daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,613
- Points
- 1,160
The Geopolitics of it all
- Thread starter QV
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Without that bunch of stiff necked red shanks no bottom up governance, no anti-authoritarianism, no Whigs, no Glorious Revolution, no Scottish Enlightenment, no Masonic Toleration, no American Revolution, no liberalism, no modern democracy.
Sometimes it pays to be a pain in the butt. Especially when the Establishment always seems to mean Illiberal Authoritarianism.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,613
- Points
- 1,160
You'll have to admit that grabbing random Catholics off the street, and chopping them into hamburger helper, wasn't the best way to convince the people that you'd be great at governing though
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
You'll have to admit that grabbing random Catholics off the street, and chopping them into hamburger helper, wasn't the best way to convince the people that you'd be great at governing though
When you have a history with the neighbours that goes back to this it is difficult to find the right balance somedays
Ulster massacres[edit]
When the rebellion began, Phelim O'Neill sought to exploit divisions between English and Scots settlers by offering the latter protection, hoping thereby to gain their support. This strategy initially contributed to the rapid spread of the revolt, in part because the Dublin government was uncertain who to trust and thus delayed a co-ordinated response.[39] The situation changed when it became clear the rising had been only partially successful, while the breakdown of state authority prompted widespread attacks by the Catholic peasantry on Protestants, regardless of nationality.[40] [c] They were soon joined by members of the gentry; O'Neill's authority was largely confined to County Armagh and even there was not total, his own brother being one of those who took part in these actions.[40]
A contemporary Catholic source wrote that O'Neill "strove to contain the raskall multitude from those frequent savage actions of stripping and killing" but "the floodgate of rapine, once being laid open, the meaner sort of people was not to be contained".[42] It has been argued the initial purpose of the attacks was economic and killings occurred only when the victims resisted.[43] They intensified as the rebellion progressed, particularly in Ulster where many had lost land in the post 1607 Plantations,[44] while attacks on local Protestant clergy were in part due to resentment at the relative wealth of the Church of Ireland in that province.[45] Other factors included religion and culture; in County Cavan, rebels justified the rising as a defensive measure against a Protestant threat to "extirpate the Catholic religion",[46] reinstated original Irish language place names and banned the use of English.[44]
English atrocity propaganda of alleged rebel attacks on women and children
Following their repulse at Lisnagarvey in November, rebels killed about 100 Protestants at Portadown by forcing them off the bridge into the River Bann, and shooting those who tried to swim to safety.[d] Known as the Portadown massacre, it was one of the bloodiest such events to take place in Ireland during the 1640s.[48] In nearby Kilmore, English and Scottish men, women and children were burned to death in the cottage in which they were imprisoned, while in Armagh as a whole some 1,250 died in the early months of the rebellion, roughly a quarter of the local settler population.[49] In County Tyrone, modern research has identified three blackspots for the killing of settlers, the worst being near Kinard, "where most of the British families planted... were ultimately murdered".[50] Elsewhere at Shrule in County Mayo, Protestant prisoners were killed by their Catholic escorts, despite attempts by their officers to intervene.[51]
Killings of Catholics also took place, including the murder of two dozen at Islandmagee by members of the Carrickfergus garrison in November 1641.[51] The arrival of a Covenanter army in Ulster in April 1642 led to further such atrocities, William Lecky, a 19th-century historian of the rebellion, concluding "it is far from clear on which side the balance of cruelty rests".[38] The Scots executed Irish prisoners taken in a skirmish near Kilwarlin woods outside Dromore, while James Turner records that after retaking Newry, local Catholics were lined up on the banks of the Newry River and killed "without any legal process".[52] On Rathlin Island, Scottish soldiers from Clan Campbell were encouraged by their commanding officer Sir Duncan Campbell to kill the local Catholic MacDonnells, who were related to the Campbells' enemies in Scotland, Clan MacDonald. They threw scores of MacDonnell women over cliffs to their deaths.[53] The killings were brought under some degree of control by Owen Roe O'Neill, who in July 1642 was given command of Irish forces in Ulster and hanged several rebels for attacking civilians. Though still brutal, the war thereafter was fought according to the code of conduct both O'Neill and the Scottish commander Robert Monro had learned as professional soldiers in mainland Europe.[54]
Contemporary pamphlets published in London contained lurid details of the massacres and suggested over 200,000 Protestants had lost their lives.[55] These figures were recognised even then as wildly exaggerated and in November 1641 Parliament jailed a publisher who admitted paying for fictitious atrocity tales.[29] Recent research suggests around 4,000 were killed in the attacks, with thousands more expelled from their homes,[56] many of whom died of exposure or disease, leading to an upper estimate of around 12,000 deaths.[57] This represents around 10% of the total settler population in Ireland, though in Ulster the ratio of deaths would have been somewhat higher, namely around 30%.[58] They were used to support the view of the rebellion as a Catholic conspiracy to wipe out all Protestants in Ireland,[59] a narrative constructed in the Depositions, a collection of victim reports gathered between 1642 and 1655 and now housed in Trinity College Dublin.[60][61] In 1646, these accounts were summarised in The Irish Rebellion, a book by John Temple, [62] in which he urged the military re-conquest of Ireland and segregation of Irish Catholics from British Protestants.[63]
In the long term, the 1641 massacres intensified existing sectarian animosity on both sides, although modern historians argue the killings had an especially powerful psychological impact on the Protestant community.[64][e] Dr. Mary O'Dowd wrote they "were very traumatic for the Protestant settler community in Ulster, and left long-term scars within that community".[65] Contemporary Protestant accounts depict the rebellion as a complete surprise; one stated that it was "conceived among us and yet we never felt it kick in the womb, nor struggle in the birth".[66] Many argued Catholics could not be trusted and in Ulster, Protestants commemorated the anniversary of the rebellion for over two hundred years. According to historian Pádraig Lenihan, this "helped affirm communal solidarity and emphasise the need for unrelenting vigilance [against] the masses of Irish Catholics surrounding them [who] were and always would be, unregenerate and cruel enemies".[67]
That was happening while Jenny Geddes was chucking her stool at a Bishop she never asked for and who had been put in place by a King who explicitly covenanted that he would do no such thing.
