SARRRR!!!!

They're behind all atrocies and wars.

They control finance. Jews are their puppet.

This is all you need to know.

They taught jeets english but failed to train them into beings of near human intelligence. They managed to turn the malays in malaysia into normal people.

>blackpill
The blackpill is that when it comes to "timelines" and alternate history, we are living in probably one of the best timelines for Britain. People can lament the state of modern Britain all they liked, but many do not realise how rare it is for:
>massive colonial power with multiple huge secession movements that gets dragged into multiple huge wars
to end up
>willingly dissolving its empire on its own terms, retaining cultural dominance for a time and political+economic benefits indefinitely from former subjects

There are other Empires which had their nation divided up by enemies, who lost their colonies to endless forever wars that bankrupted them, who crashed out of a golden age in disgrace and never recovered. Britain didn't suffer any of that. Britain created a global empire at what was perhaps the most profitable and industrious time to do so and then cut loose the moment it became more bother than it was worth. Britain did not lose itself to endless wars in Africa or India to try pointlessly cling to control, Britain did not suffer some sort of horrific internal revolution in the modern age that shattered societal cohesion. The end of Empire in Britain saw the British continue to live happily and in prosperity.

The blackpill is for those who think we're living in some sort of fucked up dark timeline for Britain when in reality it really very easily could have been unthinkably worse.

>>18652201
>Britain created a global empire at what was perhaps the most profitable and industrious time to do so and then cut loose the moment it became more bother than it was worth.

Kek, so you took everything valuable then fucked off when it ran dry.

>>18652204
Britishers robbed India

>>18652204
>so you took everything valuable then fucked off when it ran dry.
Correct.

>>18652205
The british reduced the wealthiest and most advanced economy in the world into a shithole

>>18652201
To clarify, by blackpill I meant make me hate them, not why their society is failing or something like that.

File: IMG_1914.jpg (129 KB, 640x715)

129 KB JPG

>>18652183
it was the epitome of evil

barbarism, thievery, filth, corruption, rape, pedophilia

the spanish empire was far more benevolent

>>18652212
If you can't justify your hatred of the British based on your own justifications you're either a retard or a faggot. There are many things my country and its history can be criticised about; wars we lost, situations we bungled, negative influences we've had on countless nations around the world.

It isn't really hard to come up with reasons to "hate" the British, but if you need to go on 4chan and beg others to spoonfeed you then I would question who or what it is that's making you think you're supposed to hate us.

File: Spanish vs British empires.png (171 KB, 371x944)

171 KB PNG

>>18652225
fix'd, everything the british did was for the greater good, also the spanish weren't exactly angels, see >>18652254

>>18652201
>>willingly dissolving its empire on its own terms
Do you Britbongs really believe that? The brits fought tooth and nail to keep their free lunch only to lose and get kicked out. There are still British living from the time Britain was fighting to keep their ME influence (only for the US to replace them).

>>18652323
>Do you Britbongs really believe that?
It's basic history anon.
>The brits fought tooth and nail to keep their free lunch only to lose and get kicked out
No, Britain did not. British decolonisation is a story of realising the party is over and finding the least troublesome way to exit (for Britain).

The "last hurrah" was Suez, with senior members of both the Labour and Tory party speaking out against intervention. Britain did not spend the 20th Century desperately trying to put down rebellions; the last meaningful mass rebellion against British rule was in Ireland, and while we did indeed botch it the end result was that we retained one part of Ireland in the UK and the other as a Dominion until almost 1950. We were not constantly putting out fires that were continents away, we did no bankrupt ourselves trying to cling to colonial holdings.

France's Empire was destroyed, Spain's collapsed, Portugal's splintered and dissolved. The dissolution of Britain's Empire started in London, at the behest of British economists who realised the party was very much over.

>>18652183
They warred constantly, to continue stealing everything not nailed down, or vice versa, who knows. The people at home existed as serfs, or barnyard animals. They finally ran into a war that bankrupted them. They desperately clung on, but the final phase of the war saw them mown down everywhere. Even then, they climbed out of their coffin to walk the earth undead, warring in Asia, Africa, the ME, feeble attempts to keep warring and keep the cholera epidemics going at home and abroad.

A cautionary tale, of what a blind quest for wealth and power really is.

Bongistanis posit themselves as the benevolent caretakers of a bunch of ungrateful lesser peoples who needed (but tragically refused) their guidance.

The Brits knew how to turn every one of their deaths into mass media outrage while whitewashing or outright erasing the millions of corpses left in their wake. To this end they were also masters of Not Murdering People, Just Causing Them To Die. They didn't need to burn down villages or line people up before firing squads(though they did) they would just move entire populations into concentration camps where they had no food or adequate sanitation, or order farmers to grow jute for sandbags instead of food, and just let nature take its course. It served an important role in providing a way to turn their myriad atrocities into regrettable but unforeseeable tragedies.

That's what makes the British Empire such a perfidious villain; it's not their evil actions that make you hate them, but their complete self-satisfaction while doing them.

These are the same people who fought two wars to force chinks to smoke opium.

File: reverse colonization.jpg (122 KB, 765x986)

122 KB JPG

>>18652323
The British people literally voted for Labour socialists in 1945 who immediately decolonized.

This "getting payback against white people slavery for colonialism" thing is utterly insane when you think about it. White men died to free you from slavery, white people fought for democracy then voted for decolonization, they voted to invite you to their countries under the assumption you are equals and will come to share their values. After independence you ended up being exploited by your own rulers and the damage they have done is more recent and relevant to your life than whatever happened under colonialism. Yet you fixate on wypipo.

Why? Because you underachieve, but this can't possibly be your own fault even when other minorities like east asians overachieve. You believe 100% of racial disparity is due to white people which justifies racial discrimination against white people with DEI and open border migration. Even though OBM actually hurts minorities more since it places a strain on low income jobs and social welfare, you want it because you know it will transform the country into a slum like your homeland. You want to cut off your own nose to spite the people who have to see you.

It is not even boomers who actually experienced "racism" that are like this, it is a recent trend with zoomers and BLM and the like. And it call could have been avoided if we were the "racists" you think we are.

>>18652371
Wow, more of the same old Brit-baiting nonsense. Indians grew jute because it made money. Indians had experienced famines for their entire recorded history and the British prevented a single famine occurring for half a century before the final one which was unavoidable. The failures of British rule were not due to indifference to local suffering; they were due to a lack of resources and central planning, which at the time seemed unfeasible anyway due to their laissez faire approach to governing. It was only near the end that they got to work on making the colonies better and they did. They just did. They vaccinated, irrigated land, brought communication and transport networks, educated millions, gave opportunities to millions using their imperial trade networks, the list goes on. So they did too little too late – ok, that's not the same as being an evil empire or something. By the standards of the time they were philosopher kings.

Things they did do that were objectively bad:

1. Sacking the Old Summer Palace
Achieved little and was just an act of revenge taken by local commissioner

2. Boer War(s)
Seem pretty bad by all measures, especially the camps.

3. Opium Wars
The Qing were probably the most evil government imaginable, they had a tradition of smoking opium anyway, and opium isn't THAT bad... but still this is hard to defend

>>18652338
Britain bankrupted itself with the World Wars, it had no money to salvage the colonies and was wholly dependent on an America that disapproved of it. That’s why didn’t keep them from trying a number of schemes. Israel crushed a “Third Empire” Middle Eastern Hegemony with Soviet Aid after British aligned Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Jordsn failed to defeat them, dooming the regimes (barring Jordan, who performed best) with the backdrop of humiliation. In East Africa, attempts to make an Imperial backed federation fell apart. Its settler colonies instead of being integrated closer grew further apart and closer to America. South Africa swept the rug under the British administration in a humiliating manner. India and Pakistan quickly distanced themselves from Britain. I think people are severely underestimating the sheer failure of British policy post WW2.

>>18652390
> in 1945 who immediately decolonized.
Source?

>>18652394
Calling it a "failure" is harsh. They were in a completely impossible situation. There was no political will at home or abroad for British imperialism. In the context of the Cold War, whichever side supported imperialism would immediately lose the support of nonaligned countries and newly independent countries. And if you didn't give independence, they'd go communist; if you gave indepenence too fast, they'd go communist. It was an incredibly difficult situation and Britain handled it well, with most of its former colonies remaining reasonably friendly post-independence even if they were for a short time potential enemies, haranguing Europeans as racist colonialists for a while at the UN. The only leverage Britain had was that it had bases, ships and troops that could be used in place of and in support of American troops which was a political and military asset to America, and was indeed used by Britain as a negotiating chip. But if push came to shove America could at any time have pushed Britain to complete economic collapse. Not really anything a clever politician can do in that situation

>>18652183
The beauty of the British women and the quality of their cuisine made the British men the finest sailors the world had ever seen

>>18652201
A better timeline would've been Persia winning both Grecopersian wars and or Alexander the Great successfully fusing the cultures.

>>18652390
>The British people literally voted for Labour socialists in 1945 who immediately decolonized.
Last time i checked Brits went crying to the US in 1950s for help to kick Mossadegh and restore British colonial interests, decolonization my ass.
>This "getting payback against white people slavery for colonialism" thing is utterly insane when you think about it.
This, how dare the filthy colonials disrupt our sovereignity, it's only ok when we do it. Also parasitism good, except when nonwhites and jews do it.

>>18652394
Or maybe British people grow as a nation and realised that exploiting other countries is something that they shouldn't do

>>18652394
>Britain bankrupted itself with the World Wars
The process of unwinding the Empire began prior to WW1.
>That’s why didn’t keep them from trying a number of schemes.
No, the fact that very publicly diving further into a fiscal black hole and risking huge backlash at home played a far greater role.
>I think people are severely underestimating the sheer failure of British policy post WW2.
I don't think it's that, it's just that by the period you're talking about Britain had already shifted from "time to start dismantling the Empire" to "the Empire is gone, should we cling on to [area]?" By the end of the 1950s there was no Empire.

>>18652434
>The process of unwinding the Empire began prior to WW1
Care to elaborate? British investment into overseas colonies was at its peak on the eve of WW1.

>>18652438
Dominion Status
Also the shift in British public opinion, who no longer feel that a huge empire opressing hundreds of millions of people is something that they should be proud of

Why are Brits so loathe to admit they're ontologically evil and only lost their empire after getting humiliated by japs/americans/russians?
>>18652447
The Brits were looking to expand into the would- be Ottoman empire after WW1, so much for their unwinding.

>>18652461
But that was different because those territories were to become mandates. Of course, in reality, the difference between a mandate and a colony was pretty small, but it shows the shift in public opinion from
>We are strong conquerors! The world is ours!
to
>The people here need us to bring them order until they can govern themselves

File: anglo.jpg (49 KB, 612x408)

49 KB JPG

>>18652183
mos of population has a latent mad cow disease that will burst out in 10-20 years. if it combines with the chronic wasting disease from american deer the humanity might get extinct before the end of the century

>>18652338
>It's basic history anon.
There are books written by British statesmen at the time saying the Empire was sold off for personal enrichment.
The development of a financial oligarchy due to the regulatory capture of democratic style governments is not le heckin good, its actually one of the most sinister things in history.
lefties will ignore it because its not clear cut babbies first materialism, but it is the definition of class struggle and the productive working class vs the abstracted parasitic managerial class.
The Nazis were right, The state needs to smash finance.
Who built Britain more, financiers living in 1898 or the blood of the British commoner from 1550-1900?

>>18652474
>There are books written by British statesmen at the time saying the Empire was sold off for personal enrichment.
name one

>>18652399
Labor was getting a popular mandate for decolonization since 1910 with its 'fortification' policy after the Boer War.

>>18652469
That's just optics,Brits had no intention to leave from oil rich ME. Which is why they took the mosul oil fields in textbook imperialistic fashion.

>>18652476
>name one
>https://archive.org/details/richard-hilton-imperial-obituary
before you reply to me again, read the book.

>>18652479
>textbook imperialism is when you are the productive working class
lol

>>18652483
>Placing a puppet ruler to keep ownership of another nation's resources and deposing those who want it back is benevolent and anti-imperialist

>>18652489
>another nation's resources
what nation?
Iraq isnt a nation, its an administrative designation.
There is no such thing as an ethnic Iraqi.
The largest demographic is marsh Arab, where is marsh Arabia on a map?
Followed by Kurds and Assyrians.
Please show me Kurdistan or Assyria on a map from that time.
>those who want it back
want what back? They didnt build those refineries, they didnt build the oil reserves either lol
>MY PIPO COLLECTED STICKS ON DIS LAND FOR CENTURIES DAT MEANS ITS ALL MINE
lol?
>benevolent and anti imperialist
???????
why the strawman?
arent lefties supposed to be against imperialism? the British were less imperialist due being a true neutral, while under the Arabs or Kurds or Assyrians it would have been endless blood feuds and ethnic conflicts and endless oppression.
The British brough equality and equity to the peoples of that region lmfao.

>>18652434
By the late 50s the writing was on the wall but there was still an empire. There was a colonial office and jobs around the world for British men. There were advertisements encouraging British families to emigrate to Kenya, British presence in Aden, Singapore, Malaysia, West and East Africa,the Caribbean, Hong Kong etc. It was a dying empire but still an empire.

>>18652481
but he cries about muh commies liberating people from British empire in this book, not praising nazis
>>18652479
But they had the intention of not upholding the Empire, which was my point

>>18652497
>what nation
The nation Brits themselves created.
>Please show me Kurdistan or Assyria on a map from that time.
So people don't have claim to land because nation states are recent?
>i build your refineries, that means i get a cut for the rest of time
Parasitism good, except when it's done to us.
>The British brought equality
In that everyone equally banded together to kick you guys out. The Britsh then brought a puppet ruler to keep their interests(while supposedly downsizing their empire)

>>18652515
>I discover the use of the resource
>I develop the means to find the resource
>I go out and find the resource
>I build the means to extract the resource
>therefore I get a right to some of that resource for a pretty long time
er, yeah actually

>>18652338
>the last meaningful mass rebellion against British rule was in Ireland, and while we did indeed botch it
>Ireland
>botched
remind me if Northern Ireland is in the UK or not

>>18652517
>>therefore I get a right to some of that resource for a pretty long time
>implying BP or any other oil company would walk away on their own
If not for Arab nationalism ME oil would be parasitized by westerners to this day.

>>18652434
>The process of unwinding the Empire began prior to WW1.
So, Sikes Pict didn't happen and was not executed in full?

Are you retarded?

>>18652434
>By the end of the 1950s there was no Empire.
They were warring in Asia and Africa into the 60's.

>>18652469
>But that was different
You should shut up now.

>>18652477
Poppycock, the greedheads were expanding long after.

>>18652535
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

>>18652527
>doing 100% of the work is parasitism
parasitizing what?
Who is being parasitized?
most "Iraqis" dont even have cars.

>>18652511
>intention
Lel, lmfao even

>>18652511
You didnt read the book.
>liberating
you mean selling off for self enrichment.
Who were the commies? name them.
>praising the nazis
????????
no one said Hilton does this.

>>18652541
Who and what?
You should shut up, kid.

>>18652545
Permanently extracting wealth because you built infrastructure is parasitism,yes. Out of all the imperial powers only the Japanese intented to return infrastructure to their subjects after a profit.

>>18652527
And without Euros it would still be in the ground and they'd be living in tents. So?

>>18652548
>Who were the commies? name them.
they weren't any, it was just him looking for scapegoats for a process that was naturaly happening

>>18652515
>the nation
what nation?
Iraq isnt a nation, thats no such thing as an ethnic Iraqi.
>people dont have a claim to land
huh?
no one denied the various tribes living in Iraq their right to live there lol.
What are you even arguing here?
>parasitism is good
whos being parasitized? the oil? oil is an inanimate object, probably.
>kick you guys out
The British were never kicked out.

What are you even trying to say?
Your posts are so unclear and weird adversarial.
are you an evil lefty? you have these bizarre broken chains of reasoning that vaguely hint at something but never make a cogent or coherent point.

