Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

This is a necessary book in an age of self-loathing. The British have done more good for humanity than any imperial people in history with the exception perhaps of the Romans until internecine civil wars; inflation; bureaucracy, taxes and a narcissistic culture killed it. One doubts that Crocker is being feted in British Universities, or that his book is de rigeuer reading for the elite, themselves so preoccupied with converting to Islam and the prostrations and minstrels of the eco-climate fraud cult. There is no historical parallel for the descent into virulent self-loathing now endemic in Britain and the West. If you hate yourself, you probably won't succeed in life. When nations and empires are infected with the bacillus of self-hatred it leads to self-immolation and the usurpation by ideologies – even ones vastly inferior – who are sure of themselves. Civilizations don't last forever. They can recede rather quickly:

“Alas that day is here, ushered in by United Nations bureaucrats, liberal internationalists, native kleptocrats, liberated Islamists, and Third World Communists and National Socialists, all of whom emerged as Europe's empires retreated. The retreat of the British Empire was not progress – either for Western Civilisation or in many cases for the countries achieving independence.”

Churchill's great mistake – the UN. The UN via the GlobaloneyWarming scam seeks the power of universal governance and massive international transfers of money from 'White states' to the Third World. The UN is largely a Moslem-Third World mafia responsible for the initiation of giving $2 Trillion to Africa in guilt money since 1965, with nary a positive result or dividend to show. During this same period Africa has generated plenty of tribal wars, carnage, social dislocations and the eradication of once functioning political-economies in 'colonial' states. All blamed on Western states. Jubilee. The Moslem bloc runs the UN and we have indeed liberated Islam to quote Crocker, and reinvigorated the Salafist-Wahabbi theology of intolerance one finds in the Koran through our blood money [oil payments used to fund Islamic terror]; and the withdrawal of empire [leaving Iraq in 2011, will give us the same poor sets of results as the 1932 withdrawal]. The drawing down of empire does have its consequences – few of them noble or moral.

The first 190 pages or so of this book reference the early British empire with its nascent beginnings in the 12^th century under Edward I, to the British Raj and the violent dismemberment of the Indian subcontinent between the Hindus and Moslems. In today's commentary, the entire British enterprise, instigated by the English, was a disaster. Nothing good came of the English experiment in empire. All was disaster, racism, slavery, hate, war, pillage and the imposition of crude English non-civilization, onto the advanced, civilized, wonderful, peaceful, multicultural nirvanas elsewhere. I would imagine that today Rudyard Kipling would be tried for thought crimes in England. Pace Crocker on Kipling:

“..Kipling frames the white man's burden rather differently. It means binding your best men to serve another people, to take up what he says will be a thankless task, yet one that a mature and Christian people must do – to banish famine and sickness, to provide peace and order, to build roads and ports, to seek the profit of another rather than oneself....The British Empire of the twenty-first century academic lecture hall, however, is something utterly different. The idea that the British Empire was a white man's burden is treated with scorn, contempt, and ridicule....the Empire was a vehicle of rapacious, self-serving capitalists responsible for racism, slavery, and oppression on a global scale.”

Indeed. Kipling was born in India of course and was an Orientalist. He knew that the 'White Man's Burden' was the spread of civilization. This is why he welcomed American involvement in the Philippines and Asia. Today of course he would be called a neo-con Fascist, and probably would be summarily beaten in the public square by tender, cross-dressing, Koranic quoting British police 'men'.

I wonder how many Brits know anything about the characters that Crocker introduces including; Sir Francis Drake, Sir Henry Morgan, Sir Charles Cornwallis [for his successful governing of India and Ireland], Sir Walter Raleigh [an Irishman], the Duke of Wellington and the sundry other characters who could not exist in today's world. Crocker does not even go into the vast corpus of English-British genius in the fields of science, literature, the arts, engineering and other domains. Pity, but that would require 4 or 5 volumes. He only mentions a handful in the sphere of the political and military. Yet even this bifurcated and reduced list is most impressive. No other nation state can match it.

