BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:21 pm

The times they are a'changin', and even the BBC now cannot avoid noticing that fact. There are some pretty telling quotes in this piece, from Juncker, Guy Verhofstadt, Sir Christopher Meyer, and others.

The end of the Anglo-American order?

Nick Bryant. New York correspondent

9 June 2017

From the section US & Canada

There has always been a shared conceit at the heart of the special relationship between the United States and United Kingdom that global leadership is best expressed and exerted in English.

More boastful than the Brits, successive US presidents have trumpeted the notion of American exceptionalism.

Prime ministers, in a more understated manner, have also come to believe in British exceptionalism, the idea that Westminster is the mother parliament, and that the UK has a governing model and liberal values that set the global standard for others to follow, not least its former colonies.

In the post-war Anglo-American order those ideas came together. In many ways, it was the product of Anglo-American exceptionalist thinking: the "city upon a hill" meets "this sceptred isle".

Nato, the IMF, the World Bank and the Five Eyes intelligence community all stemmed from the Atlantic Charter signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in August 1941.

The liberalised free trade system that flourished after the war is often called the Anglo-Saxon model. The post-world global architecture, diplomatic, mercantile and financial, was largely an English-speaking construct.

BritainImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

In recent weeks, however, the Anglo-American order has looked increasingly weak and wobbly. The unexpectedly messy result of the British election makes it look still more fragile, like a historic edifice left tottering in the wake of a major quake.

There is uncertainty in Westminster, and something nearing chaos in Washington because of Russian probe at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Neither Britain nor America can boast strong and stable governments. Neither have the look of global exemplars.

In the six weeks since Theresa May called her snap election, the global tectonic plates have shifted fast, leaving Britain and America increasingly adrift.

Donald Trump, during his first international trip, refused to publicly endorse Article V of the Nato treaty and publicly scolded his allies over financial burden sharing.

He found himself isolated at the G7 summit in Sicily. Then, on his return to Washington, came the announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement, a decision of massive planetary and geopolitical import.

Hung Parliament: What happens now?

A simple guide to the UK election result

How the world reacted


Here, America First meant America alone, and Trump seemed to revel in his neo-isolationism - as he did when he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership early in his presidency.

For Britain, the diplomatic impact of Brexit has also become clearer in recent weeks. EU leaders have bluntly outlined how they will set the terms of the divorce settlement, in what looks more and more like a diktat than an amicable separation.

The 27 remaining members of the EU have also made it clear they intend to penalise the UK.

When Jean-Claude Juncker met Theresa May at Downing Street shortly after she called the election, he was evidently dismayed by her approach.

"I'm leaving Downing Street 10 times more sceptical than I was before," the EU Commission president reportedly informed his host.

As one senior EU diplomat put it to me: "Britain has shot itself in one foot. We intend to shoot you in the other."

The British prime minister, by failing to win an election she didn't have to call, has weakened her bargaining position still further. Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt has already called the UK election: "Yet another own goal."

Protesters wear May and Trump masks Image copyright REUTERS

In recent weeks it is not only the UK's relations with the EU that have become more strained. Its cherished trans-Atlantic alliance has also been subject to some unforeseen stress tests.

I never expected to report that Britain would stop sharing sensitive intelligence with the United States, but that was the story we broke in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing.

Then, following the London attack, came Donald Trump's Twitter assault on the London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Again, in the pre-Trump world it would have been unthinkable for a US President to mount such a vicious attack on a British mayor in the wake of a UK terror attack.

Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador in Washington, seemed to capture the public mood when he noted: "Trump makes me puke."

The prime minister steered clear of delivering a stiff public rebuke to the President over his attack on Mayor Khan, presumably out of fear of angering Donald Trump and jeopardising a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

Perhaps this also explained why she didn't join with Germany, France and Italy in signing a joint declaration slamming Trump's Paris decision.

Media caption Donald Trump challenged London Mayor Sadiq Khan to an IQ test

But again that emphasises Britain's weakness. The special relationship has always been an asymmetrical relationship but now it seems even more lop-sided. It speaks of the UK's post-Brexit diplomacy of desperation.

The trans-Atlantic alliance will eventually have to deal with a longer-term problem that will outlast the Trump administration. One of Britain's great uses to Washington in recent decades has been as a bridge to the European Union.

It's why Barack Obama lobbied so hard for a 'remain' vote ahead of last year's referendum. Under future US presidents, it is easy to imagine a German-American alliance supplanting the special relationship.

Voids in global leadership are immediately filled, and we've seen that happen at warp speed over the past few weeks. Brexit has galvanised the European Union. The election of Emmanuel Macron has revitalised the Franco-German alliance, giving it a more youthful and dynamic look.

