bald faced lie. every time a slave brought action before a British court, in England, they were freed. and this happened multiple times. were they the first EUROPEAN power to ban slavery in all their territories? well, no. but then, the British were hardly the only European power to have had worldwide colonies ( or slavery therein ) and your pretentions otherwise are rather stupid. the English liked saying that “the Sun never sets on” their empire … but they weren’t the only ones who could make that claim. even today the French have territories in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Portugese, Spanish, Dutch and Venetians all contended with the English in their own way.

You’re arguing from the whitewashed Western mindset.

you’re arguing from the brownwashed turd world mindset. every single complaint you have against the English was committed in the lands they conquered, perpetrated by various colored peoples against other colored peoples. often co-tribes people. even today, some of the greatest genocides in history were perpetrated by various Chinese empires against other Chinese, prior to 1700. Shaka Zulu was murdered by his own Zulu warriors, for atrocities Shaka had committed agaisnt them after the death of his mother. the recent Ruwandan genocide was neither an accident nor unusual in the Dark Continent. Tippu Tip and and the Sultans of Zanzibar enriched themselves via expeditions into the interior of Kenya/Tanganyika during which Tippu would purchase and then castrate thousands of slaves at a go, and after the few survivors had healed force march them to the sea using them as pack mules for ivory and gold. Babur the Tiger certainly treated the Hindoo with kid gloves, didn’t he?

do you take offense to my mention of suttee? i never said that this was only done in India, i merely pointed out that the British put a hard stop to it. as they have everywhere else they encountered it.

does slavery still exist? well certainly, we can thank Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the re-opening of slave markets in Libya and surreptitious slavery has always existed all around the globe. but by INTERNATIONAL LAW as well as British and American law, no, it’s no longer legal and anyone doing it is likely to get prosecuted. which, funny that you should bring up that slavery still exists in practice, there are now actual sex slave rings in England due to brown muslim immigrants. congratulations, you have enrichmented the Saxon.

so, in effect, your complaint against the English is that they were better at your crimes than you were. while also aspiring to Christian morals, which they did not always achieve.

well then, feel free to castigate the British for not always living up to the standard. but had the Christians not come to the New World the Aztecs would likely still be making live human sacrifices by the thousands at a time.

I think you’re being a bit too harsh with this assessment.

For a start, I’m hardly new, not even relatively. I’ve been following your blog since 2013 and have contributed financially on occasion (under a different email address). You could call me one of your more devoted followers. I’m just choosing to comment recently because of this steady trend towards existential pit of despair that seems to be overwhelming the Anglosphere and in which you, and a few other Christian bloggers, seem to be falling into. I sense this growing sense of anxiety, as only a devoted long term follower can. The way I see to address that in my own little way is to offer different perspectives, sometimes in an arresting fashion, in sufficient detail for them to make sense.

Don’t confuse my italicizing a certain part of the text (out of courtesy) as nitpicking. It may seem like a bit of nitpick or a sidetrack to comment that way but it’s only to help others understand what part of the post has stimulated my thinking for the comment. If you had more than just a handful of commenters to whom I could respond in a more conversational way then I’d do things that way – the way other blogs operate. But I haven’t seen many posts with any comments at all. Your posts should attract more, in my opinion.

It’s also difficult to respond to the increasingly complex ideas in your posts in just a few sentences. You must admit that your ideas are becoming richer and richer in detail, as well as more and more confronting and injunctive in their claims. Your own writing has shown over time that this difficulty from complexity increases the more one learns and knows, and the more invested one becomes in one’s perspectives. Indeed, the topics you post about are so complex and entrenched sometimes that it’s impossible to comment in brief or staccato fashion without sounding like a sycophant or a troll. Often your posts stimulate thinking to such a degree such that a longer comment is often the only way to offer meaningful pushback. I’ll attempt to shorten my comments for you, and stay as close to the point as conscience allows, but I’m not all that confident this will do your more stimulating posts and the thought that goes into them justice. But we shall see.

You seem to be relatively new here, so consider this your one and only heads-up: not every comment needs to be an essay in its own right nitpicking on one specific line in a post, and not every reply needs to go into chapter-and-verse with Biblical moralising.

Stay on point with your comments, and do not attempt to sidetrack things into territory that no one asked for.

I’m not arguing who wins the civilization game, or the ‘end times’ competition between who did/does better for the world in the race to Heaven, Utopia, Zion or Ragnarok or whatever eschatology dominates current Western progressivist thinking. There’s no doubt that the British score very well in that game, notwithstanding the heavy British thumbs pressing down on the historical scales.

The anti-slavery argument is a good example of British thumb-pressing. William Wilberforce is the figure most cited as the British driving force. Wilberforce didn’t end slavery, he only led the successful campaign to remove slavery as a legally permitted act in the British Empire. He didn’t succeed in ending slavery itself, or anywhere else, nor has anyone else. Slavery persists to the modern day in many nations in one form or another, not least among the Epstein class and the broader modern human trafficking landscape including Rotherham grooming gangs, also for example Ukrainian forced conscription gangs, usurious central bank lifetime enslaving lending paradigms, technology enslavement, and soon to be very evident AI enslavement etc etc etc. Yet the British love to claim the moral high ground over ‘ending slavery’ because of Wilberforce’s successes in the British Parliament, as if that ended the entire slavery stain on humanity. The penchant for British self-regard and British hubris is on full display.

