Yep lovely rant about the horrible condition everything is in and the disgusting state of our politicians.
Just one thing: it leans heavily towards the traditional customary habit of 'looking for a leader'.
A saviour. A Superman or a Jesus Christ.
The whole thing pleads for ' a leader'. Of course. That has been the paradigm.
Let me point out that it is not supposed to be the paradigm, though.
We are supposed to be democratic nations wherein the people govern of themselves, for themselves.
See?
Truth is that it simply could never be done in practice. Technology, communications, did not allow for it.
So we got the current pathetic imitation: spasmodic right to vote for one party of the other. End of story.
Given that situation it was/is natural that having cast their vote there was nothing folks could do but sit back and pray that they did the right thing.
The whole thing intrinsically a 'redeemer' philosophy. Pick the right choice from the two available and all will be well. All will be well.
Of course, it never is.
The point, however, is that we should not be looking for 'redeemers' 'saviours', we should be looking to do it ourselves.
And nowadays we can. We have the technology. The opportunity is here:
Very sympathetic to your invocation but I have to be the pessimist here. Yes "We" could rid ourselves the the civilisational rot and resulting scum (that John has so eloquently and copiously ranted about) but the hard truth is that if the "We" - the collective native Britishers - had not (post 1980 if not earlier) become so weak, lazy, distracted and morally bankrupt - then we would never have let all this happen to us in the first place. Britain led the world into the age of dynamic (true) Liberalism and has spent recent years in leading the Anglosphere out of it and into a new Dark Age. There is a price to pay for this and it will - and MUST - be painful.
Tangentially on the subject of LEADERS (and whilst I entirely agree with your comment).....the one good political thing to come out of Britain post-war was that exceptional leader Mrs T. And I offer here my tribute to her much misunderstood legacy (written on the tenth anniversary of her death: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
You're not wrong. Britain won't be restored to her former greatness anytime soon. Things will, to the contrary, become much worse. It's going to be a terrible century.
I agree, we should do the right thing the first time as if no one is looking but yourself, live life large, be brutally honest with yourself all the time and just a little nicer to others. And dare to create a world you want to live in
This is a facile meaningless generalisation when applied to the real world.
In fact most 'leadership' boils down to finding the right man for the job and the group can be well capable of this as is proved on a daily basis in thousands of instances all over the world. When that 'right man' gets down to doing it and does it well then who was the leader then? That man or the group?
History, I believe, is replete with examples of people being 'forced' into roles of 'leadership' they would rather not have had. Chosen by the people. Who then is the leader?
It is in fact rather a norm very often, hence the 'power behind the throne' that puts frontmen up. (begging the question then of who is the 'leader' of the group which is 'the power behind the throne? and in fact most commonly seen to be no real leader but consensus decision making. hence proving the point).
Promoters of your postulate are in fact promoting the disempowerment of their fellows and in fact their own selves did they but know it. They demean the people and themselves. They trend counter to the growth and advancement of the people and in favour of diminution and servility.
It has, of course, its parallel in religion. Perhaps not even a parallel, so closely enmeshed are they. There are those by the million, by the billion, who loll around in anything from agony to ecstasy and either way await the coming of the saviour.
But the word from the 'saviours' from the beginning of time has been that the saving is within the self: that you have to take personal responsibility and do it. That you can do it and should do it.
You should perhaps note that 'evil doers' will always promote the idea of the need for saving 'leaders' and are always happy to step into the role. It suits them perfectly.
Whereas well wishers and real 'leaders' in the only true sense encourage you to do things yourself and decline your offers of fame, riches and power.
You are all over the map on this one. We come from very different starting points, it would seem and that doesn't even account for the wild assumptions.
Nope. The universe is not a democracy. Heaven is not a democracy. Why would that be the preferred arrangement on earth? Remember when Aragorn assumed his rightful crown in Gondor? Remember how right it seemed? That was to represent what it'll be like when Christ returns. Benevolent Monarchy is the thing. Humans destroy themselves when they form mobs and tribes and voting blocks.
Democracy is merely mob rule and ultimately anarchy. It is short lived and quickly replaced by authoritarianism which then morphs to oligarchy; a relatively stable form of government, either benevolent of not.
that's a facile paraphrase of something from long ago. it is not proven to be a truth.
Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides in the main.
it's an opinion only. for the fact is there's been no democracy practiced to observe and learn from. the closest I know of is the 'consensus' decision making of the Australian aboriginal culture (and probably others). That we could maybe say is the ultimate democracy. It persisted for thousands of years.
Those who off handedly denigrate democracy don't bother to make the intellectual effort to consider the manifestations of democracy possible which at the simplest level can be seen to range all the way from aboriginal consensus on all issues to our current system where the people are completely ignored.
The end result is all of them are essentially calling for benign leadership by a dictator. In fact a 'saviour'. They are dreamers, wishers, even pleaders: political infantilists.
Their underlying desire, of course, is that they be the dictator but even they themselves realise this could never be for they have neither the wit nor the energy.
As you point out, we are looking for a leader at the macro scale to do everything for us. A perfect example would be Trump, and look how that worked out.
What we should be doing is looking for leaders at the local level, and helping them personally. Or becoming a leader in a local area. We aren't going to vote our way out of this, but we do need to organize our way out of this. Isolated individuals are easily defeated, which then cows the rest. e.g., J6 protesters and all the other FBI-instigated setups, psyops, and false flags.
I think we're in danger of talking at cross purposes.
It's not my position that universal digital suffrage will be a cure all of itself.
For exaggerated illustration suppose something like 99% of the population pushed the buttons on their phones (all having set themselves up with their 'digital voters' app) and voted the same way so's we got a vote of 99% that the government was not wanted, should get out.
What would that do of itself?
Nothing.
And right there is the end of my proposal so to speak.
I of course do believe that from there wonderful things could be/would be achieved.
But I recognise they may not.
It would all be new territory. Never happened before in history.
I would imagine such a scenario would lend itself towards the sort of actions you seek: such as leaders at the local level.
For I could imagine in such a situation such minded individuals would be far more likely to jump up and say - 'Look what we all want ! I will help.'
And I suppose that a government confronted with that would alter its ways very quickly.
And I suppose that elected representatives confronted with would alter their ways very quickly.
But I don't know.
Basically I simply say
1. democracy is worth trying
2. we are currently de facto disenfranchised
3. there is for the first time a way to fix that.
4. let's fix it.
And then I step out.
End of my proposal.