And most of the Prods there were not there voluntarily. They had been shipped out as the alternative to being lynched by the Kings men without trial.
The Stewarts! God Bless 'Em.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Witness statements from Irish rebellion and massacres of 1641 go online
'Ultimate' cold case analysis may heal ancient quarrels and offer genealogy and linguistics treasure trove
www.theguardian.com
Other names in Thomas Hobbes's world
Merindol, Vassy, La Rochelle, St Bartholomews Day, the Vaud.....
And just in case we think this was all ancient propaganda - like Germans in Belgium - perhaps we can remember Bucha and Srebrenica.
A bit hard to Trust. Especially if you're not allowed to Verify.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Macron being accused of being Europe's biggest Nationalist with only France's interests in mind. - True that. Since Pippin was mayor.
www.express.co.uk
Macron's EU masterplan broken as VDL's plot for bloc 'doesn't exist'
Comments by French President Emmanuel Macron over Europe's priorities on Taiwan have raised questions over the EU's relationship with both the US and China.
www.express.co.uk
- Reaction score
- 17,765
- Points
- 1,010
Brussels didn’t see this coming after Brexit? Sigh….Macron being accused of being Europe's biggest Nationalist with only France's interests in mind. - True that. Since Pippin was mayor.
Macron's EU masterplan broken as VDL's plot for bloc 'doesn't exist'
Comments by French President Emmanuel Macron over Europe's priorities on Taiwan have raised questions over the EU's relationship with both the US and China.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Brexit happened because Brussels was always just a pawn of Paris.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
I am angry today. Thoroughly.
I am a Brit. I live in Canada by virtue of the welcome I was given when my parents immigrated here. I do not see myself reflected in the institutions of this country. But that's OK. It is your country to do with as you will.
It is fine that I don't see myself reflected in your current choice of Prime Minister, governing party or civil service or even your government's priorities. I am in no position to complain. That is up to my kids to figure out.
On the other hand - through the Anglosphere, throughout the Western World, throughout the OECD I here the constant repetition of John Locke's 1689 call for Toleration, of Shaftesbury's 1709 call to learn to rub along together. This often voices itself as a call for minorities to see themselves reflected in their institutions.
At which point I find myself feeling sorry for the Unionists of Ulster.
300 years since their No Surrender stand at Londonderry allowed Locke to create his Tolerant government - a government that over the next 3 centuries closed work houses, brought coal miners out of bondage, abolished the slave trade, put the hems on piracy, taught others how to manage themselves and brought their "enemies" into the fold...
300 years from that
The leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Jeffrey Donaldson.
The Prime Minister of the UK, The Mayor of London, The First Minister of Scotland, The Prime Minister of Ireland.
Does he see himself represented in those institutions?
Edit to add Jeffrey's Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary
334 years ago the fight was against Arbitrary Authority - and the Arbitrary Authorities of the day were the Monarchs backed by the Catholic Church and the Ottoman Caliphate. The Sultan of Morocco was every bit as Arbitrary as the Stewarts and the Bourbons.
You'd be hard pressed to know it now but Ireland used to have a reputation as the most liberal place on the planet - roughly from the era of the Boyne to the rise of the Protestant Ascendancy at the time of the Presbyterian War (as George III called the American Revolution). It was a place where Anglo-Irish Anglicans, Scots-Irish Presbyterians and Irish Catholics learned to debate rather than kill. But like all good things that to came to an end.
Now he is cajoled to accept the only deal he is going to get from interlocutors like
None of whom share his cultural or religious proclivities.
Is this really the best team of negotiators available to convince Jeffrey Donaldson that they have the best interests of him and his constituents at heart?
I have no doubt about the quality of the people or their ideas. Even as I disagree with them. But....
I find it difficult not to give into the urge to support statements like this.
www.express.co.uk
And then I am greeted with this image on the from page of the Express the British Home Secretary arguing the British Foreign Secretary, both of them Tories about whether the UK should be a sovereignn nation or subject to a Supra-National Court. That is what was on offer as the alternative in 1689.
www.express.co.uk
Am I a racist? I have always considered myself to be civil, accommodating, tolerant even. Never have I considered myself to be chosen, elect or particularly gifted. Certainly not supreme.
But I regret not having a home to go to.
Slainte Mhor (there's a chuckle - even that is a phrase I never heard growing up - Cheers!)
I am a Brit. I live in Canada by virtue of the welcome I was given when my parents immigrated here. I do not see myself reflected in the institutions of this country. But that's OK. It is your country to do with as you will.
It is fine that I don't see myself reflected in your current choice of Prime Minister, governing party or civil service or even your government's priorities. I am in no position to complain. That is up to my kids to figure out.
On the other hand - through the Anglosphere, throughout the Western World, throughout the OECD I here the constant repetition of John Locke's 1689 call for Toleration, of Shaftesbury's 1709 call to learn to rub along together. This often voices itself as a call for minorities to see themselves reflected in their institutions.
At which point I find myself feeling sorry for the Unionists of Ulster.
