Tag Archives: dominions

ANGLO-SAXON DELUSIONS

UK and eu

According to the British Daily Express on Friday, 92% of the British people are now against remaining in the European Union.

This means that Prime Minister David Cameron’s gamble has not paid off. Mr. Cameron hoped that by gaining some concessions from his EU partners, the British people would vote to remain in the 28-nation bloc.

What’s defeated him is the migrant crisis.

“Shock poll result as asylum claims rocket yet again,” is the remainder of the front-page headline. The British people feel like they are being invaded and that the British way of life is seriously threatened. One of my brothers put it well when he said you don’t hear English spoken any more at the local “precinct” (mall).

This is not a recent phenomenon sparked by the mass exodus of people fleeing Syria. It’s been going on for some time. Migrants take advantage of Britain’s generous welfare system. They will cross a dozen countries in Europe to get to the United Kingdom, when international rules on asylum say you should apply for asylum status at the first country you go to.

The British only have themselves to blame.   Firstly, in joining the EU in the first place; secondly, in having such generous welfare benefits; thirdly, by, unbelievably, distributing leaflets on claiming benefits in British Council offices around the world.   This was the way it was when we lived in Ghana.   The British Council was a British taxpayer funded library and information center in the Ghanaian capital and in the second biggest city of Kumasi.   Leaflets on their information table promoted all the freebies available once an individual arrived in London.   Britons should remember St. Paul’s admonition: “If a man doesn’t work, neither should he eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Under EU rules, anybody moving from country to country within the EU is entitled to receive benefits from his/her new country upon arrival. All people have to do is get to the EU, from where they can easily move to Britain. This is causing serious financial problems in the UK and is widely resented.

Question:  if Britain leaves the EU, where will she go? What will she do?

The Norwegian Foreign Minister, visiting Britain last week, cautioned the UK on leaving. Norway is NOT a member but often pays a heavy price for not being allowed to make decisions on European trading policies, dictated from Brussels.

Prior to entering the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, Britain had close trading ties with its former colonies, the four Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.   These countries now have different priorities.

_________________________________________________

The term “dominions” is not used any more, except in Canada, whose official name is “Dominion of Canada.” Australia is the “Commonwealth of Australia.” Collectively, the four nations mentioned were termed the “Dominions.” When I was growing up, the British government had a special minister to handle relations with these nations, they were so important. He was the Secretary for the Dominions. The dominions each had the Westminster system of parliamentary government with the British monarch as Head of State.

“New Brunswick premier Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley suggested the term ‘Dominion,’ inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” This is also echoed in Canada’s motto:  A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for “from sea to sea”). The term had been used for centuries to refer to the lands held by a monarch, and had previously been adopted as titles for the Dominion of New England and the Dominion and Colony of Virginia. (Wikipedia: “Name of Canada”)”

These dominions, together with Britain itself, were the number one military and economic power in the world prior to the United States.   They were the only nations that fought against fascism in World War II from beginning to end. In World War I, they led the fight against German militarism.

In June 1953, the prime ministers of these countries, who then comprised the British Commonwealth, met in London to discuss security matters. They had been in the capital for the coronation of the queen. Sir Winston Churchill chaired the meeting. Sir Robert Menzies, the Australian prime minister and an ardent monarchist, was also present.

Two of the issues they discussed were the Korean War, in which the Commonwealth played a major role; and the new radical government in Egypt, which had overthrown the Egyptian monarchy. The new nationalist government wanted to seize the Anglo-French Suez Canal, an artery of the British Empire, giving Britain ready access to its territories in the east.

In 1956 the Egyptians seized the canal. The British and French, together with the Israelis, invaded Egypt to take the canal back.   Unexpectedly, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower told them to stop and threatened the UK with severe economic consequences if the country went ahead with its plans.

This spelled the end of the British Empire. It was clear that Britain could no longer continue as a global power.   Britain’s colonies were rapidly given independence, most of them joining the Commonwealth, which became meaningless. Today, 94% of the people in the Commonwealth are Asians or Africans. This has totally transformed the organization from what it was in 1953. Most member nations are republics, though they still recognize the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth.