But I thoughts of course, allied to it all.
Seems to me we don't need leaders at all.
The leaders are amongst us and influencing us all the time so that their leadership manifest in our eventual voting.
Proposed voting. Not current.
Current is merely for a representative from a Party, right, to the govt?
I don't see that as a democratic process at all.
Referenda are democratic.
Polling the people for their individual opinions on a matter.
Polling them for which Party out of two or three shall have the right to blindly career ahead doing whatever it likes has nothing to do with democracy or the people at all.
So the leaders operate like an underground if you like. Within the mass. Leavening the mass if you like.
And the places where perhaps it might be thought we need leaders will often be simply where we currently have Departments and Offices and Department Heads and Officers and they lead by directing their Departments and their Offices.
The same way Generals in the Army lead by directing their commands.
For the main, just like Generals, they will do the will of the High Command: the People in this scenario, expressing their will clearly and often on a current basis.
When they perform poorly if not automatically corrected by the system itself then they'll be open to observation by the people and a 'referendum' on that question thrown up and performed and the results conveyed to them.
A bit like what happens with Generals in wartime when often the soldiers and the public are the first to be dissatisfied with the General and then later the High Command sees the necessity and does the work of replacing.
It's been very educational for me, this question. It seems very much like nobody really wants democracy, not amongst the clerisy anyway, unless I'm mistaken in placing people in that category. There seems to be a widespread view that the people are incapable and could not be trusted to make sensible decisions and so should not be given the chance.
Juxtaposing that against the insane decisions of our traditional decision makers makes for quite a laugh but there you go, that's what they seem to think.
I think they are wrong.
But I repeat: I'm not trying to say that this is the way guaranteed to solve all things.
I'm simply saying it is universal suffrage and should be tried at least while we are nominally democratically organised.
Politicians and businessmen monitor the mood, thoughts, attitudes of the people constantly via surveys formal and informal, polls and statistical analysis.
All of these give imprecise results often wildly erroneous.
Universal digital suffrage via cellphone apps would lead to a far greater participation by the electorate and to indisputably true results.
Faced with this interested parties would move in accord with the wishes of the people.
From fear of losing a sinecure, losing power, losing status and losing money on the part of the politicians and simply losing money on the part of business.
Just the irony that it was the advent of antisocial media in the late 1980s (eg Usenet alt/right groups) that persuaded me a return to Athenian democracy, which broadband made feasible for the first time in millennia, was actually undesirable! :)
Yep. It's a bit of a laugh, eh? Once it becomes feasible and we contemplate it a first reaction can easily be 'god, no, I don't want all those, or them, or the other, to be voting'. Stuff like that. I've read opinions such as 'they wouldn't vote anyway' or 'they wouldn't comprehend' or 'the people are not qualified' and so on.
So it seems there's been all this time a solid hidden substratum of belief that democracy is not what we want, is not good, is not feasible, not desirable and hidden only because democracy in fact does not exist and so this 'solid hidden substratum' does not feel threatened.
When I contemplate the western masses I'm inclined to think the same way, that's a fact.
But it won't wash. It's not really like that at all.
It conjures up a new discipline. Or new to me anyway. The mass mind. The actual ability of the mass to perform rationally and how it would do it: the mechanism, if we assume it could do it.
Perhaps it is a discipline and there's texts on it but I am unaware of them.
Bit that interests me is will the mass act without apparent leader, more or less 'by consensus' as with perhaps flocks of birds, schools of fish or australian aboriginal society and such or will they 'throw up' or search for 'leaders' ?
And I note that adopting a 'leaders' type mode doesn't necessarily mean a sole omnipotent leader and that 'throwing up ' leaders from the mass or 'searching for amongst the mass' is not at all the same as having them imposed upon the mass.
And so on.
I feel the future will tell for I can't see that the mass mind will not become manifest through the internet, the computer, the cellphone.
If not formalised intentionally via purpose built apps it will nevertheless happen as 'informal' apps of the same nature develop and expand to fill market niche.
Sorry. Carry on a bit. It interests me and I know nothing as yet, I just wonder if this, if that..
No no, it was never about my views of electorates and their poor choices! Rather, about the viability of the project per se. Because I believe in the rule of law as an essential control and safety valve, which Athenian democracy necessarily lacked in all but name. To prevent the routine collapse of democracy into oligarchy and thence into tyranny, as Athenian philosophers themselves acknowledged as inevitable. In other words, some constitutional restraint: which inherently is alien to democracy.
I always recognized that Athenian democracy was nothing more than mob rule, brilliantly satirized by Aristophanes in The Knights. My mistake was naively to think that the Enlightenment and mass education had improved the dynamic to the point that voters could make rational choices between alternatives, and could accept the rule of law as a constraint. Antisocial media proved to me that neither is the case; that ideologies/narratives are still key. ;)
I've met two genuine democrats in my life: one was an Oxford classics professor; and the other changed his mind. ;)
. I don't see the relevance of the rule of law as pertains to the suggestion of 'universal digital suffrage' by way of obviating against it which I suppose is why it is put forward.
. I don't know that Athenian democracy necessarily lacked the rule of law (in all but name).
. I don't see the 'routine collapse of democracy into oligarchy...etc
. I don't see constitutional restraint as being inherently alien to democracy.
. I don't see that Athenian democracy was 'mob rule' and I'm surprised by the assertion. The mob would include the slaves and they were most definitely not part of the democracy.
Unless of course you're referring to 'the mob' as the citizens.
. I cannot understand how antisocial media can convince that voters cannot make rational choices between alternatives.
So all in all I'm sorry to have to confess that I really can't make out 'where you're coming from' as they say these days. Meaning I can't quite grasp your point. :)
So I certainly can't argue against it. Any more than I can argue for it.
My point I can reiterate: it is simply that we today can potentially all have a voice on all questions great or small and be appraised of all relevant information and all know the current state of our collective voice and we should do so. Soonest.
The Irish government knew (aka designed) the referendum to be a scam to pry open the doors on immigration. They buried FOI requests until after the vote.
Meanwhile, in Canada there is no brown-minister, but a bunch of clowns who wish they were, so that it is impossible to distinguish them from the likes of Sunak and others.
I didn't know that the Irish revolt of sorts was still ongoing; good for them.
I have to admit that the info about Ireland going that way gives hope. Between them and France, and the three major globalist corpos losing rumour has it collectively 5 trillion, there might yet be hope for the rest of us.
Hahaha, especially with the current clowns in Ottawa/Toronto.
