Re: I want to be like America...

You should get out a little more, people don't routinely carry handguns in Europe. They also mostly seem to be able to walk and don't get shot at for doing so. The hefty Biffers do significantly vanish the further East and South you go.

You telling me all the Reliant Robin and Metro owners all swapped for Rangies, hoorah for the economic miracle!

Re: I want to be like America...

You're fondling yourself at the thought of how much better than us you are. Meanwhile, your lords and masters moot an implementation of government explicitly designed on the American model. Aren't you just too cute for words?

Re: I want to be like America...

People don't routinely carry handguns in most of the US either, and you can choose to believe me, or what you see on television instead, just as you prefer on that point. (Don't talk to me about that goddamned Top Gear episode in Alabama, either, unless you think I could roll up on a bunch of chavs, tell them all "fuck you and everything you care about", and expect to get out without a beating. Rocks thrown at the car? A hug and a kiss by comparison.)

And -- and here's where I get my comment rejected and lose my privileged place outside the moderation queue -- in places where you can't walk around without getting shot at, it mostly isn't white people doing the shooting, yet when we get people talking about how this country sorely needs gun control, it's always white people that need the controlling.

Sure, call me a racist for that if you like. Until you live somewhere you can sit out on your back porch at night, three nights out of seven, and listen to small-arms fire being exchanged a mile or two further south in one of those areas every major American city has -- you know, the parts where smart white people don't go after dark -- then I don't guess I care all that much what you think of me, do I?

the USA is pushing toward becoming more European

My irony detector just committed suicide.

Re: I want to be like America...

Says a man in a Republic based explicitly on the French Republic, with help from the same.

Re: I want to be like America...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Re: I want to be like America...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Re: I want to be like America...

What I'm saying is that when they had those older small cars they didn't all suddenly trade up en masse to Range Rovers. Incidentally the statistics on gun crime don't back up your claims. Especially as regards Germany. And the only place I've had anyone deliberately try to drive into my car - presumable to try and do an insurance claim -was in a "respectable" part of Silicon Valley. As regards the "typically" Brit social habits you seem to think everyone has... well no. Do you think everyone outside the USA lives like they do in East Enders?

Re: I want to be like America...

I would say less than half of the prevalent rate of anything in a large population is pretty significant statistically.

Re: I want to be like America...

I'd have thought the relative positions of the stable democracies was pretty clear. Still, no worries, at least Mexico is worse, huh?

Re: I want to be like America...

No, just the only actual genuine attempt, in any country. And yeah, I have driven on those UK roads and on mainland EU.. Why so defensive about the USAians? The stats on Germany look pretty clear, unless you can't read, you think maybe they swapped with Mexico in 10 years? Maybe the Germans suddenly turned into a nation of berserkers?

As for the cars, I was nicely backing you up on the fact that they are getting into more modern gear, but I guess your blinkered worldview couldn't understand that..... heck, they were going to give me a Kia Pride before I rebelled and traded several sizes up ..... I think they thought it would get squashed sometime on an on-ramp in the rain so they were also hinting this might not be such a good plan.

"Try France, you can buy hunting rifles and shotguns in supermarkets there"

I've obviously been going to a different France! Which supermarket did you say this was exactly?

Re: "Stand by for the War Against The South"

Careful now. Military spending doesn't get cut easily. Who do you think is next in line to take charge of Greece?

Re: "Stand by for the War Against The South"

I can imagine many worse things happening to Greece than another regime in power with an interest in ischia, taxis, kai asfalia. Yeah, I know the junta was hard on Red dissidents, but you know what? That's a clue not to be a fucking Red dissident. Same as how it works with antifas and neo-Nazis: antifas beat the shit out of neo-Nazis and get off with a wink and a nod, neo-Nazis defend themselves from antifas and go to prison for years. Anyone with sense doesn't become a neo-Nazi. Works the same way for Reds under the Greek junta, and being a rehabilitated White myself I have to say I'm not exactly heartbroken by the thought of some ignorant college-kid levellers learning a few hard lessons about the world by way of getting nightsticks broken over their thick skulls.

Re: "Stand by for the War Against The South"

"The Greeks, like most of the poorer NATO members, get most of their weaponary discounted from the US (Leopard tanks from Germany being the main Greek exception). In fact, a civil war in Europe could be a good moneymaking strategy for Uncle Sam...."

I hate to break it to you but they already used that trick twice last century...

Re: "Stand by for the War Against The South"

I vote Prince Philip, give him a second chance to save them. But he'ļl have to give up some of that Danish schtick. In fact can we also vote him in a some kind of international Euro diplomat, they need to expand their vocabulary in Brussels. Just send some smelling salts with him. ;)

Re: "Stand by for the War Against The South"

What's a "rehabilitated White", enquiring minds want to know. This conjures up various pictures, most of which are thankfully probably not correct ;)

'a rehabilitated White'

It's nothing to do with skin color, if that's what you're thinking; just as red is the emblem of revolution, white is that of reaction, and has been since I believe the French Revolution. (And, hey, we still use "left-wing" and "right-wing", invented to describe where people sat in the National Assembly, so why not keep up the color code too?)

Thus, by 'rehabilitated White', what I'm saying is that I was a progressive atheist myself, just as Red as Red could be -- until I wised up and found out just how thoroughly I had been lied to; it does something to a man to discover, having believed himself to be not religious at all, that he is in fact an unchurched Methodist more or less.

(Hey, you don't have to take my word for it -- or, at least, not this word right here. I've been commenting on the Reg for about five years now; all you need do is compare my comments from five years ago, and my comments in this thread, to see that I'm not kidding when I say I used to be a damnfool Red.)

Re: Should be interesting

Most likely, sure -- although I wonder; Europe has a hell of a history, and I can't quite believe the meddlesome damnyankees have managed to beat it out of all of you in a mere century or so. That said, war being economics by other means, why assume the EU's civil war would necessarily involve artillery et cetera? I'd bet more on it being a modern-style "asymmetrical" or guerrilla war, if it's a hot war at all.

Re: Should be interesting

"Future war in Europe will be between politicians (elected and unelected) in teh corridors of Brussels."

Brilliant! Give them real weapons and install bullet proof camera in the corridors.

I am sure lots of people would love to watch it on TV.

Re: Should be interesting

Plus, let's not forget the French have more nukes than China. I doubt if they fear invasion from anywhere. Germany has a grand total of 0 of it's own. It doesn't actually currently want any, plus the 2 countries are pretty friendly.

France are in fact no. 3 globally.

They could independently fry any country you care to name. This was done with the agreement of the US, in order that no-one in Europe or in fact globally could have them over a barrel again militarily. Particularly not any of their neighbors, or any Commies.

Doom will be delivered to you with maximum politeness from either a nuke-equipped Rafale, if you'ŗe sufficiently near, perhaps from an aircraft carrier or land, or from subs.

The air-launched ones are meant as a "first warning".

Longest test was with an M45 from Brittany to French Guiana, South America, so comfortably global range. It worked perfectly. Latest test was an M51 in 2010 to somewhere 2000km off South Carolina, a trip of approx 4000km. Max range is about 10000km, which seems plenty from a mobile sub.

They did used to have active land silos as well, but since the collapse of the Soviets, these were deemed a little excessive and not necessary any more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7glI_XAWgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJACZwifi0

Re: Should be interesting

Paintball, fluorescent dye, UV lamps and no armour, just goggles and swimsuits ;)

Ick!

> just goggles and swimsuits

You want to see Theresa May in a swimsuit?

*shudder*

Vic.

Re: Mmm, monoculture.

Well, you don't.

The Federal Government in Australia - and even the Kingdom of Great Britain was created for economic and trade reasons, Australia to sort out inter colonial trade and GB had the bailing out of Scotland after the disastrous Darrien scheme (Brilliant Idea that, build a Colony in a Central American Swamp, a swamp that the Spannish were convinced was theirs...). Each Colony in Australia's case still has its own laws and Parliament, and only a fool would call Scotland England.

Portugal can keep its drug laws. You get your 1 in 60 million vote for the UK government, and your 1 in half a billion vote for Europe (just like now), but you wont need a passport to get anywhere in Europe, and wont need to change money next time you go on holiday.

Re: Mmm, monoculture.

Well, Brussels or Paris in two and half or so hours from London today, no passport or card needed to travel across EU plus Switzerland unless your home country has not joined Schengen (oh, that means UK and, umm, GB) - living in continental Europe, I've just driven across Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and Germany without showing a passport, except between Croatia (not in EU) and Slovenia (not really best of friends with Croatia) plus a quick sprint across a small piece of Bosnia Hercegovina. My friends living in France have many things to say, oddly nothing about encryption and Portuguese acquaintances and holidaying British friends seem to get in and out of Portugal more easily and safely than, say, the USA or even Heathrow.. So, get yourself a passport so you can get in and out of Schengen, take a chance and try exploring reality. The freedom may take some adjustment; but you may manage it.

You know, there are about 1/4 million Brits with houses in or actually living in France, more in Spain and Portugal, 60 000 in Brussels alone. Somehow they survive and even quite enjoy life and freedom.

Re: Mmm, monoculture.

I don't know about France but I can assure you that living and working in Spain or Portugal is lately more on the survival end of the scale than the enjoying end of it.

A few years back I was as pro-EU as you like. Now I'm convinced that the EU is a failed political project. The Germans have just worked out that lending money to people so they buy their own cars is just as inviable an economic model as flooding a PIGgy economy with easy credit at low interest rates only to feed a corrupt political system.

The future that awaits the PIGS is not a bright one, as Germany will not give way till they offload their bank debt to someone else which isn't going to happen any time soon. Austerity (AKA bowls of rice) probably for a couple of generations, unless countries walk away from the EU which probably won't be pretty.

A constitution

is just a piece of paper, and the restless utopians who've had charge of the United States for the last century or so know it full well -- their very first act was to abandon God and the outward trappings of religiosity, the better to dodge the establishment clause's obstacle to implementing their vision of the earthly kingdom of God.

This is why I love progressive "atheists" to little tiny bits: they're mainstream American Protestants and too ignorant of history to know it. Of course there's no telling them that, self-righteousness being the inebriant it is, but it's fun to chaff them with it from time to time -- and, if you do it often enough, they go away and stop bothering you with their muddle-headed little ideas about religion and politics.

Re: A constitution

This is why I love progressive "atheists" to little tiny bits: they're mainstream American Protestants and too ignorant of history to know it.

OK I'm no expert on the course of American religion, so perhaps I've missed something, but to boil it down;

Protestant: Denies authority of Pope, but accepts authority of the bible, believes priesthood of all believers and primacy of the bible

Athiest: Thinks all the above is bollocks.

I did look up 'Progressive Athiest' but couldn't see any reference to that being a different type of person. Care to clarify and satisfy my curiousity?

"Care to clarify?"

Gladly, Ben!

Let's start with: no one is what he says he is; instead, what he does defines him. I may say that I am a pacifist, but if I then offer violence to another person, I have disproved my spoken claim and demonstrated that, whatever I may be, a pacifist I am not -- actions, in short, take precedence over words, even in matters lately considered under the ambit of "personal identity" and therefore, apparently, expected to be taken as sacrosanct.

Fair so far? OK. Now let's look at the publicly declared and stated program of the United States Federal Council of Churches, as adopted unanimously by 375 representatives of 30-some denominations (including Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist -- the largest American Protestant sects) in a 1942 conclave at Ohio Wesleyan (i.e., Methodist) University. The article, still hosted by Time Magazine where it was originally published seventy years ago, is here. (The title is a reference to the "Malvern conference" of the Anglican Church in 1941; see Bonhoeffer, via Google Books, to understand why Time called it what they did.)

Note: If you're a Time subscriber, you can see the full article at Time.com. If you're not a subscriber, you're not quite in as much luck, as Time has recently decided to implement a paywall that can't be circumvented by clicking the 'Print' button. The full article can be found here, reproduced by someone with a religious bone to pick; the blue text is what you're looking for, and it exactly matches the content of the original article, to which I do have access. If you want to assume this is a sign of bad faith on my part, you're welcome; if you can't handle someone with beliefs that differ from yours, and therefore don't want to believe that what you find there is veracious, or if it upsets you to see words like 'pinko' used unironically and with derogatory intent (Time Magazine's editorial policy today isn't what it was in 1942!), then you are likewise welcome -- but before you go, Comrade, let me mention that keeping an open mind is the sine qua non of this exercise. If you're not willing to question the wisdom you've received, why have you read this far?

