Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Mazder]

Some people are already trying to push the ideas of international lists for the European parliament. And while it is probably an immeasurable headache (how do you ensure all countries get represented? how do you craft the list in the first place? Do you make lists without ranks, and then people are picked so that all countries are represented overall?), I think it would also be a wonderful idea.

For starters, it would force people to care about what happens in the rest of the EU, if they want to know who they're voting for. It would force politicians to care about what happens in the rest of the EU. And on a sidenote, it would be super damaging to all flavors of racists - because while they can all scream "immigration is evil", with this system they would have to care about the rest, and I highly doubt we'll ever see Russian puppets like Le Pen or Farage on the same list as Polish or Hungarian nationalists for rather obvious reasons.

Which could be a good thing honestly.
The main reason why Brexit is really a thing and has gotten as popular as it has is because Europe, for the most part, is still majorly ignored by the bulk of the British public. Politicians might know, or claim to, but for the last two election cycles I can very much say that the UK has had barely any actual impact felt from EU politics apart from the few big laws when they really inconvenienced us.
That shouldn't really be the way our nations interact, only noticing each other when they annoy one another through policy. If we are truly to be "united" we have to actually care about one another and, honestly, I don't really see that happening, not with the current structure of the EU.
Especially with the distribution of votes and voting powers some nations have over others. Despite being in the top end of voting powers given I feel that there has got to be something done to mitigate the chance of a party type not running it's nation being that nation's representative in the EU.

For example in my country right now the Tories are in power, but the favourites to win the MEP votes before the voting yesterday was between UKIP and The Brexit Party. Now it's predicting between labour and The Brexit Party. Either which are not close to running our country, but clearly the general public are in favour of another party at this time.
So our representation in Europe may always potentially be someone who we either can't rely on to make changes for us in our own country to support EU changes, or we may always have someone we vote for in our country that if we ever get back to the point where we are as complacent/"okay" with how Europe is as you mat feel right now then another smaller sect could get the representation if people start to not vote again.
To that I'd say it would probably be better if our Europe vote was directly tied to our local votes. If we have one party in charge of our country then they're also our representative (in terms of party) in Europe.
I'd also do something about the amount of votes each country has at their disposal but that's another mess to sort through.

For the first part, sure, but it won't be something that could have changed with whoever I (won't) cast my vote for.

For the second part, I don't think it's an issue. Are there really more differences between an Englishman and a Frenchman than, say, a Californian and an Alabaman? Because from the outside, the UK, France and Germany look rather close to each other.

There is an issue with British integration in the EU, but it basically boils down to the special status the UK has always had, one foot in, one foot out, so as to preserve its relationship with the Commonwealth. Ireland is perfectly fine in the EU, so it's not a matter of despising the Brits. The Scottish also look rather happy with their lot in the EU. Yes, the EU was a French-German project at heart, and De Gaulle initially didn't want the UK to come in - but he's been out of power for 50 years (and 27 days) now.

I would say the major difference is that (maybe thanks to how WWII unfolded) France has had an easier time swallowing its pride and admitting it isn't a world-leading Empire anymore, compared to the UK. Which means that relinquishing some sovereignty so as to participate in the EU project does not look as painful for France than it is for the UK.

Like, I have heard many Brexiters talk about how the UK can be great and dominant again if it leaves the EU. In France, that is a virtually nonexistent point of view - similar people tend to refer to how great "Western civilization" is, not France specifically. Which is still toxic but in a way shows that even the far-right has become accustomed to the EU.

Um....yes. There can be a lot of decisions that could make a Californian different to an Alabamian and the same can go for a Frenchman, German and Englishman.
The few big things, yeah they may be common, but when it comes to some policies there can be a vast difference of opinion.

As for the "one foot in and one foot out" outlook we have, well, I think it has a lot to do with our being an Island, in more ways than geographical.
We have always really been seen as disconnected, be it due to the history of centuries of War with the nations that have made up the "Big Three" in Europe (Germany, France, Spain, etc), or because a lot of the time our ideas/feelings went against those of the CORE EU states and mind.
I mean, our ideas on economy alone are divisive enough. I mean, take the Pound Sterling before this whole Brexit debacle. It was still pretty damned powerful, despite the entirety of the EU's economy being put into the Euro and it only being slightly more powerful in exchange. That's a lot of economical difference, even on the the basic surface level that my monkey brain can see.
And that economic power was gained/held on by not placing our money/economy in the EU pot. The UK was stronger for it. That can not be denied. But it was not something the main EU strength would like to agree to as they have to care for the poorer states as well and by making the entirety of the union stronger individual member states were weakened. Germany and France should be stronger in terms of economy right now. France overtook us only because of the market crash due to Brexit. If Brexit never happened would you guys still be below us? An island nation with half your landmass at best but still reaches the same population density?

And, well, to be fair, if we're coming from the position where we're comparing the UK to the EU, a lot of the feeling of needing to be dominant is because we honestly don't feel like we are included as being as important as Germany or France. Despite being a nation built on a union we don't really like uniting too much. I mean, I guess it's where America got it's Independent nature from really.
I also think it's a lessening of individual country Patriotism as well. I mean it's practically a joke now that "patriotism is outlawed in Germany". But in actuality I can't remember any time outside the World Cup or Eurovision where I have seen Germans proud to be German and proud of Germany's accomplishments. Same really for France.
Us, we're constantly going on about what we're doing, even the Yanks give a shit about our Royal family when we couldn't give a toss.

