Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Horribly disappointed in DC
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 31, 2007

That would be Daniel Froomkin concerning new British PM Gordon Brown and his refusal to "distance himself" from President Bush:
Anyone who expected the new British prime minister to distance himself from President Bush today — at least in public — would have been sorely disappointed.

"The United Kingdom and the United States work in a partnership that I believe will strengthen in the years to come," Gordon Brown said today as he stood alongside Bush at a brief press conference at Camp David.

"I would describe Gordon Brown as a principled man who really wants to get something done," Bush said.

It was almost as if, for Bush, Tony Blair was still there singing backup.
Much of the Washington press corps had been absolutely salivating over the possibility, no, check that, the probability that Brown would repudiate that "special relationship" between the US and UK and announce he planned to withdraw British troops from Iraq, or so some claim Brown's staff had lead them to believe. The reality was anything but that. The disappointment, as they say, was palpable.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
A juicy bit of political theatre denied them, I am sure that editors the world over are annoyed today. I am equally sure they will trumpet some other insignificant story as a world-shaking event tomorrow.

As I said in an earlier thread the relationship continues and will do so in some form or another. Remember when Clinton and Blair were best buddies? The same crowd who were salivating at a fall-out between Brown and Bush said that Blair and Bush could never work together. Whatever ideological differences may separate them it must always be remembered that politicians are first and foremost politicians and that means they always have a lot more in common than the public expects or sees.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Kav is right, anyone who has followed the Anglo-American relationship since Suez knows that it transcends personalities. The subtext is interesting too — in essence the British are able to turn over authority to the Iraqis and leave at their own timetable, without criticism from President Bush. Brown gets what he wants, and doesn’t have to do anything self-defeating like creating unnecessary distance between the UK and US. Also, don’t forget that the White House diplomatic effort with Europe took a volte-face in 2005 going from the "cowboy" style diplomacy to a sophisticated and very competent mending of bridges and re-building of partnerships on the continent. I believe this has been noticed in Europe far more than in the US.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I was surprised that Brown was so direct in associating himself with Bush. My long-term take on the UK is basically "that’s not your father’s UK," and that it was on the brink of being subsumed into European anti-Americanism, at last.

Culturally the UK is wreckage (see Theodore Dalrymple on that question). Internationally, it is headed toward kitten status.

But perhaps the seemingly sudden awareness that UK Muslims are producing home-grown terror cells and that Brit multi-culturalism is a death wish, has stirred some latter day longing for continuing the friendship with the American cowboy.

Or maybe said desire for continuity comes in anticipation of the next U.S. election and the arrival on the scene of the American dominatrix, and the sort of relationship that U.K. elites more readily appreciate.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb writes:
don’t forget that the White House diplomatic effort with Europe took a volte-face in 2005 going from the "cowboy" style diplomacy to a sophisticated and very competent mending of bridges and re-building of partnerships on the continent. I believe this has been noticed in Europe far more than in the US.
It was certainly noticed in France, Boris, which elected its own version of a cowboy in the aftermath of having Parisian suburbs laid siege to by rioting Muslims. As thin, and probably ultimately insignificant, a development as that is, it didn’t come about because the U.S. was being "nicer" in its diplomacy.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
headed toward kitten status
I assumed you mean where most (maybe all) of Europe already is.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Neo writes in response to my comment that the UK is headed, internationally, "toward kitten status":
I assumed you mean where most (maybe all) of Europe already is.
Uh huh. And enjoying free rider status on the American defense dime, all the while complaining about the (generic) American cowboy.

My position is that the UK is finished, and when European elitists bring in the next wave of the EU, it will be washed out to sea and never seen again. Let them prove me wrong. I’ll be happy if they do.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Culturally the UK is wreckage (see Theodore Dalrymple on that question). Internationally, it is headed toward kitten status.
LOL, I enjoyed that.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
enjoying free rider status on the American defense dime
What about that exit strategy for World War II ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
What about that exit strategy for World War II ?
We’re still working that out in Germany and Japan.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Much of the Washington press corps had been absolutely salivating over the possibility, no, check that, the probability that Brown would repudiate that "special relationship" between the US and UK and announce he planned to withdraw British troops from Iraq, or so some claim Brown’s staff had lead them to believe. The reality was anything but that. The disappointment, as they say, was palpable.
While I don’t doubt your initial premise, McQ, it should be noticed that there are some salient separations that should substantiate the association of Bush and Brown that they would not be swapping spit in the shower.
Brown, a low-key Scotsman who succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister last month, appeared less effusive than Bush - perhaps mindful of the political perils at home of seeming too close to the American president.