300 years since their No Surrender stand at Londonderry allowed Locke to create his Tolerant government - a government that over the next 3 centuries closed work houses, brought coal miners out of bondage, abolished the slave trade, put the hems on piracy, taught others how to manage themselves and brought their "enemies" into the fold...
300 years from that
The leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Jeffrey Donaldson.
The Prime Minister of the UK, The Mayor of London, The First Minister of Scotland, The Prime Minister of Ireland.
Does he see himself represented in those institutions?
Edit to add Jeffrey's Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary
334 years ago the fight was against Arbitrary Authority - and the Arbitrary Authorities of the day were the Monarchs backed by the Catholic Church and the Ottoman Caliphate. The Sultan of Morocco was every bit as Arbitrary as the Stewarts and the Bourbons.
You'd be hard pressed to know it now but Ireland used to have a reputation as the most liberal place on the planet - roughly from the era of the Boyne to the rise of the Protestant Ascendancy at the time of the Presbyterian War (as George III called the American Revolution). It was a place where Anglo-Irish Anglicans, Scots-Irish Presbyterians and Irish Catholics learned to debate rather than kill. But like all good things that to came to an end.
Now he is cajoled to accept the only deal he is going to get from interlocutors like
None of whom share his cultural or religious proclivities.
Is this really the best team of negotiators available to convince Jeffrey Donaldson that they have the best interests of him and his constituents at heart?
I have no doubt about the quality of the people or their ideas. Even as I disagree with them. But....
I find it difficult not to give into the urge to support statements like this.
Italian anger over minister's crass 'ethnic replacement' remarks
A row over white supremacy threatens to engulf Italy's ruling far-right Brothers of Italy party after its agriculture minister said Italians are in danger of "ethnic replacement."
www.express.co.uk
And then I am greeted with this image on the from page of the Express the British Home Secretary arguing the British Foreign Secretary, both of them Tories about whether the UK should be a sovereignn nation or subject to a Supra-National Court. That is what was on offer as the alternative in 1689.
Latest UK and World News, Sport and Comment | Express.co.uk
Latest news, showbiz, sport, comment, lifestyle, city, video and pictures from the Daily Express and Sunday Express newspapers and Express.co.uk
www.express.co.uk
Am I a racist? I have always considered myself to be civil, accommodating, tolerant even. Never have I considered myself to be chosen, elect or particularly gifted. Certainly not supreme.
But I regret not having a home to go to.
Slainte Mhor (there's a chuckle - even that is a phrase I never heard growing up - Cheers!)
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
How a new history group aims to defend Canadians like Macdonald and Dundas
The Canadian Institute for Historical Education aims to promote academic research into 'all aspects of contributions, good and bad'
nationalpost.com
FIRST READING: Public Health Agency of Canada report calls for toppling of 'capitalism and liberty'
The report's all-white authors identified themselves as 'uninvited land occupiers,' before calling for the wholesale 'decolonization' of society in the interest of …
nationalpost.com
versus
Bjorn Lomborg: Securing property ownership to grow better lives for billions
The Do-Able Dozen: For the majority of people in developing countries, secure property rights are a rare luxury. That could be changed
nationalpost.com
I was just about to come on-line this morning and apologize for my Moan of yesterday.
Then I saw the article about the Canadian historians. It is funny because I had been thinking about giving vent to an opinion on Henry Dundas - the Lord Advocate of Scotland who intervened in the Knight case in 1778 to bring the court to a clear declaration that slavery was not a legal, or moral, option in Scotland. Bringing it up to the same standard established in England with the Somersett case in 1772.
As to the abolishment of the slave trade - Dundas ran the hard yards in parliament crafting a programme that brought enough of the nays over to the ayes to get it passed. And most of those conversions were economic conversions. People that were morally convinced that slavery was wrong but economically couldn't afford to give up large portions of their wealth on short notice. People like, for example, Thomas Jefferson in the States.
Dundas was walking the same tightrope with the coal mine owners in Scotland. The mine owners counted their wage-slaves as part of the mine. The miners, and their families who worked down the pits, were sold with the mine. More importantly they were tied to the mine and couldn't sell themselves to another mine or give up the trade entirely. If they absconded then the Polis would be efter them.
1772 the Scot, William Murray of Perth, Lord Mansfield, decreed that English Law didn't permit slavery.
1778 the Scot, Henry Dundas, Lord Advocate of Scotland, along with the entire Scottish court, decreed that Scottish Law didn't permit slavery.
1775, in between, the parliament of Westminster, determined that Scottish coal miners were being treated like slaves and that that wasn't permitted.
However, the mine owners were given a grace period, until 1799, to get their act together and manage the conversion. It was a long time for the miners, another generation down the pits before their children would be released to work and bargain freely, but it did get the owners on side and allowed the legislation to pass and the slavery of the coal miners to be ended.
So when, in 1794, Wilberforce brought his Abolition act to Dundas he was pushing on an open door. Dundas supported the Bill personally and morally. But Wilberforce had failed to sway parliament two or three times previously. And the principle objection, from my point of view, was practical economics. By giving the West Indian plantation owners a five year grace period, much shorter than that given to the Scottish mine owners, then it permitted enough of them to switch their votes to join the abolitionists in voting down the slave trade in the House of Commons. Only to be defeated in the Lords.
What I find fascinating is that the abolition events in Westminster, 1794 and 1807, were mirrored in Washington, by Jefferson. And slavery only really ended in the British Empire when the government agreed to buy all the slaves from the owners and release them. Even the well known Liberal, Gladstone, withheld his support in parliament in 1833 until his father was compensated for his 2500 slaves.
Nothing is ever simple....
