EU mentally deranged

The name given for these cheap Anglo-Saxon labourers by their wealthy bosses of Anglo-Saxon descent? White Trash. Funnily enough, quite a bit of the offspring of these expendable labourers now still live in cheap housing (welcome to my trailer, y’all) in the former mining areas of Virginia and the like, giving themselves family names as first names (Lyndsay England anyone?), and with often enough still little more to feel good about themselves except for their skin colour and nationality. Poor dumb White Trash, what a sorry lot you are.[/i]

…and instead of sympathizing with these “lot” of decendants from those that were abused and taken advantage of during the 1800s, what does Arthur do? He purpituates their pain and suffering at the expense so he can ridicule one person. THIS my friend is the problem with the white race as seen by others. That truly is sad and sorry. 🙁

Fact, Texas IS bigger than France. So what? They can put what ever they want on their bumper if it’s not inciteful or such…how is this FACT a problem? So, yes, many Americans are obese. But you have problems with obese people? Hypocrite. :rolleyes: Keep this to yourself, mind you that this is a public forum. You see where all this bigotry is coming from? Simply just from someone like Arthur (and i’m only using him as an example) who just wanted to have the last word over another person, intellegence/ignorance not-withstanding. Sad, yes indeed sad as Arthur said. 🙁

Just a shame that there is a little town called Paris in Texas … 😡

Why is that a shame? Hypocrite…. :rolleyes:

But Steve, you know the surroundings at Meridian are simply part of the training program? After all, pilots trained there could eventually end up at bases like Clark, Howard, or back in them ole’ days Da Nang or Than Son Nut. After Meridian, they’d feel nicely at home amongst those slums…

Apologies for drawing this thread off from the original topic.

As a matter of fact, i think one has to give some credit to the new EU Chairman/Beloved Leader/Usurper. He is the guy who brought Jonas Savimbi and the UNITA to the negotiating table to put an end to the Angolan civil war. Which is quite a bit more than can be said about most world leaders, especially during the 1980s…

Got to go now a wash by sheet

See? He even writes in some sort of pidgin-Cajun.

I bet he wears dungarees and a hat he trapped himself.

Blimey, Art, sounds like you’ve spent almost as much time as I have sniffing round the back of places like Maxwell AFB, Montgomery Field and Meridian! 😀

Sauron I have a question for you. When, in your world, Canada becomes a part of the USA will you call yourself Canadian/American or just American?

Anglo-Saxon world order?? The first language of the US will be Spanish by the time Dis’ bizarre scenario comes into play.

I think the US will officially change it’s language to Spanish as soon as the trade deficit, that magnificent legacy from the Reagan days, hits rock bottom. Let’s be honest: banknotes on a logarithmical scale look a lot more realistic if they say ‘Banco Central dos Estados Unides Americanensas’ (or something similar) than today’s dollar bills. By then, i think Russian banks won’t even accept the unwrinkled ones. Come and think of it: the demand for unwrinkled US currency shouldn’t be very helpful for inflation of the dollar either.

Sauron,
I always thought your handle ment more than just the Great Wizzard from LotR 😉 A red sheet?

Tibexas Will Rise Again!

Dis, I have to say that this started out as an eloquent bit of Euro-bashing, but i have to say your lasts posts in the thread by far outweirded even Minidoh’s navel-centered worldview. The whole idea of an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ culture in the US is one dating back to the early to mid 19th century, when original ‘anglo-saxon’ inhabitants of the US tried with all their might to stop immigrants from countries like Ireland, Germany, (later) Italy, Eastern Europe (i’m sure you know a lot of Polak-jokes) and (nowadays) Latin America and Asia. Traces of this purely racist theory can be found in quite a few aspects of the United States: religion, politics, social climate, the lot. The KKK obviously being one of the more extreme examples obviously, but definately very proud of it’s ‘Anglo-Saxon’ roots.*

Pretty often, some of this Anglo-Saxon ‘racism’ rears up it’s head, usually in an evolved and camouflaged form (such as American Exceptionalism), but sometimes it’s really obvious. For example, the stubborn denial amongst right-wing Americans (and their Canadian cheerboys 😉 ) that the American political, social and cultural climate as founded in 1776 has a lot more in common with French political thought than anything even remotely ‘anglo-saxon’. Annoying facts like these are usually overwhelmed by bumper-sticker debate (“Texas is bigger than France” – as is the wife of the guy driving that Dodge Ram, actually), talk radio and whatever the reverend might have to say.

The apocalyptical world view you demonstrate seems to be mainstream in only two sub-cultures these days: militant Islam (kill all infidels, we’ll be going to Paradise and score even more virgins) and right-wing religious Americans (with the EU being the new Roman Empire, gathering momentum for the great battle on the plain of Armageddon). Wass sich liebt, das neckt sich!

* = there is something funny about this Anglo-Saxon pride if you add the White Supremacy BS to it. A very large, percentage of people of anglo-saxon decent in the (mostly Southern) United States were actually imported to provide cheap labour, for which slaves were simply too expensive. Remember that a slave was bought at a pretty high price, whereas you could import uneducated English peasants and have them do the really dangerous work, like mining or cutting trees. If a slave would die during this work, you would have lost an investment. If an imported peasant worker died, you scratched him from the payroll. These people really were the sorry scrapings on the bottom of the economical barrel in the US of the 19th century, the only thing which saved them from also being the lowest of the low on a social standard was their skin colour.

The name given for these cheap Anglo-Saxon labourers by their wealthy bosses of Anglo-Saxon descent? White Trash. Funnily enough, quite a bit of the offspring of these expendable labourers now still live in cheap housing (welcome to my trailer, y’all) in the former mining areas of Virginia and the like, giving themselves family names as first names (Lyndsay England anyone?), and with often enough still little more to feel good about themselves except for their skin colour and nationality. Poor dumb White Trash, what a sorry lot you are.

PMSL! 😀 😀 😀

Especially this bit……….

“(“Texas is bigger than France” – as is the wife of the guy driving that Dodge Ram, actually), “

ROFLMAO. Stop it. It hurts. Oh bugger there goes another rib! 😀

Trouble is, Sauron, we can’t be sure whether or not you’re joking! 😮

Arthur

Funny stuff. A bit paranoid but funny. Got to go now a wash by sheet for tonights meeting. 😮

Sauron

Tibexas Will Rise Again!

Dis, I have to say that this started out as an eloquent bit of Euro-bashing, but your lasts posts in the thread by far outweirded even Minidoh’s navel-centered worldview. The whole idea of an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ culture in the US is one dating back to the early to mid 19th century, when original ‘anglo-saxon’ inhabitants of the US tried with all their might to stop immigrants from countries like Ireland, Germany, (later) Italy, Eastern Europe (i’m sure you know a lot of Polak-jokes) and (nowadays) Latin America and Asia. Traces of this purely racist theory can be found in quite a few aspects of the United States: religion, politics, social climate, the lot. The KKK being one of the more extreme examples obviously, but one very proud of it’s ‘Anglo-Saxon’ roots.*

Pretty often of this Anglo-Saxon ‘racism’ rears up it’s head, usually in an evolved and camouflaged form (such as American Exceptionalism), but sometimes obvious. For example, the stubborn denial amongst right-wing Americans (and their Canadian cheerboys 😉 ) that the American political, social and cultural climate as founded in 1776 has a lot more in common with French political thought than anything even remotely ‘anglo-saxon’. Annoying facts like these are usually overwhelmed by bumper-sticker debate (“Texas is bigger than France” – as is the wife of the guy driving that Dodge Ram, actually), talk radio and whatever the reverend might have to say.

The apocalyptical world view you demonstrate seems to be mainstream in only two sub-cultures these days: militant Islam (kill all infidels, we’ll be going to Paradise and score even more virgins) and right-wing religious Americans (with the EU being the new Roman Empire, gathering momentum for the great battle on the plain of Armageddon). Wass sich liebt, das neckt sich!

* = there is something funny about this Anglo-Saxon pride if you add the White Supremacy BS to it. A very large, percentage of people of anglo-saxon decent in the (mostly Southern) United States were actually imported to provide cheap labour, for which slaves were simply too expensive. Remember that a slave was bought at a pretty high price, whereas you could import uneducated English peasants and have them do the really dangerous work, like mining or cutting trees. If a slave would die during this work, you would have lost an investment. If an imported peasant worker died, you scratched him from the payroll. These people really were the sorry scrapings on the bottom of the economical barrel in the US of the 19th century, the only thing which saved them from also being the lowest of the low on a social standard was their skin colour.

The name given for these cheap Anglo-Saxon labourers by their wealthy bosses of Anglo-Saxon descent? White Trash. Funnily enough, quite a bit of the offspring of these expendable labourers now still live in cheap housing (welcome to my trailer, y’all) in the former mining areas of Virginia and the like, giving themselves family names as first names (Lyndsay England anyone?), and with often enough still little more to feel good about themselves except for their skin colour and nationality. Poor dumb White Trash, what a sorry lot you are.

Dis. Just where do you get off? Do you burn crosses and wear white robes and a pointy mask?

Oi, Phil…don’t knock it, Mate…that passes for a great night out in New Braunfels, TX 😀

Anglo-Saxon world order?? The first language of the US will be Spanish by the time Dis’ bizarre scenario comes into play.

The UK may be more pro-european if we had been allowed to join at the same time rather than having our entry vetoed by De Gaulle. He only relented when policies like the CAP were in place and it was too late to do much about it. The unfairness of the CAP is still a major problem but little has been done to reform it because of whom it would effect the most. (ie french farmers)

Correct Hand, as I said. However, I can’t resist commenting on some of his ideas.

It is like the USSR; it all comes down to war, and if you’re not successful in breaking the 300 years old grip of the Anglo-Saxon race on the world or not go to war at all, it all makes no sense. History repeats itself and the big cycles are not broken!

Well, you ARE racist. Anglo-Saxon is NOT a race, it’s a cultural thing. The last time they tried to connect race and nationality we all know what happened.
History doesn’t “repeat” itself, that’s just bul****. There are cycles, in the field of economy (conjuctural) and sociology (kondratiev), but why would history have to repeat itself. And that doesn’t explain why there would have to be a war between Europe and the US. Such a war would be devastating for both.

— Because they promote the division between the Anglo-Saxon world and the European peoples, hurting both in the way, hurting white men and white civilisation.

This is pure racism. In fact, even Vlaams-Blok propaganda would not mention the words you just mentioned. Do you actually realise that in my country you could risk getting jailed for this?

Thirdly, your Anglo-Saxon World order. What’s it like? With all do respect for the British, but really, there’s only ONE superpower in the world, and that is the United States. They decide who are usefull allies, through NATO and other partnerships. Constitutionally the US is an Anglo-Saxon country, but looking at its people, a melting pot of cultures, how can you talk about “race” in this context. Being “German” yourself, you should know that many Americans today are from German origin, just as French, Dutch, ‘Belgians’ …

Folks, let me say a couple of things about the EU:

# First, were it comes from:
That thing we call EU today started as the Franco-German organisation to drain as much vigor as possible from Germany, so that Germany would never again (at least in our lifetime) be the dominant power in Europe. Germany’s elites consented, because that was a way to avoid open reparations and was in line with their ideology. But it was traitorous in more than one way. (And there were alternatives during Adenauer’s chancellorship!). And reperations they didn’t avoid either – just look at the EU budget in detail.

# Second, what it currently is:
Currently it is France’s vehicle for French grandeur and for challenging the Anglo-Saxon world order (that’s why I wrote “tries to win the seven years war”). The building-myth and cramp of the EU “Germany is evil” is currently replaced by “the USA is evil”. But there is no vision where this all should lead, apart from more bureaucrats to patronize and if needed suppress the people, all to nourish a questionable elite. Some other states support this out of fear of a strong Germany (like the Netherlands, Belgium), some other states are in the EU because they fear a Russian awakening (like Poland and the Baltics), some are in the club to get as much money as possible, but otherwise tell the rest F.U.! (like Italy, Spain, Greece). I say take the money out of the EU and see what remains as its salience and charakter and uniting idea!