While he thanked Bush for his hospitality, he did not discuss their personal relationship, focusing instead on what he described as the shared commitment in Britain and the United States to liberty and human dignity - values, he suggested, that transcend any individual leader.

The British leader did not hide his differences with the president, describing Afghanistan as "the front line against terrorism" - contradicting Bush’s frequent claim that Iraq is the "central front" in that battle.

While Bush spoke passionately of terrorists as "evil," Brown spoke of terrorism as "a crime." While Bush has placed blame for the violence in Iraq solely on al-Qaida - he mentioned the terrorist group 95 times in a single speech about Iraq last week - Brown tried to put it in context: "In Iraq, you’re dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you’re dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you’re certainly dealing with a large number of al-Qaida terrorists."

Brown avoided using the phrase "war on terror" in describing the effort to hunt down and defeat Islamic radicals. He referred to terrorism "as a crime" and "not a cause," though he went on to say, "there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism."

On Iraq, both leaders sidestepped potential differences, saying they would wait until their commanders in the field report to them this fall before making any decisions on further troop redeployments.
And in my belief, it’s for the better.

Cheers.


And Martin,
Culturally the UK is wreckage… Internationally, it is headed toward kitten status.

My position is that the UK is finished,…
And I’m sure that they would be thrilled to no end, to learn of the support from their brothers-in-arms consisting of being branded “finished” and “kittens”.
Well, if that’s the way you talk about our friends, then I should prepare my pallet for the distaste that you have of our enemies.

If you wish to retain the fraternal relationship between the US and GB, I suggest you knock that sh*t off. You’re not doing us any favors.

Particularly because you are most probably wrong.

Read a little history, man. That little island nation has weathered more than a few storms in her day, and has consistently remained to write the story. Surviving scores of larger, stronger nations. So you’ll forgive me if I take your little anxious tirade to be incredulous sheepsh*t.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
While I don’t doubt your initial premise, McQ,...
Well I can’t tell you how relieved I am that you validated my initial premise, Pogue. I will sleep better tonight knowing that, my friend, especially since that was the premise of the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well I can’t tell you how relieved I am that you validated my initial premise, Pogue. I will sleep better tonight knowing that, my friend, especially since that was the premise of the post.
Your sarcasm tests shallow, my friend.

What, no comment on the differences between the two leaders?
Or is it all about the embarrassment of the Washington Press Corps? Well congratulations, I’m sure your well aimed clout will knock them down a peg and further your own glory. That’s not like you, McQ.

Well, …actually it is.
Nevermind what fruit of the differences between the two leaders may yield, it’s all about getting those bastards in the MSM.

Isn’t it?

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
What, no comment on the differences between the two leaders?
My goodness, Pogue, that was the entire focus pre-meeting.

The story is about what was anticipated not transpiring. That there were differences was never in question.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What was that romantic comedy where the Brit PM basically tells the US president off in a press conference? Total fantasy.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Pogue comments on my comment that the "UK is finished":
Read a little history, man. That little island nation has weathered more than a few storms in her day, and
The UK started into its decline after WWI. By the mid-1930s it had itself in a position where appeasement of Hitler played a major role in bringing on WWII. At the end of WWII it gave up most of its empire and maintained the thin pretense of a "commonwealth." The victory of the Labour Party at the end of WWII led to nationalization of major sectors of its economy, a horrible situation from which it was later somewhat extracted by Thatcher, but today’s Labour Party has visited a disasterous multiculturalism on British society. Blair decimated the British navy. Their armed forces are still taut, but the British people have lost their sense of obligation in the world, principally because Labour concepts have swept in pacifism and anti-Americanism (and not for the first time—see, the Vietnam era). The UK has shown some resistance to the EU, but that thing, currently napping, is a relentless force still, and my money is on the UK, at some point, simply being rolled into it and losing its identity for good.