That said, Quebec gives room for hope as they're simply grabbing migrants and dumping them further west or to the south. I know that doesn't benefit my family, but at least Quebec is protecting herself, and the Maritimes. All I know is that if Japan has caught the ire of the Globalists, surely Quebec soon will again, with her actions against Migrants and her rejection of them (as seen with the language laws, which are tightening up, and there's some pro-Catholic and pro-Christian laws according to my brother, that are on the table). So Canada seems to be shifting and changing, honestly don't know where things will go.
Still though, the Irish have blazed the way and given reason for hope. Damn, I love them and am proud of my Irish half/my remote connection to the Emerald Isle and her valiant people (half-Irish half French by descent/culture (a common phenomenon in the north of Ontario)).
Apparently Quebec is looking into setting up its own immigration law, in order to prevent Ottawa from flooding it. The political decomposition of Canada proceeds apace.
Yep, though the Quebecois government is still dog-crap, and rabidly anti-Catholique as MP pointed out, they seem to hate Islam even more. And so are at least willing to cooperate with the local Bishop (who is apparently poppular with some people out there). Not that I trust the PM of Quebec, he's trash and another WEFer but he's in danger of losing his majority to a secessionist party that recently met with Maxime Bernier, who is campaigning mostly in Quebec & Brunswick, so that there's a growing popularity and enthusiasm for Bernier and secessionism (Bernier hosted a podcast talking with Quebec & Maritime parties on twitter a few days ago).
Quebec is rabidly anticlerical (there are no pro-Catholic laws on the way, and in fact the provincial court recently tried to force a Catholic health organisation to euthanise the elderly), but at least there is the chance that they'll stop the flood of immigrants there
They have been laying down some laws that are pointedly anti-Islamic, and refusing to apply them against Catholics MP. They are working on preventing the spread of Islam throughout Quebec.
I'm a Quebecer myself, which laws do you have in mind? The best thing that could happen in the near future is for PSPP to replace Legault, who's been useless at best (and usually terrible, like during covid)
The religious laws, are what I've in mind, I had heard from some folks out there (I'm in Japan at present) that the laws were being applied very particularly.
As to Legault I despise that rat, he's ruining Quebec. PSPP gives me a lot of hope also, my hope is that once I get back, secure a license (as a plumber) if PSPP wins, I might consider moving to Quebec down the road.
I loved it there when last I was there, but will not move there so long as Legault's bumbling about.
The problem is that rentier class is much bigger than that. For 15 years of ZIRP, regime media have been telling everyone how brilliant an idea «buy-to-let» is. Once someone buys in to that scam, they will support anything, ANYTHING to keep the rents too damn high, especially now that interest rates are rising and their profit margins turn out to be quite fragile.
There's no way out of this, other than hyperinflation and/or blowing up major banks.
I think the two is not correlated. I could be called a "rentier elite" although I don't make much out of it. Still I completely support deregulation and abolishing governments as I don't believe that government and regulation is the only reason rents are "high".
I'll bet hyperinflation. You can follow the developments in real time, here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/default.htm Table 5, row "Other liabilities and accrued dividends" You should also follow the CPI, as the continued unbacked money printing (tracked with noise in table 5) should eventually produce an out-of-control CPI. Currently, CPI is rising which is in-line with expectations. Economists, even on Zerohedge, haven't yet figured out the link. They see CPI rising but they can't figure out why it's rising, since FED rates are over 5%, which is supposed to crush the economy and CPI... Although, Zerohedge isn't what it used to be.
I lived in work in SW England from 2009 through 2012. During this time, I could see this coming like a storm cloud on the horizon. The hyper-safety oriented Nanny State they have always been was the perfect medium for the hysterical Karen's (of both sexes and all colors) to take over.
"But then, if almost no one votes, it’s very difficult for those who win the vote to claim that they have the mandate of the people".
You might imagine that it would be almost impossible, but that would be to underestimate their chutzpah - and the gullibility of the brainwashed masses.
When someone like Mr Xi or Mr Putin gains a huge majority, with almost everyone voting, they explain it thus: "Obviously a rigged election, as only totalitarian dictators ever get such high votes".
By that logic, British and US politicans who appeal to less than 20% of their own voters must be extremely democratic.
Fidesz in Hungary claims they have everyone's support since 14+ years. In reality around 30% of total voters give them absolute power (2/3+ in parliament).
The Irish are very aware that the transparent guilt tactics used on gullible British and Americans do not apply to them in the least, not even theoretically. The Irish were oppressed, never the oppressors in any way.
The Irish would be well advised to forcibly remove every single "migrant" forced upon them, along with the corrupt woke idiots in Dublin.
The very attempt to apply those tactics demonstrates their disingenuousness. However, it's more often said that the Irish should show solidarity since they, too, were an oppressed and colonized people. Naturally, this means that they must now be oppressed and colonized by the other oppressed and colonized peoples who are to be given the land of the Irish.
No matter what the argument is, the conclusion is always the same.
The elites aren't deranged, they're illustrating the Gordian knot that we have been instrumental in tying. But the hardheads are still comfortable.
It all has to change: the financial, religious, political, educational, legal, medical - it all has to be thrown on the fire.
The Five Eyes countries have it coming because red and blue political wings have supported financial stability for generations; the affluent are still content in their hypocrisy under Mammon's protection.
If this is all about hooking man back up to ...? a transcendent centre it begins with killing reliance on Mammon (and the word 'God' needs to be burned with fire to clean all churches off it).
When the gimmigrants are finally sent packing and the housing bubble bursts, oh man... let the fun begin.
The red and blue political sides must go up in flames to become purple, the colour of the phoenix out of the fornax. The old cycle's completing and everything we're witnessing is a vast, alchemical production. It's truly, truly fascinating.
Good assessment of the current state of the Mother Country. All the ministers you mention are indeed appointees and unpopular, except for Sadiq Khan. And he serves s his own warning as to the future of Britain.
I think most in the UK have got the message too. You can do that kind of thing, but you ultimately erode the belief in politics, voting and parliament itself. That takes a while to kick in, of which the Zero Seats is a symptom. But Labour will enjoy the same fate if they get in. They harbour many open borders fanatics, people who talk of up to five million immigrants per year.
One thing is certain. Things are coming to a head. Ireland is our test case because it is smaller and therefore declining faster. It cannot cope with the volumes of immigrants it has and the political class have become psychotic in their fanaticism for an immigration policy that can only harm the Irish. It is evident to more and more our nation-states have been scheduled for demolition and now need quite severe reversals of policy not just halts to immigration.
