It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain needs to return to Imperialism.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Britain is consuming itself with boredom, it won't be long before it's a Muslim owned country or some crazy crud.

I would love to see Britain re-exert itself as an Empire, this time you don't need armies, you have a powerful financial sector with a strong currency, start buy buying a lot of stock in companies already operating in the former commonwealths such as Canada, Australia, India etc.

Promote that investment, then by corporatism part of their profits are now automatically Britain's profits.

I'm sure if Britain were threatened she could still draw upon resources from the Commonwealths so diplomacy shouldn't be too much an issue.

Just a more proactive effort in profiting from others...it'd be a good thing.

mod edit: corrected spelling of Britain in title

[edit on 9-3-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
We have had Muslims in this country for over 1000 years.
They don't even make up 5% of the population.
You'll not live 50,000 years. You'll not see an Islamic Britain.

The Empire is pointless. If the Government spent money on buying these companies up, we'd have to reduce education, the military, health care and so on and so fourth.

Logic escapes you.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
They don't even make up 5% of the population.


It's about half that, I think... 2.3%ish

But yeah... silly idea, really. What problems will it solve? It'll just create a heap of new ones. We did get rid of the empire for a reason, you know.

Oh, and please stop with the "Islamic Britain" bile. It puts you on the intellectual plane of the BNP.

[edit on 9/3/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by Odium
They don't even make up 5% of the population.


It's about half that, I think... 2.3%ish

But yeah... silly idea, really. What problems will it solve? It'll just create a heap of new ones. We did get rid of the empire for a reason, you know.

Oh, and please stop with the "Islamic Britain" bile. It puts you on the intellectual plane of the BNP.

[edit on 9/3/07 by Ste2652]


Even less, 1.7% according to the 2001 Census.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor
Britain is consuming itself with boredom, it won't be long before it's a Muslim owned country or some crazy crud.


Where are you from?


Originally posted by The_Investor
I would love to see Britain re-exert itself as an Empire, this time you don't need armies, you have a powerful financial sector with a strong currency, start buy buying a lot of stock in companies already operating in the former commonwealths such as Canada, Australia, India etc.


We already do. Maybe not on the huge scale your suggesting, but we do. The Queen also has significant holdings in the former colonies and, tehcnically, still wields power in several.

Incidentally, this was almost exactly what we did first time round anyway. We didn't have a large army at the height of the Empire. Most of our acquisitions were done by fleecing the locals, tricking them to fight each other and moving in afterwards. India was conquered by a Private Company. Only after the mutiny did it come under direct Government control.


Originally posted by The_Investor
Promote that investment, then by corporatism part of their profits are now automatically Britain's profits.


But we already trade with the Commonwealth. what your promoting is state owned industry acorss the Commonwealth, all run from London. Sounds a bit communist, if you ask me.


Originally posted by The_Investor
I'm sure if Britain were threatened she could still draw upon resources from the Commonwealths so diplomacy shouldn't be too much an issue.


If we were to return to Imperialism, then it would be the Commonwealth we would "re-colonise". Not much else to choose from after that, seeing as we got all the best bit's first time round. I don't really see the citizen's of the Commonwealth reacting to fondly to a ressurgence of the Empire.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Investor I take your all for the exploitation of the poor, and robbing countries of what belongs to them. Thats what made our Empire its the same as what the US is doing right now, go into someone's country rob them blind when they fight back you call them insurgents and kill them all.

Also you yearn for glory but slag off the very people who helped us maintain our Emipre, do you know how many of your enemies (Muslims etc.) fought and died just in ww1/2 alone for the country they loved.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Actually it was about private investorship encouraged through government policy but I suppose I omitted that. Now that you know - maybe you fools can recant your ramblings and readdress the proposed issue?

It's a lovely fact that Britain is so full of inward panzies, it's no wonder the US is running the show.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Investor you seem to have a penchant for calling people names who do not agree with you. My views on Imperialism have nothing to do with being anything other than a person with a different view.

When I was young I was proud of my Empire roots but as I got older I realised that it had all been achieved with the murder of millions, slavery, and asset stripping, there is nothing proud about that.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I dont really see what you seek to achieve through expanding the "empire" again. I mean, your first paragraph has been effectively shown to be "crazy crud" anyway.