Funny thing - the founding of the West Africa Squadron by the Royal Navy in 1807, to blockade the slave trade, coincided, within a month of the RN creating the conditions for the War of 1812. The Squadron was founded in May. In June the RN boarded the USS Chesapeake and "impressed" her crew into RN service. At the time something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the fleet that had fought at Trafalgar for Nelson were there involuntarily as pressed men.
So my sympathies are with the Historians - and with those Abolitionists that fought to end Slavery, with those educational reformers like the Methodist Egerton Ryerson, and Carnegie and the founders of the Mechanics Institutes, who fought to bring universal education to everyone, regardless of race or religion, and the political reformers like Brown, and MacKenzie, and Papineau and even Gladstone and Peel, who fought to bring more people into the Establishment.
As to the other two articles - point and counter-point. The Public Health types obviously have never read, or have failed to understand, the history that got them to their position. And Adam Smith is a stranger to them. Bjorn Lomborg, on the other hand, seems well acquainted with Smith.
Nothing is ever simple ...
The song Amazing Grace was written by an ex-slaver turned minister. It was written in the year that Mansfield decided that English Law didn't support slavery. 1775. "I was blind, and now I see...."
Is John Newton to be condemned for carrying slaves. Or to be recognized for giving up the trade, working for the next 30 years to end the trade and writing the great anthem that drew millions to the cause?
Nothing is ever simple ...
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Suppose I were to say this Indo-Pacific thing is not an American thing at all?
Suppose it were, in reality, all about Hong Kong 1841?
This assumes that the Chinese have longer memories than the West and that perceived humiliations are deeply felt.
The Brits forced the Qing dynasty into surrendering Hong Kong in 1841 and held on to it until 1997. The Chinese seem to have taken that personally. The were forced into submission, as they saw it, by a bunch of barbarians. At the time Britain ruled the waves and was profiting from its liberal society and economy.
China epitomized the authoritarian command economy through most of its history. The Communist Party struggles to find a middle road between its authoritarian nature and the obvious benefits of liberal capitalism. Between the chaos of individuals making their own decision and the imposition of order necessary for a harmonious existence.
1841 was a long time ago.... for some.
Britain is not what it used to be.
It is weak.
But it left its mark.
First of all it left its DNA all over the place - lots of MacGregors with brown skins in distant locations.
Second it made a lot of acquaintances - the Commonwealth of 56 states and a fair number of them are friends
Third it created the world's hegemon which usurps the position to which the throne of the Middle Kingdom is entitled - the US
Along the way it, and its American sprig, have secured a major chunk of the goods and materials of the world.
It, and the Americans, control the rules of the game by controlling the flow of money. Hong Kong was the local branch. The real decisions were made in London in 1841. In 1944 the centre moved to New York but London is still the centre of reference for much of the Commonwealth. And judging from the television coverage about passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III it still seems to be a cultural locus for the United States of America.
If this Anglospheric Commonwealth can hang together, and maintain the cohesion they demonstrated in 1944, then they dominate the world at large. Liberal democracy rules the waves, the airwaves, the banks and the treasuries.
The Middle Kingdom is relegated to struggle. Not its entitlement.
Now if I were a disgruntled resident of China and I wanted to put the universe back to rights might I consider doing this - follow the precepts of my favourite strategician - Lanchester.
The Ukrainians are employing Lanchester successfully against the Russians. They opt for the indirect approach. They choose to undermine and isolate. They attack the logistics. They attack the culture. They stand firm in the face of attack. They retreat when they must. They exploit when they can. Lanchester probably read Sun Tzu.
So if I perceived that my enemy was bound by a culture that had its nexus in London but its lines of communications were weak and its outposts were widely scattered with many of them small and in poor repair, would I tackle the strongest of those outposts, New York, or would I opt for something else? Tackling London directly would probably cause all those coronation watchers that support Ukraine to take offense and put the Middle Kingdom at risk just as much as making a direct play for New York.
But if I were to isolate and undermine London. Slowly. Applying the wisdom of Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.
Then I might be able to cut the lines of communications, undermine the pillars that support the culture, separate the banks of London from the treasures of the Commonwealth and isolate the banks of New York to Turtle Island.
As Alinsky noted ridicule goes a long way in this regard.
Re-writing history is always good. It has a track record that goes as far back as the Venerable Bede in the Anglosphere
Cutting the ties that bind.
The good news for the Chinese is that Britain, although it made some friends over the century or so it was in power it made a lot of enemies. The list starts with The Ancient Enemy - Paris. Since the 1500s Madrid and Rome were added. After 1807 and the success of the ban on trading slaves Britain disrupted the slave based economies of the rest of the world - in particular the economies of the Ottomans and the Arabs. Up until 1962 Britain was still throwing its weight, diminishing weight, around and demanding that places like Saudi Arabia stop taking slaves and using them. Worse. Insisting that they free the slaves they have. It took the Brits 25 years to buy out its slaveholders and release all its slaves - creating the welfare state - but they couldn't buy out everybody else's slaves. They demanded that they finance the emancipation, the destruction of their economies, themselves. London would be happy enough to lend them the money for the emancipation though. They could pay back London in oil and other stuff. Freeing the slaves was great policy. But not necessarily the best diplomacy.
So, if I were to see this world as one
Created by an ancient group of barbarians
Centred in a city on a distant island
Writing the rules of the game
Controlling immense treasures scattered all over the world
But
Scattered
Exposed
Weak
With many enemies
Could I turn the situation to my advantage and reclaim my entitlement?
Part II to follow.
Suppose it were, in reality, all about Hong Kong 1841?
This assumes that the Chinese have longer memories than the West and that perceived humiliations are deeply felt.
The Brits forced the Qing dynasty into surrendering Hong Kong in 1841 and held on to it until 1997. The Chinese seem to have taken that personally. The were forced into submission, as they saw it, by a bunch of barbarians. At the time Britain ruled the waves and was profiting from its liberal society and economy.
China epitomized the authoritarian command economy through most of its history. The Communist Party struggles to find a middle road between its authoritarian nature and the obvious benefits of liberal capitalism. Between the chaos of individuals making their own decision and the imposition of order necessary for a harmonious existence.
1841 was a long time ago.... for some.
Britain is not what it used to be.
It is weak.
But it left its mark.
First of all it left its DNA all over the place - lots of MacGregors with brown skins in distant locations.
Second it made a lot of acquaintances - the Commonwealth of 56 states and a fair number of them are friends
Third it created the world's hegemon which usurps the position to which the throne of the Middle Kingdom is entitled - the US
Along the way it, and its American sprig, have secured a major chunk of the goods and materials of the world.
It, and the Americans, control the rules of the game by controlling the flow of money. Hong Kong was the local branch. The real decisions were made in London in 1841. In 1944 the centre moved to New York but London is still the centre of reference for much of the Commonwealth. And judging from the television coverage about passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III it still seems to be a cultural locus for the United States of America.
If this Anglospheric Commonwealth can hang together, and maintain the cohesion they demonstrated in 1944, then they dominate the world at large. Liberal democracy rules the waves, the airwaves, the banks and the treasuries.
The Middle Kingdom is relegated to struggle. Not its entitlement.
Now if I were a disgruntled resident of China and I wanted to put the universe back to rights might I consider doing this - follow the precepts of my favourite strategician - Lanchester.
The Ukrainians are employing Lanchester successfully against the Russians. They opt for the indirect approach. They choose to undermine and isolate. They attack the logistics. They attack the culture. They stand firm in the face of attack. They retreat when they must. They exploit when they can. Lanchester probably read Sun Tzu.
So if I perceived that my enemy was bound by a culture that had its nexus in London but its lines of communications were weak and its outposts were widely scattered with many of them small and in poor repair, would I tackle the strongest of those outposts, New York, or would I opt for something else? Tackling London directly would probably cause all those coronation watchers that support Ukraine to take offense and put the Middle Kingdom at risk just as much as making a direct play for New York.
But if I were to isolate and undermine London. Slowly. Applying the wisdom of Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.
Then I might be able to cut the lines of communications, undermine the pillars that support the culture, separate the banks of London from the treasures of the Commonwealth and isolate the banks of New York to Turtle Island.
As Alinsky noted ridicule goes a long way in this regard.
Re-writing history is always good. It has a track record that goes as far back as the Venerable Bede in the Anglosphere
Cutting the ties that bind.
The good news for the Chinese is that Britain, although it made some friends over the century or so it was in power it made a lot of enemies. The list starts with The Ancient Enemy - Paris. Since the 1500s Madrid and Rome were added. After 1807 and the success of the ban on trading slaves Britain disrupted the slave based economies of the rest of the world - in particular the economies of the Ottomans and the Arabs. Up until 1962 Britain was still throwing its weight, diminishing weight, around and demanding that places like Saudi Arabia stop taking slaves and using them. Worse. Insisting that they free the slaves they have. It took the Brits 25 years to buy out its slaveholders and release all its slaves - creating the welfare state - but they couldn't buy out everybody else's slaves. They demanded that they finance the emancipation, the destruction of their economies, themselves. London would be happy enough to lend them the money for the emancipation though. They could pay back London in oil and other stuff. Freeing the slaves was great policy. But not necessarily the best diplomacy.
So, if I were to see this world as one
Created by an ancient group of barbarians
Centred in a city on a distant island
Writing the rules of the game
Controlling immense treasures scattered all over the world
But
Scattered
Exposed
Weak
With many enemies
Could I turn the situation to my advantage and reclaim my entitlement?
Part II to follow.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
The Indo-Pacific focus ultimately settles on the Nine-Dash Line. Taiwan sits on the edge of that.
The area in dispute is apparently 40,000 km2
That in a sea of 3,500,000 km2 - the South China Sea over which China claims hegemony.
But most importantly China is constricted. It is contained by the chain of islands off its coast that defines the South China Sea. It is also contained the northern chain that defines the 1,250,000 km2 East China Sea
For reference Canada has a land area of 9,985,000 km2 compared to China's 9,597,000 km2.
We have 243,200 km of coastline to defend but only 38,000,000 people to do the defending.
China only has 18,000 km of coastline to defend but 1,412,000,000 people to stand on the shoreline.
China also has 23 Trillion United States Dollars of treasure but that doesn't go as far as it might among 1,412,000,000 people.
Canada has 38,000,000 people holding on to 33 Trillion United States Dollars of treasure.
And that treasure is largely held for the use of New York and London.
It would be a great win if that treasure were made available to its rightful owners in the Middle Kingdom.
A lesser win would be to deny it to New York and London by putting it beyond use.
Like the Europeans agreed to do with their coal in 1957.
France and Germany had access to lots of coal in Belgium but they couldn't agree on how to divide it and couldn't allow the Belgians to get rich selling coal to both of them.
So they decided not to buy any coal at all and deny Belgium the right to sell any as well.
They banked on Uranium instead - which they also didn't have.
It turns out that Uranium had its problems so they started buying gas and oil instead.
That still cost lots of money to burn.
So now they are reduced to relying on what their ancestors in their caves had: wind, waves and sunshine.
