A Tale of Two Tragedies

The similarities and differences between Globalist dominance in the US and the UK

As a Brit who has become heavily engaged in US politics and how the US political scene is going, I often find myself startled by the similarities between the situations faced by the respective nations. On the 9th September 1776 the Second Continental Congress formerly adopted the name ‘United States of America’ for what had been the United Colonies, and on the 3rd September 1783 British representatives signed the Treaty of Paris, formerly ending the American Revolutionary War and recognizing the existence of the new, independent nation formed from what had been 13 rebellious colonies taking on the mightiest Empire the world had ever seen.

We have been divided as separate nations, a separation recognized by both sides for 241 years, and we have had vastly different experiences since then. The similarities we retain, and the amount of the period of our shared history which has been marked by firm alliance and shared values, is an astonishing testament to the continuance of cultural markers and principles over time, and the endurance of these things even after an initial schism marked by furious battle and spilled blood, including a resurgence of the conditions of conflict in 1812.

British governments and commentators have long held to the notion of a ‘special relationship’ between two of the longest aligned nations on Earth. As Britain’s own superpower eminence and globe bestriding status faded, classically educated British leaders, especially of the patrician class, moved from viewing the USA as an unruly but sometimes endearingly precocious offspring who had left the family home to seeing the younger nation as a more vigorous and powerful version of themselves, whose similarities could still be exploited and appealed to by the older nation. By this formulation, Britain would be Greece to the USA’s Rome, a wise elder mentor whose interests would best be served by offering friendship, experienced guidance and discreet support to the American superpower.

Differences such as the Suez Crisis or the cold and calculated manner in which the US set aside sentimental rhetoric to leverage British war debt as ruthlessly as possible (a move which cemented the US replacement of the UK as leader of the free world) at times shook the patrician complacency and assurance of the British view of the alliance, but never entirely broke it.

Britain became the strongest and most consistent supporter of US positions on the international stage, and the most likely foreign nation to supply overt or covert support for American foreign policy regardless of changes of administration in both nations. US British relations survived the Suez era American betrayal which induced a complete nervous breakdown for then serving Prime Minister Anthony Eden. It survived the inherited anti-English attitudes of key American Irish political dynasties, and the growth of a European favoring, snobbish distaste for the ‘crude’ Americans within certain sections of the British elite. The Reagan-Thatcher alliance won the Cold War, and combined shared political values with great personal affection. The Bush-Blair shared ‘War on Terror’, while of course disastrous as an actual policy, nevertheless gave a renewed boost to the sense that the fate of both nations was inextricably entwined.

Oddly, then, Anglo-American unity became a bi-lateral marker for both parties, a thing that defined us as much as a thing that made pragmatic sense. Cultural differences were downplayed, just as shared military endeavors were repeated. Both sides developed a sort of co-dependency, where Britain fed on its link to American power and where America fed on the greater respectability of having a foreign ally present ready to share some of the burden and much of the blame for various military interventions. Britain used the American link to give itself a counterweight to Europe and America used the British link to give itself a voice (not its own, but saying the same things) within Europe.

But it was more than an alliance of convenience. The truth is that few nations that are entirely separate have seen the level of cross-cultural exchange that has existed between Britain and America, and things which might have ordinarily speeded a cultural divergence between us have instead offered new sources of connection-as with the constant exchange of actors, entertainers, TV shows, films and even sports personalities (moderated by the absence of a significant following for some US sports in the UK).

Today, the ‘West’ is the Globalist heartland, and the UK the closest and strongest of the minority of nations still looking to the US for leadership rather than China (or rather than a genuine sovereign approach). Which means of course that the UK is the least likely to pursue anything other than Globalist attitudes to Ukraine, ‘disinformation’, ‘green energy’, climate change, censorship and all the rest. If you made a map of every Globalist attitude you hated and which nations currently backed them, the two most certain to appear every time would be the US and the UK.

None of this pretends that major differences between the two nations don’t exist. The contrast between the still significant role of Christianity in American lives and British secularism is obvious, as are issues like gun law and abortion and the different ways majorities in both nations approach these topics. But Brits have been raised watching US shows, and Americans watching British shows, and both seeing their nations at the forefront (still) of every united ‘Western’ approach to major conflicts and almost always with a US and a UK administration doing the same things and saying the same things in most areas.

Now, as the nation state itself is facing a period where the ruling class have decided those old separations are either malign or inconvenient and that a global, transnational set of institutions (together with multinational corporations) should actually be the things with power, US and UK similarities and differences must be viewed in the fresh context of both nations being permanently under assault, both from within and without. Globalists in trying to kill the traditional nation state and construct a post-national reality have now made sure that the similarities between us are not just sometimes superficial ones based on experiencing the same TV shows. Nor are they just about our governments working together.

