In England, deism, Christ, Allah, Krishna, is it the same?

1. Yes we Irish are smart but no more so than our fellow Britons
2. The British Isles are not an archipelago, we are not a chain of scattered islands.

 

Yes, Churchill was re-elected, six years later in 1951, by which time poor, old Winnie was 77 and just about totally 'out of gas'. He filled his cabinet with familiar WWII leftovers who had a very difficult time grappling with the realities of an impoverished nation that they had brought about by "winning" the war . Throughout the period Churchill had a terrible time because of health issues (including a serious stroke in 1953) and finally resigned in physical and mental exhaustion in 1955.

Oh, I've been over there several times, and I deeply love the English (British, UK, whatever) . It grieves me to see what they've turned into since 1914, as I've said... but they put men like Winston Churchill in positions of power, and now they are living with the result. I suspect it will get even worse before very much longer....

 

I know a few citizens of the Republic of Ireland who would definitely take issue with your statement equating their intelligence, judgement, and comportment with those of the UK (especially near the 'mixing-bowl' toilet of London).

And, somehow I knew you'd bristle a bit at my use of "archipelago". It was just my snotty way of putting GREAT Britain in a diminutive perspective -- besides -- grant a guy a little 'poetic license'... OK? Funny, I've read your posts for years and agreed heartily with nearly all of them, until now. Ah, well....

 

Ah, 'nitpicking' brought to its zenith! Does it matter whether one 'slices and dices' the July 1945 vote down the level of parsing out the Northern Ireland vote in juxtaposition to the vote in some other part of the UK? My point is a simple, historical one -- a scant two months after the British celebrated their 'victory' over Germany, the voters of the UK threw Winston Churchill out of office! The implications of a drubbing like that could be lost only on the most hopelessly (or deliberately) oblivious....

 

The implications is he was voted out, then voted in. That’s how elections work.

The ravages of the second world was on a bombed out and exhausted United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, people wanted to re configure the social contract within the nation. Hence the need to rebuild, review the national fabric, like for example the creation of the National Health Service.
The story was not about an ungrateful nation rejecting a war hero, but a nation embarking on repair.
Hawaii apart, the American mainland wasn’t ravaged like the British Isles and the post war priorities in America were different to those in the UK.

 

Yes, we blew the British Empire on defeating Nazism. what a BARGAIN! Churchill won WW2 and now played a huge role in helping win the Cold War. Yes, we still live with the result of putting people like Churchill today, in a free, democratic, rich and downright best country in the entire world.

 

Yeah, well you know how daft people from the RoI are! Yes, London, one of the greatest cities on earth and a great example of multi-culturalism, the fact that you denigrate that fact says much about you.

You mean you're wrong and you're flannelling?

 

The implications are Churchill was a great wartime leader but to rebuild our exhausted nation we needed a social reformer. I have no idea why this is a problem for you?

 

The name ‘great’ in Great Britain is about the largest land mass amongst the islands, nothing to do with self aggrandisement. The large land mass contains three countries England, Wales and Scotland.

 

I have no "problem" with any choice that citizens of the UK make regarding their choice for Prime Minister. I only lament the fact that from August 1914 to the present day, the UK has seemed bent on committing various forms of what amounts to national 'suicide'. For heaven's sake -- look at what you HAD on August 3rd, 1914 and compare that to what you have today! Doesn't that speak for itself?

As far as "multiculturalism" goes, perhaps you should ask the ghost of Lee Rigby, of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, how well the trashing of English society improved his life.... Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-k-soldier-lee-rigby-s-gruesome-beheading-described-1.2444836

Trite-but-true, corny old saying: "When you invite a snake into your bed, don't be surprised if it bites you!"

 

In England, deism, Christ, Allah, Krishna, is it the same?

Of course. A deity is a deity regardless of the description.

 

Islam has been influenced by Marxism and Fascism.

 

Christianity has a commandment something like ‘thou shalt not kill’ yet loads of so called Christians eat meat and fish.
Cue the dancing on a pinhead that says it really means you shouldn’t murder, or that the creatures are of a lesser importance than people.
I don’t really care what people eat, but people who eat meat and fish dodge that commandment.
Pointing to their leather shoes is an effective way to get rid of Jehovahs Witnesses when they come calling.

 

Apparently... from a testimony that I just heard a few days ago......

Britain actually has schools where the children are taught the basics of full fledged witchcraft??????

If this testimony is true.....
as I believe that it is.....
then the Harry Potter movies have a basis is reality?????!

 

Sure I would, a free and equal society, having the actions of 2 madmen does not change that one jot. Plus the British empire actually peaks in 1923. Britain was right to give up the empire, we were right not to try to hold onto it.

 

No but religious freedom means just that

 

This useful article written by the remarkable educator, Clarence Carson, agrees with your observation that the decline of the British Empire did not begin until the period between the world wars. I chose 1914 because World War I was thoroughly ruinous and destructive to everything Britain had accomplished for hundreds of years, except for achievement of a chest-thumping, pyrrhic, 'paper-victory'. World War I, then, was the catalyst for the decay and ultimate dismantlement of the British Empire which was finally achieved, ironically, on "V-E Day", 1945....

Link: https://fee.org/articles/the-rise-and-fall-of-england-14-the-decline-of-england/#:~:text=England's decline began in the,the interwar years than before.

Consider: even after Chamberlain foolishly threw the UK into war with Germany in September 1939, Hitler (who thought of the British as 'first-cousins' for whom he felt an affinity) took no offensive action against the English homeland until almost a full year later! The British press derisively called it a "Phoney War", and a "Sitzkrieg" because except for offensive action taken by Britain against Germany, there really wasn't any "war" at all.

Instead of letting a full-scale war develop between Germany and the Soviet Union, and then crushing the depleted, exhausted "winner", nothing would do for Churchill's war-hawks but that they must thrust themselves right into the breech, causing disasters like Dunkirk and the "strategic muddle" of British involvement in Norway. Meanwhile, Germany had next to no "atomic bomb" program because Hitler thought that nuclear physics was "Jewish science" and useless nonsense. Thus, Germany's pursuit of an atomic bomb never really 'got off the ground' and was all but completely abandoned!

Anyway, no more 'history lesson'... if you're happy with what the UK has turned into today, then I'm happy for you. I happen to love nearly everything about Great Britain prior to ~1970, and was a devout "Beatlemaniac" back in my youth, who cherishes British literature and culture from Hastings to World War I. But, "Rule, Britannia" is just a faded memory, never to be seen again. The downward trajectory the UK is now is one that will stabilise its decline (at best), or continue the UK's descent into a kind of 'third-world-ish' despair....

. "Let the Germans and Russians kill each other! I'm NOT stupid!"

 

Yeah, when you start referring to "England" rather than "Britain" you lose all credibility. No way we were going to let Europe fall to either of the obscene evils of Nazism or Communism. And the age of Empire was over, for EVERYONE!

 

What a pithy, unresponsive reply... I'm sorry now that I wasted my time.

Yes, the "age of Empire" is over, and for England/UK/Great Britain/Whatever the time remaining to be a 'First-World' nation is fast coming to a close.... I have hopes yet for Wales and Scotland, and Ireland is greatly to be admired for its independence... but that gaggle of fools in London you think of as a "Parliament" is dragging England/UK/Great Britain/Whatever even further down into the gutter, and that is truly lamentable....

."Thomas, I had a nightmare that my kingdom turned into a West London!"

 

How so? Do tell? West London is one of the most prosperous places in the the world? If you're referring to the RoI then they're not independent, they're just a vassal of the EU.

 

I'll have to say I've never heard anyone mention the "Rol" before, so I have no idea what that is. But, it can truthfully be said that Great Britain (the UK, England, Whatever) has demonstrated that it is no "vassal of the EU". The Brexit was, IMHO, the best course for you (considering the sinister gang that runs the EU), and you should always be glad that you never ditched the British Pound Sterling in favor of an overvalued, propped-up piece-of-**** like the euro is.

The best part of "England", per se? Probably the LAKE DISTRICT country, up north! Beatrix Potter was a genius, way ahead of her time!

 

1. Republic of Ireland
2. He who is tired of London is tired of life

 

Thank you... Republic of Ireland it is... I mistook the "I" for an "l" (I mistook the 'eye' for the letter 'ell').

Thirty or perhaps forty years ago I think I would have agreed that London was a wonderful place to visit, and, possibly, to live in (were it not for the horrific taxation that you folks seem to tolerate so easily). Today? I would go well out of my way to avoid having to spend any time in London -- or Paris -- or Rome -- or nearly any other large metro area anywhere in Europe. You guys in 'the old country' left the door open, and the little animals got in....

But, as we've seen, especially since 2014 (during the Obama regime), we Americans went one step further and WELCOMED the creatures in, and gave them everything they needed to remain here -- permanently!

 

Multiculturalism is nothing to be scared off and they're not "animals".

 

Multiculturalism, per se, can be very beneficial... no one denies that. But for your government to throw open the migration doors to swarms of essentially useless, needy peasants who bring nothing to your shores but their NEED isn't going to do anyone any good in the long-run. It only accelerates the decay, degeneracy, and poverty that you see all around you -- and which is also very much in evidence throughout nearly all of Europe and, regrettably, here in the States as well.

Here's a tidbit for you to enjoy over a cup of Earl Grey: https://www.dw.com/en/homelessness-climbs-sharply-in-rural-england/a-67827466 . Think: the more people you have queueing-up for the 'welfare pie', the thinner the slices -- unless, like the idiots in the EU do through their ECB, you have your Bank of England start 'printing money' to keep the resulting economic fraud-balloon afloat.