What do you mean by consuming tiself with boredom? Do you propose that the population should occupy their bored minds by decimating and aggressively occupying foreign terretories? Rape and pilage ... anyone?

The commonwealth don't "belong" to us anymore as you seem to believe, in fact they never did!

Imperialism is a nice way of saying exploitation. It inevitably involves the use of the poor by the rich for basic profit. Its dirty and weak to increase your wealth through the increasing poverty of other.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor
Actually it was about private investorship.
so pfi schemes in hospitals and schools are a good thing....ok i'm a liar they arnt and nobody needs to take that piece of new labour thinking and dump it on the rest of the world do they now.


Originally posted by The_Investor

It's a lovely fact that Britain is so full of inward panzies,
reallyhow dare you i'm sure you dont mean that, but really what makes you think this.


Originally posted by The_Investor
...ngs and readdress the proposed issue?
.

the proposed issue? that the uk needs an empire to re-accert itself as a global superpower..well unless i've gone stupid we are a major "player" in global politics and the worlds econmy.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well Invester, you are talking a language I can agree with you.

I firmly want the British Empire back, in fact, I want it to be bigger.

We should use the economic power we had as being the global financial centre of the world. I think the days are gone of a British gunboat appearing on a coast to influence policy, but we should use our financial power in a similar vein.

And returning to imperialism would enable us to rein in America.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Well Invester, you are talking a language I can agree with you.

I firmly want the British Empire back, in fact, I want it to be bigger.

We should use the economic power we had as being the global financial centre of the world. I think the days are gone of a British gunboat appearing on a coast to influence policy, but we should use our financial power in a similar vein.

And returning to imperialism would enable us to rein in America.


A reasoned response for once - I mean in pertaining to what I was arguing rather than arguments somewhat deviating from what I was intending to talk about.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Problem is, what do you do about China, India, the United States and Germany? All nations which have a bigger economy than the UK. You can't go to war with them and making them collapse wouldn't do us any good either, considering we trade a great deal with all four of those nations.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
We can take all these countries on. We have bested them before, we can do it again



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
It’s a good thing you’re against military force, I was going to point you towards the “Iraq Experience”. But if you’re interested in colonising anywhere there’s always Iran.
Although personally I think Rhodesia (whoops I meant Zimbabwe) could provide a better investment-real estate.

Unfortunately these days you can’t just walk into someone’s country and expect them to fight you with bamboo, they have guns; turns out over the last 100 years the Western world has been selling lots of them (and their companions) all over the world. It's this "pollution" that's the real death nail for imperialism.

You’re Proposal…
Our government is currently borrowing money www.tutor2u.net... to pay for things like benefits (which absorb over a third of all U.K tax money).
So how is it to raise money in order to invest in other countries? Borrow more money on interest? That rarely makes sense, you need to ask why you are being leant it.
There’s another problem too: What if we find that instead of being in control of a foreign country; they’re actually in the process of re-nationalisation? (I.e. to take back what they’ve sold us; ether to sell it again or run it themselves).

This is why I don’t give a monkeys about foreign countries running companies in the U.K; it’s good for investment, and if in a emergency it doesn’t suit us, then desperate times call for desperate measure (good by foreign companies here’s a token few pence for you’re share price!!!).

Instead…
Why not say: Hay Europe get over here!! Hay you China get over here! Why not have two minimum wages? One for people born in this country, the other for foreigners working in struggling industries?
The inland revenue collects tax revenue every year, so working out which areas of the economy are struggling isn’t exactly rocket science.
If we can expand our economy with: cheap labour, high wages for citizens, and ideally low taxation (probably by expecting work for benefits (in most cases); then it won’t be long until Britain has money invested all over the world. But this time it will be by the private citizen so the money will probably be better invested, more finally spread, and probably safer than if it was done by the state. Of course its growth can still be taxed, so it’s not like the state doesn’t benefit (a bit).



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor
Just a more proactive effort in profiting from others


You want the world to return to the dark ages, the bad old days, why should Britain profit from others, they have been doing that for centuries, why shouldn't the other countries have their chance to profit instead of having it raped by Britain.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I want to first address the great powers. China can be EASILY mind you EASILY dominated by Force and Diplomacy.

Britain would need the US to stay out - that's it. British Naval might is enough to cut China from her life's blood, oil and coal. China does not have a significant Blue-water Navy, and in the event of Naval warfare relies upon her Ballistic Missiles as coastal defences and her Land Based Air Force.

The days of bombarding cities is at an end - Britain never even needs to see China's shores to win a war against her.

A war against China could best be won by destroying her merchant fleets at sea - near India, Persia, or Africa. This is the transit routes for her oil and coal. Britain may control the waves in the straights of Indonesia after a small fight with China's PLA Navy.

This applies to India, Japan, and Germany on all accounts.

However with regards to the latter two war is impossible as they are integrated into the economy of the Globe and India would more than welcome investment from her former Colonizer so there's no reason to go to war with her either.

China is the only one that would stalwartly be offended by foreign investment enmasse...

The United States is either Britain's Colony or Britain is the 51st State I've actually debated for both - because they influence each other's strategy so much.

Now concerning Liberal1984.

The British Military is not capable of occupation - Iraq has proven this of even the US Military (so highly boasted).

The British Military - like the US - has the capacity to destroy. Influencing a government can come from threatening their survival...intigration into a British-Anglo community, or isolation on the high seas or devestation from the air.

Take for instance India - Britain may use diplomacy with Pakistan to influence India (probably not the other way around due to Pakistani weak government) and through India's fears of Pakistan's invasions and war...Britain can ensure Indian destruction if they do not meet certain agendas.

Of course this type of empire by force is a last resort.

My suggestion is an empire through ownership - invest in other countries and their industry and profit thereby.

The argument the UK government is borrowing money - so what? Invest on Margin?

The last argument though supports slavery, Britain would be more abhorent of this but in the US it's quite obvious slavery is not "over". It went from slaves in the mid-1800s to wage-slaves to now...immigrant slave labor. Millions of Illegals working for pennies living in ghettos ...

Britain would want this?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

My suggestion is an empire through ownership - invest in other countries and their industry and profit thereby.

Firstly I see you fail to explain why Britain is even in a position to set up an “empire through ownership” given that the government is borrowing huge amounts of money just to balance its books.
Furthermore what makes you think state run-financed investment firms are so efficient? Private money handled by the millions of thinking individual owners is so much better. I.e. what I am saying is surely it would be better to give the U.K public finance tax cuts, this way they could cancel some of their credit card debt, or invest in economy ether by spending (or directly).
I can see something of a political argument for controlling how individuals invest their money abroad. BUT…
I pointed out that the only reason why I don’t mind other countries investing in ours is because (if worst comes to worst) we can always confiscate their assets. The same applies to us investing in them. Doesn’t this constitute a lethal flaw in what you are suggesting?

Military and Politics
Then, even if you somehow solve the above questions you need to take into account the political considerations.
Personally I think in order to enforce The Empire of Theft you want, you would need to not only kill many, if not millions of people (step in golddragnet) but also loose many British lives in the process. Is the sure (perhaps mass) death of British men and women really in this great countries interests?
I for one quite like them being alive, thank you very much!!

World Order in Disorder
But it doesn’t end there as if you’re idea worked other countries would surely therefore want to try copying it?
There would of course be certain defences open to all countries of this world: like filtering who or how foreign investors may invest in your country. This would be bad for western foreign involvement in many third world countries, therefore not only bad for us (e.g. Western hedge funds) but also world economic growth because these foreign countries would grow slower because they have to be paranoid about foreign investment, this in turn would be bad for world economic trade (of which we, like all major economies are part of).

The Damage of War: You’re plan seems to be quite liberal minded about the using the military to back economic plans up. Well if it works, and if other major countries copy (which they will if it works) then the world will have a lot more wars going on it. This is bad news as although we make a lot of weapons the economic damage caused by them by being used is far greater.
E.g. a tank shell can be produced for less than ten pounds, but does anyone argue it causes ten pounds worth of damage?
This means additional meagre bad news for foreign (often western backed) investment funds buying up foreign assets at today’s often bargain prices.
Therefore the more war we have going on earth the greater the harm we do to the earths and its economy, consequently the greater the harm we do to our own peoples companies-shares, and their investment opportunities.