While the Middle Kingdom waits out the fall of New York it can proceed with a programme of "beggar thy neighbour" picking up some of those exposed properties that London has left lying around.
The Pacific is a great place to start. There are lots of London connected properties that control vast areas of rich oceans with virtually no land mass to defend and very few people to defend them.
The Commonwealth owns, collectively, 27, 571,000 kms of Pacific waters alone. Not including the landmass Australia and the thousands of scattered islands claiming those waters. And there are only 82,000,000 defenders of all that water with 26,000,000 of the living in Australia and 5,000,000 in New Zealand.
Paris holds 5,675,000 km2
New York holds 4,774,000 km2
These are minor stakes and does New York really need the treasure that much? Is it worth the aggravation?
China's play for Canada is probably of greater interest.
Part III to follow
The area in dispute is apparently 40,000 km2
That in a sea of 3,500,000 km2 - the South China Sea over which China claims hegemony.
But most importantly China is constricted. It is contained by the chain of islands off its coast that defines the South China Sea. It is also contained the northern chain that defines the 1,250,000 km2 East China Sea
For reference Canada has a land area of 9,985,000 km2 compared to China's 9,597,000 km2.
We have 243,200 km of coastline to defend but only 38,000,000 people to do the defending.
China only has 18,000 km of coastline to defend but 1,412,000,000 people to stand on the shoreline.
China also has 23 Trillion United States Dollars of treasure but that doesn't go as far as it might among 1,412,000,000 people.
Canada has 38,000,000 people holding on to 33 Trillion United States Dollars of treasure.
And that treasure is largely held for the use of New York and London.
It would be a great win if that treasure were made available to its rightful owners in the Middle Kingdom.
A lesser win would be to deny it to New York and London by putting it beyond use.
Like the Europeans agreed to do with their coal in 1957.
France and Germany had access to lots of coal in Belgium but they couldn't agree on how to divide it and couldn't allow the Belgians to get rich selling coal to both of them.
So they decided not to buy any coal at all and deny Belgium the right to sell any as well.
They banked on Uranium instead - which they also didn't have.
It turns out that Uranium had its problems so they started buying gas and oil instead.
That still cost lots of money to burn.
So now they are reduced to relying on what their ancestors in their caves had: wind, waves and sunshine.
While the Middle Kingdom waits out the fall of New York it can proceed with a programme of "beggar thy neighbour" picking up some of those exposed properties that London has left lying around.
The Pacific is a great place to start. There are lots of London connected properties that control vast areas of rich oceans with virtually no land mass to defend and very few people to defend them.
The Commonwealth owns, collectively, 27, 571,000 kms of Pacific waters alone. Not including the landmass Australia and the thousands of scattered islands claiming those waters. And there are only 82,000,000 defenders of all that water with 26,000,000 of the living in Australia and 5,000,000 in New Zealand.
Paris holds 5,675,000 km2
New York holds 4,774,000 km2
These are minor stakes and does New York really need the treasure that much? Is it worth the aggravation?
China's play for Canada is probably of greater interest.
| Country | Population | Coastline | EEZ | Commonwealth |
| Dispute | 40 | |||
| China | 1,412 | 18,000 | ||
| Canada | 38 | 243,200 | 5,600 | Commonwealth |
| Commonwealth | 82 | 59,000 | 27,571 | |
| Pitcairns | 836 | Commonwealth | ||
| Oceania | 2 | - | 8,824 | |
| Kiribati | 0 | 3,442 | Commonwealth | |
| Solomons | 1 | 1,590 | Commonwealth | |
| Fiji | 1 | 1,283 | Commonwealth | |
| Tuvalu | 750 | Commonwealth | ||
| Vanuatu | 0 | 663 | Commonwealth | |
| Tonga | 0 | 660 | Commonwealth | |
| Samoa | 0 | 128 | Commonwealth | |
| Nauru | 308 | Commonwealth | ||
| Greater Australia | 35 | 39,000 | 10,549 | |
| Australia | 26 | 34,000 | 6,049 | Commonwealth |
| Macquarie | 471 | Commonwealth | ||
| Christmas | 463 | Commonwealth | ||
| Norfolk | 429 | Commonwealth | ||
| Heard McDonald | 410 | Commonwealth | ||
| Cocos | 325 | Commonwealth | ||
| Papua-New Guinea | 9 | 5,000 | 2,402 | Commonwealth |
| Greater New Zealand | 5 | 15,000 | 7,016 | |
| New Zealand | 5 | 15,000 | 4,420 | Commonwealth |
| Cook Islands | 1,960 | Commonwealth | ||
| Tokelau | 319 | Commonwealth | ||
| Niue | 317 | Commonwealth | ||
| Austranesia | 428 | 140,400 | 8,165 | |
| Singapore | 6 | 200 | 1 | Commonwealth |
| Brunei | 1 | 200 | 10 | Commonwealth |
| Malaysia | 34 | 4,600 | 335 | Commonwealth |
| Philippines | 114 | 36,300 | 1,590 | |
| Indonesia | 274 | 99,100 | 6,159 | |
| East Timor | 70 | |||
| Indochina | 248 | 8,600 | 1,314 | |
| Vietnam | 98 | 3,300 | 418 | |
| Cambodia | 17 | 400 | 63 | |
| Laos | 7 | - | - | |
| Thailand | 72 | 2,600 | 299 | |
| Burma | 54 | 2,300 | 534 | |
| Greater East Asia | 202 | 38,000 | 4,955 | |
| Japan | 126 | 34,000 | 4,479 | |
| ROK | 52 | 2,400 | 476 | |
| Taiwan | 24 | 1,600 | - | |
| Pacifica France | 1 | - | 5,675 | |
| Fr Polynesia | 0 | 4,500 | ||
| New Caledonia | 0 | 502 | ||
| Wallis and Furtuna | 242 | |||
| Clipperton | 431 | |||
| Pacifica US | 2 | - | 4,774 | |
| Hawaii | 2 | 895 | ||
| Am Samoa | 404 | |||
| Guam | 169 | |||
| N. Marianas | 0 | 749 | ||
| Johnson Atoll | 442 | |||
| Howland Baker | 434 | |||
| Wake | 407 | |||
| Palmyra Kingman | 352 | |||
| Jarvis | 317 | |||
| Palau - Independent | 605 | |||
| 4,986 | ||||
| Micronesia | 0 | 2,996 | ||
| Marshalls | 0 | 1,990 | ||
| Pacifica | 670 | 232,400 | 30,685 | |
| India | 1,408 | 7,500 | 2,305 | Commonwealth |
Part III to follow
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
So does this strategy play out elsewhere?