And don't get me wrong, I wish we could have it both ways, being united yet also retain our national pride and relevance but that's a far cry from happening.


EDIT: In breaking news, Theresa May is going to resign on 7th June. She is going to go in 14 days, so it's going to be either a Tory internal vote or.....another fucking general election!

I WANT OFF THIS RIDE!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

In what world is being proud of Western Civilization and trumpeting its superiority toxic?

[TTTX]

In what world is being proud of Western Civilization and trumpeting its superiority toxic?

It's probably the world where the lefties people who believe that all white men are racist sexist pigs.

[Raga]

In what world is being proud of Western Civilization and trumpeting its superiority toxic?

Anytime it corresponds with militant evangelism basically. Any time your opinion is something like "This civilization or strain of political philosophy is so superior to everything else that we must convert everybody's else's system to it."

*Edit*

Though to clarify, people who advocate aggressively for a neoliberal World Order are totally part pf the subset of people who combine Western Civilization fetishtization with militant evangelism. They've just divested political philosophies that originated in the west from having any racial or regional stipulations, which they once did. Communism did the same thing.

[Sinekein]

Anytime it corresponds with militant evangelism basically. Any time your opinion is something like "This civilization or strain of political philosophy is so superior to everything else that we must convert everybody's else's system to it."

It's not even about converting, it's about rejecting any and all who are not part of that civilization. Neocons are about spreading the greatness of Western Civilization (and actually are closer to the description of "being proud of Western Civilization"), Bannon is about isolating Western culture from any other kind to keep it "pure", and believes that cultural exchange is evil. Which is fitting for someone with the face of a third-generation inbred.

Then again, just on the basis of hitting his wife Bannon deserves to be described as a toxic pile of garbage. What's great with him is that it's not just his political ideas that are repulsive.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsP5ta3DtSc

[Sinekein]

First results of the EU elections in France are out. Only parties with 5%+ votes get MEP. France sends 74 MEP right now, and 5 more when the UK is out. It looks like:

- National Rally (ex-Front), 23.2%, 22 to 24 MEP (Far Right)
- Rebirth (LREM, Government), 21.9%, 21 to 23 MEP (Center Left to Center Right)
- Europe, Ecology, Greens, 12.8%, 12 to 13 MEP (Left)
- Republicans, 8.3%, 8 to 9 MEP (Right)
- Socialist Party, 6.7%, 6 MEP (Left)
- Unyielding France, 6.7%, 6 MEP (Far Left)

Didn't vote because I was mad at the number of Left lists as mentioned previously, but I am rather happy with the results. Macron tried to turn the election into a "the far right can't be first, you have to vote for us so that doesn't happen", and people did not buy it. However, many picked the Greens as an alternative that is both clearly pro-EU and clearly disapproving of Macron's policies.

And all in all, if you add all anti-EU lists (there's a bunch of far-right ones at 3% and less), you get roughly 35%, which means that French voters are overwhelmingly pro-EU...but also didn't buy into Macron's "me or nothing" plan. So that's two wins in one vote.

Now crossing my fingers that the left overall decides not to spread votes between 3+ lists next time around, that would be nice. I'm sure some voters picked Macron because it looked like an "useful vote" more than one they really believed in.

Third win in one vote: the right-wing party got crushed, first time ever it is below 10%. Not coincidentally, its president is trying to push it further and further to the right (picking a very Catholic and very conservative leader for this list), and it has failed miserably. Just this result would make me happy out of schadenfreude, but on top of that the Greens are succeeding, so I am in a good mood.

Apparently the Greens are above 20% in Germany too.

[Alienmorph]

The general consensus so far seems there's an overall rise of liberals, pro-EU and "green" parties, which is good. Although the extreme right and the sovranists are doing way better than they'd ever should.

Still no idea of how things are going here. First exit poll for Italy won't be before a couple hours. But I am VERY worried. The fucking League has been literally everywhere, even breaking electoral silence (who's gonna tell them not to, when the minister in charge of such things is their leader?) and our left-leaning parties are still a damn joke. I'm essentially preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best.

We also had to vote for my city's new mayor today. One of the candidates was a literal neo-fascist, oh joy...

[Alienmorph]

And now the exit polls are coming it for us too. Our leftist party is gaining lots of consensus again, which is good. But the League has the overwhelming majority. Because of course they do.

[TheodoricFriede]

Jesus Christ, how much more left can Europe even go?

[Alienmorph]

Actually quite a bit. When I say "the left is doing better" is VERY relative. In most countries of the EU the leftists and liberal parties have been losing numbers and influence for several years. They seem to be doing a bit "better", if the exit polls are to be believed, but as a whole centrists, conservators or, like in my country's case, extreme right retards actually have most of the power. And it looks like it's staying that way.

It's kinda of like what's happening with the US... the more leftists and liberals get loud and salty, the less they seem to be able to accomplish. All we're seeying is a slight beginning of inversion of that trend, at best. Assuming the EU lasts long enough to get better.

[Sinekein]

It is nice to see al the anti-EU retards gathered on the same lists now. Sure, they tend to score relatively high, but they are very far from the "silent majority" hard right leaders have mentioned time and time again.

And that hurts the conservative right the most clearly. SocDems are gonna lose about as much as them, but their voters now split between LibDems and Greens, so remain in the pro-EU block. Meanwhile, conservatives bleed voters in favor of nationalists. I think it means that the next EU Parliament will have a center-left majority, not a center-right one.