Quite something, isn't it? Internationalism to the extent of federalized world government -- the elimination of nations and of national sovereignty -- the elimination of tariffs and quotas to produce "free trade" worldwide -- freedom of immigration, in line with all else that redounds from the erasure of every national border on the planet -- an international bank to lend development capital free of the taint of "imperialism".

Is any of this sounding familiar? If you're a progressive, it should! If you're a progressive, this is your political program, and if you're having trouble recognizing it as such, perhaps that's because you weren't expecting to see it espoused as the Way of the Future, and the means of bringing about God's Kingdom on Earth, by a convention of gray-haired bishops from back when your granddaddy was still a young man. (You're also used to operating within a superset of what the bishops of 1942 felt they could get away with; we've had seventy years of effectively unopposed social engineering since then, and that counts for a hell of a lot.)

Thus we have before us the following:

P. No one is what he says; he is only what he does. If what he does fails to match what he says, then he is among other things a hypocrite.

S. The convened heads of mainstream American Protestantism, who were responsible for the direction of their denominations and their congregants, in mid-1942 publicly declared themselves and their sects in support of a political platform whose planks are indistinguishable from those of the modern American progressive (i.e., Fabian) platform.

Given such self-explanatory primus and secundus, tertius hardly need be stated outright, but let's make it clear for the children in the audience:

T. Modern American progressivism is mainstream American Protestantism, in slight disguise, and vice versa.

Of course, atheists -- who are progressive almost to a one, and "conservatives" are no more than rump progressives anyway and bear no further respect or discussion -- have plenty of bad things to say about notions like deity, religion, et cetera -- that being the case, though, one might find oneself forced to wonder: If atheists are anti-religious, then why is it, when these soi-disant godless and faithless espouse a political program -- as invariably they do -- that the tenets of that program are bang alongside the new direction for American Protestantism laid out at Ohio Wesleyan in 1942?

Coincidence, I suppose. And if you can believe that, then congratulations! You have exactly the intellectual and ethical sturdiness it takes to make a progressive true believer.

Of course, as with everything, there's a lot more to all of this; looked at historically, it can be taken back as far as the Quakers and Puritans vs. the Cavaliers, or further still to the Roundheads vs. the Royalists, which as best I can tell is really where all this modern bullshit comes from -- hilarious, isn't it, to imagine all of modern history as little more than the latest evolution in almost four centuries of uninterrupted warfare?

But I have to do other things today as well, so if you're interested in more, I can hardly do better than to recommend the incomparable Mencius Moldbug, who will reward your investment of time far more thoroughly and comprehensively than my little effort here. That said, I hope I haven't done too poor a job of answering your curiosity.

Re: "Care to clarify?"

You do know that it's possible for two groups (American Atheists and American Protestants in this case) to share some ideas on the political and social future of the planet without being one and the same right?

Re: "Care to clarify?"

If it were an idea or two here and there, I might agree with you. When the congruence encompasses every idea of any political signficance whatsoever, though, I find the claim of coincidence a little hard to take.

Re: "Care to clarify?"

Since the Atheist and Protestant movements are religious in nature (and diametrically opposed) any congruence between the political ideologies of their members is by definition coincidental.

Re: "Care to clarify?"

Religion and politics defined as orthogonal to one another? I'm not sure which is more marvelous -- your foolishness or your arrogance.

Well, in any case, that tears it; I am arguing with an adolescent. Run along and play, and come back when you know something about history, should you ever bother to learn.

Re: "Care to clarify?"

I'm not the one metaphorically stamping my feet and claiming the other person is a child just because I can't win an argument logically.

Religion is often used as an excuse for or claimed as the basis of political ideologies which I assume is where your confusion stems from. Knowing that a person is a Protestant, for example, will give you no more insight into whether they are fascist / socialist / liberal / whatever your preferred labels are.