LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/
Luc MICHEL pour EODE/
Quotidien géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/
2018 04 13/
We continue our introduction to British imperialism 2.0 as it unfolds in the anti-European perspective of Brexit. And in connection with the American networks that favored this Brexit (see the scandal of ‘Cambridge Digital’) and the Trump regime. Britain’s once more open stance with the US and its aggressive policy against Russia make it one of the key players in the « new Cold War 2.0″.
* See also the Part I of this analysis:
LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/
INTRODUCTION TO THE GEOPOLITICS OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
At the heart of Anglo-Saxon Imperialism, there is the City of London, remained in spite of the American domination since 1943, one of the political and financial capitals of the Anglo-Saxon world. ‘Geopolitical Futures’ (Think-Tank directed by George Friedman after ‘Stratfor’) devotes two analysis on « the geopolitics of London », seen from the USA.
‘Geopolitical Futures’ explains how geography (insularity) and historical evolution (the industrial revolution) have made London the capital of British imperialism (1): “as Great Britain became the British Empire, London took on even more importance. In some ways, London was the British Empire (…) But the far more consequential development was incidental. Great Britain went from existing on the edge of human civilization to being perfectly placed between the Old World and the New – and London, being Great Britain’s main port, reaped the lion’s share of the benefits. It was buffered by water from threats arising in mainland Europe, and it was the launching pad for forays into the unknown. It was thus able to invest its newfound wealth heavily into the development of the best navy in the world, which not only made its island fortress even harder to assail but also gave the U.K. an immense advantage in the global competition for imperial power.”
Once this power was lost, transferred to Washington and Wall Street between 1917 and 1943, on the remains of British hard power, London remained a powerful place at the heart of a new British soft power, cultural, political, economic and financial. And one of the capitals of this Anglo-Saxon imperialism from now on American dominant. “The Legacy of an Empire” where “The sun still hasn’t set on the global financial powerhouse” …
THE GEOPOLITICS OF LONDON:
“THE LEGACY OF AN EMPIRE.
THE SUN STILL HASN’T SET ON THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWERHOUSE”
In a booklet, ‘Geopolitical Futures’ analyses “The Geopolitics of London” (2):
“With the specter of Brexit looming, all eyes are on London – the political and financial hub of the United Kingdom. And yet, the majority of Londoners voted to stay in the EU. Our latest e-book, The Geopolitics of London: Or, How England Joined the World, explores the history behind this dichotomy and what it means for the future of London, the U.K. and Europe,” an “expansive study of London’s past, present and future.” “The Geopolitics of London: Or, How England Joined the World delves deep into the significance of the capital city, through its progression from a Roman stronghold to the heart of an empire to today’s cosmopolitan metropolis, and spotlights what makes it unique in its country and in the world.”
* RESUME FRANÇAIS :
LE ROLE ET LA PLACE DE LONDRES …
Nous continuons notre introduction à l’Impérialisme britannique 2.0, tel qu’il se met en place dans la perspective anti-européenne du Brexit. Et en liaison avec les réseaux américains qui ont favorisé ce Brexit (voir le scandale de ‘Cambridge Digital’) et le régime Trump. La place qu’assume de nouveau ouvertement la Grande-Bretagne aux côtés des USA et sa politique agressive contre la Russie en font un des acteurs clés de la « nouvelle guerre froide 2.0 ».
Au cœur de l’impérialisme anglo-saxon, il y a la City de Londres, restée malgré la domination américaine depuis 1943, une des capitales politiques et financières du monde anglo-saxon.
‘Geopolitical Futures’ (le Think-Tank que dirige George Friedman après ‘Stratfor’) consacre deux analyses sur « la géopolitique de Londres », vue des USA.