Merely closing the borders is no longer sufficient. Remigration is required. All those who obtained residency or citizenship during the multicultural era should have that paperwork revoked, on the grounds that the governments of that time were illegitimate. There's historical precedence for this, eg in Baltic countries that sent ethnic Russians packing after the USSR broke up.
This is of course impossible with the current leadership. Therefore removing that leadership has become an existential question.
Quite agree. The great secret they don't discuss is most of the immigrants view themselves as economic migrants, so are baffled we would expect them to assimilate. Like us doing a stint as engineers in Saudi Arabia. It is a gig.
Morgath got it right. They view us, correctly, as a wounded animal and are bemused at our unwillingness to defend our culture.
It also means that when the calculus changes - less money to be made, the locals suddenly willing and even eager to defend themselves - most of them will leave very quickly.
In the case of some groups I could name all you'd need to do is withdraw the dole money. Maybe pay for flights back home. That would be it. Denmark did something similar.
*Many* parallels to what's happening in Canada with the exception - so far - that Canada isn't encumbered with Brown First Ministers, but it will happen. Canada is importing approximately one million or so Indian-Pakistani "students" per year, "studying" for "diplomas" at "colleges" that churn out the equivalent of Dr. Nick Rivieras in the "business and IT management" programmes.
The result are houses in Toronto and Vancouver suburbs sleeping a dozen on mattresses on floors and bunk beds. And the demographic tide is such that India (and China) are now actively interfering in Canadian elections, ordering assassinations of Sikh activists, and rapidly displacing the dreaded "old stock" Canadians. Even in the hinterlands you will find every shop, gas station and fast food outlet staffed with glass-eyed Punjabi kids who can't speak English. And the leader of the socialist NDP, a Khalistani separatist-supporting Sikh, could very well become PM once the Castro Bastard Child finally decides to retire to Costa Rica with his...um, youngish male companions. If that happens, like any IT department in any company, he will hire his own and the front bench of the House of Commons will look like a Rochdale grooming gang group mug shot.
Canada's military is also rapidly dwindling, no one white wanting to serve for a country that sends horses to stomp on grandmothers protesting the theatre of mask wearing and toxic jabs, and the quality of Canadian policing is declining like a falling stone. Coupled with white liberal grovelling to endless Aboriginal demands, and Quebec increasingly saying Fuck This, we're out, I don't see present day Canada existing in its current form by 2040. Pierre Milhouse Poindexter notwithstanding, our "Tories" are just as much a deracinated lot that would halt the decline, not reverse it.
2040 is optimistic. Alberta wants out too. I wouldn't be surprised if the country breaks apart within a decade. There's nothing holding it together at this point but habit and rapidly fading sentiment.
NDP have never formed the government so I don't Jagmeet will become PM. But then again, those millions of subcons that have been injected into the country in the last few years may well be a sufficient ethnic vote to accomplish this.
I think it will, absolutely. This country is rapidly breaking down into a series of rent-seeking ethnic and identity groups who identify with their position on the intersectional stack than actual citizenship engaged in collective goods.
They don't so much identify with it as cynically deploy it as a moral weapon to cow the white heritage population. That will continue as long as white people shrink from accusations of racism.
It’s clear to see that you are quite familiar with the goings on across the pond. Your analysis is spot on (though, I would have added a caveat about the Lotus Eaters podcast. But that would be just nitpicking). Like you, I’m a Canuck with ancestral roots to the isles. What’s remarkable about this is that we both maintain a strong interest in what happens over there. To be frank, I have almost entirely given up on our home nation. I spend little time paying attention to the day-to-day activities of our ruling monsters. I truly believe that this nation is virtually hopeless—the ruling elite is far too centralized and insular and the masses too passive, propagandised, and deluded. Furthermore, what counts as alternative media here is a pathetic joke; admittedly, there are a handful of ‘dissidents’ (like yourself) here and there to be found online, but nothing substantial (unless I’m missing out on something). Needless to say, the immediate future is bleak here. But as long as the embers burn elsewhere (the isles and our neighbours immediately south) then the fire will rage again, someday. If for no other reason than the memetic nature of most Canadians—particularly, the elite.
I'd just like to point out that, according to data at my disposal, after 2 centuries of mining coal, UK mined out all it's coal and had to start importing it during the seventies. Imports are expensive, obviously, and push the margial cost of energy way up. Without cheap energy, the industrial base disintegrated. The process lasted 10 years. Thatcher was just there at the very very end. :)
BTW, USA is over the peak of conventional oil production. If not for tight oil, it too would already be going the way of the Dodo. But innovative drilling techniques are what they are and for the time being, USA is self-sufficient in oil production. That, too, won't last forever.
True. They were buying cheap gas from USSR/Russia. "Were buying" being the operative words. ;) How's the Germany's industrial production been going since Sanctions from Hell? Now you know why. :)
Although I do have to point out the French were paying something like 50-100 times less for Uranium from their (neo)colony Niger than they would have to pay on the open market. We'll see how that will work out for French in the future, now that Niger is doing it's own thing.
British industry also had the misfortune of not being bombed flat in the war. All her competitors had shiny new industry, she had left overs from the industrial revolution.
Yep lovely rant about the horrible condition everything is in and the disgusting state of our politicians.
Just one thing: it leans heavily towards the traditional customary habit of 'looking for a leader'.
A saviour. A Superman or a Jesus Christ.
The whole thing pleads for ' a leader'. Of course. That has been the paradigm.
Let me point out that it is not supposed to be the paradigm, though.
We are supposed to be democratic nations wherein the people govern of themselves, for themselves.
See?
Truth is that it simply could never be done in practice. Technology, communications, did not allow for it.
So we got the current pathetic imitation: spasmodic right to vote for one party of the other. End of story.
Given that situation it was/is natural that having cast their vote there was nothing folks could do but sit back and pray that they did the right thing.
The whole thing intrinsically a 'redeemer' philosophy. Pick the right choice from the two available and all will be well. All will be well.
Of course, it never is.
The point, however, is that we should not be looking for 'redeemers' 'saviours', we should be looking to do it ourselves.
And nowadays we can. We have the technology. The opportunity is here:
https://abrogard.com/blog/2023/12/25/dont-write-to-congress/
Couldn't agree more.
