Okay, I'll say it: The accusation that the British have behaved in a perfidious, manipulative manner in world affairs, from Continental Europe to their colonies, is true. But that manipulativeness, that divide and rule mentality, does not make Britain bad, just effective.
"Divide et Impera," which means divide and rule, was the maxim of the Roman Senate. It's nothing new, and it's what effective empires do to remain on top. It's not evil.
Britain has brought more success and progress to the world than perhaps any other country, through both the Industrial Revolution and, even earlier, its liberal tradition of thought, focusing on rights, economic growth, trade, and humanism. Yeah, I said it: liberalism is not evil, and people love it. It's why the West is where everyone not in the West wants to go.
They want our freedom, and Britain did more to give the world freedom than any other country ever has.

Colonialism and imperialism are just natural mechanisms whereby a more advanced civilization spreads its progress to more backward cultures. Humans are not saints, so we in advanced countries do not just give our progress to others out of the goodness of our hearts. Instead, we conquer the more backward cultures and use their resources and people, but in the process of doing so, our advanced civilization spreads to them and they begin to advance too.
Imperialism is just a mechanism for diffusing concentrated progress, both technological and social progress.
France developed differently than England did. It goes all the way back to the time of King John and his counterpart in France.
John's failures in warring with France led to a weakening of the British monarchy that enabled the lords to force the Magna Carta upon King John, and of course the commoners got the Charter of the Forest.
English liberalism begins there: in a weak English Crown vs. a strong French Crown. Since John's reign, Englishmen, and then later on, all Brits, have held more rights and freedom.

>muh imperialism
>muh colonialism
Who gives a fuck? All people who partake in it are ded.
>inb4 trafalgar
I don't care.

>>509612873
It's shaped the entire world of today.
And colonialism is not only natural and inevitable when there is a great disparity between different societies at different levels of civilization, but ultimately, colonialism also turns out to be a good thing.

>Yeah, I said it: liberalism is not evil, and people love it.
Which is why it needs to be forced on them at the barrel of a gun
>It's why the West is where everyone not in the West wants to go.
Certainly it's not because we're the wealthiest. No you see it's our freedumbs

>>509613327
Liberal economics is why the West is so wealthy.

>>509613815
The west is so wealthy because we did the industrial revolution first. Liberalism was a useful tool for transitioning away from feudalism as power shifted to the bourgeoisie due to the rise of international commerce and industry, but its inevitable tendency towards the atomization of society and the transfer of wealth upwards causes it to cannibalize itself over time. Which is why we're currently in Gilded Era Part II: Multiculturalism Edition where everyone hates each other, the legitimacy of its governments is evaporating, and all demographics besides boomers and the rich want radical change. When confronted with this liberalism's excuse is to more or less explicitly state its central thesis: that only the bourgeoisie are really worth anything, and the plebs just need to accept their inevitable re-enserfment as a consequence of their lack of virtue, which is equated with wealth. Besides being unbearably pretentious, this is also simply not true, because society functions significantly better when the entirety of the citizenry is taken care of and works together - which is why we deployed elements of both fascism and socialism in the first half of last century when we actually needed to maximize our competitiveness to overcome the Depression, WW2, and the Cold War

>>509612348 (OP)
>perfidiousness
perfidy. the word is perfidy

>>509615231
Thank you

>>509612979
Civilization is hard work, not for the muddy 5 billion, sadly

>>509614890
>The west is so wealthy because we did the industrial revolution first. Liberalism was a useful tool for transitioning away from feudalism as power shifted to the bourgeoisie due to the rise of international commerce and industry, but its inevitable tendency towards the atomization of society and the transfer of wealth upwards causes it to cannibalize itself over time. Which is why we're currently in Gilded Era Part II: Multiculturalism Edition where everyone hates each other, the legitimacy of its governments is evaporating, and all demographics besides boomers and the rich want radical change. When confronted with this liberalism's excuse is to more or less explicitly state its central thesis: that only the bourgeoisie are really worth anything, and the plebs just need to accept their inevitable re-enserfment as a consequence of their lack of virtue, which is equated with wealth. Besides being unbearably pretentious, this is also simply not true, because society functions significantly better when the entirety of the citizenry is taken care of and works together - which is why we deployed elements of both fascism and socialism in the first half of last century when we actually needed to maximize our competitiveness to overcome the Depression, WW2, and the Cold War
Very good and thoughtful comment, anon
What system do you think could realistically replace liberalism at this point?
I agree about the atomization of society, the devaluing of everyone but the wealthy, and the re-enserfment of the common people being consequences of liberalism.

>>509613815
The west peaked under protectionist economics. We have been in non-stop decline since the liberalism vs marxism dichotomy became the status quo.

>>509615704
The pajeet in that pic doesn't realize that India would have behaved just like Britain had the tables been turned and if India were the much more advanced civilization while Britain were far more primitive. He's a hypocrite.

You mean william the conqueror and his mainland entourage. The whole thing has a different context when you realize normans and saxons are not the same.

>>509615849
>The west peaked under protectionist economics. We have been in non-stop decline since the liberalism vs marxism dichotomy became the status quo.
You mean since about the time of Thatcher and Reagan, circa 1980?
I agree we've been in a societal freefall since the rise of neoliberalism.

>>509612348 (OP)
Read the text at the bottom. Rhodes gave the niggers long distance communication. He is the reason why they talk loudly on the phone simply because if they wanted to send a message, they'd need to shout to be understood. Its a genetic trait.

>>509612348 (OP)
I’m pretty fucking perfidious, to be fair.

>>509615704
Everybody join restore Britain.

>>509615712
National socialism with weeb characteristics

>>509616544
No one has a real alternative that's workable.

>>509618796
Radical change always seems impossible until circumstances demand it. I'd predict that the next major economic crisis will produce a halt and eventual reversal of mass immigration, as the radical left and right produce the obvious synthesis I describe

I like Britain and England. Cool guys