[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / ausneets / tacos / vg / vichan / zoo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: c798c676ffc3190⋯.jpg (54.13 KB, 600x674, 300:337, theAbsoluteStateOfTheUK.jpg)

 No.85282

/liberty/, why do you think the U.K. has fallen so far? What with the knife ban, grooming gangs, crazy speech laws–what do you think was the tipping point where it all began to fall apart?

 No.85284

The era of compromise and reaching across the aisle that characterized the immediate period after World War II.


 No.85287

I'm sure being in the European Union for so long didn't help. It more or less holds you to the standards of the lowest common denominator.


 No.85299

File: e995f6cd28ca1a9⋯.png (178.47 KB, 313x412, 313:412, 3d4.png)

>>85282

limeyfag here. things such as speech laws and gun bans have existed in the UK for a very long time, in fact, speech laws have existed in the UK long before the 2003 communications act. the reason why this is a problem is because once a law or agency has existed for a long time, everyone just sort of accepts it as standard, same reason why the "conservatives" won't touch the NHS and at best will reduce its funding. whats more the British government aren't ones for massive reforms and instead prefer a series of smaller reforms over a long period of time, meaning that if you wan't to get rid of hate speech laws and TV licences etc, you need to push the UK government down a very slow slippery slope so to speak, which can be very annoying. basically what >>85284 said.


 No.85329

File: 143f6c0c6019c79⋯.png (38.26 KB, 640x360, 16:9, adulterer.png)

>>85282

>what do you think was the tipping point where it all began to fall apart?

>>85284

It start earlier. The UK was more than a little unhinged since pic related, and it just got worse from there. There were ups and downs, for example they did a good job with domestic freedom for a while, but even their colonialism was meh. I am fairly sure that they were better than the Dutch, but worse than the French. The French had fewer wars with the Indians in America, from what I know, and didn't cause millions of deaths by famine in India. In general, I don't hear many bad things about them as colonists.

Then there was the whole insanity with Cromwell, but they got better from that. In fact, Britain was at least sane for much of its history. Then came the two world wars and they lost it. In WW1, there were public sermons about how the Kaiser of Germany should be executed with boiling oil. They started an illegal blockade that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then they participated in the insanity that was the Versailles Treaty. The US was worse in this regard, Woodrow Wilson didn't even speak German and gave Italy a town that had been Austrian for decades because the name sounded Italian, but the Brits weren't exactly innocent lambs either. Their blockade gave the Americans the leverage to do all this crap. Oh, and let's not forget the Bryce Report. The Germans did a lot of shit in Belgium, for which they are rightfully condemned, but they didn't cut the hands off of children. Not a single such incident was proven.

In WW2, the Brits put pacifists in concentration camps that were worse than the early Nazi camps (for the communists). They killed thousands through strategic bombardments but left the railways and other infrastructure alone. They of course teamed up with Stalin and other communists, brutally raped and murdered German civilians (also French and Poles, if I am not mistaken), gave a shit about the German resistance (because they weren't left-wing enough), and after the war, they left half of Germany with the commies and brainwashed a

Both times, they were on a crusade for democracy. The UK may style itself as a constitutional monarchy, but it's the most democratic democracy in Europe. In Germany, where I live, we hold that the people can't do whatever they want. We have checks on democracy. One of the first things I learned is that in Britain, this is not the case, and the parliament can really decide whatever it wants. Looking at the Anglosphere, it seems to me they are much more arbitrary in their policies and positivist in their outlook, but the US at least loves its constitution and had a strong libertarian spirit for a while. Here in Germany, the government feels much more bound by the idea of a natural law, at least since WW2. That was the one good development that came after it. Sadly, we didn't make much of it, and the whole thing was tainted by some "enlightened" bullshit, but still I am glad we had that spirit for a while. Germany also used to be fairly libertarian under Adenauer. Alas, that era is gone.

I digress. My point is, Britain didn't start being retarded just twenty years ago. I actually like the Brits as people, but politically, they suck. Too democratic, too isolated yet imperialist, anti-papist, legally positivist. They also started this whole eugenics-thing, then disavowed it after WW2, which further proves that something's not quite right with that island.


 No.85338

>>85329

I always had the impression that British colonialism was comparatively better than the French, Dutch, or Belgians, at least in the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th. I'm not very learned in this area but it seemed that the British were more interested in developing the infrastructure and setting up functioning political institutions for home rule, they would rather their colonies govern themselves as almost independent political entities that were connected to the mother country while the other countries administrated colonies as tyrants, especially the Dutch and Belgians. The relatively smooth separation of the British colonies and the great treasures spent on developing these backwards areas into would seem to support my thoughts. Prior to the second wave of colonization, I'm not so sure, perhaps the French yoke was lighter.

Regardless, the British held Individualism and trade in very high regards, they were the nation of shopkeepers as Napoleon derisively said of them. You seem to know a lot about history, I'd like to hear your thoughts on where they developed this sense of liberty and why they disregarded it around the turn of the 20th century in favor of slavery to the state. It's always confounded me on why the great propagator of liberty would throw it away after it had made them the masters of the world.


 No.85339

>>85338

Neither French nor British colonialism was perfect. But one fact you can not deny is that they ran their colonies much better than the natives were running their own countries.


 No.85340

>>85329

>Both times, they were on a crusade for democracy. The UK may style itself as a constitutional monarchy, but it's the most democratic democracy in Europe. In Germany, where I live, we hold that the people can't do whatever they want. We have checks on democracy. One of the first things I learned is that in Britain, this is not the case, and the parliament can really decide whatever it wants.

Actually this isnt quite true.

Power is leant to the Parliament by the British people every four years.

The queen appoints parliament based on the vote of the people and is then symbolically locked out of the house for 4 years.

This is one reason why the British were so upset about Brexit. The power that they lent to their own politicians was given away to European politicians without their conesnt.

Imagine if I lent you my car for four years and then when I came to get it back I find out you gave it away to someone in another country? I would be fucking pissed.

The second balance against democracy in Britain is the house of lords. The house of lords is supposed to be a bunch of toffs who are so rich that they cannot be influenced or bought out by big companies. Unlike regular politicians who are usually on someones payroll.

So for example when many people in the US were being sued for torrenting movies, it was blocked in the UK by the house of lords. Who didnt give a fuck about pleasing the RIAA.


 No.85348

>>85329

>skips from Cromwell to WW1


 No.85367

>>85329

Don't forget that they put civilians in internment camps during the second boer war.


 No.85396

>>85282

Anglos are a race of shabbos goy, that's why anglos and burgers must be genocided. As for the rest, you already know about meds and nords. https://8ch.net/tv/res/1375603.html




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / ausneets / tacos / vg / vichan / zoo ]