Especially since the hard right is unlikely to be united, as for "some reason" Orban or the Polish do not take kindly to Le Pen or Salvini's openly pro-Russian stances (like most hard right Eastern Europeans, go figure). The one thing they agree on is to stop migrations, but recently the crisis seems to be settling down (for now, the war in Libya might change that) so they can't even cash on pictures of boats anymore. Except for Salvini touring all Italian ports to explain how everything is their fault, not the utter incompetence of his party and the M5S.

So yeah, it looks rather good considering the horrendous years of Trump and Brexit we just had. The EU was supposed to be dead in 2016, and it's quite far from it. Also, unlike the UK, it's actually prepared for Brexit.

[Vol]

Historically, how often do these more than moderate right-wing parties have this sort of support in elections?

[Sinekein]

You mean hard right? Depends on the countries.

TL;DR: history marching on means that Europe's history with the far right looks less horrible now to some (yeah, that far right, the Pétain, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco...), and also the major line between voters has shifted from conservatives vs progressives, to liberals vs populists, which favors the hard right over the most traditional, christian conservatives.

What factors the most with them is that they tend to be pretty open in their admiration of, let's say "controversial" historical figures. Basically, the hard right is split between those who are openly admirative of the third reich, Mussolini and the like, and those who probably think the same but do not say so openly because they know that a vast majority of people are not okay with that (for good reason I may say).

That's why the hard right only rose recently in Germany and took care of getting rid of all its open neo-nazis. In France, the National Front does the same since Marine Le Pen took over from her father (the "gas chambers are a minor detail of history" guy), and she has gotten many more voters than him - in Last Week Tonight there was an interview of a French guy saying "I could never vote for the father, he was a lunatic, but the daughter is alright". The policies have not changed, but now they are careful with what they say.

In Spain, there was the whole Franco issue (which isn't even 50 years old), but for a while governments preferred to keep the issue of Franco silent. So most of its supporters picked the conservative right. But now it's old enough to reopen the debates, and the conservatives are bleeding voters to hard right Vox - who are openly supportive of Franco.

Same in Italy with Mussolini whom Salvini openly admires, quotes and emulates. Presumably now people can't remember what happened when he was in charge, or choose to "focus on the good".

In the UK...I don't know honestly. Unlike everywhere else "fuck the EU" seems to be the hard right's rallying point, with Farage as their leader. The UK doesn't have any fascism in its history so it might explain the difference.

The Eastern European countries have strong conservative parties, but they are rather different from the Western ones, mostly because they were built in opposition to Russian occupation. So they hate Russia, while Salvini, Le Pen and co love Putin. Also, those hard right leaders like Orban are mostly pro-business xenophobic, their countries are the ones that gain the most from belonging to the EU, and they aren't trying to break it down like Farage. They're also actually in charge of their countries, which is only the case in Italy in the West - and that was only possible through an alliance with the indescribable Five Star Movement (sidenote, the only reason I can see this alliance still holds is that like all politicians, they are all about staying in power, not actually leading the country - they look a bit like an alliance between the most conservartives of the GOP, libertarians, and Bernie Sanders).

But the biggest factor in their rise to prominence actually is, I think, Brexit. The event has completely shuffled political dynamics in other EU countries between "pro EU" and "anti EU". Before that, those against the EU were split between all parties - mostly away from the center, but you had anti-EU conservatives, socialists, Greens, Christian Democrats, and of course hard right or hard left. Now, if you are anti-EU, you vote hard right or hard left...but mostly hard right, as the hard left has recently tended to lose the blue-collar vote except in a handful of countries like Greece.

Also, traditional conservative parties had many anti-EU voters, but they met a similar issue the Democrats did since 2016, in that their elected officials and leaders did not represent the base well (conservative leaders always have been pro-EU, like Sarkozy, Merkel, Juncker...). But while the left-wing Dem voters found left-wing candidates to support recently (AOC, etc), here, the conservatives have remained mostly pro-EU, so their voters have switched sides. Which is a big deal as, like in the US, conservative voters tend not to switch parties often (unlike left-wing voters who can more easily move from one place to another if they are dissatisfied).

The Republicans being at 8% in France is a huge event. It's a party that has roughly led the country for 40 of the last 60 years, and until 2017 they always had a candidate in the second round of the presidential election. But now, the moderate, pro-EU voters support Macron, and the most anti-EU conservatives go for Le Pen.

Edit: the UK Tories look in even worse shape than their French counterparts. Expected to get 4/73 seats (7/79 in France which is humiliating already). Also, LibDems (openly pro EU) beat Labor (ambiguous) for the first time since...I don't know, it usually was Tories vs Labor, always. And the Greens (also openly pro EU) are on their heels, 12% vs 14%. Not clearly saying whether you are pro or anti EU seems to have doomed the traditional left and right.

[Mazder]

I'd say our closest brush with the old school right-wing stuff would probably/maybe be something like Thatcher?
But that's not even remotely close.

Our fascism has been/would be rather sneaky I think as we also know of Italy, Spain and Germany's histories (and it's also partly why we don't want to unionise with them as well which is silly but none-the-less it's a factor) so we'd have a fascist regime that works more in the shadows/behind the scenes to gather power.
Some things done for the "greater good" give such a side more potential for power. Laws to govern speech, laws to govern ability to check the government, laws against the ability to remove said government, etc.
Hell, the Queen's old law of being able to dissolve a Parliament was both a risk and a deterrent against an authoritarian regime so it's kinda weird to work in a country of having it and not having it. Or at least it was until very recently.