>>18652551
>wealth
nope.
The British never went into Iraqi houses and took little tokens and trinkets of value out of them.
>da oil wealth
wealth built by the British lol.
The British are the working class, and specifically in Iraq it was due to Nationalizing Anglo-Iraq/Turkish Oil the wealth produced by the British worker was extracted directly into the pockets of the Iraqi state, this is a form of imperialism against the British if anything.
I feel like youre against nationalizing industries for the purpose of governments enriching themselves, just seems too Fascist for someone saying the things youre saying, but yet here you are defending it.

Its simple.
Britain creates wealth
Britain owns the wealth
Iraq taking that wealth is theft, taking that wealth specifically to fund government armaments is Hitler tier.

You must be a big fan of Hitler right?

>>18652554
>naturally happening
>solely the result of specific decisions made for personal enrichment
?????????????????

File: Irish_UK_general_election(...).png (70 KB, 834x1034)

70 KB PNG

>>18652520
>remind me if Northern Ireland is in the UK or not
NTA, but in an 8 year period Britain went from
>not one single vote cast for independence, Iris nationalism's ultimate goal is a limited degree of self-governance in a restored Irish Parliament
to
>landslide victory for Sinn Féin, a secessionist republican party

In the 10 year period between 1912 and 1922, Britain went from having total domination of Irish politics to losing the vast majority of the island and being left with a rump state in the northeast which itself collapsed a few decades later. To say they did anything but botch the revolutionary period is inaccurate.

It could have been worse, but it could also have been avoided entirely.

>>18652564
well, who made this decision and got the "personal enrichment" ? Since you apparently read this book then it should be easy to tell me

>>18652183
You should regard most any depiction of the life of the average "European" person in the middle ages with high suspicion as it was probably based on the life of an average Brit, instead of the mainland Europeans. Because British historians dominate English language discussions of western history.

>>18652549
you sound very angry

>>18652567
Bernard Baruch.
You remember him being mentioned right? you did read the book right?
What is natural about political and economic PACs?

Where is the course of nature in this? I dont see it.

>>18652563
>Hmm, they had already decolonized because that's bad, except they hadn't and that's OK because it's good.

Just shut up. Really.

>>18652571
You should just stop, kid.

>>18652577
>Bernard Baruch
But he's not a communist and he's an American, while the book you posted says it was "commies" inside the UK who destroyed le empire

File: Balfour-Declaration.jpg (37 KB, 350x461)

37 KB JPG

>>18652183
They created Israel.

>>18652587
Kid i would break you fingers

>>18652603
You should learn to write first, kid.

>>18652607
I would fold you in a single punch, kid.

>>18652183
Gods chosen people, and the bringers of peace, liberation, and prosperity to the world - until they were stabbed in the back by Satan's forces (Germs, Jews, Commies, and the Americans who are just the first three combined).

>>18652428
But that’s explicitly not true as they attempted to salvage it. Some may say this to feel better, but ultimately it’s cope for their own failures.

>>18652434
>Process of unwinding the empire began before WW1
Yes with excellent examples like the Boer Wars, Plans to Partition Portugal’s colonies, Support of Entente Allies like France taking Morocco, and the eventual post WW1 gobbling of German/Turkish Possessions. Colonialism was thoroughly discredited only in WW2 with 1940-1941 defeats, and Britain’s subservience to American interests.

>>18652592
Read the book. It says communists are among the groups working to deliberately undermine the British empire. It also states figures like Baruch are undermining the empire on behalf of their personal/community interests.

Look, you asked for a book on the topic because you thought they didn’t exist because you were fed the leftist dogma that the world is progressing away from good things like empire and toward ugly disgusting orc camps with HIV dispensers.
Now you encounter reality and are at a loss when someone brings the information.
The British empire didn’t end naturally.
It ended due to specific decisions by specific people.
The British empire was a moral good and spreading blue eyed light skinned people across the world increased the beauty in the world.
Increasing people who look like Amber Heard is a moral good.
People who look like Lenin or George Groyd, these are morally evil figures and you can see their evil in their ugliness.

This is the root of the argument.
The Left are spiteful mutants who want to destroy health and beauty and can only compete with humans through deception.
Lefties are evil and ought to be destroyed.

>>18652428
What was the exploitation?
The impoverished tribes of these countries consented alongside their gods, how else could Britain have been welcomed as governors and rulers over them if they didn’t have the democratic will of the people and the gods behind them?
Nothing you say makes any sense. The British did nothing wrong to any of their subjects in the empire.

>>18652880
NTA but it's just one book. When it comes to the British empire there's a consensus that it was sort of inevitable. You had various factors:

1. laissez faire + free trade
2. conservatism in industry
3. conservatism in government post ww1 (try to do economics the old way, weak fiscal policy, little state intervention, gold standard [biggest disaster])
4. idealism in government post ww1 (let's replace balance of power with the league of nations!)
5. weak and pathetic leaders (we can't do anything that would piss off, for example, Canada)
6. educated colonials (often educated by the British) who realise that as long as they organise as big groups, they have enormous leverage
7. Cold War dynamic – the threat of communism made it difficult to refuse independence movements, because if you refuse this one, they'll be replaced by one that's more cutthroat and potentially communist
8. the demoralisation and ideological change among the British upper middle class – the glory of empire and conquest was completely out of fashion by the end of ww1. it had gone. and by the end of ww2 it was replaced by a feeling of "let's build a new world" – no one even wanted an empire anymore.
9. Costs. The empire, despite being derided for being extractive and so on, made a few merchants and companies very rich, many of which were not British. But it did not make the British state rich. The British state bore the brunt of the costs of empire and even the most loyal colonies and dominions would try to nickel and dime Britain at any opportunity. It was just not worth it

>>18652183
most instances, both legitimate and delusional, have been exhausted in this thread atp but it's funny to note that England and the United Kingdom haven't been controlled by Anglo-Saxons for their entire unified existences

>House of Normandy
Normans
>Plantagenets
French
>Tudors
Normanized Welsh
>Stuarts
Scoticized Bretons
>Hanovers to Windsors
Germans

Fellas, was Operation Keelhaul based?

>>18653342
You're using 'Anglo Saxons' here as a proxy for 'natives', but they too were Germanic invaders. Saxons, Vikings, and Normans are just different flavours of continental interloper.

>>18652391
The three things you listed aren't close to being objectively bad imho, I support all three. Sacking the Summer Palace was just a show of force, not materially different from burning the White House. Not, as you say, ordered from Britain itself, but a perfectly understandable wartime action for the context of the time. The Boer Wars were absolutely not bad by all measures, unless you are referring to the bungling way they were prosecuted before heads were knocked together. The Boers were not good people, and would have done (even more) unspeakable things to the black majority had Britain lost. Kitchener's camps were disasters, granted, and probably could be described as 'objectively bad', but that is not the whole story of the Boer Wars. As for the Opium Wars, all the European powers had had it with the Qing's bullshit. Despite the name, which I think totally mis-sells the conflict and is as silly as calling the American Civil War 'The Slavery Wars', the Opium Wars are about much more than Opium. At the end of the day, the Euro Powers and the USA were not going to allow China to continue to behave in such a dismissive and controlling manner with international merchant interests. Were the 'unequal treaties' a disproportionate attempt to crypto-vassalise China? Of course, but that was to be expected after they sustained such a colossal defeat.

I do think there are some objective evils in Britain's history. This is not well documented, but it seems that paedophile high-ups in the Raj were pretty well protected, getting through quite a lot of Indian boys with it all being hushed up. You can see a shadow of that with Dickie Mountbatten, not by any means limited to Ireland. Speaking of Ireland, while I do maintain that Ireland's history (like Scotland's) was violent and chaotic before England showed up, the English/UK state committed untold evils driven sometimes by incompetence and sometimes by malice. Mossadegh and Suez were both also pretty grubby affairs.

>>18653392
I was using it as a synonym for the majority of the English population, I'm in fundamental agreement with your claim wrt Celts being the actual natives