The US elite and the UK elite are more aligned than they have been at any point since the Revolutionary War, because in both cases they share not just wealth, style choices, lifestyles, vacation destinations, and similar experiences-they share the exact same limited social circles. When we talk about the actual elite, the very wealthiest or the people the very wealthiest allow to be publicly acknowledged as world leaders, we are talking about a Globalist international class who are all signed up to the creation of a single world government by any means necessary, and who are all entirely devoid of any notion of loyalty towards specific nations and peoples. More than that, they are all equally signed up to the creation of a Net Zero future, a pandemic preparedness future, a control everything technocratic future where all of us are monitored, surveilled, controlled by a technological apparatus and denied freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of political association.

The elite is a global elite, socially and ideologically homogeneous in its nature, and the thoughts and desires of a member of the liberal elite in Washington or London are the same. Their disdain for their own nation and own people is the same, and their preference for rule without consent and rule without redress is the same.

But at the same time for the nationalist American or the nationalist Brit, the people who are most like them are found laterally across multiple nations, rather than horizontally within their own nation. Ironically, the more nationalist you are (just as the more globalist you are) the more it will become evident that another patriot in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, even Russia, has more in common with you than a progressive liberal Globalist who lives next door to you or who can be found horizontally above you (in your nation, but of a higher social class).

The Globalist trying to destroy his nation finds himself aligned with other globalist elites elsewhere, all working towards the same things. But the nationalist trying to save his nation and reclaim and restore it likewise finds that a nationalist from another nation actually understands him better than his own elite do. The anti globalist nationalist must increasingly develop a feeling of internationalist solidarity, a sense that the Trump voting American is the same as the Canadian trucker or the Dutch farmer or the Irish publican or the English plumber or the French cheese maker. All of us are classes of people ruled by globalists who hate us. All of us want to preserve the safety, uniqueness and culture of our nations. All of us resent being stepped on by corrupt authorities, or told to eat insects, or forced to inject poisons.

The US patriot citizen is threatened by the same things the UK patriot citizen is. Open borders, Net Zero, created pandemics, totalitarian pandemic responses, the reduction of rights, the prioritization of enemies, directed mass immigration, the 15 minute city, the policy platforms of the WEF or UN.

Finally, then, to the differences. Not the cultural differences that are beyond long discussion here, but the difference between how the Globalist onslaught against the ordinary person is conducted. One of the things that has become evident is that while we both face a new form of slavery within a techno-feudal society being built by Globalists, how the Globalists do this differs somewhat in each nation.

We both have a thoroughly malign Deep State that works against us. But in the US the apparatus of the Deep State is both more obviously malign and more obviously operating overtly. There’s an FBI, a CIA, an NSA and the things they are doing to enforce tyranny could hardly be any more obvious. That obviousness would suggest America is in a worse place than Britain. We can’t point to a single political dynasty and see over 50 strange plane crashes, suicides and sudden deaths, as people can with the Clintons. Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were both ousted on Deep State/Globalist orders, but we haven’t had an opposition leader treated to Banana Republic lawfare or hit with gigantic fines. Farage had his bank try to cut him off from having a bank account based on his politics, but that’s pretty mild compared to the things conducted against Trump.

There is an overtness in the shift to regime tyranny rule in the US, and a much more ‘mild on the surface’ appearance to British politics. Nevertheless, elected leaders removed by engineered coup are still elected leaders removed by anti-democratic coup in a way that proves the ‘liberal democracy’ is dead. Britain’s current election will represent the switching of a tainted globalist for an unblemished globalist, which will of course see globalism continuing its work of destruction and its construction of tyranny. Britain has seen the Bank of England, foreign currency speculators and the Civil Service working to rig who is Prime Minister, which is slightly more concealed but no less a denial of free and fair elections as the determinant of rule than the electoral fraud of 2020 in the US was.

The obviousness of the corruption and tyranny in the US may suggest that the Globalists there have more power than the ones in the UK…or it might suggest the opposite (is it they need to be this blatant because there’s a huge amount of inbuilt resistance from the American people, or that they are this blatant simply because they control everything and don’t fear a reprisal). Similarly, before we are reassured that our elections don’t have mass mail balloting, Zuckerberg bucks, and Dominion machines we must wonder whether its just because that blatant rigging isn’t needed when you can put Rishi Sunak in power with an even more calculated and corrupt run on the pound and the person waiting if that government falls is Keir Starmer (who prefers Davos to Westminster).

In other words, the UK might be worse off because our globalist tyrants don’t need the obvious crimes going on in America to try to remove Trump. We don’t have the scale of resistance that MAGA represents, so we are allowed a bit more of an illusion of normality. We don’t need MI5 raids on Farage equivalent to FBI raids on Trump, but would have them if Farage was as big a threat as Trump. In the meantime, between the first past the post system making a surge of a previously unknown or small party incredibly difficult (a reality Reform have to break) and the assurance that the incoming Labour Party will be very dutiful globalists just like their Tory predecessors, much of the work of our Deep State can be quietly done in the background by Civil Servants with forms rather than by police agents with guns.