I think one problem is we've got 2 Parliaments in countries in the EU. Local and EU-wide. Both are out of sync with each other and both are meant to represent the people's wishes. In the UK for example our current (could change in a month or two) government is Tory, but the Brexit Party is leading our EU votes, with the Government's party being fifth. Talk about a clash of ideals that will send a clear message to the EU if we're still in the thing!

Which could also end up never happening as next general election Labour might win and call the whole thing off, making the Brexit Party in the EU a great big fuck-up we can't get rid of until 2024.

[Sinekein]

From the EU point of view, the number of votes for the "Brexit Party" look like a win win situation. If Brexit happens - well, then they get rid of them and replace them with probably a bunch of nationalists, but also many pro-EU MP elected in other countries. If Brexit is called off, then sure they'll scream and shout and kick but they'll look like buffoons for representing something that did not happen (and if it's cancelled, it's unlikely it will happen again in the short term).

The first option is by far the most likely, Tories are like barnacles clinging to power, they aren't gonna call a general election before it's needed because they know they'll get destroyed - from both sides, as the LibDems have eaten their moderates and Farage their most conservatives. So Brexit will probably happen. Which would make the odds of a Scottish independence skyrocket...which are two event that can squarely be blamed on the Tories, who would look like the UK's gravediggers. I think it'll take a while for the party to recover (but the opportunistic assholes like BoJo or JRM will probably have switched sides before that).

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7E8cDpahI4&list=WL&index=10

[Vol]

Ah, interesting times. I wouldn't call what's been named as the "far right" to be that, not yet, but clearly a significant chunk of people in the west are not on board for globalism and sacrificing their own quality of life and cultures for the greater good. But not quite enough to really take control anywhere. Meanwhile, western leadership is flooding us with as many immigrants as possible before the economic boondoggle stops working, and have successfully wrapped labor exploitation in the guise of it being the burden of European and American peoples to uplift them. Fun times ahead!

Related to a conversation I had today, but if there was a mega-mall nearby, with a waterpark, indoor skiing, tons of shops, eateries, all that crap, but it was heavily frequented by urban blacks, would you be more or less likely to go there?

[Raga]

Related to a conversation I had today, but if there was a mega-mall nearby, with a waterpark, indoor skiing, tons of shops, eateries, all that crap, but it was heavily frequented by urban blacks, would you be more or less likely to go there?

It it stays safe and clean, I don't give two shits who frequents it. If it becomes unsafe or a dump, I don't care who made it so; I'll avoid it.

[Sinekein]

Ah, interesting times. I wouldn't call what's been named as the "far right" to be that, not yet, but clearly a significant chunk of people in the west are not on board for globalism and sacrificing their own quality of life and cultures for the greater good.

Yeah right. They hate globalism, but they want iPhones, big cars, big TVs, and new consoles. Globalism brought them their QoL.

They don't hate globalism. They hate that it's not colonialism anymore;

And it's always the easiest, coward's way to blame "others" if something is going wrong. Better that than having to look in the mirror to search for responsibilities.

[Raga]

They hate that it's not colonialism anymore;

It mostly still is though. It's just giant transnationals that reap the benefits rather than mercantilist empires. And the QoL predates automation, mass migration, and outsourcing. In the US it actually corresponds strongest to that period when we had restrictionist immigration policies, high rates of domestic manufacturing, and nationalistic (though not nationalized) corporations.

You can make arguments that that's all over and done with, but it doesn't follow that the solution to newer problems *must* be mass migration and outsourcing either.

[Sinekein]

It mostly still is though. It's just giant transnationals that reap the benefits rather than mercantilist empires. And the QoL predates automation, mass migration, and outsourcing. In the US it actually corresponds strongest to that period when we had restrictionist immigration policies, high rates of domestic manufacturing, and nationalistic (though not nationalized) corporations.

US =/= Europe.

We're talking about the EU elections here, and the "good ol times" hard right voters are longing for are roughly the 1945-1973 era. Which was an era of mass migration - a continent had to be rebuilt and the consequences of WWI on demographics were still very much visible. Entire city blocks were built to accommodate the migrants that were needed, whether they were Portuguese, Spanish, Indian, Turkish, Vietnamese, or Northern African. True, there also were geopolitical causes to those migrations, but Western European countries were real happy to welcome cheap workers that would do what more educated people wouldn't.

So, between not having to be rebuilt, not having suffered crippling demographical blows in WWI, and not having to deal with the consequences of foreign colonies, the US and Europe are in wildly different situations throughout the XXth century. You can't compare the two when it comes to "nostalgia eras".

Also, here in Europe, Automation is not a factor. It was literally never uttered throughout the entire campaign, because again, we're not the US. The "job losses" that are being complained about are those that either go to emerging countries (Asia, Brazil...), or those that move to cheaper EU countries, in the East in particular (the Polish Plumber figure of the UK). But Luddite views are virtually nonexistent, as people seem to have understood that you can't stop progress by giving people jobs that technology and progress made unnecessary.

The Quality of Life improvements do predate outsourcing, but only because those "good ol' times" had France or the UK controlling a vast part of the world's natural resources through current or former colonies. Decolonization and development of emerging countries made it cheaper to buy or build there than locally, but that's basically the logical consequence of building your wealth on the exploitation of foreign resources.

So, basically, the US hard right mentality is wildly different from the EU hard right mentality (which is actually rather diverse - Nordic hard right, Eastern European hard right, Western European hard right are far more different than what you can find on the most right side of the US political spectrum). The history is different, the mentality is different, and the dynamics throughout the XXth century were very different. The hard right I have been complaining about is the Western European one, to be clear - as it's the one "on the rise". In the East it is more established and stems from having to deal with Soviet Russia, for a start. And both blocks have recent histories that are much too different from the US's XXth century history to make comparisons like this.

Only the US hard right can reasonably claim to fight to defend a beneficial situation, as the US are a neocolonialist power with vast influence on foreign countries which benefits its economy. EU countries don't have that (anymore in some cases). So the hard right here is longing for a time that does not exist (in the West). In the East, economy is actually booming, but they don't want migrants because they would take their advantageous position - they are the "cheaper labor" at the moment.

[Vol]

Mueller really is a piece of shit. Weasel words to imply a lot without ever saying it. Either say you think Trump committed a crime or don't, dancing around it and hiding behind the perceived limits of his mandate is pathetic. All it does is keep this farce going on, the Dems will scream impeachment but back off of actually doing it, because everything else aside, Pelosi isn't an idiot, and the press will work hand-in-hand to make sure we all know it's surely right around the corner.

@Sine: I do believe a downgrade in luxuries would be ultimately better for the western world. If we can only sustain our lifestyles on the backs of unending masses of immigrants, international corporations exploiting the poorest, the financial caste conjuring value from nothing, and so on, then it's not worth it. Fuck smartphones and gadgets and meat at every meal and cars in every garage and everyone goes to college and nobody has to dig ditches.

[Sinekein]

Mueller really is a piece of shit. Weasel words to imply a lot without ever saying it. Either say you think Trump committed a crime or don't, dancing around it and hiding behind the perceived limits of his mandate is pathetic. All it does is keep this farce going on, the Dems will scream impeachment but back off of actually doing it, because everything else aside, Pelosi isn't an idiot, and the press will work hand-in-hand to make sure we all know it's surely right around the corner.

He said that he could not accuse the president of anything because he was not legally allowed to indict him because he is the President. As such, his stand is the only possible one. If he said that Trump is innocent, that would be against the results of his investigation (despite Barr's shortcuts). He cannot say that Trump is guilty because it is illegal to say so before a proper trial.

From what I get, he would have liked to indict Trump, so that DJT could have properly (ie not by screaming on Twitter, in court) defended himself which would have either proven his guilt, or exonerated him. But he could not because Trump is POTUS and the DoJ does not allow that.

What I take from it all is that there is a legal hole. The President does not have immunity (like in France), but he is not a normal citizen when it comes to justice, which led to this whole Kafkaian situation.

@Sine: I do believe a downgrade in luxuries would be ultimately better for the western world. If we can only sustain our lifestyles on the backs of unending masses of immigrants, international corporations exploiting the poorest, the financial caste conjuring value from nothing, and so on, then it's not worth it. Fuck smartphones and gadgets and meat at every meal and cars in every garage and everyone goes to college and nobody has to dig ditches.

I think the same. But it's far from a majority among those who vote for anti-immigrant politicians. Most of the hard right in Europe is actually very much pro-market, their grand stances on economy boil down to "I want what's better for me", and in Western European countries, it means being very nice to large companies. Basically, that's similar to Trump's policies without being able to exert the same influence the US does (which is a total recipe for disaster IMO - even Trump is having a hard time strongarming everyone while leading the most powerful country on Earth, so watching Farage, Le Pen or Salvini doing the same would be utterly pathetic).

[Mazder]

meat at every meal

Fuck you I'm a Carnivore leave me alone!

Smart phones and gadgets on the other hand, yeah we do need to not rely on them as much, but I think that's more of a convenience issue. We're rather complacent and that void is too easily filled.
Plus planned obsolescence just needs to go. We need to go back to a model of making things last so that any innovation is actually worth-while.
I've had the same microwave for 15+ years and once it goes I am buggered as it'll be down to getting one every 5 years, lol.

[Vol]

I think the same. But it's far from a majority among those who vote for anti-immigrant politicians. Most of the hard right in Europe is actually very much pro-market, their grand stances on economy boil down to "I want what's better for me", and in Western European countries, it means being very nice to large companies. Basically, that's similar to Trump's policies without being able to exert the same influence the US does (which is a total recipe for disaster IMO - even Trump is having a hard time strongarming everyone while leading the most powerful country on Earth, so watching Farage, Le Pen or Salvini doing the same would be utterly pathetic).

Seems to be either a lingering beliefs taken from the neocons, or, a point of opposition because the left is chugging ahead towards state-control of economy. I like "the market" just fine, allows great progress, people to do wonderful things, but I also value it less than my countrymen not being deep dicked by international powers. So I'd trade 10,000 points off the DOW for America to manufacture our own computer chips from start to finish domestically, or every suburb to go without fast and cheap lawn service if it meant high schoolers to earn a good wage mowing. A world-wide race to the bottom doesn't help me or mine.

It's a fuzzy line, granted, but at least when the exploiters are of a single nation, then there's some benefit to the host nation, just like nobility. I think the right, whatever you want to call the rising branch of it, will give ground on pure capitalism if it means winning people over on social issues. Bit of a hard sell otherwise, since conservatism implies conserving.

