The fatal mistake of the British Empire

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

British Empire fell due to liberal policies. Britain was never going to maintain rule over non-white regions like India, Malaysia, and Africa in the long run. They were always going to become self-aware and eventually achieve independence.

They could however maintain control over the white regions and maintain a man-continental union of anglosphere countries.

A grand union of England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They would have one currency, one official language, and one navy. The united empire would be ruled from London by a senate of Canadians, Scots, anglos, Irishmen, New Zealanders, and Australians.

This confederated empire would've remained a world power to this day. However, apart from the efforts of Cecil Rhodes, the British elites never took this approach seriously. Even more catastrophically, their liberal economic policy allowed money to flow into the US, and mass British immigration went to the US as well.

5 million Britons and 4.5 million Irishmen emigrated to the US between 1820 and 1930. This had the disastrous effect of building up the US as the second-largest white country in the world in terms of population and bulking its economic and military strength in the process.

Britain thus inadvertently built up its own replacement both demographically and economically through its liberal immigration and financial policies.

Had Britain instead banned immigration to the US and funneled those migrants to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, the US would've had 50 million fewer whites by 1939. The British commonwealth would've had 50 million more whites.

The anglosphere(UK, Ireland, Canada, ANZACS) today would have 150 million whites instead of around 100 million. It would have the largest white population in place of the US and would be a world power to rival the US.

Not to mention the fact that it could maintain its own economic sphere behind tariff walls.

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I never thought about it that way. Interesting point.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think that too. I also think that the actual england has way less problems compared to the USA. First of all, they have a functioning religious system, which is the anglican church. Historically, the anglican church was able to mantain hierarchy and build up a strong national identity while implementing the best part of calvinism. Also england banned from the very beginning slavery, allowing for the creation of a stable enviroment even in the colonies (it's not a case that America is leading the destructive process of the european heritage). They had their problems, namely the irish one and the free trade capitalism ideology, but overall England by herself was always way more european than america. It's a shame they managed to pass all the power to america while being trapped in the new americanized anglosphere.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Britain has the most self-hating, degenerate, and conformist population in the entire white world. We always laugh at countries like Sweden, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden has more white nationalists per capita than Britain has.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Britons are the most americanized persons outside of america. They are culturally very close and they are closing to the gap. There are different tendecies in England, a european and nationalistic one, which usually embrace the high church, which is basically catholicism without the Pope, and an atlantic, self-hating and rabidly anti-european one, which used to embrace the low church - now is switching to atheism -, which is essentially congregationalist calvinism . Religion is not just a big part of the social influence, is also the mirror of the society. I think a grand british empire would have embraced the european, hierarchical and traditional path layed down by the high church, while unfortunately nowadays england embraced the path of self destruction and hate against europe laid down by the low church. Schimtt would speak about the land power and the sea power, implying that the capitalistic and pluto-democratic sea power is inherently enemy of the european land power; i'm saying that the british empire was not bound to be a sea power, could have well been a land power by embracing the path i spoke about. Probably schmitt would agree with me; he was extremely catholic as well.

The silver lining is that i don't think Europe can follow the english path exactly because it has a vast catholic majority. I know the pope is gay, but that's a totally different matter..

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm a lapsed Catholic myself and even though I'm not a fan of Catholicism -- or Christianity in general for that matter -- it is true that the Catholic countries seem to be healthier on a variety of cultural issues. I think part of this can be explained by the fact that Protestantism was kind of a liberal heresy to begin with. That being said, it was the Protestant electorate in Germany that overwhelmingly voted for Hitler.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think both Protestant and Catholic countries have tons of problems, but the main issue which separates the two today and makes the Catholics look much better off is that in many of the Protestant countries there is a history of "social ethics", a popular understanding that engaging in social activism makes you a morally superior person. The type of activism that is widespread today is what gives these countries and their morality a decidedly leftist tint. I think Catholics in Latin America have a very similar problem, but there is nothing else quite like the secular 21st century Puritan.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. There are also some studies about that phenomenon, that explicitly link the new wave of American Identity politics and cancel culture to the previous great awakenings

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I try to be as brief and direct as possible when I write on the internet, because I tend write profusely and always end up with stuff that people don't read or don't understand. I know about German protestants that voted for Hitler, but that's a whole different matter: undoubtedly Protestantism, expecially in Germany, ended up as a proto-nationalistic movement, being based on vernacular speech. Here I'm however speaking about doctrine and structure. The whole picture is always more complex, but we must try at least to isolate meaningful parts of it in order to bring some arguments to the table.

Edit: just to elaborate, yes the German protestants at the time were very nationalistic. But that kind of nationalism was for a good part anti-romanism, which obviously would have gotten in the way of a unified Europe. I think that the fact Hitler was trying to unite German protestants and Catholics was directly intended to address this problem, creating a common ground. Also we should keep in mind that not all Protestantism is the same, and there is an hell of a difference between Prussian Lutheranism, very tightly organized around the secular authority, and the atomised congregationalism of the Americans.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What is the problem with being conformist?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

saiditter for 4 hours

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure. I still don't see a problem with conformity if people are conforming to productive traditional practices.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First of all, they have a functioning religious system, which is the anglican church.

It is hard to call the contemporary Anglican church "a functioning religious system", but what you are saying has a lot of merit historically.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

British Empire fell due to liberal policies. Britain was never going to maintain rule over non-white regions like India, Malaysia, and Africa in the long run. They were always going to become self-aware and eventually achieve independence.

I am not sure how your first statement goes together with your last two. I agree with the first one, but disagree completely with the other two. Even today, there are people in the Indian subcontinent who prefer the British Raj over what came after. The main issue that Britain encountered in its overseas territories was that it favoured and bolstered liberal democratic, bourgeois strata who were hostile to it rather than supporting traditional elites like Hindu princes, African chieftains etc. If Britain had upheld the traditional character of its colonies and refrained from exporting its Enlightenment ideology there, the British Empire would have been a perfectly sustainable concept.

A grand union of England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They would have one currency, one official language, and one navy. The united empire would be ruled from London by a senate of Canadians, Scots, anglos, Irishmen, New Zealanders, and Australians.

Such an empire would not serve anything like the function of the historical British empire, because the regions of Africa, India and Southeast Asia were an extremely important source of raw materials. The states you have named all maintained an industrial focus to one extent or another and would have been very dependent on imports for their raw materials without further expansion.

[–]asterias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

British Empire was virtually ran by Jews and served the Jewish interests. Check the Don Pacifico affair against Greece or the Irish famine or the occupation of Cyprus, which the British preferred to surrender to the Turkish occupation instead of letting reunite with Greece. Or the British orchestration of the Greek Civil War, where the communists were funded and even guided through events like the death camps at Meligalas. The victims of British colonialism were mostly White. Not to mention that Disraeli was officially Jewish.