And that’s before we get to the general problems of Europe, the most prominent of which is its demographic collapse.

So, pay attention. This is not your father’s UK. I would like to be wrong about all this, but the fate of the UK seems to be locked in. And despite Brown’s cheery support of Bush the other day, I doubt that we’ll be seeing too much more of the UK around the old neighborhood when the going gets tough.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Let us dissect that ill-informed diatribe shall we.
The UK started into its decline after WWI. By the mid-1930s it had itself in a position where appeasement of Hitler played a major role in bringing on WWII.
I suggest a little spinning is to be detected here. Do you think WWII would not have happened if Chamberlain (fool that he was) had not attempted appeasement?
At the end of WWII it gave up most of its empire and maintained the thin pretense of a "commonwealth.
And this was a bad thing? Surely self determination for those countries should be applauded. Admittedly, I know that the UK could have handled most of the breakup of Empire much better than it did but on the whole it was better for us and for the rest of the world that Empire ceased to be and by retaining a commonwealth we ensured more friendly relations with countries that had grassroots bitterness towards the UK imperialism retaining their friendship and valuable alliances. I believe that it was only Aden and Burma that declined to join the Commonwealth upon gaining independence. Several of the protectorates chose not to also.

Your dismissal of the commonwealth shows how little you understand of what it was and the economic benefits for members that were in place through the second half of the 20th Century. Times and markets change, however.


I should note that although the Empire truly dissolved post-world war 2, the commonwealth began before that time with former colonies such as Canada and Australia. This was a good thing since when hostilities did break-out with Germany in 1939, our special relationship with our commonwealth brethren meant that they came to our aid straight away.
...but today’s Labour Party has visited a disasterous multiculturalism on British society
Back to school to learn some history boy! As much as I despise the Blair government you cannot hang the blame for multi-culturalism on them. Do you honestly believe that this problem started in 1997? if so you are more naive than your writing led me to believe. Immigration from former colonies and commonwealth states started in the 1950s and has never stopped even though rules have varied over the years. We have added to that with EU residents and asylum seekers - the latter being handled via a shambolic system.Growing up in the 1980s I was aware of the distinct multi-cultural society we had; different communities existing within, yet separate from, the greater British community (which by the way is something of a myth itself and always has been). In 1995 when I started at University (2 years before Blair got his grubby paws on the levers of power) I witnessed inter-racial clashes between communities of Indians and Pakistanis who hated each other and lived in different quarters of the city - never going to mix.

Right now, I embrace our immigration policy. For the first time in years we can get good quality building work done on time for reasonable rates; it helps if you speak a little Polish.
Blair decimated the British navy.
... following on from Thatcher’s lead. Your spinning is quite impressive. The degradation of the armed forces started under Thatcher and in particular the scrapping of our air-craft carriers. This was in response to the thinking that conventional forces were of less importance in the cold war environment. Blair finished a job started by the woman who saw him as her natural successor. On a brighter note, the new air-craft carriers that are under construction are a good sign. Now if we could only make the government see the sense in expanding the army instead of merging regiments.
but the British people have lost their sense of obligation in the world, principally because Labour concepts have swept in pacifism and anti-Americanism
And who tells us what our obligation should be, you? I tend to shy away from personal insults on line and have privately despaired when reading recent comments on QandO that seem to reach straight for the personal attacks. Now I find myself adding to the mire because I feel that I have to say that you are by far and away a pretentious arse.

So Labour concepts have swept in pacifism and anti-Americanism have they. Damn that Tony Blair for pushing that anti-Americanism on us. If only we had realised that was what he was doing. Or perhaps I am being unfair, perhaps you mean that because Labour took a firm stance allying itself to America in the Iraq adventure the British public has embraced anti-Americanism in reaction? Is this the same way that Brush has encouraged a tide of pacifism amongst the numerous folk in America who want out of Iraq? Its funny to me that when anti-war rallies took place in the UK I often heard how few people were actually attending and how it was clearly unrepresentative of the British feeling. Now I hear otherwise, in fact they are the future; dirty, stinking pacifists.