The Indian Ocean?
With places like the British Indian Ocean Territories - Diego Garcia to New Yorkers?
Comorros? Maldives? Seychelles?
The Atlantic?
The Falklands?
The West Indies?
How about the world's biggest island?
Africa?
54 countries.
20 of them in the Commonwealth with financial ties to London
30,370,000 km2 of territory
How much of that is Commonwealth territory?
Zimbabwe used to be a Commonwealth country.
It was separated from London's Commonwealth by Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe's ZANU Popular Front was financed and trained by China.
Zimbabwe sits in the centre of southern Africa and flanks a number of countries including South Africa, a fellow member of BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
I think Lanchester, and Sun Tzu, would approve.
And if my aggrieved resident of the Middle Kingdom, recovering his entitlement, observed the humiliation of the barbarian ... then that may be a bonus worth having.
The Indian Ocean?
With places like the British Indian Ocean Territories - Diego Garcia to New Yorkers?
Comorros? Maldives? Seychelles?
The Atlantic?
The Falklands?
The West Indies?
How about the world's biggest island?
Africa?
54 countries.
20 of them in the Commonwealth with financial ties to London
30,370,000 km2 of territory
How much of that is Commonwealth territory?
Zimbabwe used to be a Commonwealth country.
It was separated from London's Commonwealth by Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe's ZANU Popular Front was financed and trained by China.
Zimbabwe sits in the centre of southern Africa and flanks a number of countries including South Africa, a fellow member of BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
I think Lanchester, and Sun Tzu, would approve.
And if my aggrieved resident of the Middle Kingdom, recovering his entitlement, observed the humiliation of the barbarian ... then that may be a bonus worth having.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
The blend of British and Chinese cultures in HK is one of the greatest success stories in history. Unfortunate if some people don't see it that way.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
We tend to see the world from a Canadian / North Atlantic perspective. The perspective of Hakluyt and Mahan.
This is the world as seen from Australia. A bit more Mackinderesque and a great place to send British criminals and dare them to get back home.
An island loosely associated with the rest of the world and surrounded by vast expanses of water with nary a drop to drink
The map is based on the UN's Feb 23 resolution of Russia in Ukraine.
The colours are
Red for Russia (UN Ayes)
Yellow for China (UN Abstentions)
Green for No Shows (UN Did not Vote)
Blues and Grays voted with Ukraine.
More to follow.
This is the world as seen from Australia. A bit more Mackinderesque and a great place to send British criminals and dare them to get back home.
An island loosely associated with the rest of the world and surrounded by vast expanses of water with nary a drop to drink
The map is based on the UN's Feb 23 resolution of Russia in Ukraine.
The colours are
Red for Russia (UN Ayes)
Yellow for China (UN Abstentions)
Green for No Shows (UN Did not Vote)
Blues and Grays voted with Ukraine.
More to follow.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
I've attached the same map but shifted to the Euro centred perspective.
It also shows the microstates and how they voted.
The Grays voted with Ukraine.
The Blues are my own personal filter.
It starts with the US.
It adds the Five Eyes (AUKUS and the other two)
It adds JEF
It adds Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Ukraine
It adds CPTPP
It adds the Commonwealth
I choose to call the amalgamation The Commonwealth of Oceana after a 1656 best seller on strategy.
There are a number of states not included.
I intentionally didn't refer to NATO or the EU.
Having said that my filter is not an exact model. Particularly when it comes to the Commonwealth proper. Many of the Commonwealth countries decided to either join the No Shows on Ukraine or to join China and abstain.
This is particularly true in Africa where China seems to be slowly picking up disgruntled tribes in the old colonial territories. Zimbabwe is a starting point.
They have picked up the Belgian Congo, Portugese South Africa and French Algeria and Senegal. They would probably have targeted German East Africa if the Brits hadn't got there first after WWI. But they are making inroads on Brit turf as well.
A great example is South Africa. And more critically India. Both important members of the Commonwealth but also important to China as part of the BRICS group. And perhaps more important as Russia gets weaker. Although its not losing any of its resources - so there's that.
On balance it would seem that both South Africa are more BRICS than Commonwealth.
Which brings into question Brazil's tendencies. With the new guy I expect them to become more BRICSish.
But enough digression....
The focus is Australia
And this map shows the oceans with the water pumped out. Light blue is new land - easy to access and to cross and easy to find new resources.
This map shows the EEZs of all the little island states that have title to that "land".
And most of their flags were on parade in London on Friday. They are important countries for a lot of reasons.
And in many, if not most cases, there is nobody home to defend the claims. Conversely it wouldn't require much effort to convince the inhabitants to sell their title or at least lease it out.
This is the Indo-Pacific battleground as far as I'm concerned.
The other one is in Monroe's backyard.
A lot of them were parading in London of Friday. And the Netherlands is also a member of Oceana's Commonwealth as a member of JEF.
It also shows the microstates and how they voted.
The Grays voted with Ukraine.
The Blues are my own personal filter.
It starts with the US.
It adds the Five Eyes (AUKUS and the other two)
It adds JEF
It adds Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Ukraine
It adds CPTPP
It adds the Commonwealth
I choose to call the amalgamation The Commonwealth of Oceana after a 1656 best seller on strategy.
There are a number of states not included.
I intentionally didn't refer to NATO or the EU.
Having said that my filter is not an exact model. Particularly when it comes to the Commonwealth proper. Many of the Commonwealth countries decided to either join the No Shows on Ukraine or to join China and abstain.
This is particularly true in Africa where China seems to be slowly picking up disgruntled tribes in the old colonial territories. Zimbabwe is a starting point.
They have picked up the Belgian Congo, Portugese South Africa and French Algeria and Senegal. They would probably have targeted German East Africa if the Brits hadn't got there first after WWI. But they are making inroads on Brit turf as well.
A great example is South Africa. And more critically India. Both important members of the Commonwealth but also important to China as part of the BRICS group. And perhaps more important as Russia gets weaker. Although its not losing any of its resources - so there's that.
On balance it would seem that both South Africa are more BRICS than Commonwealth.
Which brings into question Brazil's tendencies. With the new guy I expect them to become more BRICSish.
But enough digression....
The focus is Australia
And this map shows the oceans with the water pumped out. Light blue is new land - easy to access and to cross and easy to find new resources.
This map shows the EEZs of all the little island states that have title to that "land".
And most of their flags were on parade in London on Friday. They are important countries for a lot of reasons.
And in many, if not most cases, there is nobody home to defend the claims. Conversely it wouldn't require much effort to convince the inhabitants to sell their title or at least lease it out.
This is the Indo-Pacific battleground as far as I'm concerned.
The other one is in Monroe's backyard.
A lot of them were parading in London of Friday. And the Netherlands is also a member of Oceana's Commonwealth as a member of JEF.
Last edited:
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,613
- Points
- 1,160
I met someone this weekend who just returned from Hong Kong.
There's not much 'British' left at all, apparently, and the Chinese are cleaning the place up - and building at a great rate of knots - to 'Chinafy' everything.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
On the other hand there are a lot of Hong Kongers who have found a home here, in Australia and Britain under the Crown. And no doubt other places as well.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,613
- Points
- 1,160
It's OK because the new HK-Macau bridge, connecting the city state with mainland China, will ensure a steady influx of replacements, I'm sure....
Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge
The Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge (HZMB) is a 55-kilometre (34 mi) bridge–tunnel system consisting of a series of three cable-stayed bridges, an undersea tunnel, and four artificial islands. It is both the longest sea crossing[5][6] and the longest open-sea fixed link in the world. The HZMB spans the Lingding and Jiuzhou channels, connecting Hong Kong, Macau, and Zhuhai—three major cities on the Pearl River Delta in China.
The HZM Bridge was designed to last for 120 years and cost ¥127 billion (US$18.8 billion) to build.[2] The cost of constructing the Main Bridge was estimated at ¥51.1 billion (US$7.56 billion) funded by bank loans and shared among the governments of mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau.[7]
Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Immigrants, people of colour are biggest fans of the monarchy in Canada: poll
New polling says that the monarchy is more unpopular than popular in Canada
nationalpost.com
The Geopolitics of it all
I thought an interesting discussion for this crowd would be about where the world is going from a geopolitical standpoint. This is a really good video with Peter Zeihan. Most of the Canadian content starts at about the 41 min mark, but it's all very interesting. I'm interested in everyone's...
www.army.ca
There and Back Again: The Fall and Rise of Britain’s ‘East of Suez’ Basing Strategy - War on the Rocks
“You can’t repeat the past,” Nick Carraway cautions in The Great Gatsby. The U.K. government today is flirting with that hypothesis as it reestablishes
warontherocks.com
East of Suez - Wikipedia
Idi Amin - Wikipedia
Internal conflict in Myanmar - Wikipedia
When we compare the tales of Uganda and its next door neighbour of Kenya (even with the Mau Mau) and Burma and its neighbours of Malaysia and Vietnam, and even the more current tale of Hong Kong with Singapore and Brunei perhaps we can understand the affection upwardly mobile Asians might have for The Good Old Days of the Raj.
Those days of the Raj permitted Gandhi to travel the world on a British passport.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia
Likewise his sparring partners Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India and the first Prime Minister of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru - Wikipedia
Jinnah
Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But....
Given the later experience of India, Pakistan, Burma, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Singapore, Hong Kong and Brunei, after the Nationalists had been successful perhaps it is understandable why the London Parliament, sitting in the large metropolitan area that constitutes a "country" the size of Singapore or Hong Kong, with a mayor called Sadiq Khan,
with an ethnic make-up considerably at odds with the rest of the UK
Born abroad: A look at the Population of the UK - Views of the World
According to a BBC News feature, “trends in migration are changing. Once, migrants from the same country tended to cluster in areas where they had relatives or friends. But new maps of England and Wales, reveal that for more recent … Continue reading →
www.viewsoftheworld.net
Has resulted in a G7, nuclear armed country with a guaranteed seat on the United Nations Security Council, with a leadership group that looks like this:
Rishi Sunak
Suella Braverman
James Cleverly
Kemi Badenoch (As Scottish a family name as you are ever likely to find....)
More to follow....
