Anglophobia in the USA

ANGLOPHOBIA  IN THE USA                              


There has recently been an upsurge in the United States of what I call mytho-dynamics aimed at  building up hatred of the English. One key example of the growing animosity towards the English as a race (which they are most certainly not since they chose hundreds of years ago to identify their culture as British) was the movie “Braveheart”. This historical travesty was sponsored by Hollywood, the world’s most influential propaganda machine apart from political dictatorships which completely control their communications media. Shortly before this Hollywood had sponsored another example, “The Patriot”, a nationalistic mytho-dynamic film about the American War of Independence also relying for its dramatic impact by building up hatred of the English as a race. Scottish Nationalism has been on the rise since the discovery of oil fields under the North Sea off the coast of the Shetland Islands. How would the chauvinistic Scottish government respond should independence movements arise in the remote Shetland and Orkney Islands with their Scandinavian ancestry to claim the tempting oil revenues?


The historical events portrayed in both films have been unscrupulously “mythologised”. Historians have objected to the seriously misleading alterations that have been made to Scottish and American history. “Braveheart”  was produced and directed by the talented but rather unsavoury Australian actor Mel Gibson who starred himself as the legendary hero. The film demonises Edward I and glorifies the less than noble character of William Wallace who was a very minor figure, winning only one important battle, compared with the real hero of Scottish independence, Robert Bruce. The latter was not only a cunning and sometimes murderous opportunist in the internal Scottish clan rivalry for the throne, frequently siding with Edward and the English, until he broke away from the English, but also proved to be a brilliant military strategist.


The Historical Setting

In 1296 there was a dynastic crisis in Scotland with the unexpected death at sea of the Scottish heir to the throne who was to marry the son of Edward to bring the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland into a peaceful union. The resultant confusion and rivalry between different claimants to the Scottish throne was compounded by Edward’s impatient bullying. The result was that this union was delayed by three hundred years of animosity and troubles (exploited by England’s enemy France) until the English gave the Throne of England to the Scottish King James VI of the Stuart dynasty. This took place peacefully, following the death of Queen Elizabeth, the last of the Tudor dynasty. The Stuart king Charles I and, after the death of the cunning diplomatic playboy King Charles II, his brother James II, broke the traditional contract between king and people and together with later French-backed Jacobite uprisings, almost destroyed the Monarchy. This terrifying closeness to another civil resulted in a political movement to reduce the unreliable power of the throne by establishing a stable Constitutional Monarchy and a completely new dynastic family for the United Kingdom.


The Patriot

The Hollywood anti-English mytho-dynamic film “The Patriot”, like “Braveheart” is another example of vicious Anglophobia also starring Mel Gibson as the fictional hero, the American Benjamin Martin. The real English military leaders in the film are depicted as utterly evil and Martin and his Whig colleagues as shown as wonderful caring men. Tory loyalists who were opposed to the rebellion and who were persecuted by their fellow countrymen have been largely written out of history or demonised. I have dreamed for years of establishing a school of history writing where the past events of the world are seen from a British Tory standpoint based on warrior Christian values and not that of the present monopoly of history by greedy sentimental capitalists and envious treacherous socialists. The racist portrayal in this blockbuster film of many English officers as monsters and the false actions ascribed to them caused great offence in the UK. This deserves a lengthy quote from the New York Post film critic Jonathan Foreman.


“The most disturbing thing about “The Patriot” is not just that the German director Roland Emmerich and his screenwriter Robert Rodat (already criticised for excluding British, Canadian and other allied soldiers in the Normandy landings from his script in “Saving Private Ryan”) depicted British troops as committing savage atrocities, but that those atrocities bear such a close resemblance to real war crimes committed by German troops, particularly the SS, during World War 2.  It’s hard not to wonder if the film-makers have some kind of subconscious agenda. They have made a film that will have the effect of inoculating the audiences against real historical knowledge whilst implicitly rehabilitating the Nazis while making the British seem as evil as history’s worst monsters”


American Chauvinism

Since World War 2 American cinema audiences have been bombarded by mytho-dynamics portraying themselves as uniquely virtuous and the rest of the world as corrupt or vicious. They are “The New World” and the rest of the world are the losers in the march of history. This smug self-righteousness is probably derived from the holier-than-thou Puritan founders. The American government allowed anti-English IRA supporters in America to openly raise funds to buy weapons to continue the IRA terror campaign against civilians in England, including the bombing of the hotel where Prime Minister Thatcher and her government were gathered. This clearly demonstrates that they have no genuine love for the British government or people. American torture of suspected terrorists against Americans is common as is assassination of their own political leaders. By comparison with other nations the British have an exemplary record doing their best to ban the use of torture. Would any national government today trust the American government to stand by them if things get tough? Abandoning their allies is standard practise.


The British Empire stands alone against Hitler

At the height of the war, with Britain on the verge of starvation, President Roosevelt had insisted being given British naval bases in the Pacific and on the dismantling of the British Empire as preconditions for providing  military and economic assistance to Britain. They were not yet mentally prepared to directly oppose Hitler’s regime by joining in the war themselves. This was at the time when the Empire was about to collapse from the strain of standing alone for two years against the might of Germany and its collaborator Russia who had already conquered the rest of Europe. It has now been revealed that Roosevelt privately had no intention of declaring war on Nazi Germany. His plan was to allow the American Military Industrial Complex to grow powerful by selling selling arms and food to Britain and Russia, letting the combatants weaken themselves so that the USA could become the world’s new superpower. The British Empire did not lose their political war but, with the help of a fake world government in the form of the anti-British United Nations Organisation, Russia and American inherited the postwar world and its economic system..


Following the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi regime in Germany one can only assume it was Anglophobia that motivated Roosevelt to reject Churchill’s wish for an alliance between the British Empire and the USA to become allies against the Russian Communist dictator Stalin.  Instead, Roosevelt chose to cut Churchill out, and do a deal with Stalin which allowed him to occupy half of Europe, including Poland whose military occupation by Germany and Russia had been the causus belli of the war in the first place.


The mytho-dynamic motivation of the Americans in this case was not just racial but ideological. America’s behaviour during the Suez Crisis made it obvious that the USA had more in common with Communist Russia than Imperialist Britain. The USA was created by a rebellion against an imperial power, even though it was essentially a civil war between loyalist Anglican Tories and radical non-conformist Whigs. The mytho-dynamics justifying their rebellion against an imperial religious monarchy still remain embedded in the American psyche. The “anti-Imperialist” Americans and “anti-Imperialist Russians” control subject peoples in a different way from the British who do their best to provide a non-corrupt civil service, schools, hospitals, railways and factories and are willing to let their colonies advance to become independent trading partners and friends. In general, the Americans bribe corrupt puppet governments and help them repress independence movements and the Russians and Chinese invade and set up servile totalitarian police states so they can establish slave labour camps and extract and import raw materials by force.


Is there any other explanation of America’s motivation in their foolish post-war foreign policy which eventually came close to bringing about the destruction of mankind over Russia’s decision to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? The USA had already put nuclear missiles in Turkey on the Russian border. As in the case of revenge-seeking and racist National Socialism in Germany and the oil-starved Japanese nationalistic invasions of Manchuria, China, South East Asia and the Pacific, similarly ruthless ideologically-driven Communist expansionism was being met in an indecisive fashion until it was almost too late.


                                                                                                                                                    WIZARD OF NZ 2013