Very sympathetic to your invocation but I have to be the pessimist here. Yes "We" could rid ourselves the the civilisational rot and resulting scum (that John has so eloquently and copiously ranted about) but the hard truth is that if the "We" - the collective native Britishers - had not (post 1980 if not earlier) become so weak, lazy, distracted and morally bankrupt - then we would never have let all this happen to us in the first place. Britain led the world into the age of dynamic (true) Liberalism and has spent recent years in leading the Anglosphere out of it and into a new Dark Age. There is a price to pay for this and it will - and MUST - be painful.
Tangentially on the subject of LEADERS (and whilst I entirely agree with your comment).....the one good political thing to come out of Britain post-war was that exceptional leader Mrs T. And I offer here my tribute to her much misunderstood legacy (written on the tenth anniversary of her death: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
You're not wrong. Britain won't be restored to her former greatness anytime soon. Things will, to the contrary, become much worse. It's going to be a terrible century.
I agree, we should do the right thing the first time as if no one is looking but yourself, live life large, be brutally honest with yourself all the time and just a little nicer to others. And dare to create a world you want to live in
Leadership is a universal and necessary feature of the human condition. The only question is the quality thereof.
This is a facile meaningless generalisation when applied to the real world.
In fact most 'leadership' boils down to finding the right man for the job and the group can be well capable of this as is proved on a daily basis in thousands of instances all over the world. When that 'right man' gets down to doing it and does it well then who was the leader then? That man or the group?
History, I believe, is replete with examples of people being 'forced' into roles of 'leadership' they would rather not have had. Chosen by the people. Who then is the leader?
It is in fact rather a norm very often, hence the 'power behind the throne' that puts frontmen up. (begging the question then of who is the 'leader' of the group which is 'the power behind the throne? and in fact most commonly seen to be no real leader but consensus decision making. hence proving the point).
Promoters of your postulate are in fact promoting the disempowerment of their fellows and in fact their own selves did they but know it. They demean the people and themselves. They trend counter to the growth and advancement of the people and in favour of diminution and servility.
It has, of course, its parallel in religion. Perhaps not even a parallel, so closely enmeshed are they. There are those by the million, by the billion, who loll around in anything from agony to ecstasy and either way await the coming of the saviour.
But the word from the 'saviours' from the beginning of time has been that the saving is within the self: that you have to take personal responsibility and do it. That you can do it and should do it.
You should perhaps note that 'evil doers' will always promote the idea of the need for saving 'leaders' and are always happy to step into the role. It suits them perfectly.
Whereas well wishers and real 'leaders' in the only true sense encourage you to do things yourself and decline your offers of fame, riches and power.
You are all over the map on this one. We come from very different starting points, it would seem and that doesn't even account for the wild assumptions.
Cheers.
Nope. The universe is not a democracy. Heaven is not a democracy. Why would that be the preferred arrangement on earth? Remember when Aragorn assumed his rightful crown in Gondor? Remember how right it seemed? That was to represent what it'll be like when Christ returns. Benevolent Monarchy is the thing. Humans destroy themselves when they form mobs and tribes and voting blocks.
I have never said democracy is the preferred arrangement.
However it is supposedly our preferred arrangement and it clearly has not been tried.
Democracy is merely mob rule and ultimately anarchy. It is short lived and quickly replaced by authoritarianism which then morphs to oligarchy; a relatively stable form of government, either benevolent of not.
that's a facile paraphrase of something from long ago. it is not proven to be a truth.
Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides in the main.
it's an opinion only. for the fact is there's been no democracy practiced to observe and learn from. the closest I know of is the 'consensus' decision making of the Australian aboriginal culture (and probably others). That we could maybe say is the ultimate democracy. It persisted for thousands of years.
Those who off handedly denigrate democracy don't bother to make the intellectual effort to consider the manifestations of democracy possible which at the simplest level can be seen to range all the way from aboriginal consensus on all issues to our current system where the people are completely ignored.
The end result is all of them are essentially calling for benign leadership by a dictator. In fact a 'saviour'. They are dreamers, wishers, even pleaders: political infantilists.
Their underlying desire, of course, is that they be the dictator but even they themselves realise this could never be for they have neither the wit nor the energy.
I mostly agree, but for a matter of scale.
As you point out, we are looking for a leader at the macro scale to do everything for us. A perfect example would be Trump, and look how that worked out.
What we should be doing is looking for leaders at the local level, and helping them personally. Or becoming a leader in a local area. We aren't going to vote our way out of this, but we do need to organize our way out of this. Isolated individuals are easily defeated, which then cows the rest. e.g., J6 protesters and all the other FBI-instigated setups, psyops, and false flags.
I think we're in danger of talking at cross purposes.
It's not my position that universal digital suffrage will be a cure all of itself.
For exaggerated illustration suppose something like 99% of the population pushed the buttons on their phones (all having set themselves up with their 'digital voters' app) and voted the same way so's we got a vote of 99% that the government was not wanted, should get out.
What would that do of itself?
Nothing.
And right there is the end of my proposal so to speak.
I of course do believe that from there wonderful things could be/would be achieved.
But I recognise they may not.
It would all be new territory. Never happened before in history.
I would imagine such a scenario would lend itself towards the sort of actions you seek: such as leaders at the local level.
For I could imagine in such a situation such minded individuals would be far more likely to jump up and say - 'Look what we all want ! I will help.'
And I suppose that a government confronted with that would alter its ways very quickly.
And I suppose that elected representatives confronted with would alter their ways very quickly.
But I don't know.
Basically I simply say
1. democracy is worth trying
2. we are currently de facto disenfranchised
3. there is for the first time a way to fix that.
4. let's fix it.
And then I step out.
End of my proposal.
But I thoughts of course, allied to it all.
Seems to me we don't need leaders at all.
The leaders are amongst us and influencing us all the time so that their leadership manifest in our eventual voting.
Proposed voting. Not current.
Current is merely for a representative from a Party, right, to the govt?
I don't see that as a democratic process at all.
Referenda are democratic.
Polling the people for their individual opinions on a matter.
Polling them for which Party out of two or three shall have the right to blindly career ahead doing whatever it likes has nothing to do with democracy or the people at all.
So the leaders operate like an underground if you like. Within the mass. Leavening the mass if you like.
And the places where perhaps it might be thought we need leaders will often be simply where we currently have Departments and Offices and Department Heads and Officers and they lead by directing their Departments and their Offices.
The same way Generals in the Army lead by directing their commands.
