Mitt Romney Would Restore ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Relations Between Britain and America

Jon Swaine, Telegraph (London), July 24, 2012

Mitt Romney would restore “Anglo-Saxon” understanding to the special relationship between the US and Britain, and return Sir Winston Churchill’s bust to the White House, according to advisers.

As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America’s enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

Mr Romney on Wednesday embarks on an overseas tour of Britain, Israel and Poland designed to quash claims by Mr Obama’s team that he is a “novice” in foreign affairs. It comes four years after Mr Obama’s own landmark foreign tour, which attracted thousands of supporters.

He lands in London early on Wednesday morning, in advance of meetings with David Cameron and other senior ministers on Thursday. He will also meet Ed Miliband and Tony Blair before attending two lucrative fundraisers and the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

He used a speech in Nevada on Tuesday to accuse the President of drastically weakening America’s stance towards rivals such as Russia, China and Iran while imposing “devastating” spending cuts on the US military.

“If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President,” he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “You have that President today”. Promising another “American century” in which the US acts as the global night watchman and does not hesitate to “wield our strength” when needed, he said: “I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world”.

Members of the former Massachusetts governor’s foreign policy advisory team claimed that as president, he would reverse Mr Obama’s priority of repairing strained overseas relationships while not spending so much time maintaining traditional alliances such as Britain and Israel.

“In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the Governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one told the Telegraph.

“Obama is a Left-winger,” said another. “He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’.”

The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.

Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.

A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.

Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.

The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

    Lucky Mormon Mitt isn’t on an Olympic team.

  • AmRem

    Just seeing people twist this out of context makes me cringe.

    The “Anglo-Saxon Relationship” has shaped many historical cases of foreign policy…

    • Marcy Fleming

       All of them very bad. Unnecessary US interventions into two world wars that the Brits played a major role in converting from local intra-Euro conflicts into world wars.
      See The Churchill Legend by Francis Neilson.
      Romney is a hopeless neoconman and Bush 2 rerun.
      I’m voting for Obama as the lesser evil.

      • The__Bobster

        The Israel-American relationship has proven far worse. Guess which country’s arse Romney is going to kiss first once he becomes president.

        And yes, I know whom I’m addressing.

      • AmRem

        http://youtu.be/Gnf4k8EaL7M 

        Not even the smartest liberals want Obama to win, he is a lose / lose on everything.

        If I were to vote (I probably wont), it would be Mitt because Obama is just a terrible person to run the Nation. 

      • godzillabloggs

        “All of them very bad. Unnecessary US interventions into two world wars that the Brits played a major role in converting from local intra-Euro conflicts into world wars.”

        That makes a change from the usual accusation  of appeasement.

  •  Doesnt anybody get what this word ‘racism’ is all about, and always was about.

    ‘Racism’ is what they call it when you care about your race, insist your race has value and must be protected and its interests promoted.

    Therefore, and conversely, what must be promoted is ‘anti-racism’, or the destruction of racial groups and their interests. 

    GeNOcide in the name of ‘anti-racism.

    Or at least, those racial groups who are envied (and therefore implicitly, superior).

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Whenever I hear the term “Special Relationship” it makes me cringe!
    I believe the term has the same effect on just about all Britons, and probably Americans too.
    I cringe at the term for no other reason than there is no “Special Relationship”.
    What is a “Special Relatioship” anyway?
    When it comes to US Presidents, and their relationship to Britain, I think the best barometer is least anti-British to most anti-British, in varying degrees.
    Because of the uniquely-connected history between our two countries (Revolution, Independence, and all that), I don’t think that it’s even possible to have a “Special Relationship”, just a least anti-British relationship on the part of a US President. And frankly, I’d be happy with just that.

    Thought Experiment: If Argentina was to invade the Falklands again, would Americans be happy to send US troops to fight (and possibly die) in order to aid Britains’ recapture of the Islands? (just like hundreds of British troops have died in Iraq and Afghan in support of the US).
    I doubt it, and why should they?

    (P.S. – I’m not anti-American, btw, just making a point)

    • Eagle_Eyed

      I’m sorry I have to disagree.  The US and Britain have had a long history of friendship after the period of fighting which included the Wars of Independence and 1812.  A shared common law system, Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, the English language, and other traditions/customs have all been huge factors in the longstanding friendships between both the peoples of both nations and their governments.  As someone who spent a summer with many of your countrymen, I can tell you from experience there is a natural bond between (white) Americans and Brits which is unmatched by most any other foreign peoples.

      Unfortunately, the doves which make up the alt-right see a strong Romney in foreign affairs as a “neo-con” excuse to go into more drawn-out wars.  This is nonsensical, and they are being conspiratorial and defeatest.  Very few Americans want another long, drawn-out war, and Romney’s best chance at being a one-term president would be to start one if he does win in November.  However, one must divorce the notion of a long drawn-out war with being strong in foreign affairs.  The US has a large Navy and tactical weapons which can put a hurting on any Islamo-fascist wanting to disrupt peace and stability.

      The Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, Eisenhower, and to the best of my knowledge Clinton, Johnson, and even Carter weren’t “anti-British”.  Obama is.

      • godzillabloggs

        At a personal level, Americans and British get along well enough, but I should think that Mitt Romney has in mind a political ‘special relationship’, and there is no reason why we should want that to flourish. As we know to our cost, the political elites of both countries are all for diversity etc.  If the alleged special relationship advances such ‘progressive ideals’ then let it perish. 

      • loyalwhitebriton

        Thanks for the link, mate, some funny tweets & comments there.

  • Southern__Hoosier

    England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
    –George Bernard Shaw
    I wonder if Mitt would ask for Churchill’s bust back?

  • Romney’s stock just went way up in my book.

  •  This story is a hoax it was sent to the UK by obama’s PR team in order to create trouble, do some research. Obama is in fact feeding the race fire only he is feeding the blacks not the whites.

  • I am likely to be as cynical as any other British Nationalist over the supposed “special relationship” (in terms of what has happened/resulted over the years), but for me, this article is not really about any of that, it is about the obvious shared heritage we have and that in a sideways way, it is boiling down to the obvious traits of race and outlooks of our peoples.

    In that, we British and Americans are united – in ways that Obama etc could never share, either attitudinally, biologically, or politically.

    America was founded explicitly as a white nation, most heavily influenced from the British, which sought to start a clean slate with the best of our attributes and ideals (Bill Of Rights, etc) manifested in the American constitution. 

    It has been the undermining of this – and influence by some unmentionable infiltrators meddling at the top – which have destroyed the true ‘special relationship’ and pushed for a racial breakdown in both our nations, so that the common bond is minimised and perhaps eventually eliminated.

    I don’t really follow American political jousting, but stating that we have historically had a common racial heritage until recent times should not be controversial, or indeed be “racist”.

    • godzillabloggs

      “In that, we British and Americans are united – in ways that Obama etc could never share, either attitudinally, biologically, or politically.”

      The people who probably have the closest racial ties with the English are the those of old ‘Yankee’ stock and, as a resident of the UK, I can’t say that I feel any great affinity with them.  They strike me as a sanctimonious, meddling lot and great haters, too  (although probably  no worse than their British ancestors).

      • Considering the way things are going globally for our people I think that as whites we all have to stick together, even though we may disagree on some subject matters which may divide us internally, or have some traits that may get on each others nerves. 

        I don’t think that such general labels can be so easily applied anyway, and that it is time to put much of the past rivalries and stereotypes behind us.

        Most British people are not super uptight, posh speaking, butler owning ‘American Haters’ that still bear some kind of grudge (although many of us disagree what is done by American government, it is not against individual Americans), and Americans are not always gun-swinging, tobacco chewing, Yosemite-Sam types, or the kind of characters depicted by the ‘sheriff’ character in the early James Bond films, lol.

        I do know what you mean though, perhaps in the same way that the British can tend to find some of the other European nations to be brash, or ‘haters’ of the British – some of it just by nature of a different culture, and some of it manufactured, like “Grrr, the French!….Grrr, the Germans” with that insane media driven xenophobia against what is essentially our own kin folk.

        I have little experience of Germans or French. Therefore I cannot say I share ‘affinity’ in how they think or act in general as a society. I am sure some aspects would wind me up, and visa-versa. It would likely be the same with some Americans, but any racially aware group of whites are generally fine with me, no matter where they are.

        In the bigger picture, when the chips are down, we are hopefully on the same side and we would know who to gravitate towards, if we were against a charging foe that threatens us all.

        Wasting time falling out with each other as peoples is just that to me, wasting time and not particularly helpful.

        I support White Americans in their self survival, just like I do for Germans, Australians, Swedish, French, etc. We may never all be the ultimate best of friends, but that kind of thing is not really high on my priority list. We have a shared identity in the bigger scheme of things, which has apparently been recognised by Mitt Romney’s aid.

        • godzillabloggs

          “Considering the way things are going globally for our people I think that as whites we all have to stick together”.

          I have no quarrel with that, but both the British government and the US administration are pursuing policies which are doing great harm to their  white populations.   Why should any special relationship between them give cause for celebration?

          When I hear the words ‘special relationship’  I  cannot helping thinking of George Bush and Tony Blair, and the dire results for the Serbs and others when their special relationship was translated into action.

          •  Yup, I agree entirely.

            I have a great deal of issues with the political “special relationship” – and have actually had to fend my corner on Amren comments before now for making this distinction between the American people as individuals and what happens in the name of their country.

            To me, they are two different things you see. Much like I never voted for the EU, I never wanted the Afghanistan War, or the Bosnia one, or wanted to grant Kosovo as an independent state, or partake in various regime-changes on the sidelines like Egypt or Syria, or ever wanted mass immigration.

            In the ‘eyes of the world’ – Britain did these things, supposedly at the backing and behest of the British people. We have a terrible reputation in various parts of the world, just like many people take swipes at Americans and America.

            But as we all know, we, the British people wanted no such things – the ruling elites have their own agenda and ignore what we want, or they have made people that docile (through various techniques) that they don’t know and don’t really care what is going on.

            Yeah, I have no desire for the ‘neo-con’ atlanticist globalist / imperialist push to embed itself further in our direction either, nor be coupled with their bedfellows of the international socialists of the “left” who similarly work away and destablise everything to construct their own world image and self interest.

            I could have a bit of a rant and rave about many aspects of the “special relationship” in those kinds of terms, but I am not here to be picking any fights with Americans. Besides, I don’t think one thing necessarily ties directly to the other.

            If somebody here was a globalist, imperialist, neo-conservative, Team America kind of “hell yeah! weee gonna blast those A-rabs sky high in their sand pits!” theme, with an axe to grind against the British, etc, then I would no doubt have my say about all that, lol.

            When it comes to race, the foundations and sustaining aspects of successful civilisations, our temperament, general outlooks, estranged brotherhood, recognising our common heritage etc as individual peoples, I see that as a true ‘special relationship’ that can have some value – which is something very different to all the ‘lapdog’ and ‘poodle’ kind of issues.

  • mikejones91

    I’ve been told I could never understand what it’s like to be African. I could NEVER understand their culture truly. Well, I am Anglo Saxon and your not worthy of MINE.

  • The Verdict of History

     FYI — Germany did not invade the British Isles….

    … but they did conduct destructive air raids…. as the Brits did in return…

    Your point is taken.. though…

  • Jaundiced1

    By making this statement I think Romney must have British heritage himself and is proud of the fact.  I understand most Mormons are of English heritage.

  • mobilebay

    Obama’s formative years were not spent in an “Anglo-Saxon” environment. He has no idea of the ingrained patriotism most Americans feel for their country and its heritage. If there is any man that should not have been elected to guide this nation, it is Barack Hussian Obama. Again, I’ll be voting for the lesser of the evils. We may have a chance to recoup some of our glory with Romney. With Obama, we  lose what little we have left.

  • godzillabloggs

    That was not against the rules.  After all, war had been declared.

  • It was the Brits who declared war on Germany in the first place. At-any-rate, a second European conflict was inevitable with-or-without Hitler given how the Allies treated the Germans at the end of WWI. People saw WWII coming as early as 1919. See: http://urbachc.org/urb-versailles-political-cartoons.html

    As for WWI, Germany is as much to blame as any of the European empires. This chronic anti-Germanism that Americans are afflicted with is disgusting, especially in light of how many Americans are descended from Germans.

  • SLCain

    I feel a kinship with the people of Britain, as my ancestors came from there.  For that matter, I feel no less kinship with people from almost any other European nation as well.

    However, I do not feel any kinship with the political establishment of the UK, who are every bit as much the enemy of whites as our own government is.   I agree with “Godzillablogs” and “British Activism” – I do not welcome a “special relationship” with the UK as it will only be used to further the globalist, multi-cultural agenda of our hostile elites.

    • godzillabloggs

      It could be that the feeling of alienation from our political elites is spreading.  Here is a quote from an opinion-piece by Tom Fleming in this month’s Chronicles Magazine.

      “Years ago, during the First Gulf War, I asked one of our editors whether he objected to the protestors who burned American flags.  He replied, “It’s not my flag, it’s not my country.”   I respected his opinion, though I wondered at the time if it was not a bit extreme.  But every day there are news stories that tell us this is, indeed, not our country and, what is more, the people to whom the country now belongs, don’t want anything to do with us”.

  • godzillabloggs

    British nationalists follow the fortunes of Le Front National with interest.  When they make progress, we cheer. There is evidence enough on AmRen that US race realists do the same.