The un-whitewashed truth is that the British Empire was built on slave labor. The Bank of England was heavily enriched by slavery and the British economy and the high relative value of the British currency was influenced significantly by both slave labored incomes and income produced by the labor of colonial low-wage native (and Chinese, Indian and Irish) indentures. The establishment of the City of London as a central banking center was dependent on both incomes (search the South Sea Company and the South Sea Bubble for further info on this.) As for being the first, Britain was actually very late to the anti-slavery game; they resisted until it was no longer in their political interests to do so. France preceded them by five hundred years when they ‘officially’ abolished slavery on French soil in 1315, Spain by three hundred years when they banned indigenous slavery in their colonies in 1542, and Japan at least officially in 1590 – to name just a few. But as we can plainly see today, slavery was never abolished in practice.

Similarly, the British whitewash their claim to have ended suttee, the practice of killing a wife when her husband dies. This was predominantly an Indian practice but it was also practiced in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia and also in other parts of the world including in Viking Age Scandinavia. British claims to have ended Suttee only apply to the passing of the Bengal Sati Regulation in 1829, which led to its banning only under British Law in British India, under sustained pressure from human rights reformers like the Indian Raja Ram Mohan Roy. It was mostly to prevent political instability and to protect the British imperial reputation. The British themselves would probably done nothing about suttee if it wasn’t something that Indians themselves found horrific and immoral – the Brits were mostly fine with it for the first two hundred years of their Indian presence.

There’s a lot more that can be said about British whitewashing, and debated vigorously here or elsewhere if desired, but what we cannot do is argue that Andrew formerly known as Prince (or any other of the Epstein class) was entitled to do what he did to young girls because of what William Wilberforce did to end slavery or what the British did in India to end suttee, or in fact anything good the British have done for humanity, in any way. Not that you’re doing that, just saying that they are two entirely different conversations.

the British did commit great crimes ( the Opium Wars? ), this is true.

but even IF you want to say that the only “good” thing the British ever did was the eradication of slavery, world-wide, that would still be a far greater accomplishment than any other people or civilization on the face of the planet has ever done.

they also put an end to suttee. and spread the Teutonic concept of Republican constrained Monarchy throughout the world. further, they were some of the greatest evangelists for Christianity.

go on, demonstrate to me how any of these turd worlders can pretend to be better.

Christians have no need for guilt, but British guilt isn’t without justification. Invader’s remorse is only part of the problem. The British ‘Empire’ was a grand-sounding euphemism for occupying other people’s land that the British could fictionally declare ‘terra nullius’ and extract resources using cheap native labor in the name of the monarch using British military power. That’s how the British monarchy understood ‘Common’ wealth. It was essentially organized crime in the guise of Adam Smithian ‘enlightened self-interest’, and it ran the gamut from native exploitation to cheating them outright by flummoxing them with Westminster legalese, from contractual misrepresentation to outright extortion, from petty theft to highway robbery, from grand larceny to wholesale piracy, from sexual assault and paedeophilia to gang rape, and from deadly assault to mass murder and genocide. You don’t read about those things in the whitewashed British accounts because the vast majority of victims were brown natives, but you see the proceeds of much of that crime in the British stately homes, museums and bank vaults, even in the Crown Jewels. Read further into the details of how many of those riches were acquired especially from first-hand accounts in the journals and native historical literature in the libraries of the colonies, and it becomes clear that the barbarians were very often the British. Should the borders of Britain keep the barbarians out, or keep them in?

One of the unspoken problems with immigration in Britain today is that the offence caused by historical British colonial actions (often behind the mask of ‘civilizing the heathen’) is not forgotten in the collective psyche of the invaded nation’s peoples. It’s passed down through the generations without the whitewashing, yet often without any understanding of why it all happened. Astonishingly, which I found when living with such a family for three months, it’s not passed on as a desire for revenge and retribution as many paranoid Britons seem to think, but as a desire to learn who the British are as a people and why they did what they did. The problem arises when immigrants come over and find that the British are as barbarian as the worst of the heathen. As far as I can tell, immigrants in Britain generally WANT the British to live up to their self-professed good name, but unfortunately they rarely do, if ever they have done.

I think even ‘Christian heritage’ Britons know, deep down, that it’s not guilt for colonialism that truly troubles them, but the falsely triumphal pride of their race, history, culture and tradition that has a very impressive side but also a very dark and savage side, that deep down they’re no better than the invading barbarians, especially when the truth of this is brought screaming to public attention. This whole Andrew business is hopefully a humbling experience for the British Entitlement complex.

given how Scotland Yard has spent decades helping to conceal the Rotherham rape gangs, it’s difficult to not reach the conclusion that British jurisprudence considers Insider Trading to be a more serious issue than raping children.

we shall see if Charles sees fit to manufacture pretext to excuse his brother or if they’ve finally evaluated him as being too embarrassing to the family to continue with this part of the charade.

it’s also difficult to see how the British will defend England from the foreigner when King Charles is German, a member of both the Houses of Saxe-Coburg and Oldenburg.