This only highlights an obvious point. Today, the mediocrity of the welfare state is all too obvious. Once society becomes a quest for the holy grail of benign paternalism, the devolution to the lowest common denominator becomes inevitable. I can't imagine a personality like Drake in today's Western state with its all powerful bureaucracy. Max Weber was right. It is not Marx's alienation of labour from production and ownership of 'making something' which causes social discord and revolution. It is the imposition of unaccountable layers of bureaucracy which dissociates people from the real world, from living, from trying, failing and trying again; and from real culture. Weber's analysis from 1890 is eerily prescient and applicable to the leviathan of today's state.

The small government structure of Britain only achieved; a scientific revolution, the Industrial 'revolution'; an agricultural revolution; engineering wonders, the creation of modern sewage and water systems; modern orphanages, hospitals and welfare systems; constitutional democracy; and the defence of freedom in 3 world wars. Not bad. Add to this the destruction of slavery – the only time in history a state has warred against the oldest profession, that of capturing other humans and putting them to work. As Crocker elucidates, the British war against slavery was a major impetus for colonialism. The British spent in today's money, tens of billions of pounds and lost upwards of 10.000 men in fighting human slavery from Brazil, to the Moslem states; to India. It took the British most of the 19^th century to stop the cargo in humans. In the mid 1830s as Crocker relates, almost 1/3 of a British national budget was spent to free slaves in the West Indies by buying their freedom and paying off their owners. I don't remember a Moslem state doing the same.

“..between 1530 and 1780, roughly concurrent with the Atlantic slave trade, the Muslim Barbary pirates enslaved more than a million white Christians Europeans. In Africa, slavery was a long-standing domestic industry, and Europeans slavers tapped into it.”

In actual fact some 10 million Whites were taken into slavery over 1000 years by Arabs, and Moslems, including the Ottomans. No one cries over this today. No one is asking the Moslems and Arabs for reparations. Why is that?

One of the best parts of the book is Crocker's history of the British in India. An enterprise which any objective observer knows, benefited India rather grandly. The terms of trade for the English were negative by the high point of Victoria's reign. Huge quantities of capital were invested by the English in railroads, roads, schools, hospitals, the civil service, ports, agriculture and manufacturing. The once profitable trade with India was dry by 1880. The Indians were exporting vast cargoes of cotton and calicoes, along with other items such as spices and lower cost manufactures back to the mother country. Given this reality India was 'growing up' and at some point would assume independence. Some of the personalities involved in the 'conquering' of India include:

-Sir Robert Clive [the first conqueror of India]

“In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the British population in India hovered at about 100.000, compared to more than 250 million Indians. The British believed they ruled in India not only by power...but by force of personality.....and British justice, decency, and fair play, which justified the entire endeavour.”

-Sir Charles Napier [an Irishman who conquered the Sind]

“Imposing the British Christian value on women...was not easy: 'There is only one crime I cannot put down – wife killing! They think to kill a cat or dog is wrong, but I have hanged at least six for killing women: on the slightest quarrel she is chopped to pieces..I will hang 200 unless they stop.”

-George Curzon

“Curzon wanted to leave the Indian civilisation alone and govern through the British Raj and the native aristocracy. In this, he felt, there was stability, order, and a hope for continuity and permanence...He built more railroads than any other governor-general...He advanced agrarian reforms...He promoted massive new irrigation projects....He toured every hospital he could find, generally pleased at the efforts of British doctors and civil servants and unimpressed by the fatalistic attitude of native Indian officials.”

The British controlled India because their civilization was superior. India today would be far worse off without the British legacy. When India was carved up between the Moslems [Pakistan] and the rest [India]; slaughter and war was inevitable.

“Winston Churchill had warned that an independent India would degenerate into communal carnage: he was right. Hardened British officers....found themselves unable to stomach the sadistic mutilations and mass murders that followed independence and partition....not even Gandhi survived the chaos he helped unleash; he was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.”

True enough. Millions were killed and displaced. Today, Pakistan's main geo-strategic imperative is the reduction of India and the demolition of Hindus. Maybe empire is not so bad after all. The most successful states in the world follow the British model with Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand being former colonies. So much for 'failure'.

More on Crocker's important work to follow.