(and not for the first time—see, the Vietnam era)
Hmmm, so pacifism and ant-Americanism swept in to the UK and then things changed. So the course wasn’t ’locked’ then? Interesting. Oh and its a good job that during the Vietnam war there was about 9 years of Conservative rule where we sent our boys to back you up thus demonstrating that this was clearly a left/right issue and no other considerations were involved. I do apologise now that we failed in our ’sense of obligation’ to join that war. Especially after we had enjoyed Korea so much.
So, pay attention. This is not your father’s UK.
Ah, but in some ways it is getting closer to that. With the proposed introduction of ID cards you should be happy as we are returning to a pre-1960s society. Of course this is not your father’s UK. Just as your father’s UK was not your grandfather’s UK. What pretentious twaddle you peddle. Read some history as Pogue suggests and then maybe learn from it. The world was not frozen in character before the 21st century.
And despite Brown’s cheery support of Bush the other day, I doubt that we’ll be seeing too much more of the UK around the old neighborhood when the going gets tough.
Hah, it sounds like a re-run of 2001 when stupid people with small minds and little political acumen were predicting that the our relationship with the US would falter and fail because of the opposing professed ideologies of Blair and Bush. It seems that with your fear of change comes a desperation to repeat history.

I doubt that we’ll be seeing too much more of the UK around the old neighborhood when the going gets tough
I guess it all depends on why we need to go out into the neighbourhood. here I will concede something for you; you are right that it is Labour’s fault that there is opposition to the Iraq war in this country (I am no fan of it either) but i doubt that it is because of the reasons you think.

I am the first to acknowledge (and bemoan) the myriad faults in British society. Just ask my wife who has to listen to me. Your talk about our ’fate being locked in’ is such rot I find it hard to believe that you are serious. Have you seen the trend in recent elections? We are hardly a nation at ease with Labour control and since the party that is still the main opposition is the Conservatives one can hardly say that we are doomed to follow your pre-ordained path. It is as ludicrous as those folk who shout that Iraq is doomed and the surge cannot work without even giving it a chance. Prognostication based upon the wisdom dripping from their anus.


When I lived in the US I always got the impression from the folks I spoke to that they knew that, for all its faults, they lived in the best god-damned country in the world. I was impressed by this but at the same time I was a little sad for them. You see I know that they are wrong; I live there now.

 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Some idiot, apparently from the UK, dissembled:
Let us dissect that ill-informed diatribe shall we.
Yes, if the U.K. (or France) had been resolute about the Nazis by the mid-30s, Hitler could have been stopped. Chamberlain’s appeasement was the end-stage of that passivity. And you see what it got you. Though much credit to Churchill for rallying the place.

Whether the Empire was good or bad, it was over after WWII. And the UK as a serious world power, well, shrank to the significance of a camp aide to the U.S.

Whether or not Thatcher began the decimation of the Royal Navy, Blair has finished the job.

And I’m not referring to immigration to the U.K. from the colonies when I talk about the disasterous multiculturalism, I’m referring to multiculturalism as a cultural policy. And if that began pre-1997, it doesn’t make any difference, Labour has exacerbated the problem. The U.K. has suffered a loss of identity, and if you want to spread the blame around, be my guest.

Along with the triumph of the therapeutic society, multiculturalism is end-stage dissolution.

As for the "special relationship," it’s become about as special as having grandpa living in the guest bungalow.

And when I say "this is not your father’s U.K.," I’m saying that this is barely anything recognizably the U.K. The U.K. is finished. I’d love to be proven wrong; I seriously doubt that I will be.

As for your Conservative Party, which you reference as some sort of potential salvation from Labour, it’s job, if it gains power, will be to keep the rubble burning and argue about whether the fire is getting too hot here, or too smokey there.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Some idiot, apparently from the UK, dissembled:
Ooh, I am hurt. Stung by your words and cut to the quick.