For the main, just like Generals, they will do the will of the High Command: the People in this scenario, expressing their will clearly and often on a current basis.
When they perform poorly if not automatically corrected by the system itself then they'll be open to observation by the people and a 'referendum' on that question thrown up and performed and the results conveyed to them.
A bit like what happens with Generals in wartime when often the soldiers and the public are the first to be dissatisfied with the General and then later the High Command sees the necessity and does the work of replacing.
It's been very educational for me, this question. It seems very much like nobody really wants democracy, not amongst the clerisy anyway, unless I'm mistaken in placing people in that category. There seems to be a widespread view that the people are incapable and could not be trusted to make sensible decisions and so should not be given the chance.
Juxtaposing that against the insane decisions of our traditional decision makers makes for quite a laugh but there you go, that's what they seem to think.
I think they are wrong.
But I repeat: I'm not trying to say that this is the way guaranteed to solve all things.
I'm simply saying it is universal suffrage and should be tried at least while we are nominally democratically organised.
Opinions/ voting only matter if backed up by the threat of force. Which requires local, state, and regional organization.
Politicians and businessmen monitor the mood, thoughts, attitudes of the people constantly via surveys formal and informal, polls and statistical analysis.
All of these give imprecise results often wildly erroneous.
Universal digital suffrage via cellphone apps would lead to a far greater participation by the electorate and to indisputably true results.
Faced with this interested parties would move in accord with the wishes of the people.
From fear of losing a sinecure, losing power, losing status and losing money on the part of the politicians and simply losing money on the part of business.
There is your force.
Your innocence is cute.
Thanks for the Abrogard link. Reminds me of my youth... ;)
that's interesting. how so?
Just the irony that it was the advent of antisocial media in the late 1980s (eg Usenet alt/right groups) that persuaded me a return to Athenian democracy, which broadband made feasible for the first time in millennia, was actually undesirable! :)
Yep. It's a bit of a laugh, eh? Once it becomes feasible and we contemplate it a first reaction can easily be 'god, no, I don't want all those, or them, or the other, to be voting'. Stuff like that. I've read opinions such as 'they wouldn't vote anyway' or 'they wouldn't comprehend' or 'the people are not qualified' and so on.
So it seems there's been all this time a solid hidden substratum of belief that democracy is not what we want, is not good, is not feasible, not desirable and hidden only because democracy in fact does not exist and so this 'solid hidden substratum' does not feel threatened.
When I contemplate the western masses I'm inclined to think the same way, that's a fact.
But it won't wash. It's not really like that at all.
It conjures up a new discipline. Or new to me anyway. The mass mind. The actual ability of the mass to perform rationally and how it would do it: the mechanism, if we assume it could do it.
Perhaps it is a discipline and there's texts on it but I am unaware of them.
Bit that interests me is will the mass act without apparent leader, more or less 'by consensus' as with perhaps flocks of birds, schools of fish or australian aboriginal society and such or will they 'throw up' or search for 'leaders' ?
And I note that adopting a 'leaders' type mode doesn't necessarily mean a sole omnipotent leader and that 'throwing up ' leaders from the mass or 'searching for amongst the mass' is not at all the same as having them imposed upon the mass.
And so on.
I feel the future will tell for I can't see that the mass mind will not become manifest through the internet, the computer, the cellphone.
If not formalised intentionally via purpose built apps it will nevertheless happen as 'informal' apps of the same nature develop and expand to fill market niche.
Sorry. Carry on a bit. It interests me and I know nothing as yet, I just wonder if this, if that..
:)
No no, it was never about my views of electorates and their poor choices! Rather, about the viability of the project per se. Because I believe in the rule of law as an essential control and safety valve, which Athenian democracy necessarily lacked in all but name. To prevent the routine collapse of democracy into oligarchy and thence into tyranny, as Athenian philosophers themselves acknowledged as inevitable. In other words, some constitutional restraint: which inherently is alien to democracy.
I always recognized that Athenian democracy was nothing more than mob rule, brilliantly satirized by Aristophanes in The Knights. My mistake was naively to think that the Enlightenment and mass education had improved the dynamic to the point that voters could make rational choices between alternatives, and could accept the rule of law as a constraint. Antisocial media proved to me that neither is the case; that ideologies/narratives are still key. ;)
I've met two genuine democrats in my life: one was an Oxford classics professor; and the other changed his mind. ;)
Too involved for me to be sure I comprehend it.
. I don't see the relevance of the rule of law as pertains to the suggestion of 'universal digital suffrage' by way of obviating against it which I suppose is why it is put forward.
. I don't know that Athenian democracy necessarily lacked the rule of law (in all but name).
. I don't see the 'routine collapse of democracy into oligarchy...etc
. I don't see constitutional restraint as being inherently alien to democracy.
. I don't see that Athenian democracy was 'mob rule' and I'm surprised by the assertion. The mob would include the slaves and they were most definitely not part of the democracy.
Unless of course you're referring to 'the mob' as the citizens.
. I cannot understand how antisocial media can convince that voters cannot make rational choices between alternatives.
So all in all I'm sorry to have to confess that I really can't make out 'where you're coming from' as they say these days. Meaning I can't quite grasp your point. :)
So I certainly can't argue against it. Any more than I can argue for it.
My point I can reiterate: it is simply that we today can potentially all have a voice on all questions great or small and be appraised of all relevant information and all know the current state of our collective voice and we should do so. Soonest.
Is all. :)
Ah, you missed this today
https://gript.ie/revealed-the-documents-the-state-didnt-want-you-to-see-before-the-referendums/
The Irish government knew (aka designed) the referendum to be a scam to pry open the doors on immigration. They buried FOI requests until after the vote.
Indeed I did not see that.
Meanwhile, in Canada there is no brown-minister, but a bunch of clowns who wish they were, so that it is impossible to distinguish them from the likes of Sunak and others.
I didn't know that the Irish revolt of sorts was still ongoing; good for them.
I have to admit that the info about Ireland going that way gives hope. Between them and France, and the three major globalist corpos losing rumour has it collectively 5 trillion, there might yet be hope for the rest of us.
Give Canada time. I'm sure it will do its level best to catch up.
Hahaha, especially with the current clowns in Ottawa/Toronto.
That said, Quebec gives room for hope as they're simply grabbing migrants and dumping them further west or to the south. I know that doesn't benefit my family, but at least Quebec is protecting herself, and the Maritimes. All I know is that if Japan has caught the ire of the Globalists, surely Quebec soon will again, with her actions against Migrants and her rejection of them (as seen with the language laws, which are tightening up, and there's some pro-Catholic and pro-Christian laws according to my brother, that are on the table). So Canada seems to be shifting and changing, honestly don't know where things will go.
Still though, the Irish have blazed the way and given reason for hope. Damn, I love them and am proud of my Irish half/my remote connection to the Emerald Isle and her valiant people (half-Irish half French by descent/culture (a common phenomenon in the north of Ontario)).
Apparently Quebec is looking into setting up its own immigration law, in order to prevent Ottawa from flooding it. The political decomposition of Canada proceeds apace.
Yep, though the Quebecois government is still dog-crap, and rabidly anti-Catholique as MP pointed out, they seem to hate Islam even more. And so are at least willing to cooperate with the local Bishop (who is apparently poppular with some people out there). Not that I trust the PM of Quebec, he's trash and another WEFer but he's in danger of losing his majority to a secessionist party that recently met with Maxime Bernier, who is campaigning mostly in Quebec & Brunswick, so that there's a growing popularity and enthusiasm for Bernier and secessionism (Bernier hosted a podcast talking with Quebec & Maritime parties on twitter a few days ago).
I didn't realize Bernier was a secessionist now. Kinda based tbh. The man is too big for Canadian politics.
Quebec is rabidly anticlerical (there are no pro-Catholic laws on the way, and in fact the provincial court recently tried to force a Catholic health organisation to euthanise the elderly), but at least there is the chance that they'll stop the flood of immigrants there
They have been laying down some laws that are pointedly anti-Islamic, and refusing to apply them against Catholics MP. They are working on preventing the spread of Islam throughout Quebec.
I'm a Quebecer myself, which laws do you have in mind? The best thing that could happen in the near future is for PSPP to replace Legault, who's been useless at best (and usually terrible, like during covid)
The religious laws, are what I've in mind, I had heard from some folks out there (I'm in Japan at present) that the laws were being applied very particularly.
As to Legault I despise that rat, he's ruining Quebec. PSPP gives me a lot of hope also, my hope is that once I get back, secure a license (as a plumber) if PSPP wins, I might consider moving to Quebec down the road.
I loved it there when last I was there, but will not move there so long as Legault's bumbling about.
Fidelito looks a bit brown to me
Good point
The Rule of the Black Pharaohs, AKA The Affirmative Action Dynasty
We Wuz Diversity Hirez
I thought Nyarlathotep was the Black Pharaoh?
How did I miss that?!
I love the Zero Seats stuff. We need something like that here in the USA.
Brilliant, isn't it?
re: «exhausted rentier elite»
The problem is that rentier class is much bigger than that. For 15 years of ZIRP, regime media have been telling everyone how brilliant an idea «buy-to-let» is. Once someone buys in to that scam, they will support anything, ANYTHING to keep the rents too damn high, especially now that interest rates are rising and their profit margins turn out to be quite fragile.
There's no way out of this, other than hyperinflation and/or blowing up major banks.
Much of the PMC is implicated in this, yes; along with essentially everyone living off of a pension fund.
I think the two is not correlated. I could be called a "rentier elite" although I don't make much out of it. Still I completely support deregulation and abolishing governments as I don't believe that government and regulation is the only reason rents are "high".
I'll bet hyperinflation. You can follow the developments in real time, here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/default.htm Table 5, row "Other liabilities and accrued dividends" You should also follow the CPI, as the continued unbacked money printing (tracked with noise in table 5) should eventually produce an out-of-control CPI. Currently, CPI is rising which is in-line with expectations. Economists, even on Zerohedge, haven't yet figured out the link. They see CPI rising but they can't figure out why it's rising, since FED rates are over 5%, which is supposed to crush the economy and CPI... Although, Zerohedge isn't what it used to be.
I lived in work in SW England from 2009 through 2012. During this time, I could see this coming like a storm cloud on the horizon. The hyper-safety oriented Nanny State they have always been was the perfect medium for the hysterical Karen's (of both sexes and all colors) to take over.
London has fallen.
The safteyism has been taken to truly Kafkaesque extremes in the UK. It's a key regime tool for paralyzing the subject population.
"But then, if almost no one votes, it’s very difficult for those who win the vote to claim that they have the mandate of the people".
You might imagine that it would be almost impossible, but that would be to underestimate their chutzpah - and the gullibility of the brainwashed masses.
When someone like Mr Xi or Mr Putin gains a huge majority, with almost everyone voting, they explain it thus: "Obviously a rigged election, as only totalitarian dictators ever get such high votes".
By that logic, British and US politicans who appeal to less than 20% of their own voters must be extremely democratic.
They'd certainly try.
Fidesz in Hungary claims they have everyone's support since 14+ years. In reality around 30% of total voters give them absolute power (2/3+ in parliament).
Brilliant last sentence! I'll shamelessly steal it! :)
Please be my guest!
The Irish are very aware that the transparent guilt tactics used on gullible British and Americans do not apply to them in the least, not even theoretically. The Irish were oppressed, never the oppressors in any way.
The Irish would be well advised to forcibly remove every single "migrant" forced upon them, along with the corrupt woke idiots in Dublin.
The very attempt to apply those tactics demonstrates their disingenuousness. However, it's more often said that the Irish should show solidarity since they, too, were an oppressed and colonized people. Naturally, this means that they must now be oppressed and colonized by the other oppressed and colonized peoples who are to be given the land of the Irish.
No matter what the argument is, the conclusion is always the same.
The elites aren't deranged, they're illustrating the Gordian knot that we have been instrumental in tying. But the hardheads are still comfortable.
It all has to change: the financial, religious, political, educational, legal, medical - it all has to be thrown on the fire.
The Five Eyes countries have it coming because red and blue political wings have supported financial stability for generations; the affluent are still content in their hypocrisy under Mammon's protection.
If this is all about hooking man back up to ...? a transcendent centre it begins with killing reliance on Mammon (and the word 'God' needs to be burned with fire to clean all churches off it).
When the gimmigrants are finally sent packing and the housing bubble bursts, oh man... let the fun begin.
The red and blue political sides must go up in flames to become purple, the colour of the phoenix out of the fornax. The old cycle's completing and everything we're witnessing is a vast, alchemical production. It's truly, truly fascinating.
Good assessment of the current state of the Mother Country. All the ministers you mention are indeed appointees and unpopular, except for Sadiq Khan. And he serves s his own warning as to the future of Britain.
