RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Back

UK's cult of the state - Recent Articles

Thatcher the Great. A truly inspiring figure.

Daughter of a grocer who changed the world.

Bookmark and Share

 It is not an exaggeration to state that Churchill-Reagan-John Paul II and Thatcher were the giants of the last quarter of the 20th century in geo-politics. The big 4 did more than any other 'quadrumvirate' to save and expand Western civilization. Arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, premised on ad-hominems and a-historical and rather absurd Marxist rewriting. The world would be far worse off without these 4 leaders. It tells a lot about a person whether or not they support these 4 and admire them for their skill and leadership - or detest them.

Paul Johnson a British historian and former Thatcher speech-writer, calls her the most trans-formative female leader since Catherine the Great [link]. This is undoubtedly accurate. Oddly feminists, 'progressives', and those who detest old-white [especially Christian] men, loathe Thatcher. Her reforms saved Britain from bankruptcy, and she was able to keep the clutches of the [z]Euro zone and its self-imploding currency off of the UK.

Thatcher reinforced this essential improvement by a revolutionary simplification of the tax system, reducing a score or more "bands" to two and lowering the top rates from 83% (earned income) and 98% (unearned) to the single band of 40%.

She also reduced Britain's huge and loss-making state-owned industries, nearly a third of the economy, to less than one-tenth, by her new policy of privatization—inviting the public to buy from the state industries, such as coal, steel, utilities and transport by bargain share offers. Hence loss-makers, funded from taxes, became themselves profit-making and so massive tax contributors.

This transformation was soon imitated all over the world. More important than all these specific changes, however, was the feeling Thatcher engendered that Britain was again a country where enterprise was welcomed and rewarded, where businesses small and large had the benign blessing of government, and where investors would make money.

As a result Britain was soon absorbing more than 50% of all inward investment in Europe, the British economy rose from the sixth to the fourth largest in the world, and its production per capita, having been half that of Germany's in the 1970s, became, by the early years of the 21st century, one-third higher..”

All true. It was a remarkable resurgence. Britain in 1980 looked to be on a sure path to insolvency. 20 years later the City of London was a financial centre akin to New York, and by 2000, British firms were again competitive. Thatcher's peace-time transformation of Britain was as important as Churchill's war-time leadership. Even in war she was decisive. The Falklands War saved 2000 British subjects from the miserable tyranny of a morally repulsive and culturally degenerate Argentina. Today the UK would probably not fight the Falklands, preferring to pen furious letters of indignation at the Useless Nations Assembly, or protest in the op-ed pages of the MSM. Hot air and verbal-vomit cum rhetoric is so much easier than the hard work of action.

Thatcher made many mistakes as does any human. She handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese Communist Party without proper safeguards for its democracy or citizens – a wrong she never admitted to. She supported and funded the cult of globaloneywarming, later recanting and apostasizing but the damage has been done. This cult is now trying to take over political and economic processes in every major state. Insiders said that near the end of her career she was somewhat imperious and too dominating. Power does indeed corrode if not corrupt. The poll tax on over-taxed Britons was a fiasco. But on the big issues – freedom, responsibility, private charity, removing the curse of UK socialism, destroying the power base of Communist supporting Unions, avoiding the rank hypocrisy and communalization which swept Europe, eschewing the Euro, building up the military, forming a positive and mature relationship with the US, projecting force and power abroad, standing up for Western and British virtues – she was right and that is why she is great. 

Crocker's 'Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire', part 2. Africa

A good example of why post-modern analysis of the BE is so bizarre.

Bookmark and Share

 I couldn't help but wondering what Niall Ferguson, whose 'modest, unpretentious' book I am reading is called 'Civilization', and who makes the often, implausible and unsourced claim that the Chinese invented pretty much of everything, would make of the following phrase by Crocker, in his 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire', [reviewed here]:

The irony of the British Empire in Africa is that while it started with slave ships tapping into the millennium-old slave trade of the Dark Continent, Britain became the most powerful force in the world for ending slavery and the slave trade, and the anti-slaving campaign drove the expansion of the British Empire.” [p. 189]

Rather obvious. This fact sends the cultural self-loathing Obamatrons into limp wristed hissy fits of spitting and self-flagellation. How dare the British Empire do anything right? Ending slavery! Oh please didn't the Chinese do that first pace Ferguson?

The British conquered Africa because they had better technology, vaccines, medicine, modern organizational methods, private capital, a market system, independence of character and initiative; a cultural superiority and a supremacy in institutions and political-economic governance. Not to mention self-confidence and a modernizing, industrializing economy. If Ferguson's list of apocryphal Chinese inventions [the usual tired list, blast furnaces circa 10.000 B.C., iron smelting (he might have forgotten about the iron age in Europe), printing, toilet paper, golf....] was really true, it would have been the 300 foot junks of Admiral He and not the literally hundreds of British ships and sea captains, which would have mapped and then quested to conquer a huge, forbidding land-mass. Something in Ferguson's narrative does not make sense. Any society that created 'everything' would also be the first to explore and develop Africa. It is a lot simpler given the monsoon rains and winds to sail from east to west to reach Africa, then to brazen it out going north south and then south to north east to reach the Zanzibar coast, the most hospitable landing point on the Dark part of that Continent.

It wasn't the Chinese 'mining' genius which unearthed diamonds and gold, it was the British who began to use their technology and techniques to turn the African backwater hinterland, into a part of civilisation:

In addition, in southern Africa the British unearthed diamonds and gold; in eastern Africa they established farms and ranches; in northern Africa they took command of the Suez Canal; and everywhere in Africa they were motivated by something else: a desire for discovery – most famously, to find the source of the Nile.”

Fancy that. Self-confident men and women searching for profit, adventure, personal and social gain; to convert the 'natives' to cvilisation; and to find out truth and reality, such as the main spring of the Nile. According to Ferguson the Chinese had already done this is Africa, at least 2500 years before the hairy, stupid Briton, in his small raft stumbled on the beach at Cape Town gaping in stupidity at the cultural magnificence of local Zulu society.

Crocker goes through a small list of British individuals who changed the course of history and brought a superior civilisation to Africa. A fact which offends everyone who 'knows' that the British Empire was nothing but an evil imposition of an inferior form of social development on superior native customs and mores:

-Wolseley in 1873-4 leading a small force of British regulars and defeating the Ashanti along the poorly named Gold Coast or West Africa securing naval bases, free trade with the Ashanti and access to the Niger. The Gold Coast was formerly annexed in the 1890s.

-Lugard brought serious and honest Victorian governance as well as investment to the Gold Coast. Hospitals, roads, railways and mines were developed under Lugard and the British greatly benefiting both the ruled and the rulers. The area was governed through local councils and elections – something unique to the West African experience.

-Livingston in central Africa, preaching the gospel of commerce, Christianity and civilization. One of the most interesting and avid of Britain's cultural heroes in Africa.

-Chelmsford destroying the Zulu state which had preyed upon both Dutch and British farmers and possessions and had engaged in a long litany of unprovoked and savage attacks on both civilian and military targets. Chelmsford's victory removed the only obstacle between a Dutch and British clash in Southern Africa.

-Cecil Rhodes and others who both forced Britain into the Boer war, and helped her win it. Rhodes was the quintessential imperialist who believed in Britain's divine right to rule and in her civilizing mission. I doubt he is taught anymore in school.

-General Gordon stopping slavery in Egypt and the Sudan. He was murdered by Moslems in Khartoum. A crime paid back by the decisive British victory in 1898 at Omdurman by Kitchener against the Moslem Dervishes [the Dervishes were Sufists who followed a 12th century Afghan-Moslem cult of superstition and mysticism which included dancing in a trance].

Most don't know that in Southern Africa Britain defended the rights of Blacks to both own land and vote in Dutch and British territory. This was something that the Dutch Boers wanted no part of. The British were great agriculturalists which benefited the local population, many of whom worked as free men on the estates and would later become proprietors. In Kenya and Rhodesia, for the first time in African history, large well managed and irrigated plantations started to produce a variety of saleable and even exportable crop. Tea, coffee, vegetables, fruits and other products were grown en masse.

Throughout Africa the British invested about 5% of their GDP annually into infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, roads, rail-lines, government buildings, law courts, and the infrastructure of a modern political-economy slowly developed on the Dark Continent. One supposes that the Chinese had done this long before the era of Rome. After all they must have invented the infrastructure of the modern world.

Crocker goes into some detail about the British involvement in Africa. It is hard to make the claim that Africa is better off without Britain has the colonial master of must of its territory. Moslem 'extremists' are now in power in North Africa and Egypt. Arab Moslems slaughter darker-skinned non-Moslems in the Sudan – something a modern day Gordon would not tolerate. Somalia is a Moslem wasteland as are vast tracts of Nigeria, Mali, and central Africa.

Only a few states in Africa are 'normal' and function to modern standards. African troubles have little to do with Western or whitey-imperialism. Corruption, the wrong culture, violence, intolerance, tribal hatreds, Islam and other distortions have wasted the $2 Trillion sent by the White world to the Dark Continent. This is the fault of Africa post colonialism.

The post-modern paternalistic racism namely; send Blacks money out of guilt and because 'we' the Western elite feel that they are too ignorant to understand how to build a modern political-economy, has no echo in British imperialism. The Victorians had a mission but not a racist theology. They ended slavery, had a belief that Africans were just as good as anyone else if given a chance at civilization, and developed Africa as much out of a mission to bring a better world to the Dark Continent, as from the baser motives of profit, greed, blood-lust and power. Africa since 1965 has not improved. Witness Zimbabwe or Rhodesia. Maybe there is something good in imperialism after all. Even Niall Ferguson might agree with that. This is why Crocker's book is such a good read. 

Book Review, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire', by H.W. Crocker III

A necessary antidote.

Bookmark and Share

 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 12th 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 19th 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.