Students take a selfie photo with French President Emmanuel Macron (Rear L) during his visit to the Vaseix agricultural college in Verneuil-sur-Vienne, France, June 9, 2017 Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Post-Paris, a green alliance has emerged between Beijing and Brussels. More broadly, China sees the chance to extend its sphere of influence, positioning itself on environmental issues as the international pace-setter. Even before Mr Trump took the oath of office, this looked more likely to be the Asian Century rather than a repeat of the American Century.

Europe eyes an enhanced role for itself, too. "We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands," declared Angela Merkel during a speech in a Bavarian beer hall after the disastrous G7 summit.
In a pointed dig at America and Britain, she also warned that the days when Germany could completely rely on others are "over to a certain extent".

More and more, the German chancellor looks like the leader of the free world, something that would have required a massive leap of imagination in the years immediately after World War II, when the English-speaking liberal global order was taking shape.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speak after a press conference following talks and the signing of agreements at the Chancellery in Berlin, on May 30, 2017 Image copyright GETTY IMAGES

Winston Churchill, during the 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he coined the phrase "special relationship" (and also the "iron curtain"), noted: "It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement."

Right now, both the United States and the United Kingdom seem to be failing that Churchillian test.

These English-speaking nations no longer speak with such a clarion voice, and the rest of the world no longer takes such heed.

A new world order seems to be emerging that is being articulated in other tongues.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40227270


Image
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:23 pm

Image


Image
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:20 pm

I wasn't sure which thread to put this great piece by Englehardt in, but I think he does a great job of spelling out how the end of the American order (that the piece doesn't touch on the UK's contributions to the decline of civilization is its only great deficiency) has been in the works for some time; Trump is simply the perfect tool to make it happen faster.



Holy Moly: Trump Is on His Way to Presiding Over the Most Precipitous Decline of a Truly Dominant Power in History
Trump is going to set a record for the history books. Can we do anything about it?
By Tom Engelhardt / TomDispatch
June 13, 2017, 7:33 AM GMT

In its own inside-out, upside-down way, it’s almost wondrous to behold. As befits our president’s wildest dreams, it may even prove to be a record for the ages, one for the history books. He was, after all, the candidate who sensed it first. When those he was running against, like the rest of Washington’s politicians, were still insisting that the United States remained at the top of its game, not an -- but the -- “indispensable nation,” the only truly “exceptional” one on the face of the Earth, he said nothing of the sort. He campaigned on America’s decline, on this country’s increasing lack of exceptionality, its potential dispensability. He ran on the single word “again” -- as in “make America great again” -- because (the implication was) it just isn’t anymore. And he swore that he and he alone was the best shot Americans, or at least non-immigrant white Americans, had at ever seeing the best of days again.

In that sense, he was our first declinist candidate for president and if that didn’t tell you something during the election season, it should have. No question about it, he hit a chord, rang a bell, because out in the heartland it was possible to sense a deepening reality that wasn’t evident in Washington. The wealthiest country on the planet, the most militarily powerful in the history of... well, anybody, anywhere, anytime (or so we were repeatedly told)... couldn’t win a war, not even with the investment of trillions of taxpayer dollars, couldn’t do anything but spread chaos by force of arms.

Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despite billionaires galore, including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly (to use a word from another universe) Third Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularly said things like this: “We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing… And we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad roads. Airports.” And this: “Our airports are like from a third-world country.” And on the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, he couldn’t have been more on the mark.

In parts of the U.S., white working-class and middle-class Americans could sense that the future was no longer theirs, that their children would not have a shot at what they had had, that they themselves increasingly didn’t have a shot at what they had had. The American Dream seemed to be gaining an almost nightmarish sheen, given that the real value of the average wage of a worker hadn’t increased since the 1970s; that the cost of a college education had gone through the roof and the educational debt burden for children with dreams of getting ahead was now staggering; that unions were cratering; that income inequality was at a historic high; and... well, you know the story, really you do. In essence, for them the famed American Dream seemed ever more like someone else’s trademarked property.

Indispensable? Exceptional? This country? Not anymore. Not as they were experiencing it.

And because of that, Donald Trump won the lottery. He answered the $64,000 question. (If you’re not of a certain age, Google it, but believe me it’s a reference in our president’s memory book.) He entered the Oval Office with almost 50% of the vote and a fervent base of support for his promised program of doing it all over again, 1950s-style.

