Since the time of King Henry VIII, the English government worked for a “balance of power” (i.e., undermining Continental unity). England supported the second-strongest power on the Continent against the strongest. Thus, London backed Prussia against France during the Seven Years War’ of the mid–18th century and West Germany against the Soviet Union during the Cold War…
Whether or not the English preoccupation was good for the Continent is a different question. As John Keegan pointed out in his classic book The Face of Battle, England’s most famous battles, such as Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme, have been fought in the lowlands of northwestern Europe rather than in England. This has made the conduct of foreign policy rather more fun for the English than for everybody else. From the mainland perspective, perhaps the English have enjoyed the piratical advantage of picking and choosing their fights to maximize European disruption. (But then the victors have written most of the histories, so this viewpoint is little known in America.)
Comments at Steve Sailer’s blog:
* Stephen F. Cohen said on John Batchelor’s radio show a few hours ago that the Obama administration is essentially risking a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Europe. He said they were demanding Germany supply troops to station on Russia’s border near some new missile installation, and Germany is objecting because they think having German troops on Russia’s border might raise unpleasant memories.
He also said that the Obama administration was planning a joint exercise in Georgia, and to treat Georgia and Ukraine as de facto NATO members, over the objections of Germany and other NATO members.
When asked about whether Trump was backtracking on his previous comments about getting along with Russia due to a quote of Trump saying none of Putin’s compliments about him would make him go easy on Trump in negotiations, Cohen said, first, that Putin really wasn’t that complimentary about Trump, but, second, that he was encouraged by Trump’s use of the “negotiations”, because there are no such negotiations being conducted now.
Related, the FT over the weekend quoted Turkey’s president warning his NATO allies that the Black Sea was becoming “a Russian lake”, and of the need to confront Russia.
So, to recap:
– Germany has welcomed millions of Muslims into Europe.
– London just elected a Muslim mayor.
– We have a new Cold War with Russia — and are, apparently, risking a hot war in Ukraine — in part to bolster Turkey, which is also being bribed by Germany over migration.
Maybe the real power in Europe isn’t Germany but Turkey?
* Germany’s “traditional desire to dominate Europe” was a misinterpretation of her attempts to cope with her unfavourable strategic position, whereas the only threat to Germany’s security now is from the migrants themselves.
* Apropos of the idea of the British not wanting more Pakistani inbred immigrants, a new paper is out in science detailing exactly how dysgenic the Pakistani inbreeding actually is.
If you read the paper and look at Figure 1a you can see that Pakistanis in England don’t even seem to fall within the range of variation amongst Europeans on how outbred they are. I.e. the least inbred Pakistani in England is more inbred than the typical European.
And yet to suggest that people should not purposefully turn themselves into a library of knockout mice, with homozygous deletions of every known gene that isn’t embryonic lethal, is to be Islamophobic and a bigot not capable of accepting other cultures.
* Europe has got itself in a mess over Turkey. Turkey has been waiting for Accession for decades and economically inferior countries have been admitted in the meantime. And also in the meantime, Turkey has Islamised. So it would have been better to have admitted Turkey when it was still secular. But now the EU is backed into a corner, especially having just invited the rest of the world.
My impression of the no. 1 reason for popular support for Brexit is ‘sovereignty’. Secondly, immigration and Turkey membership. But the campaign has become a means for deciding Conservative leadership. If Boris won the leadership on the back of a Brexit vote there’s a good chance he would simply turn round and make a deal with EU and dress it up as sufficient concession to quell any dissent. The Irish voted against the Treaty of Somewhere (Lisbon?) and so the name was changed, but little else, and the Irish accepted it. There’s really not that much gusto for revolution in W Europe.
The no. 1 economic reason for Bexit is, as someone recently said, ‘the lower down the business scale one goes, from big business to small business, the more the business owners favour Brexit’.
* It removes us completely from the European Court of Justice – which has ruled against many UK immigration restricting measures.
It also means we can more easily derogate from articles of the European Human Rights Convention.
The Commenwealth has no rules on immigration.
Australians and Canadians have no automatic right to settle here, unless they have British grandparents.
* The problem with any British based site offering the kind of discussions you find on Unz and Vdare is that there would be a very real likelihood that the writers and owners would find themselves in prison (and I speak with some experience on this, as someone whose mere below the line political comments have resulted in my case being raised by specially connected minority lobby activists at Assistant Chief Constable level, in an attempt to get me harassed by the police and, ideally from their point of view, prosecuted – only time will tell whether they will succeed or not).