Smart phones and gadgets on the other hand, yeah we do need to not rely on them as much, but I think that's more of a convenience issue. We're rather complacent and that void is too easily filled.
Plus planned obsolescence just needs to go. We need to go back to a model of making things last so that any innovation is actually worth-while.
I've had the same microwave for 15+ years and once it goes I am buggered as it'll be down to getting one every 5 years, lol.

So am I! I need red meat to keep my intake of protein and calories high since I have a tall body. But if I have to pay more for it, so be it, I'll have less money for entertainment, and that's a fair trade. With our country so ridiculously fat, there's a lot of good in everyone eating less and walking more.

It's more than physical gadgets, but the lifestyles we expect we should have for a cost that's too low on the surface. But to actually get people to accept an iota of asceticism is a hard sell, hence needing to coach it in rah-rah nationalism.

[Mazder]

To be fair there is a lot more of a problem with sugars and carbs than there is with meats in your country.
Like, my god the amount of crap that's convenient in your country is astronomical. And I was in a fairly rural area, granted, but even in the big cities I visited (St Louis and Chicago) had basically nothing in comparison to the accessibility to fresh stuff compared with the crap treats.

Plus the USA has a MASSIVE snacking culture.
Like "I've popped down to get fuel, may as well get myself a cake and a big 'fuck-off' sized soda to have in the car while I'm at it". And that's normal. And, yeah, I'm not saying we don't have a little store in our service stations but yours just seems to have bigger portion sizes available.

[Vol]

Subsidizing corn has really fucked us. I got back up to my pre-illness weight of 195, which is pretty damn lean on my frame, without drinking soda or snacking much. Light breakfast of oatmeal or cereal with skim milk, light lunch if one at all, hearty dinner, and that's enough to sustain _195 pounds_. I could easily eat double what I do in a day in sweets and drinks. Really no solution that isn't authoritarian.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Subsidizing corn has really fucked us. I got back up to my pre-illness weight of 195, which is pretty damn lean on my frame, without drinking soda or snacking much. Light breakfast of oatmeal or cereal with skim milk, light lunch if one at all, hearty dinner, and that's enough to sustain _195 pounds_. I could easily eat double what I do in a day in sweets and drinks. Really no solution that isn't authoritarian.

These problems have a tendency to solve themselves tbh. Sometimes in happy ways. But usually in sad ones.

[Sinekein]

It might change as it is only since very recently that sugar intake has started to be rightfully criticized as being responsible for health troubles. For the longest time it was only fat that was looked at.

Although it is hard to eat less when you are bombarded with food ads 24/7, those being neurologically the hardest to ignore as they touch upon a fundamental need. And they became even worse with delivery systems such as Uber Eats, Deliveroo or Foodora that tell people they can get that without even having to get out.

I saw an ad for Burger King by way of Deliveroo just yesterday in the subway.

[Raga]

It's not just sugar either. A lot of it is really carbs. I don't actually consume much sugar. I don't eat sugary snacks except occasionally. But I do eat a lot of bread and food with high carb content (potatoes, pasta, anything that involves tortillas, etc).

[Mazder]

It's not just sugar either. A lot of it is really carbs. I don't actually consume much sugar. I don't eat sugary snacks except occasionally. But I do eat a lot of bread and food with high carb content (potatoes, pasta, anything that involves tortillas, etc).

I swear US sugar has a higher sugar content in addition to the usual carb content as well, it's waaaaaay too sweet!

Although it is hard to eat less when you are bombarded with food ads 24/7,

OMG, ads in the USA are fucking insane!
On TV alone they're every 15 minutes and you have a 5 minute block for ads, I swear some are 10 minutes long it seems, with repeats in the same ad break, some right after each other!!!
I once saw an ad for Wendy's like 3 times, followed by a Little Caesars Pizza one twice!

[Sinekein]

It's not just sugar either. A lot of it is really carbs. I don't actually consume much sugar. I don't eat sugary snacks except occasionally. But I do eat a lot of bread and food with high carb content (potatoes, pasta, anything that involves tortillas, etc).

For me those are synonymous. We commonly call them "fast" or "slow" sugars depending on whether you are talking about mono/disaccharides, or longer ones, but all are carbohydrates - and almost all relevant carbohydrates are sugars, even if not all taste "sugary" (like starch).

That might be a biologist thing though.

[Raga]

Sure, my sister has a degree in microbiology and is obsessed with nutrition so she goes on like that too. When I say "sugar" I'm talking about that stuff we get from sugar cane and/or corn that you put in stuff for the express purpose of making it sweet.

When I say "carbs" I more or less mean "stuff made from grain, especially wheat" and starch.

Hardly scientific.

Basically that really crappy stuff which is sweet versus that really crappy stuff that isn't sweet. Crappy sweet stuff is easy to avoid for me. Crappy salty/savory/herby stuff? Not so much.

[Sinekein]

Well at the moment it's "sweet sugar" that is starting to become unpopular, there has been a Super Size Me-like documentary about the (ab)use of taste enhancers designed to make everything more sweet in prepared meals some time ago. Carbs are still fairly safe, and will probably remain so because they are part of cheap, basic, easy to store food sources, and with the tendency to waste stuff humanity has you can't tell everyone to only eat fresh fruits and vegetables from now on.