‘Geopolitical Futures’ explique bien comment la géographie (l’insularité) et l’évolution historique (la révolution industrielle) ont fait de Londres la capitale de l’impérialisme britannique (1) : « Quand la Grande-Bretagne est devenue l’Empire britannique, Londres a pris encore plus d’importance. À certains égards, Londres était l’Empire britannique (…) Mais le développement beaucoup plus conséquent était accessoire. La Grande-Bretagne est passée de l’existence de la civilisation humaine à la place parfaite entre l’Ancien et le Nouveau Monde – et Londres, principal port de la Grande-Bretagne, a récolté la part du lion des bénéfices. Il a été isolé par la mer des menaces qui se sont produites en Europe continentale, et c’était la rampe de lancement pour des incursions dans l’inconnu. Il a ainsi pu investir massivement sa nouvelle richesse dans le développement de la meilleure marine du monde, ce qui a rendu encore plus difficile l’assaut de sa forteresse insulaire, mais a également conféré au Royaume-Uni un immense avantage dans la compétition mondiale pour le pouvoir impérial ».
Une fois ce pouvoir perdu, transféré à Washington et Wall-Street entre 1917 et 1943, sur les restes du hard power britannique, Londres est restée une place puissante au cœur d’un nouveau soft power britannique, culturel, politique, économique et financier. Et l’une des capitales de cet impérialisme anglo-saxon désormais à dominante américaine. « L’héritage d’un empire » où « Le soleil ne s’est pas encore couché sur la puissance financière mondiale » …
LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE
“LONDON, THE VANGUARD OF AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION”
(GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES, APRIL 13, 2018)
“The city had grown only more powerful since it became England’s capital. The majority of British wealth and power became concentrated in southern England and, to a lesser extent, the Midlands, Britain’s most fertile areas. The Greater London area was by far the richest and most populous simply because it was a trade hub for the country and, by extension, the rest of the world. By 1700, the city’s population had grown to approximately 500,000 people. (The next largest city in Britain, Bristol, had about 30,000 people, and the northern cities were poor and sparsely populated, much how they always had been.)
“But as Great Britain became the British Empire, London took on even more importance. In some ways, London was the British Empire. And its rise can be attributed to two main developments. The first was the Glorious Revolution in 1688 – the last successful invasion of Great Britain by a foreign power. The installation of William III the following year brought political stability the likes of which England had never seen. This stability enabled Great Britain to consolidate control over the British Isles. In 1707, Scotland and the Kingdom of England (comprising England and Wales, which the English conquered in 1284) were joined into the Kingdom of Great Britain, and in 1801, fearing Irish collaboration with France, Ireland was brought into the new political entity: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. With the establishment of English control over the whole of the British Isles, one of the great weaknesses of Great Britain had at last been overcome, and the stage was set for Great Britain to project power rather than to defend against it. Crucially, this meant London no longer had to fear the consequences of foreign conquest. More so than any other time in British history, it was secure.
“But the far more consequential development was incidental. Great Britain went from existing on the edge of human civilization to being perfectly placed between the Old World and the New – and London, being Great Britain’s main port, reaped the lion’s share of the benefits. It was buffered by water from threats arising in mainland Europe, and it was the launching pad for forays into the unknown. It was thus able to invest its newfound wealth heavily into the development of the best navy in the world, which not only made its island fortress even harder to assail but also gave the U.K. an immense advantage in the global competition for imperial power.
“As all this was happening, an industrial revolution was taking place inside Great Britain. Advances in agricultural technology enabled people around the world to live longer. The resultant population boom raised demand for virtually all goods. The consequences were many. At first, English farmers who worked in cottage industries could not keep up with demand, so huge factories were created to keep pace. Farmers in southeast Britain began to leave their homes for the cities – at first, mainly London – to seek better paying jobs. By 1801, London had a population of 960,000. By 1911, it had a population of 7 million. In short, London was at the vanguard of this economic revolution.”
(The post “London, the Vanguard of an Economic Revolution” appeared first on ‘Geopolitical Futures’)
(1) “London, the Vanguard of an Economic Revolution”, on GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES, April 13, 2018.
(2) The Geopolitics of London: Or, How England Joined the World, GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES, 2018.
* With the Geopolitician of the Eurasia-Africa Axis:
Geopolitics – Geoeconomics – Geoidology – Geohistory –
Geopolitisms - Neoeurasism – Neopanafricanism
(Seen from Moscow and Malabo):
SPECIAL PAGE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical Daily
* Luc MICHEL (Люк МИШЕЛЬ) :
PAGE OFFICIELLE III – GEOPOLITIQUE
* EODE :