Now, it’s America’s turn to start pulling back from international commitments.

If Britain pulls out of the EU, it presents Australia with an opportunity. Instead of severing the last tie with Britain, the country could propose a reactivation of the alliance that existed right up until Bob Menzies was PM. The four nations that were founder members of the original Commonwealth (South Africa, Rhodesia and Newfoundland were the other three) could once again be a formidable force, with a global reach. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom could have a major presence in the world again. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of all four countries, in herself a unifying symbol.   This does not mean Britain would be in the lead.   But all four, working together, would be a positive force in the world.   They have a great deal in common, including a commitment to the freedom of the individual and the rule of law. A formal, more meaningful relationship between the four could also bolster the US led western alliance, at a time of growing disillusionment and disinterest in the US.

It’s such a good idea, it’s unlikely to happen. Australia and New Zealand will more likely continue to pursue closer ties with Asia; the UK pursuing a differed European model. Further examples of Anglo-Saxon delusions.

The result is the continuing decline and fragmentation of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples who, a century ago, dominated the world.

——————————————————-

 

The US Administration is also delusional.

Amidst clear signs that the economy is slowing down, unemployment has dropped to below 5% for the first time in a few years. This is due to the way the unemployment figures are calculated and has little to do with reality.   The figure is based on how many people are receiving unemployment benefits and are actively looking for work. As benefits are for a limited time only, the numbers decline over time. Additionally, millions of people have simply given up looking for work.

Another sign of spreading delusion is the federal deficit. It passed $19 trillion last week and hardly got a mention. Nobody cares anymore. It appears that nobody in Washington has any concept of why the country should live within its means.   Of course, few people, mere mortals included, has any idea how to balance a budget, so it’s not surprising our leaders get away with it. Somebody once described credit cards as “45 days to reality” – it may take longer for the US to reach its “pay by” date, but it will come and when it does economic upheaval will follow.

Further delusion was shown when the President visited a mosque Thursday, as a guest of the Islamic Society of Baltimore.   Stressing how Muslims were involved in America from the beginning, he continued to build on the false idea that this country is based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic principles and that Islam, together with the other two religions, is a religion of peace.

None of this is based on reality. Yes, some Muslims were brought to America as slaves, but they did not retain their religion. The book “Muslims in America” says the first recorded Muslim was an American who converted after his travels in the Middle East. This was after the Civil War. The first mosque was opened in Chicago in 1929. The mosque visited on Thursday is only 47 years old. As for Islam being a “religion of peace,” history shows otherwise.

Perhaps there’s no time to read history when you’re President of the United States!

There’s no time for geography, either, when you are running for president. Marco Rubio has upset both the Swedes and the Norwegians by suggesting that one of his rivals should run for president in one of the two Scandinavian countries. The two nations are quite upset with this suggestion – they have never had a president. Nor do they want one. Can you blame them after being exposed to all the debates on CNN?

Note the following comment from a Swedish magazine:

“The thing with some American politicians, such as Sarah Palin, is – I don’t want to use the word stupid, but I do. They are. They are so ignorant about the rest of the world. They think there are two monarchies in the world. And that’s the UK and Monaco, because of Grace Kelly.”

– Roger Lundgren editor of Sweden’s Kungliga (Royal) magazine

———————————————————

The presidential candidates did not just sleep through history and geography classes, they dozed off during English classes as well. In one of the Republican debates, I was introduced to the following new words:   “vigorousness” (Ted Cruz) and “falseness” (Rand Paul, who has since dropped out, hopefully to take further English classes!)  Donald Trump also expanded my vocabulary.  Thankfully, those words were bleeped out!

The Democrats, meanwhile, argued over the meaning of the word “progressive.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE

queen_lays_wreath_remembrance_day 2008

Late night arrests at the weekend foiled a terror plot in London, England. Speculation was rife that the plot involved an attack on the Queen and other members of the Royal Family at the Cenotaph on Sunday morning. This did not deter the Queen from carrying out an annual duty, which she has never missed.

