As a Traditional Catholic mexican I think anglos are in the decline, but they did created many useful things.
I can see both the drug trafficking of Queen Victoria as monstrous and still acknowledge that lightbulbs and electricity are quite useful.
Overall anglos stunted their potential when becoming heretics, but hey, no nation is perfect.
In reality, the nagging kindergarten teacher from Interstellar much more closely resembles a different type of self-hating Anglo in today's climate -- the terminally online conspiracy theorist. These delusional hysterics pose at least as much of a threat to their own kind as do the smarmy, self-hating social activists. Unfortunately, almost the entire audience for posts and authors like this one comprise such people, so the ongoing demise and decay spoken of here is highly likely to continue, even if the problems discussed in this article are solved completely.
Britain was the first nation in history to ban slavery & the slave trade on a humanitarian basis - and not only that, they expended significant resources in combatting slave trading by other nations & in destroying slave-trading posts on the African coast.
We forget, today, that to declare "war on slavery" was, at that time, to declare war upon one of the oldest forms of social organization - one which had existed in every organized society since the dawn of civilization. Quite an undertaking - and while their success was not entire, it could be said to have catalyzed the general rejection of slavery in the civilized world by the middle of the 19th century.
No other nation had ever attempted to enforce humanitarian policy on the entire world in such a way. It is remarkable & unique. The racialist, anti-Western counterargument would likely be that "colonialist & imperialist policy was merely cloaked in the veneer of an anti-slavery crusade" - yet this puts so-called current progressives in the position of defending intra-society slavery as a cultural practice. Some might go that far, but most wouldn't - and thus you can pin them into admitting that it is in fact sometimes necessary & "a good thing" for certain moral values to be enforced, even if that means disregarding or prohibiting another group's traditional practices.
They *hate* admitting this. Britain's moral, unilateral & truly progressive global anti-slavery crusade of the early 1800s is an *excellent* subject of discussion, if you find yourself desiring to flummox such a person. Caught between having to admit a colonialist nation did something right, or having to defend the age-old brutal tradition of chattel slavery - their heads about explode. And that's before we get into how many hundreds of thousands of Unionists gave their lives to win freedom for African-Americans & to prevent the establishment of a slave state...a unique act of sacrifice which has no equal in history.
Welp, although you basically confirmed my point, I must stress that yours explains why Brits (and Yanks) abolished slavery, not why they invaded Spanish colonies (and the South) to enforce their ban abroad.
If slavery was so inferior, the West African Squadron (and the ACW) was useless: so there must be a different reason, like fighting Spain (and Dixie). I know I am right, you don't need to continuously prove me so, but thanks!
I don't know about "always." This so-called progressive moral system we have now, where nothing is stood by once called ungood by anyone, is rather new. The progressives I grew up with worshiped FDR & his uncle Teddy and would have defended them as good people & good Presidents against all comers. The progressive experiments of FDR & Teddy - Social Security & the national park system - have not reverted to the prior conservative framework.
The issue we have now is that "moral" is determined by which take wins on social media. This means that controversialists reign, and there is no victory but the tear-down. Reasoned defense will always get fewer likes than passion-inflaming castigation.
People habitually trust authorities, but these once-lofty authorities are now mere creatures subservient to the passions of social-media-using masses. They are made & unmade by them. What is happening in progressive circles is mob rule in moral terms - it is a Reign of Terror, and in a less sedentary society it might have involved a bit or a lot more blood than "cancel culture" draws.
The reason we are under mob rule, now as ever, is that traditional authorities have been disrupted, and no new authority has asserted itself. Not a single person in so-called progressive circles now is capable of saying, "The buck stops here." No one at all is willing or permitted to engage in reasoned defense of anything at all once it's been cast as evil by the social media masses. I myself don't write under my own name as I would be fired.
The situation is grim but at the same time it is not age-old. It will be resolved if new progressive authorities arise, who are willing to take criticism without self-flagellating, who are willing to defend policies & people they think are good-on-balance even if some groups get the short stick, who are willing, in simple terms, to stand for something.
This spoke to my pirate's heart. Absolutely fantastic piece.
As a Traditional Catholic mexican I think anglos are in the decline, but they did created many useful things. I can see both the drug trafficking of Queen Victoria as monstrous and still acknowledge that lightbulbs and electricity are quite useful. Overall anglos stunted their potential when becoming heretics, but hey, no nation is perfect.
Neal Stephenson's nanotechnology novel *The Diamond Age* describes a high-tech society in which Neo-Victorian mores have prevailed.
It's true. I am a very sad pirate indeed.
But i do have some rum. Yo-ho-ho!
In reality, the nagging kindergarten teacher from Interstellar much more closely resembles a different type of self-hating Anglo in today's climate -- the terminally online conspiracy theorist. These delusional hysterics pose at least as much of a threat to their own kind as do the smarmy, self-hating social activists. Unfortunately, almost the entire audience for posts and authors like this one comprise such people, so the ongoing demise and decay spoken of here is highly likely to continue, even if the problems discussed in this article are solved completely.
I wonder if the author of this might be able to calm down slightly if they realised the role which chance plays in historical processes.
How wonderfully delightful.
Britain was the first nation in history to ban slavery & the slave trade on a humanitarian basis - and not only that, they expended significant resources in combatting slave trading by other nations & in destroying slave-trading posts on the African coast.
We forget, today, that to declare "war on slavery" was, at that time, to declare war upon one of the oldest forms of social organization - one which had existed in every organized society since the dawn of civilization. Quite an undertaking - and while their success was not entire, it could be said to have catalyzed the general rejection of slavery in the civilized world by the middle of the 19th century.
No other nation had ever attempted to enforce humanitarian policy on the entire world in such a way. It is remarkable & unique. The racialist, anti-Western counterargument would likely be that "colonialist & imperialist policy was merely cloaked in the veneer of an anti-slavery crusade" - yet this puts so-called current progressives in the position of defending intra-society slavery as a cultural practice. Some might go that far, but most wouldn't - and thus you can pin them into admitting that it is in fact sometimes necessary & "a good thing" for certain moral values to be enforced, even if that means disregarding or prohibiting another group's traditional practices.
They *hate* admitting this. Britain's moral, unilateral & truly progressive global anti-slavery crusade of the early 1800s is an *excellent* subject of discussion, if you find yourself desiring to flummox such a person. Caught between having to admit a colonialist nation did something right, or having to defend the age-old brutal tradition of chattel slavery - their heads about explode. And that's before we get into how many hundreds of thousands of Unionists gave their lives to win freedom for African-Americans & to prevent the establishment of a slave state...a unique act of sacrifice which has no equal in history.
The Brits (and the Yanks) fought slavery because the Spanish (and the Dixies) were slavers.
It's not a critic, it's that you are so good at marketing that you belive your own lies.
Welp, although you basically confirmed my point, I must stress that yours explains why Brits (and Yanks) abolished slavery, not why they invaded Spanish colonies (and the South) to enforce their ban abroad.
If slavery was so inferior, the West African Squadron (and the ACW) was useless: so there must be a different reason, like fighting Spain (and Dixie). I know I am right, you don't need to continuously prove me so, but thanks!
I don't know about "always." This so-called progressive moral system we have now, where nothing is stood by once called ungood by anyone, is rather new. The progressives I grew up with worshiped FDR & his uncle Teddy and would have defended them as good people & good Presidents against all comers. The progressive experiments of FDR & Teddy - Social Security & the national park system - have not reverted to the prior conservative framework.
The issue we have now is that "moral" is determined by which take wins on social media. This means that controversialists reign, and there is no victory but the tear-down. Reasoned defense will always get fewer likes than passion-inflaming castigation.
People habitually trust authorities, but these once-lofty authorities are now mere creatures subservient to the passions of social-media-using masses. They are made & unmade by them. What is happening in progressive circles is mob rule in moral terms - it is a Reign of Terror, and in a less sedentary society it might have involved a bit or a lot more blood than "cancel culture" draws.
The reason we are under mob rule, now as ever, is that traditional authorities have been disrupted, and no new authority has asserted itself. Not a single person in so-called progressive circles now is capable of saying, "The buck stops here." No one at all is willing or permitted to engage in reasoned defense of anything at all once it's been cast as evil by the social media masses. I myself don't write under my own name as I would be fired.
The situation is grim but at the same time it is not age-old. It will be resolved if new progressive authorities arise, who are willing to take criticism without self-flagellating, who are willing to defend policies & people they think are good-on-balance even if some groups get the short stick, who are willing, in simple terms, to stand for something.