Plus almost any meal is okay as long as you move, and don't eat too much. I wish there was more incentive for sports in our societies, aside from pictures of lean/toned people in ads or magazines.

[Vol]

Umami is too powerful and must be regulated by a central planning committee.

But more seriously, sin taxes aren't the way to go about it. I know it's big in blue states, but punishing the poor by making them spend a greater percentage of their income on the shit they're going to eat/drink anyway is immoral.

[Mazder]

Yeah, and making it more accessible would be good.
Yeah I have a pool in my town centre I can go to every day, but that's £10-£15 range total a day with travel. Even if I get a membership card with the gym attached it's going up to £30 a month on the basic membership level with daily travel expenses it's A LOT of money....

Which, yeah, if I was earning more it'd be fine and yeah the price of being not fat any more but still, what could amount to easily £150 a month is a hard choice to make when trying to find money to save up for luxuries...

[Raga]

I think climate matters too, which is one reason obesity rates are higher in the South (though not the only one). I weighed less in California and it really had nothing to do with diet and more to do with the fact that I walked a lot more. That was partially because there was more within walking distance but it was also because of the climate.

When it rains 2 or 3 times a week and the temperature stays above 85 (29.4 C) with like 75%+ humidity for half the year, you mostly just want to sit your ass in the AC. In my experience Southerners are actually wussier about heat, at least indoors. I went to Boston one time for a wedding during the summer and just about fricasseed inside at night because nobody bothered to turn on their air conditioners up there. My dad will bust his ass outside all day in 90 (30 C) some odd degree weather but if the temp's above like 75 (23.8 C) inside he's a total wuss.

[Vol]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/worl ... ondon.html

“Londoners know that our diversity is our greatest strength,” Mr. Khan wrote on Twitter. “We are proudly the English capital, a European city and a global hub.”

Not our generation, or the Zoomers, but after them. I think when the delayed effect of immigration and anti-white policies make those kids realize what they have now versus what our parents had. There's no end condition for these policies and beliefs the left is implementing in all places among us. They control the means of discussion and are effectively shutting out opposition. To say nothing of how many European majority nations are disarmed.

Could you imagine an Englishman, a Mexican, an Eskimo, and a Russian on a live roundtable on Good Morning China to discuss what it means to be Chinese? And how Beijing is stronger for being 60%+ non-Han, and how it's an Asian city and a global hub? WW1 and 2 really traumatized an entire human phenotype.

[Raga]

Not our generation, or the Zoomers, but after them. I think when the delayed effect of immigration and anti-white policies make those kids realize what they have now versus what our parents had. There's no end condition for these policies and beliefs the left is implementing in all places among us. They control the means of discussion and are effectively shutting out opposition. To say nothing of how many European majority nations are disarmed.

Could you imagine an Englishman, a Mexican, an Eskimo, and a Russian on a live roundtable on Good Morning China to discuss what it means to be Chinese? And how Beijing is stronger for being 60%+ non-Han, and how it's an Asian city and a global hub? WW1 and 2 really traumatized an entire human phenotype.

What's stupid about this to me is that not every place can be the United States. If *everybody's* story is "we're a nation of immigrants and anybody from anywhere can become one of us if only you accept X liberal values" what you are really saying is "countries don't matter and they are only like some lines on a map, dude."

It's being obliviously philosophically okay with "open borders" and "one world government" and all those other conspiracy theories the right traffics in while really believing you aren't okay with those things.

"I'm not for open borders!"

"Okay, so who do you support deporting?"

"Hardened violent criminals!"

"Okay, who else?"

"..."

"So, you are only okay with deporting like 5% (if even that) of the people who cross illegally or show up at the border?"

How is that *not* pro open borders in everything but name?

[Vol]

That these people are out and about waving the flags of the nations they left, or demanding the nations they took refugee in change for them, is obscene. Come crawling on your hands and knees to be let into a better place than the one you're in, then turn your nose up that the charity isn't good enough.

Let's be honest, the kind of person who immigrates because they truly want to become part of another nation and share their values and become like them? That's a weeaboo. Learn the language, learn the culture, do a teaching gig on a visa, then find permanent employment and marry a chick and change their name. That's someone who wants to join Japan. Mexicans and Central Americans flooding our border? They want money, security, and probably freedoms. Understandable, but not laudable.

Plus, the USA is a nation of European immigrants that wiped out the immigrants who probably wiped out the first people to come here, then used slaves and new waves of immigrants for fodder. It wasn't a romantic succession of new and interesting peoples coming on by the USA to be hugged and welcomed as equals so they could open exotic little restaurants in NYC.

As our demographic makeup irreversibly is changed by what our leaders let happen, what do you think will become of the liberal tradition when people who have little to no history of it, or reason to live by it, take voting power? Then, all of a sudden, we might realize that a national identity served a purpose.

[Mobius_118]

I love it when I end up being right.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I love it when I end up being right.

Zero context is best context.

Knowledge is Ignorance after all.

[Sinekein]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/world/europe/john-cleese-london.html

“Londoners know that our diversity is our greatest strength,” Mr. Khan wrote on Twitter. “We are proudly the English capital, a European city and a global hub.”

Not our generation, or the Zoomers, but after them. I think when the delayed effect of immigration and anti-white policies make those kids realize what they have now versus what our parents had. There's no end condition for these policies and beliefs the left is implementing in all places among us. They control the means of discussion and are effectively shutting out opposition. To say nothing of how many European majority nations are disarmed.

I have no idea how it is happening in the US, but around here it is becoming more and more common to see diversity in most schools. Sure, you have the elite catholic ones that are all white, and the ghetto ones that are non-white, but those are far from the majority. Most are healthily diverse. My classes of 35 are mostly white, but all have 20 to 40% of kids that are clearly not pure Gauls. And that's not even accounting for those whose last names indicate that, if they are European, some of their ancestors likely lived closer to Moscow than they did Paris.

I think those kids won't buy the fearmongering of "foreigners coming to rape your wives and eat your kids" as well as those who have never seen a non white person in their life, except on the news. When you grow up with diversity, you tend to realize that the differences are anything but impossible to work with.

Could you imagine an Englishman, a Mexican, an Eskimo, and a Russian on a live roundtable on Good Morning China to discuss what it means to be Chinese? And how Beijing is stronger for being 60%+ non-Han, and how it's an Asian city and a global hub? WW1 and 2 really traumatized an entire human phenotype.

A key difference is that China has not built its wealth thanks to some sort of immigration, whether it was voluntary or not. The US or Europe have exploited migrant workforces for about three centuries now - through slavery, then as a fighting force during the World Wars, and then as cheap labor - and this is in large part responsible of their status as the most developed nations today. So yes, of course, Indians or Nigerians immigrants in London have something to say about the city, because London wouldn't be half as wealthy if it had never welcomed anyone who couldn't trace its ancestry back to the Domesday Book.

London, Khan's city, is the sixth largest French city. There are about 400 or 500k French people living there. And it has exploited the wealth of good French students coming out of business schools like INSEAD, ESSEC or HEC for years - helping build the wealth of the City. I am pretty sure those French people have a say in what "London" means now that they helped make it the #1 financial location in Europe (at least until Brexit).

The thing with a no deal Brexit, is that it cuts all migrations, including the ones that unequivocally made the UK richer - nurses, doctors, students with MBAs or PhDs, etc. I'm pretty sure London is not going to be richer once it becomes a chore to come over from the EU, and once students decide to go study somewhere that is neither Oxford or Cambridge because they can't get a visa anymore.

[Mazder]

This morning I watched Jeremy Vine's morning show and there was a segment on the increased/highest number of recorded migrants entering the UK illegally recently being discussed and what to do with/about them.
Some say let them in, some say kick them out and everything in between as discussion shows are like to bring up.
One panellist suggested giving them the resources/a grant for them to make their own town/city, thinking it'd stop this idea of little ghettos and smaller communities cropping up in big cities of people who are not integrating into British society. Which, TBH doesn't solve that problem, and IMO makes it worse as now you have what amounts to basically just a segregated town of foreigners which is racist and kinda the whole reason why most of them are not integrating in the first place.

One thing I found interesting was the talking point of "jumping the queue" in terms of allowing citizenship to what is essentially illegal immigrants. Spin it however you want the people need to be checked and verified before being granted citizenship, yet nowhere did anyone make the comparison between these migrants and the countless foreign students, business-people, doctors, etc who are already here in the UK, have been for some time, and who are trying to get citizenship yet might be passed up by these migrants because of the reason of humanitarianism.
Passing up a doctor you know is in training for someone you don't know is skilled or even able to speak the language at a communicative level necessary to work in the UK.

I mean the UK, this small island nation, has about the same population as France, a country with nearly double our landmass that is not only one singular, unified country and not a union itself, but also has a lot more direct assistance that can be transferred from the rest of Europe itself. We have to ship/import A LOT of things, one of them is people. But just like every other import it has to be regulated to some degree.
It's not evil, it's not bigoted, it's not racist, it's a fact of life.
If you wish to come to the UK you integrate into the UK.
I'd expect the exact same treatment from the USA, Japan, Madagascar, Barbados, Russia, China, Iran, Uruguay, etc, or at least the same consideration.

[Vol]

Youtube did a round of conservative purging today, it seems. Not sure exactly who's banned and who's only been demonetized, but I know Crowder lost the latter. So, relatively less harsh than the Facebook and Twitter purges, but, you know. Denying someone's ability to earn a livelihood on a major public forum for the crime of being milquetoast right-wingers seems somewhat fascist. To say nothing of the hardcore right-wingers who've been buried by Silicon Valley full stop.

But don't worry, our corporate masters will ensure only the nicest, most relevant information is allowed to exist on their internet!

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcbGjVLtTsI

Here's something a bit more in-depth. Welcome to the Adpocalypse version... uhh... 3? 4? Now banning even anti-holocaust deniers and potentially even just agry game reviewers. Courtesy or a random asshole who couldn't take the banter, and of the "traditional reviewers" crowd, who took the chance to go after those who are making them obsolete.

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBPAuU4tklo

Oh, and one more in depth about the "anti-angry gamers" part of this mess.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-c4OFOO9Ck&list=WL&index=10

Here's another video to add to Aliens.

[Alienmorph]

It's just fucking depressing. We've spent the last 2 or 3 years being lambasted by shills and wannabee journalists trying to convice us that "you can't objectively criticize creative content... you just WANT to be negative!" and since that didn't obviously work too well, now we're at the point where thei're starting to try to pass criticism as an hatespeech equivalent. Ffs.

I keep thinking I should just go live in some small town in the middle of nowhere, and stop caring about whatever bullshit western media is farting at us every day, whenever I see this sort of crap.