Now lets look at the little shifting and spinning you have tried now.
Yes, if the U.K. (or France) had been resolute about the Nazis by the mid-30s, Hitler could have been stopped.
When exactly? Before Poland? Would the deal with Stalin never have happened? I am curious to know? I hasten to point out that I am not absolving the appeasers. Who knows maybe if the US had made it known that they would have been annoyed if Hitler decided to annex Europe he might have given up and gone back to Austria. I guess we will just never know.
Whether or not Thatcher began the decimation of the Royal Navy, Blair has finished the job.
A good point, you got me there, oh except this is what was said earlier:
Blair decimated the British navy.
... following on from Thatcher’s lead. Your spinning is quite impressive. The degradation of the armed forces started under Thatcher ... Blair finished a job started by the woman who saw him as her natural successor.
Damn, you got me by essentially repeating a point I made to show how you were dissembling. But spin away.
And I’m not referring to immigration to the U.K. from the colonies when I talk about the disasterous multiculturalism, I’m referring to multiculturalism as a cultural policy. And if that began pre-1997, it doesn’t make any difference, Labour has exacerbated the problem. The U.K. has suffered a loss of identity, and if you want to spread the blame around, be my guest.
And why do think multi-culturalism occurred? That’s right, immigration, and where did they originally come from? Bonus points for getting the former colonies. Without the influx of immigrants multi-culturalism would not have happened because there would have been no-one for it to happen to. It’s called context. Oh and look another shift; originally it was:

...but today’s Labour Party has visited a disasterous multiculturalism on British society
and now it is:
And if that began pre-1997, it doesn’t make any difference, Labour has exacerbated the problem
Look at those shifting sands. The fact that you shift your strong statement that this was visited on the UK by Labour into this weaker stand just demonstrates that you don’t really have much of a clue about the topic you brought up professing some grand knowledge of how things must be. You truly are clueless.

Interestingly the current problems with multi-culturalism are starting to be complemented by a secondary problem. There is a growing dissatisfaction amongst the children (or grandchildren) of immigrants who at first glance seem to be more fully integrated into what one might consider to be ’traditional British society’, not that such a thing exists - unless we are talking feudalism. What has causes this? Not enough space to go into it here but multi-culturalism plays a large role - isolation from a civilization that constantly surrounds you but in which you feel is another world away has to have a poisonous effect on some people. But not all, otherwise we would be seeing a lot more explosions.
The U.K. has suffered a loss of identity, and if you want to spread the blame around, be my guest.
Has it really? Or has it’s identity changed? As you say the Empire is no more, that and of itself leads to a change in identity. Should we have clung to Empire just to retain that identity in the face of a changing world? You seem to think so. I think you are naive. Just as the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish and the Austro-Hungarians before us our Empire fell. It is the way history unfolds and I embrace it and try to influence it rather than whining about it like a pansy. You seem to neglect the fact that the UK is not here to fit some idealised version you have of it from watching far too much Masterpiece theatre. It exists to provide a country for me and my country-men to live in. It does its job pretty well, actually although far from perfect (I am yet to own a Bugatyi Veyron). It’s place on the world stage has diminished but as long as it continues to provide a life and functioning economy for those in it then it is fine. One does not have to be a world player to do that. Perhaps it is a good thing, we will be less inclined to impose our will upon other countries for starters. You seem to tie the ability of a nation to continue functioning to some measure of how they stand in the world. No standing seems to equal localised armageddon in your book.

As for the "special relationship," it’s become about as special as having grandpa living in the guest bungalow.
That’s fine then. You don’t have to worry about it. Perhaps yours will be a self fulfilling prophecy - next time you venture into the neighbourhood the UK might not go with you and that would be a good thing from the perspective of the US. If you go to chase off the kids who are spray-painting the front wall you don’t take grandpa with you afterall. The UK is old and toothless so who cares if they are part of any alliance in the future?
And when I say "this is not your father’s U.K.," I’m saying that this is barely anything recognizably the U.K
And I am saying that this holds true for every generation. You cannot see that, OK, I understand; you just demonstrate that you cannot see beyond the end of your own blinkered nose.
At the same time I doubt very much that you even know what the UK was like 10, 30, 50 years ago let alone today. You are simply making noise. It sounds like a whoopee cushion.
As for your Conservative Party, which you reference as some sort of potential salvation from Labour, it’s job, if it gains power, will be to keep the rubble burning and argue about whether the fire is getting too hot here, or too smokey there.
Ooh, nice rhetoric. Salvation is your choice I would say difference. You see, I am not happy with Labour but then the Conservatives were a shambles by the end of their last turn in office. The point is to have a change of direction that can then be corrected again in the future. I wonder whether you have stopped to consider the beam in your own eye, by the way. Take a look around you; America is a wonderful country filled with many wonderful people, yet there is still an undercurrent of dissatisfaction. It seems more split along ideological lines now than ever before (though I could be wrong) and the strong moral compass that always seemed to be on display to the rest of the world seems to be wobbling around all over the place. But that will change.