This was the occasion of the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, the day that ended World War I. “At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month,” was exactly when the war ended, having claimed almost a million British lives.   Observance is held on the Sunday closest to the actual day.

The Queen not only leads the nation at this ceremony. She is also leading the Commonwealth, that quarter of mankind that comprised the British Empire and Commonwealth during both wars. Without their contribution, the allies might never have won. Together with Britain, they were the only allied nations that were in both wars from beginning to end.

It’s hard to imagine now but a century ago when the Great War (World War One) began, hundreds of thousands of people around the world volunteered to fight. Many faked their age to qualify.

I read recently that many were motivated by deep religious convictions.   According to this website, a significant number of men in the trenches believed in British Israelism, that the British Empire and the United States were the fulfillment of the promises made to Joseph in Genesis chapter 48:

“15 And he blessed Joseph, and said:  “God, before whom my fathers Abra

ham and Isaac walked, The God who has fed me all my life long to this day,

16 The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads;
Let my name be named upon them,

And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

17 Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 

18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”

19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”

20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will bless, saying, ‘May God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh!’” And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh.”

The United States is big at 3.9 million square miles but the British Empire was vast at 13.9 million square miles. Many believed it was the prophesied “multitude of nations.” Its formal name was the British Empire and Commonwealth, the latter being the independent countries of the Empire that remained loyal to the Crown. These nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, together with the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia, all sent troops to help “mother England” when the country was threatened by the Axis powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary.   As Germany had colonies close to South Africa and Australia, these nations also brought about German defeats on a regional level.

The independent nations that formed the Commonwealth were known as Dominions. Canada was the first country to become a dominion in 1867, independent but loyal to the Crown. The word “dominion” was taken directly from Psalm 72:8: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea.” The fact that the term dominion was inspired by scripture shows the founders of Canada were far more biblically aware that most recent leaders, the current prime minister being an exception.

It wasn’t just the dominions that sacrificed for Britain.   In World War II, two million Indians volunteered to fight for Britain, the biggest volunteer army in history.

Even India’s sacrifice was not as great as that of Southern Rhodesia, proportionate to population.   Sir Winston Churchill lauded the central African nation’s loyalty by describing it as “the most loyal colony.” Sadly, twenty years later, one of his successors was to betray the country, which now no longer exists.

Other colonies also contributed. The Gold Coast, now Ghana, raised up the Royal West African Frontier Force, which saw action in Burma and Ethiopia.   Nigeria also sent troops to Burma. It was felt that Africans could handle the heat a lot better than the British in the steaming hot jungles of Burma and Malaya.   Indian troops comprised the majority of soldiers fighting against the Japanese in this particular theater of war. Many sacrificed their lives for King and Country.

The Queen appreciates the sacrifice of all these nations more than most, as she lived through World War II and knows how easily Britain could have been defeated. Memories of the bombing of Buckingham Palace will still be with her. She will also remember that the wartime leader, Winston Churchill, had lunch with her father, King George VI, every week, keeping the king abreast of all developments in the war. It is said that Churchill would give the young Princess and future Queen informal history lessons. Churchill was later to write his monumental “History of the English speaking peoples,” a book that thankfully was written before political correctness and revisionist history.

At the Cenotaph, the war memorial in the center of London, the Queen remembers, at 88, far better than most of her subjects, the sacrifices made and the struggles that still continue. Her grandson, Prince Harry, missed the service in London, choosing instead to commemorate the day with British troops in Afghanistan, where he served three years ago.

The Commonwealth will likely survive the Queen’s passing. Prince Charles, who will take over as king upon the death of his mother, is getting more involved with the organization while his son, Prince William, together with his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, are immensely popular, especially in the Commonwealth Realms, those member countries that retain the Queen as Head of State.

The organization may survive but it will never again be in unison in fighting a global conflict. It is no longer a military force and its members now have conflicting loyalties that preclude action on a universal scale. And, with the Queen’s passing, remembrance of two world wars will further diminish.