It had been one hell of a pitch from the businessman billionaire. He had promised a future of stratospheric terrificness, of greatness on an historic scale. He promised to keep the evil ones -- the rapists, job thieves, and terrorists -- away, to wall them out or toss them out or ban them from ever traveling here. He also promised to set incredible records, as only a mega-businessman like him could conceivably do, the sort of all-American records this country hadn’t seen in a long, long time.

And early as it is in the Trump era, it seems as if, on one score at least, he could deliver something for the record books going back to the times when those recording the acts of rulers were still scratching them out in clay or wax. At this point, there’s at least a chance that Donald Trump might preside over the most precipitous decline of a truly dominant power in history, one only recently considered at the height of its glory. It could prove to be a fall for the ages. Admittedly, that other superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable to leave the global stage. Still, despite the “evil empire” talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers. It was never Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain.

When it comes to the United States, we’re talking about a country that not so long ago saw itself as the only great power left on planet Earth, “the lone superpower.” It was the one still standing, triumphant, at the end of a history of great power rivalry that went back to a time when the wooden warships of various European states first broke out into a larger world and began to conquer it. It stood by itself at, as its proponents liked to claim at the time, the end of history.

Applying Hard Power to a Failing World

As we watch, it seems almost possible to see President Trump, in real time, tweet by tweet, speech by speech, sword dance by sword dance, intervention by intervention, act by act, in the process of dismantling the system of global power -- of “soft power,” in particular, and of alliances of every sort -- by which the U.S. made its will felt, made itself a truly global hegemon. Whether his “America first” policies are aimed at creating a future order of autocrats, or petro-states, or are nothing more than the expression of his libidinous urges and secret hatreds, he may already be succeeding in taking down that world order in record fashion.

Despite the mainstream pieties of the moment about the nature of the system Donald Trump appears to be dismantling in Europe and elsewhere, it was anything but either terribly “liberal” or particularly peaceable. Wars, invasions, occupations, the undermining or overthrow of governments, brutal acts and conflicts of every sort succeeded one another in the years of American glory. Past administrations in Washington had a notorious weakness for autocrats, just as Donald Trump does today. They regularly had less than no respect for democracy if, from Iran to Guatemala to Chile, the will of the people seemed to stand in Washington’s way. (It is, as Vladimir Putin has been only too happy to point out of late, an irony of our moment that the country that has undermined or overthrown or meddled in more electoral systems than any other is in a total snit over the possibility that one of its own elections was meddled with.) To enforce their global system, Americans never shied away from torture, black sites, death squads, assassinations, and other grim practices. In those years, the U.S. planted its military on close to 1,000 overseas military bases, garrisoning the planet as no other country ever had.

Nonetheless, the cancelling of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, threats against NAFTA, the undermining of NATO, the promise of protective tariffs on foreign goods (and the possible trade wars that might go with them) could go a long way toward dismantling the American global system of soft power and economic dominance as it has existed in these last decades. If such acts and others like them prove effective in the months and years to come, they will leave only one kind of power in the American global quiver: hard military power, and its handmaiden, the kind of covert power Washington, through the CIA in particular, has long specialized in. If America’s alliances crack open and its soft power becomes too angry or edgy to pass for dominant power anymore, its massive machinery of destruction will still be left, including its vast nuclear arsenal. While, in the Trump era, a drive to cut domestic spending of every sort is evident, more money is still slated to go to the military, already funded at levels not reached by combinations of other major powers.

Given the last 15 years of history, it’s not hard to imagine what’s likely to result from the further elevation of military power: disaster. This is especially true because Donald Trump has appointed to key positions in his administration a crew of generals who spent the last decade and a half fighting America’s catastrophic wars across the Greater Middle East. They are not only notoriously incapable of thinking outside the box about the application of military power, but faced with the crisis of failed wars and failing states, of spreading terror movements and a growing refugee crisis across that crucial region, they can evidently only imagine one solution to just about any problem: more of the same. More troops, more mini-surges, more military trainers and advisers, more air strikes, more drone strikes... more.

After a decade and a half of such thinking we already know perfectly well where this ends -- in further failure, more chaos and suffering, but above all in an inability of the U.S. to effectively apply its hard power anywhere in any way that doesn’t make matters worse. Since, in addition, the Trump administration is filled with Iranophobes, including a president who has only recently fused himself to the Saudi royal family in an attempt to further isolate and undermine Iran, the possibility that a military-first version of American foreign policy will spread further is only growing.