I think most in the UK have got the message too. You can do that kind of thing, but you ultimately erode the belief in politics, voting and parliament itself. That takes a while to kick in, of which the Zero Seats is a symptom. But Labour will enjoy the same fate if they get in. They harbour many open borders fanatics, people who talk of up to five million immigrants per year.
One thing is certain. Things are coming to a head. Ireland is our test case because it is smaller and therefore declining faster. It cannot cope with the volumes of immigrants it has and the political class have become psychotic in their fanaticism for an immigration policy that can only harm the Irish. It is evident to more and more our nation-states have been scheduled for demolition and now need quite severe reversals of policy not just halts to immigration.
Merely closing the borders is no longer sufficient. Remigration is required. All those who obtained residency or citizenship during the multicultural era should have that paperwork revoked, on the grounds that the governments of that time were illegitimate. There's historical precedence for this, eg in Baltic countries that sent ethnic Russians packing after the USSR broke up.
This is of course impossible with the current leadership. Therefore removing that leadership has become an existential question.
Quite agree. The great secret they don't discuss is most of the immigrants view themselves as economic migrants, so are baffled we would expect them to assimilate. Like us doing a stint as engineers in Saudi Arabia. It is a gig.
Morgath got it right. They view us, correctly, as a wounded animal and are bemused at our unwillingness to defend our culture.
It also means that when the calculus changes - less money to be made, the locals suddenly willing and even eager to defend themselves - most of them will leave very quickly.
In the case of some groups I could name all you'd need to do is withdraw the dole money. Maybe pay for flights back home. That would be it. Denmark did something similar.
Cutting off the gibs is the first and easiest step, and would be by far the easiest to implement politically.
There's still a chance at the funniest unintentional prediction ever
(Star Trek's "Irish Unification of 2024") and that gives me warm fuzzies.
*Many* parallels to what's happening in Canada with the exception - so far - that Canada isn't encumbered with Brown First Ministers, but it will happen. Canada is importing approximately one million or so Indian-Pakistani "students" per year, "studying" for "diplomas" at "colleges" that churn out the equivalent of Dr. Nick Rivieras in the "business and IT management" programmes.
The result are houses in Toronto and Vancouver suburbs sleeping a dozen on mattresses on floors and bunk beds. And the demographic tide is such that India (and China) are now actively interfering in Canadian elections, ordering assassinations of Sikh activists, and rapidly displacing the dreaded "old stock" Canadians. Even in the hinterlands you will find every shop, gas station and fast food outlet staffed with glass-eyed Punjabi kids who can't speak English. And the leader of the socialist NDP, a Khalistani separatist-supporting Sikh, could very well become PM once the Castro Bastard Child finally decides to retire to Costa Rica with his...um, youngish male companions. If that happens, like any IT department in any company, he will hire his own and the front bench of the House of Commons will look like a Rochdale grooming gang group mug shot.
Canada's military is also rapidly dwindling, no one white wanting to serve for a country that sends horses to stomp on grandmothers protesting the theatre of mask wearing and toxic jabs, and the quality of Canadian policing is declining like a falling stone. Coupled with white liberal grovelling to endless Aboriginal demands, and Quebec increasingly saying Fuck This, we're out, I don't see present day Canada existing in its current form by 2040. Pierre Milhouse Poindexter notwithstanding, our "Tories" are just as much a deracinated lot that would halt the decline, not reverse it.
2040 is optimistic. Alberta wants out too. I wouldn't be surprised if the country breaks apart within a decade. There's nothing holding it together at this point but habit and rapidly fading sentiment.
NDP have never formed the government so I don't Jagmeet will become PM. But then again, those millions of subcons that have been injected into the country in the last few years may well be a sufficient ethnic vote to accomplish this.
I think it will, absolutely. This country is rapidly breaking down into a series of rent-seeking ethnic and identity groups who identify with their position on the intersectional stack than actual citizenship engaged in collective goods.
They don't so much identify with it as cynically deploy it as a moral weapon to cow the white heritage population. That will continue as long as white people shrink from accusations of racism.
It’s clear to see that you are quite familiar with the goings on across the pond. Your analysis is spot on (though, I would have added a caveat about the Lotus Eaters podcast. But that would be just nitpicking). Like you, I’m a Canuck with ancestral roots to the isles. What’s remarkable about this is that we both maintain a strong interest in what happens over there. To be frank, I have almost entirely given up on our home nation. I spend little time paying attention to the day-to-day activities of our ruling monsters. I truly believe that this nation is virtually hopeless—the ruling elite is far too centralized and insular and the masses too passive, propagandised, and deluded. Furthermore, what counts as alternative media here is a pathetic joke; admittedly, there are a handful of ‘dissidents’ (like yourself) here and there to be found online, but nothing substantial (unless I’m missing out on something). Needless to say, the immediate future is bleak here. But as long as the embers burn elsewhere (the isles and our neighbours immediately south) then the fire will rage again, someday. If for no other reason than the memetic nature of most Canadians—particularly, the elite.
It's incredibly difficult to have much hope for Canada, and therefore, I don't.
I'd just like to point out that, according to data at my disposal, after 2 centuries of mining coal, UK mined out all it's coal and had to start importing it during the seventies. Imports are expensive, obviously, and push the margial cost of energy way up. Without cheap energy, the industrial base disintegrated. The process lasted 10 years. Thatcher was just there at the very very end. :)
BTW, USA is over the peak of conventional oil production. If not for tight oil, it too would already be going the way of the Dodo. But innovative drilling techniques are what they are and for the time being, USA is self-sufficient in oil production. That, too, won't last forever.
Eh. Maybe. I strongly suspect that this did not need to be the end. Germany made itself an industrial powerhouse without indigenous energy supplies.
True. They were buying cheap gas from USSR/Russia. "Were buying" being the operative words. ;) How's the Germany's industrial production been going since Sanctions from Hell? Now you know why. :)
Right. There was also nothing stopping the Brits from doing the same. Or, for that matter, going the French route and embracing nuclear.
Nothing, that is, but politics, which has proved far more decisive than notional resource limitations.
Although I do have to point out the French were paying something like 50-100 times less for Uranium from their (neo)colony Niger than they would have to pay on the open market. We'll see how that will work out for French in the future, now that Niger is doing it's own thing.
British industry also had the misfortune of not being bombed flat in the war. All her competitors had shiny new industry, she had left overs from the industrial revolution.
America didn't get bombed flat, either.
You are delightful read. Thanks
Cheers!