I.e. In exchange for a healthy arms sector (something a political party like the Lib Dem’s might harm anyway) you have ether reduced global growth or a full blown global recession; well done!!!

Also: I think you underestimate the power of China. A nuke is a nuke, nobody with them will be invaded as long as current technology stays away from science fiction.
The trouble (population halved or quartered) simply isn’t worth it. You are creating the conditions where they are bound to be used.

Just the Military…
All militaries absorb young bright men (and now women) who might otherwise be ether working for the economy, or running it. E.g. If you talk to a bunch of officers, you’ll realise they’re bright.
Now think to yourself “what if instead of filling their minds with how to survive whilst eating grass whilst dodging bullets; what if just one of them had set up a business instead? What would the chances be of that business being a good business, perhaps even growing into a big one?
Then you have to consider that every pound spent on tank shells is a pound not spent on schools and hospitals. Both things benefit the economy (particularly the schools but also the hospitals).

Brief Conclusions of Problems…
How are you going to keep the public happy?
Lives lost abroad
Maybe millions of foreigners dead
Other countries copying, perhaps world order derailed, and us thereby threatened even with nukes.

The value of foreign assets diminished, hedge funds, and the whole of the West mad with Britain.
More money on the military, can you even make it pay for itself? If not that’s less money on public serves.
And if you can make the military pay at what cost to whom? Make the third world starve a little bit more?
Is that politically acceptable? Or need democracy now be abolished? And then we’ll be executing our intelligent young (when they first show an interest in politics, and teenage rebellion).

P.S…
I agree with golddragnet that your idea is quite frankly terrible, and I can only thank God for constructing reality in such a way that it doesn’t work.
You and me both seem share a love of the west at all costs (something some people would say is “disgusting” enough). Then again do we? (You said something about being against Germany!).
At the end of the day I intend to leave this world a richer place for my existence than without it, and I currently see a (so be it culturally adapted) spread of Western ways, and ways of doing things, being central to this. You on the other hand would seem to divide the world into slaves, and slave owners. That’s what I join the rest of the world in finding terrible. For a start slaves aren’t Westerners, this means that all of your idea (is in my humble opinion) treason to the West (fortunately we are a democracy so we all tolerate).


I'm not necessarily against doing wrong to people because…
1. There are too many people in this world
2. Plus whatever we do to people, people would do to us.

But it’s really far better if we can all get along as democratic rationalised (therefore survival worshiping), economically libertarian, (have read the right text books) and socially democratically libertarian (e.g. less poverty makes the personal lives of rich people better as well as safer).

I personally believe there is enough paranormal evidence to point to there being a afterlife, and God(s). If you die tomorrow don’t be surprised if you end up being reincarnated in the third world.
Because (most people) (even me) would work to end it (so be it perhaps with one sided yet still mutual growth as my reward), you on the other hand seem to work to want to expand it. The only thing that ever makes me tolerant towards third world poverty, is the quantity of damage they would do to the earth-us if they were rich like us.

My “Terrible” Idea…
Personally I believe covert biological warfare is the best way (realistically) to address this issue. I think it would statistically reduce the chance of someone being reincarnated in ether grinding poverty, or a world without trees. This still leaves plenty of room for a political, expansion of the West (and all that comes with it).

So I'm also wickedly minded, but at least within a few decades from where I left of people being born into this world would almost irreversibly be better of, not just in a hundred years, but also possibly every century after that. Less people destroying mother earth.
As for you’re wicked plan I’m failing to see how it leaves the world better of, what is it’s moral objectives, or practical objective are.

Yet how can it not have these, and still have you attempting to found it, given that you personally won’t have enriched yourself? Even if you’re policy was (somehow) (for some reason) implemented.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
And now we can link this thread to www.abovepolitics.com...' Is it about time Britain showed some backbone? (Iran)

If Britain was strong and had its empire, would Iran have kidnapped British troops?

We need to teach the world some respect for Britain, and hard nosed, brute power is the only way.

We need a return to the British empire, so we can exercise power via our military and economy power.

And the price is one we should be willing to pay. Do we really want more British troops kidnapped and paraded by some third rate power?




top topics



 
0

log in

join