My point in addressing your comments so far is to point out to you and anyone else still reading this thread that you clearly don’t actually understand what it is you are talking about beyond a superficial gloss of received wisdom. I could almost believe that you have an overseas subscription to the Daily Mail. Yes Britain has problems, that is clear to anyone with eyes, and one problem is (or has been) the current Labour government coupled to an overly PC attitude; however where you see despair and decay I see opportunities for rebirth and growth. I’m the one living in it and seeing our society close up everyday and so I trust my perspective more than I do yours which seems to be driven more from an anti-left bias and some notion of ’what Britain should be’ (which appears to be focused at some point in mid 1800s).

 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Some goddamned fool wrote:
When exactly? Before Poland?
Re-occupation of the Rhineland, moron, behind the force of treaty.
But spin away.
Has the Royal Navy been decimated, or not, and did Blair finish the job, or not?
And why do think multi-culturalism occurred? That’s right, immigration,
Ah, no, multiculturalism is a cultural policy. It begins with a failure to assimilate immigrants. Then it becomes a policy of accomodation, like what you have with your Muslim enclaves. See Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan.
And I am saying that this holds true for every generation.
Again, when I say that this is "not your father’s UK" I’m not talking about mere generational change, I’m talking about the dissolution of a culture, its traditions, and its identity. When the time is right, and that will come quite shortly in historical terms, the UK will cease to be. The most likely "exit strategy" will be into the EU graveyard.

Now, there are titterings that hint at some sort of Brit re-awakening. I encourage them, but I’m not getting my hopes up beyond a general hope to be proved wrong, which I do not think will happen.
It is the way history unfolds and I embrace it and try to influence it rather than whining about it like a pansy.
Ah, pal, you talk like a man with a paper a**hole. And one of the ways "history unfolds" is that great nations, like the UK was, and even entire civilizations, like the West, decline and disintegrate, generally through an act of suicide.
the Empire is no more, that and of itself leads to a change in identity. Should we have clung to Empire just to retain that identity in the face of a changing world?
The loss of Empire refers to the diminished international status following the onset of decline after WWI. The loss of identity, marginally related to Empire, is mainly self-inflicted — through socialism, cultural Marxism (aforesaid multi-culti obsession and advanced political correctness), and a general inversion of common sense (such as putting a farmer in prison for defending his home against a home invasion and then refusing him parole because he is a continuing danger to burglars). Socialism cut the UK’s throat economically, right at the point when it needed to rally on that score. Cultural Marxism cut the UK’s throat culturally, when tradition and honor were needed to rally British society. Instead, you got the therapeutic model, in which everyone is a patient of the state, in a far greater sense than a patient of the NHS.

These are not simply British phenomenon. They are Western, and more or less affect every Western nation including the U.S. The UK is the most advanced case, as I see it. And I don’t see all the Queen’s horses and all the Queen’s men putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Europe as a whole is in demographic collapse, and the EU, which is currently stalled out, will roll back in like the tide and finish the job of disintegrating Europe under the pretense of integrating it.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Sadly I have reached my self-imposed limit of ’maximum of 3 responses to morons’.
Has the Royal Navy been decimated, or not, and did Blair finish the job, or not?
You again fail to get my point. I never disputed that Blair has helped screw the military. You can see my actual words in the comments above - the beautiful thing about the written word, but it never fails to stop idiots from accusing folk of saying something they didn’t. Especially on-line. OK, Last time, you either ignorantly, or dishonestly, tried to spin it as a Labour/lefty issue: Blair came in and destroyed the navy. I pointed out that in actual fact I agreed that the RN had been screwed up but that it was a bi-partisan screwing. My point was that your initial attempt to paint it as solely Blair’s fault was wrong. Do you see now?
Ah, no, multiculturalism is a cultural policy. It begins with a failure to assimilate immigrants. Then it becomes a policy of accomodation, like what you have with your Muslim enclaves. See Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan.
LOL. Oh that is beautiful, I joke that you must have a subscription to the Daily Mail and you come back with a reference to Melanie Phillip’s (noted Daily Mail columnist) book. That is too rich; I am sorry but Phillips has limited currency with me. Friends in London acknowledge the problems that exist but tell me they are not even sure she lives there given her view of the city. Her columns are full of rubbish on all manner of subjects though she does sometimes get things right. But then you know what they say about a stopped clock. My point is that the policy of multi-culturalism (which was driven initially in many respects by a laissez-faire attitude to the influx of new citizens) was adopted because of the increased immigration. No immigrant = no need for a policy to deal with them. OK? Now you originally said:
but today’s Labour Party has visited a disasterous multiculturalism on British society
my point was to highlight how far back the policy of multi-culturalism (or even a lack of any policy to deal with the assimilation of immigrants) goes. It gives lie to your pinning this solely on the Labour party. Yours was political spin or ignorance and I wished to highlight that. I have done so. Multi-culturalism is a mistake. Religious freedom is one thing as is the right to retain some cultural identity but the question becomes how do you force people into accepting that to come to the UK you have to adopt a certain way of life? It is difficult but not impossible. Your problem is that you pronounce doom and gloom and sound like a Democrat talking about the surge in Iraq: ’It has been a disaster so far, it is all going to fail, there is no victory in sight we might as well give up now, I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am’.
Again, when I say that this is "not your father’s UK" I’m not talking about mere generational change, I’m talking about the dissolution of a culture, its traditions, and its identity.
And you are talking rot. I start to see the problem. You are taking your lead from Phillips and others like her who have a London-centric view of the UK and in fact have a warped view at that. First lesson, London is not the UK, it is not even England, it is one city therein.
I am curious though, what traditions have we lost? how do you define the culture we are now missing. You speak in broad generalities and clichés but offer no substance or facts.
Ah, pal, you talk like a man with a paper a**hole. And one of the ways "history unfolds" is that great nations, like the UK was, and even entire civilizations, like the West, decline and disintegrate, generally through an act of suicide.
Hmm, paper a**hole, not heard that one before, just looked it up in teh urban dictionary. Very good, though based on your scribblings so far, back at you, pal. So based on your own assessment how and when will the inevitable decline of the US (or indeed the whole west) occur? And why have you not crawled up in your little hole to cry and wait for it since nothing can be done?

I am done here except to point out a tangential issue that you raise:
such as putting a farmer in prison for defending his home against a home invasion and then refusing him parole because he is a continuing danger to burglars
This is nice sleight of hand reaching for an emotive issue. The problem is that you leave out important contextual information. The society that has such common sense failure as to jail Tony Martin for defending his property (small point though, he was jailed for murder - that was the crime he was convicted of) is also the society that reduced his conviction to manslaughter (on grounds of diminished responsibility). Instead of life, he served 3 years and was released. Not unreasonable considering that Martin’s problem was that he shot the burglars as they were fleeing after being confronted - it was not self defence. As to the decisions of the parole board, well I was not there so I cannot comment on why they refused his application. I am afraid that my sympathy for Martin’s plight waned somewhat when he endorsed the BNP and attended a few National Front meetings. It almost makes me feel that the jury was right that he actually killed the burglar more because of who he was than what he was doing.


Anyway, I tell you what. Since this is my final reply to you let us go out on a high note. To save you writing more crap I will concede that your impressive statements backed up by the wealth of facts that you have supplied have trumped my objections clearly showing that you have been right all along. I shall now wait for the coming apocalypse, break out my German and French dictionaries and mewl like a kitten.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
How is Martin McPhillips setting himself up as an ethical, moral voice when he once broke his girlfriend’s jaw in anger and then blamed her for provoking it?
 
Written By: Conscience
URL: http://
Great Britain - 200 years behind the rest of the world and working half days to catch up. But there has never been a truer ally to the US!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider