1. Hadrian’s Wall

    By way of a footnote to Tormod’s Blog, The Emperor Hadrian’s recognition that Rome was overextending itself, had drastic repercussions for Great Britain, which are still with us today and which has contains some insight into what is going on in the Middle East today. Hillary Clinton however, like most people on the Left have no sense whatsoever of history or of human nature. Hillary assumes that the events she confronts today are novel. But those of us of a more conservative disposition know perfectly well that we’ve all been here before umpteen times over and that human nature don’t much change.

    Hadrian’s Solution and its’ Consequences for Britain.

    The Roman conquest of the North of England became more and more difficult the further North they ventured. By the time they reached what is now Scotland, having already encountered slow progress through the Mountainous North of what is now England, they decided that enough was enough.

    By 122AD Hadrian, in keeping with his policy of consolidation, and the fact that as far as he was concerned, there was little more worth conquering, Hadrian built his wall.

    Until then Britain had comprised a patchwork of ‘Celtic’ Tribes, not very different from the Tribal patterns in the Middle East today. In fact the difficulties the Romans were encountering in the mountains and adjacent plains of Northern Britain were very similar to the experiences of the West fighting in Afghanistan in not dissimilar terrain.

    There was until 122AD, no suggestion of any border between what is now Scotland and England. In fact there had emerged a kind of three part Britain. The Southern part extending as far North as the Humber where Roman Rule had become well entrenched and accepted, a ‘Middle Britain’ (largely Northumbria), and a Northern part starting at the Firth of Forth.

    Hadrian’s Wall created an artificial and brutal tear in the fabric of ‘Middle Britain’. Over time this became entrenched in the form of an permanent divide between the two parts. When the Romans finally left Britain, Nations formed (England First), in each of the two parts, but in both cases, the origin of these two States lay in the activities of founding dynasties, located some considerable distance from the wall itself, and which had little interest in the Borderlands. So ‘Middle Britain’ continued to thrive for a while.

    But eventually following conquests and consolidation of these dynasties, the approximate location of the wall became a convenient hard border. Neither side had much interest in, let alone capability to fully subjugate the other. As far as the English were concerned, as long as Scotland was not a mortal military threat to England they were satisfied. And as far as Scotland was concerned the chances of conquering England, let alone subjugating it to Scotland’s will, were minimal. Thus by the 14th Century the characters of the two distinct Nations were well were entrenched. The essentially artificial divide between Scotland and England, had finally created two Nations and what might have been a culturally and economically thriving ‘Middle Britain’ was lost forever.

    This is a sad story of the way in which the State eventually moulds us and controls our destiny. People today profess pride in their Nation, when all they are actually doing, is identifying themselves with the territorial limits of some long dead thug’s conquests.

    Trump the ‘Peacemaker’.

    I agree entirely with Tormod’s view that the Trump Foreign Policy is superior to Clinton’s. In fact it’s vastly superior, and is much more likely to eventually bring peace and stability to the world. To be a ‘Peacemaker’, Trump need do no more than stop joining in wars. It’s hardly rocket science. Clinton’s policy is no different from the reckless deeply unconservative, ‘Neo Con’ experiment, and is doomed to plunge the globe into never ending Civil War.

    Given half a century of Trump’s Foreign policy the World would be well on its’ way to eventually settling down into sensible coherent Nation States the way Europe, North America, and South America largely have, and which despite its artificial, Hadrian inspired rift, Great Britain in the form of Scotland and eventually England did. The Nations which emerge will cooperate with one another as appropriate.

    But there’s one serious obstacle to this happy outcome. Nations are invariably forged in blood, so there will be atrocities galore on the way, particularly in the Middle East where the tribal divides are also encumbered with death cult religions. 24 Hour media and reporting of everything that happens anywhere, will inevitably mean that there’ll be calls for intervention at every stage. Whenever we see an atrocity, our first reaction is to barge in, bomb one side or the other, (nowadays sometimes both), and condemn the region in question to perpetual Civil War. Nowadays we do not ‘fight’ let alone attempt to win, wars. Instead we intervene in other people’s conflicts, fire missiles at them from a distance, and prevent them fighting their own disputes to a conclusion. Then, after we’ve lost interest and left, we’re mystified when the combatants emerge out of the rubble, and instead of forgetting their differences and miraculously establish a Western Style Democracy, blame us for their plight, and carry on fighting.

    We need to stand back. And only when all sides are willing to cooperate, offer them support and assistance. But if they aren’t willing, just let them get on with it, until they are.

    The public themselves are coming round to this way of thinking even of the politicians aren’t. And as Middle Eastern Oil becomes less and less important to the West, we will, hopefully, lose interest there. When we lose interest in them, Islamic terrorists will largely lose interest in us, confine themselves to blowing up each other, and, if they’re still there, blowing up the Russians.

Leave a Reply