the armed services of either side (meaning UK/Germany) had been killed. Any bitterness or venom (mainly on the British side and stirred up by relentless propaganda) was small compared to what existed later. There could, after Dunkirk, have been an honourable peace, an armistice. Germany could then have turned its full attention to destroying Stalin’s regime the following year. The Russian people would eventually have come to a concordat with the German Reich. Only the Jewish commissars etc would ultimately have lost out.

Conclusion

Britain lost out hugely by going along with Churchill’s ridiculous adventurism. Terrible loss and turmoil during the years of war, 10 years of “austerity” after the war ended. The perceived “need” (in fact a conspiracy) to import blacks and browns in the 1950s and thereafter in order to make up for those killed and injured in that wholly unnecessary war. Slow poisoning of the folk.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, ostensibly, to protect the independence of Poland. It never happened. Poland was split between the German Reich and the Soviet Union at first, later taken entirely by the Reich, then later still taken entirely by the Soviet Union. Instead of one or two weeks of war, Poland was strafed by 6 years of it. Only since 1989 has Poland regained anything like full political sovereignty. When I myself visited Poland on several occasions in the late 1980s, one still met older Poles who might mention those worthless guarantees of 1939.

Had an honourable peace been found in 1939 or 1940, the British Empire would have wound down more gradually, as would the other European empires. There would not have been so much war and misery across the world, the American cultural death-impulse would not have been so powerful and destructive; also, the environment would not have suffered anything like as badly. Above all, Europe would be fully European and have a fully-European future.