Such “more” thinking is typical as well of much of the rest of the cast of characters now in key positions in the Trump administration. Take the CIA, for instance. Under its new director, Mike Pompeo (distinctly a “more” kind of guy and an Iranophobe of the first order), two key positions have reportedly been filled: a new chief of counterterrorism and a new head of Iran operations (recently identified as Michael D’Andrea, an Agency hardliner with the nickname “the Dark Prince”). Here’s how Matthew Rosenberg and Adam Goldman of the New York Times recently described their similar approaches to their jobs (my emphasis added):

“Mr. D’Andrea’s new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said. The agency also recently named a new chief of counterterrorism, who has begun pushing for greater latitude to strike militants.”

In other words, more!

Rest assured of one thing, whatever Donald Trump accomplishes in the way of dismantling America’s version of soft power, “his” generals and intelligence operatives will handle the hard-power part of the equation just as “ably.”

The First American Laster?

If a Trump presidency achieves a record for the ages when it comes to the precipitous decline of the American global system, little as The Donald ever cares to share credit for anything, he will undoubtedly have to share it for such an achievement. It’s true that kings, emperors, and autocrats, the top dogs of any moment, prefer to take all the credit for the “records” set in their time. When we look back, however, it’s likely that President Trump will be seen as having given a tottering system that necessary push. It will undoubtedly be clear enough by then that the U.S., seemingly at the height of any power’s power in 1991 when the Soviet Union disappeared, began heading for the exits soon thereafter, still enwreathed in self-congratulation and triumphalism.

Had this not been so, Donald Trump would never have won the 2016 election. It wasn’t he, after all, who gave the U.S. heartland an increasingly Third World feel. It wasn’t he who spent those trillions of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special ops raids, reconstruction and deconstruction in a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread of terror. It wasn’t he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn’t he who hiked college tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created the conditions for Third World-style airports.

If both the American global and domestic systems hadn’t been rotting out before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, that “again” of his wouldn’t have worked. Thought of another way, when the U.S. was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak incessantly of how “indispensable” or “exceptional” the country was. It seemed too self-evident to mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and other politicians (and their claims, for instance, that the U.S. military was “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known”) as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power.

So here’s the question: When the Trump years (months?) come to an end, will the U.S. be not the planet’s most exceptional land, but a pariah nation? Will that “again” still be the story of the year, the decade, the century? Will the last American Firster turn out to have been the first American Laster? Will it truly be one for the record books?
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:04 pm

Elvis - have you read Thirkield's tome there? Worth tracking down?

I have been increasingly seeking out +50 year old books to read and very much enjoying the headfuck. I finally got around to reading "Democracy in America" and I was shook, boy howdy.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:43 am

Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:04 pm wrote:Elvis - have you read Thirkield's tome there? Worth tracking down?

I have been increasingly seeking out +50 year old books to read and very much enjoying the headfuck. I finally got around to reading "Democracy in America" and I was shook, boy howdy.


Yes, that's my copy. Not much of a "tome," just 58 pages, published in 1926. It was originally a lecture given at a Methodist bishops' conference in 1925, with "no thought of publication in mind."

It's been awhile since I read it, but basically, along with the usual Cecil Rhodes/Atlantic union-type ideas of "rule by the English speaking peoples," Thirkield adds that English is the best language for spreading "Christian ideals" and "redeeming the world." He takes pains to assure the reader that "all men of any race or lineage" can put their head right by learning English and speaking and thinking in English.

No chapters as such, but section headings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
∙ The English-Speaking Peoples — Will They Fail in Their Mission to the World?

∙ The So-Called Nordic Race

∙ The Social Equipment of a Race

∙ The Negro American and English-Speaking

∙ What Group is Equal to This World Task?

∙ The Task of Anglo-American Peoples

∙ A Possible World Language

∙ English Language Saturated with Christ

∙ A Holy Passion for Missions

∙ What is the Meaning of All This?

∙ Western Civilization Lost Its Magic

∙ An Hour of Crisis

∙ Those Stern and Immutable Conditions

∙ The Old Order Changeth

∙ England and an Awakened India :lol:

∙ The Bogy of White Supremacy

∙ That Strange, Pathetic Figure—Ghandi [sic]

∙ Is Christ Coming to Africa?

∙ Five Continents to One

∙ God Save Us From 'The Meek'

∙ England and World Civilization

∙ America and World Movements

∙ Lost Moral Leadership

∙ Shut the Door in Japan's Face

∙ Monroe Doctrine Served Its Day

∙ Anti-American Spirit

∙ Big Boss and Not Big Brother

∙ Three Hundred and Thirty Billions !

∙ A Crisis in the Moral Progress of the World

∙ Call for High Spiritual Idealism

∙ But One Side of the Picture

∙ If America Fails
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, after reviewing those, I recall it's pretty interesting, not just 'Atlanticist' propaganda, though it's that, too. These Methodists were basically of the early 20th-century Yale divinity school milieu. There may be a number of surprises, e.g. the section on Gandhi wasn't what I expected.

Random interesting quote, page 51: "America is in peril from excessive wealth."

(My answer to the question "Will They Fail in Their Mission to the World?": Yes, of course they failed, by most any measure, and most certainly by Thirkield's criteria.)

So, I do recommend it. I'm going to give it a quick re-read. If you can't find a copy, let me know, I could scan it or you can borrow my copy.

“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby norton ash » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:01 am

The Negro American and English-Speaking


I'd love to see the 1925 take. Does he predict spectacular contributions to vocabulary, style, and vernacular?
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:08 pm

norton ash wrote:I'd love to see the 1925 take.


Okay, I'll start scanning (looks unavailable online), probably a few pages at a time.


Does he predict spectacular contributions to vocabulary, style, and vernacular?


No. The idea here is that American blacks don't cause trouble because they speak and think in English.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:35 am

The prime minister steered clear of delivering a stiff public rebuke to the President over his attack on Mayor Khan, presumably out of fear of angering Donald Trump and jeopardising a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.


I can think of another reason for her reticence. During the Mayoral race that ended in Sadiq Khan taking office, the Tories (with Cameron at the forefront) did everything in their power to paint him as a terrorist sympathizer with strong and proven links to extreme Islamist groups and hate-preachers.

It seems to be their go-to accusation, the terror thing. I hope they enjoy working closely with the UDA and Ulster Resistance... I mean, the DUP.

It was all (mostly) bullshit, the stuff they had on Khan. In fact, it was so overtly bullshit and dog-whistly that it led to a reasonably personable Tory candidate with a decent chance of winning (Zac Goldsmith) being thrashed both electorally and in the media over the dirty and slyly racist nature of his campaign.

Theresa May - with her lame-duck Home Office background and her (totally ineffectual and counterproductive) obsession with Islamist extremism, which she has consistently used in an attempt to gain electoral advantage for herself - would not have been uninvolved in these events.
Last edited by AhabsOtherLeg on Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:54 am

Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:04 pm wrote:Elvis - have you read Thirkield's tome there? Worth tracking down?

I have been increasingly seeking out +50 year old books to read and very much enjoying the headfuck. I finally got around to reading "Democracy in America" and I was shook, boy howdy.


Churchill wrote a great book - one of many - called "Aftermath: The End of the World Struggle." He wrote it at the end of WW1.

There is a last chapter in one of the volumes (the problem with Churchill is that most of his books had multiple volumes, and all of the volumes are huge, and I am in no shape to tell them apart) which discusses the then-new problem of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

He only meant chemical weapons back then, of course, poison gasses used as battlefield munitions, etc. - but it's the tone of the piece that is astonishing. He writes about them like he was the biggest anti-war lefty CND-merchant you ever heard. You almost feel like getting twenty strong men together, so you can lift him away from the gates of Faslane. He foresees the absolute destruction of Mankind by it's own hand - the language is all very stentorian, Biblical, Churchillian even - and he begs the children of the future in the strongest terms to abjure warfare and step back from the brink.

This is the guy who once advocated the use of chemical bombing against "uncivillized tribes."

It's also the guy who went on to insist that Britain should have it's own "independent" thermonuclear bombs, and made damn sure we would have them, to the detriment (even if they are never used in anger) of all living things on the earth.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:31 am

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Elvis - have you read Thirkield's tome there? Worth tracking down?
I have been increasingly seeking out +50 year old books to read and very much enjoying the headfuck. I finally got around to reading "Democracy in America" and I was shook, boy howdy.

norton ash wrote:I'd love to see the 1925 take. Does he predict spectacular contributions to vocabulary, style, and vernacular?

Elvis wrote:Okay, I'll start scanning


Here's the flap:

English Speaking Peoples 01.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:11 am

English Speaking Peoples002.jpg


English Speaking Peoples003.jpg


English Speaking Peoples004.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:13 am

English Speaking Peoples005.jpg


English Speaking Peoples006.jpg


English Speaking Peoples007.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:14 am

English Speaking Peoples008.jpg


English Speaking Peoples009.jpg


English Speaking Peoples010.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:16 am

English Speaking Peoples011.jpg


English Speaking Peoples012.jpg


English Speaking Peoples013.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BBC asks: "The end of the Anglo-American order?"

Postby Elvis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:18 am

English Speaking Peoples014.jpg



...That's the first half of the book...I'll keep going if anyone wants more.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests