Viva Obama (Reloaded)


Viva Obama! A View from the English Right
By Sean Gabb
Published in TakiMag
November 2012

Note: Since I am not an American, I have no right to feel disappointed by Mr Trump’s apparent pulling off his mask to show the usual neo-conservative skull beneath. I am disappointed, even so. I therefore offer some rather old thoughts on Mr Obama. They are sharply-expressed, but may turn out to contain less wishful-thinking than anything else I have written about American affairs. SIG

I can understand that American conservatives and libertarians are upset at the re-election of Mr Obama as President of America. It means another four years of government by someone who wants to make their country into a third world dump. My own view, however, as an English libertarian and conservative, is that he is very good news for England.

Let me explain.

First, he openly hates England. This is something to do with an ancestor in Kenya who may have been roughly treated when he took up arms against the Queen. Whatever the case, it is a welcome change from the embrace of traditional American Anglophobes like Franklin Roosevelt and George W. Bush.

I think it is generally admitted nowadays that the idea of a Special Relationship between Britain and America is a delusion confined to the British ruling class. The true relationship is one based on longstanding American hatred of England. This hatred showed itself before about 1914 as resentment of British global hegemony. Since then, it has shown itself increasingly as patronising contempt. While Britain remained an independent power, it was American policy to destroy our naval power – the Washington Treaty of 1922, for instance. Otherwise, it was to undermine our general position in the world – for instance, the stab in the back at Suez. Once we had been broken to American control, the policy shifted to one of using our home territory as an unsinkable aircraft carrier against the Soviet Union, and the use of our armed forces as sepoys in American-led wars.

The American self-image is largely defined by Anglophobia. Americans may fear the descendants of their black slaves, or feel guilty about them. They have periodic episodes of paranoia about the Yellow Peril. But their real hatred is for England. There can be only one successor state to the British Empire as it existed in 1763. There is no room in the American mind for a continuation of the historic England as an independent and powerful entity.

Every Fourth of July brings a fresh crop of hot air about “British tyranny.” This is reinforced by the American film industry. English actors are mainly employed to play villains or buffoons. When not shown as individual psychopathic killers – Alan Rickman, Charles Dance et al – we are shown as oppressors of the Irish or the Scotch or the American colonial rebels. See films like Michael Collins, or Braveheart, or The Patriot. Otherwise, Wilfred Hyde-White and Alan Napier were allowed to make careers as plumy-voiced eunuchs. The James Bond films are tolerated so long as he and his employers are shown as junior partners in whatever crusade is uppermost in the American mind.

Actual American policy towards England has been ruthless. Enoch Powell always believed that the Americans murdered Airey Neave in 1979, when it looked as if the next Conservative Government would take effective action against the Catholic rebels in Ulster. The Americans bribed or blackmailed the Conservatives to lose the 2001 and 2005 general elections, because Tony Blair was seen as more reliably pro-American. It was nothing to them that Tony Blair was the most malevolent and destructive Prime Minister in British history. American regard for our ancient constitution was shown when they procured the 2003 extradition treaty, that allowed British citizens to be shipped off for trial in America without any of the traditional safeguards. It is also shown by current American pressure on the British Government to hold certain trials in secret.

This campaign of hatred has so far proceeded under a mask of cloying regard for a “common Anglo-Saxon heritage.” Mr Obama has ripped that mask aside. Open hatred is much easier to deal with. It disabuses everyone of the notion that there is any bond of affection between our countries. It encourages moves towards the reassertion of our national independence.

Second, Mr Obama is less likely than the grinning neocon he defeated to start a big war in the Middle East. I think this stands by itself. It is not a specifically English benefit. I have no idea how many Iraqi civilians have died since the American invasion of their country. It is certainly tens of thousands. It may be hundreds of thousands. An invasion of Iran might lead to millions of dead, and millions more wounded. Unless I have misunderstood him, Mr Obama will do all that he can to resist demands for war with Iran. His opponent, I have little doubt, would have been ordering his aeroplane bombers into action within weeks of taking office.

In general, there is something in claims that America is the Great Satan. America is certainly the New World Order. The global government that so far exists is nothing more than a cartel of national ruling classes. It has no powers of compulsion, but is a pretence through which national ruling classes insulate themselves from accountability. It has no tax gathering or military capacity. It relies largely on American contributions of money and armed strength. It is largely driven by American obsessions. Political correctness, and multiculturalism, and “women’s rights,” and “gay rights,” and the global campaigns to stop people from taking drugs and to abolish every trace of financial privacy – these are American exports. They are forced on the world by millenarian crazies, who may have lost their belief in God, but who have not lost their fatuous belief that they know how everyone else should be made to live. They are supported by amoral big business interests and millions of lunatic semi-Christians who believe that a nuclear war in the Middle East will bring about the conversion of the Jews and the return of Jesus Christ in glory. The French and Germans and Russians, and the Chinese, have no ambition beyond the pursuit of some rather narrow and predictable national interests. It is the Americans who want to remake the world in their own image, or to destroy it.

Take away America, and the New World Order becomes a fading ghost. A scaling back of the American Federal Government, and a return to isolationism, would be preferable for any number of reasons. Since this is not likely, however, we must hope that a second Obama presidency will hasten the forces of disintegration. Never mind the arguments about money and an impending bankruptcy of the Federal Government: sooner or later, continued mass-immigration will bring about a non-white majority in many states. White majority states may then break away. Five or six mutually hostile successor states will not have the same capacity for global domination as the present United States. Even if there is no break up, an electorate in which messianic white Protestants and post-Protestants are no longer the majority will eventually bring about radical changes in American foreign policy.

We need to look forward to a world of renewed diversity, in which hundreds – or perhaps thousands – of nation states and other groupings can work out their destiny in ways consistent with their moral capacity and historic circumstances. This is not possible when American-backed death squads and remote control weapons of murder can be sent anywhere at the press of a button.

But I return to England. We are oppressed by a ruling class that is effectively a committee of American satraps. The collapse of American hegemony will mean the possibility of throwing off that ruling class without having to face down overt American hostility and covert subversion.

If I were an American, I might tremble at the thought of having Mr Obama back for another four years. I freely admit that he is Tony Blair with a brown face. His plain ambition is to destroy America as it has so far existed. But I am English. And, for all he may hate us for personal reasons, he is objectively the most pro-English President in his country’s history.

Therefore, I say again: Viva Obama – and never mind his domestic policies.

Advertisements

16 comments

  • This is the sort of thing one would expect from Michael Shrimpton. “The Americans murdered Airey Neave”; “The Americans bribed or blackmailed the Conservatives to lose the 2001 and 2005 general elections”. “There is no room in the American mind” [for England to continue as a powerful nation]. Taking these in reverse order, there is no such thing as “The American mind”. The Deep South, where I occasionally reside, is as different from La la Land (which is what we Brits tend to regard as ‘America’) as can be imagined. In fact I don’t believe the two can continue to be goverened as a single entity for very much longer. Who are “The Americans” who bribed or blackmailed “The Conservatives” to lose these elections? Who paid the money, to whom did they pay it, and how much did they pay? And if it was blackmail, who blackmailed whom, and what did they threaten to expose? I would like to see some evidence for the claim that “The Americans”, whomever they may be, murdered Mr Neave. Who ordered the murder, and who carried it out? I vaguely remember the IRA claiming responsibility for the crime, but that is all I recall. There is more I could say, but I shall confine myself to a couple of observations; I have never seen any vestige of the kind of ‘hatred’ you describe emanating from the American people (Obama excepted) towards England and the English. Never. If you want to find a country that truly hates us, look no further than the European Union and its Member States.

  • Comment moved to front page

    • You say; “I might also add that two times in our history, already, the elites of this country managed to convince the population of the United States that getting sucked into massive wars in Europe would be worth the sacrifice by playing on the American peoples’ affections for their British cousins.”
      I can’t agree with you here; remember that whereas Britn declared war on Germany, it was Hitler who declared war on America, leaving Roosevelt little choice in the matter but to andon his previous pledges to keep out of it altogether.
      I get cross at Hollywood’s depiction of the second world war being won by the Yanks. Not to diminish America’s invaluable role in WWII, it was the Russians who bore the brunt of it and suffered the most. 23 million killed, most of them civilians. I personally believe we owe the Russian people a debt of gratitude. They paid a very high price, with which the West would undoubtedly have fallen.

      • I don’t contest the facts. But even before Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States the US had already been incrementally increasing its involvement and even without the declaration the stage was set. I have no doubt we would have found another way in. But the propaganda was very clearly and intentionally aimed at exploiting Americans’ cultural bonds with Britain, and that is because that particular line of propaganda was found to be highly effective.

        • You may well be right – Churchill being Anglo-American probably swung it. ‘That line of propaganda’was indeed effective – it also happened to be true!

  • Apologies for the typos – my computer sometimes leaves out letters at rando! Random!

  • Trump was neo-conservative from the start. He never wore a mask.

    • What’s the difference between a Conservative and a Neo-Conservative? I always get confused by these labels.

      • If you have not done so already, you may wish to watch Dr. Gabb’s interview with Paul Gottfried, in which the antecedence of neo-conservatism is explained very well.

        In short:

        Conservative = believes in tradition [a simplification, but you get the idea].

        Neo-conservatism = in the broadest sense, adapts conservatism to free market capitalism and globalism. Normally associated with interventionist foreign policy and using military force to promote the interests of the nation-state, with a special focus on the Middle East.

        Liberal = believes in liberty.

        Neo-liberal = believes in applying liberalism to globalism, both domestically and in foreign policy.

        There is considerable overlap and alignment between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. The two positions fit well together and both are ideological. The latter, neo-liberalism, is broader, more politically ecumenical and involves a commitment to pursue liberalism through a globalist agenda.

        Just so I am not giving you the wrong impression, I do not mean to say that the label ‘neo-conservative’ is specific to Trump or any one politician. Trump is a practitioner rather than a thinker, and what he actually thinks in the privacy of his own head is not my concern. My interest is in what people do, not what they say at political rallies to catch votes. My point is that since Trump decided at some point that he seriously wanted to be the U.S. president, I do not see how he could have been anything other than neo-conservative from that point, since the Beltway Establishment has been captured by that ideology. Even Obama was neo-conservative. No serious candidate can be otherwise – unless he has the charisma of Jesus and the hypnotic powers of Étienne Eugène Azam.

        In point of fact, as I have never tired from pointing out on here when commenting about Trump, in early 2016 he went along to the main Jewish PAC and got down on his hands and knees. I’m only surprised he wasn’t sporting knee-pads. However, although neo-conservatism arose out of a Jewish Leftist intellectual milieu and is ineluctably tied to Zionism, in fairness it should be added that, from at least one perspective, a neo-conservative foreign and military policy is also in U.S. interests – which probably explains why neo-conservatives hold sway and really have done since the late 70s and the fall of Nixon and Kissinger. Interestingly, Kissinger, while very much Jewish, was ironically not neo-conservative, falling into the realist camp in foreign policy (albeit that realist thinking has influenced neo-conservativism and has in some respects contributed to it).

        This stuff isn’t simple! Neo-conservatism has become just another buzz word trotted out for things people don’t like (and justifiably so, actually), but a U.S. president can’t just decide one morning to change the entire intellectual basis of American foreign policy because he doesn’t think it’s very nice. The United States isn’t in the business of being ‘nice’. It’s a sovereign state with its own selfish strategic interests – just like Britain and any other country.

      • Test message. My comments are not appearing here for some reason.

        • I’ll have a look in the spam trap

      • I’ll try re-posting my comment in parts, see if that works.

        PART 1

        If you have not done so already, you may wish to watch Dr. Gabb’s interview with Paul Gottfried, in which the antecedence of neo-conservatism is explained very well.

        In short:

        Conservative = believes in tradition [a simplification, but you get the idea].

        Neo-conservatism = in the broadest sense, adapts conservatism to free market capitalism and globalism. Normally associated with interventionist foreign policy and using military force to promote the interests of the nation-state, with a special focus on the Middle East.

        Liberal = believes in liberty.

        Neo-liberal = believes in applying liberalism to globalism, both domestically and in foreign policy.
        There is considerable overlap and alignment between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. The two positions fit well together and both are ideological. The latter, neo-liberalism, is broader, more politically ecumenical and involves a commitment to pursue liberalism through a globalist agenda.

        • PART 2

          Just so I am not giving you the wrong impression, I do not mean to say that the label ‘neo-conservative’ is specific to Trump or any one politician. Trump is a practitioner rather than a thinker, and what he actually thinks in the privacy of his own head is not my concern. My interest is in what people do, not what they say at political rallies to catch votes. My point is that since Trump decided at some point that he seriously wanted to be the U.S. president, I do not see how he could have been anything other than neo-conservative from that point, since the Beltway Establishment has been captured by that ideology. Even Obama was neo-conservative. No serious candidate can be otherwise – unless he has the charisma of Jesus and the hypnotic powers of Étienne Eugène Azam.

          • PART 3

            In point of fact, as I have never tired of mentioning on here when commenting about Trump, in early 2016 he went along to the main Jewish PAC and got down on his hands and knees. I’m only surprised he wasn’t sporting knee-pads. However, although neo-conservatism arose out of a Jewish Leftist intellectual milieu and is ineluctably tied to Zionism, in fairness it should be added that, from at least one perspective, a neo-conservative foreign and military policy is also in U.S. interests – which probably explains why neo-conservatives hold sway and really have done since the late 70s and the fall of Nixon and Kissinger. Interestingly, Kissinger, while very much Jewish, was ironically not neo-conservative, falling into the realist camp in foreign policy (albeit that realist thinking has influenced neo-conservativism and has in some respects contributed to it).

            This stuff isn’t simple! Neo-conservatism has become just another buzz word trotted out for things people don’t like (and justifiably so, actually), but a U.S. president can’t just decide one morning to change the entire intellectual basis of American foreign policy because he doesn’t think it’s very nice. The United States isn’t in the business of being ‘nice’. It’s a sovereign state with its own selfish strategic interests – just like Britain and any other country.

  • I don’t think that Americans hate the English. Only those who control America do, but they hate Americans too!

    • Haha – good point!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s