# What the future holds (not now, not in ten years, but in 50 years):
Option 0 — EU falls apart, some nation states remain, other merge/are subdued.
Option 1 — The destiny of a French dominated EU is war against Anglo-Saxon North America (itself threatened by ethnic conflicts, so questionable how long it will remain in the current shape). War not necessarily with the sword, although that is not totally out of question. There can be only one, as the saying goes. Europe and the USA are too big and have too similar needs to share a common planet. One will enforce its will on the other. There is no future on an equal basis. That is nature’s law. It is like the USSR; it all comes down to war, and if you’re not successful in breaking the 300 years old grip of the Anglo-Saxon race on the world or not go to war at all, it all makes no sense. History repeats itself and the big cycles are not broken!
Option 2 — The European nation states are dissolved with everything that is “national” (parliaments, kings, presidents, armies, soccer teams, …) and only their autonomous provinces enter into a federation or kind of “Reich”, which could and should also include other provinces from other white/christian continents (Russia, North America, Australia, New Zealand). That would be something everybody could support. But I don’t think it will happen.

# Why do I bash the French?
— Because the national interests of France are not compatible with the European idea; they will never dissolve their nation state, which is what would be neccessary to make the EU a success.
— Because they use the EU as a vehicle for their shady interests, which are not the interests of the other European peoples.
— Because they promote the division between the Anglo-Saxon world and the European peoples, hurting both in the way, hurting white men and white civilisation.
— Because their vision of the EU (founded in their historic conception of “the state”) makes them the enemy of everybody who wants to live in a society were a man’s own achievements count, not who his father was or who his friends are. That’s why I wrote Catholic tradition. It is the question of individual vs. society vs. the state. There is no tradition of personal freedom in France. And not in most of the rest of Europe either. That has a lot to do with Protestant vs Catholic views of society. (And the U.S. goes full steam ahead to lose it, and I don’t mean Bush, it started centuries ago).
— Because they are setting the EU on a path leading to a new kind of feudalism.
— Because the EU is not a positive, optimistic organisation, and the French way of conducting a nation’s business is one of the prime reasons for this.
— Because, because, because.

# And finally: I’m not English, as some might assume. I’m German/Texan.

And now go ahead! Call me nuts, racist, xenophobic, hydrophobic, etc …

Well I don’t know where you got all this sh!t about France , (the Inquirer maybe) , but I guess that I will end this debate a least with you.
Some other members (like Phil) are way more objectives than you are.

Let me just remind you that France is one of the first (if not the first) who invented the individual freedom and wrote it in the constitution.

Just a shame that there is a little town called Paris in Texas … 😡

And now go ahead! Call me nuts, racist, xenophobic, hydrophobic, etc …

OK then, if you insist…………… 😀

Simply calling you “wrong” is quicker and more accurate, Distiller.

Also, unless you’ve got two passports you’re not “German/Texan”, you’re a US citizen. :p

Phil, I think your views on Europe are respectable and it made me think. I can understand why people don’t like any “superpower”. However, I don’t know if local gov’t can guarantee us peace (not only us but also the rest of the world) in the XXIth century. I think European cooperation is necessairy on some levels, like monetarian, foreign policy and defence. I’m still using the word “confederation” rather than federation. We should have a model where the national parliaments have some level of controll again on issues like agriculture. As of now, everything is decided by the European council of ministers (note: not the european parliament), and national parliaments HAVE to accept these unwritten laws. In fact, parliament has no real say, it can only write down the laws. This has to change.

The government may have committed to the stabilty pact but in the knowledge that they did not have the mandate of the electorate. That one is biting them on the arse now because the electorate is telling them in no uncertain terms that if they do this without our permission, they are out, they will be committing political suicide. The crunch question is why are the British so hostile and the answer to this has been give many times in many different explanations yet all saying the same thing. Europe is undemocratic and therefore a retrograde step in the grand scheme of European progression and worst of all some people were not even trusted with a choice before it was instigated. Britain is arguably one of the oldest democracies, don’t scoff I can qualify the statement. When I say democracy I use it in the loosest terms with regard to when it all began but like all other things in the world it has progressed and evolved into something that any other democracy can recognise and appeal to. This brings us back to the European commissioners. Who are they and what do they do? Who pays them and who elected them. If they have no role why do they have a job?

European commissioners are only the tip of the undemocratic iceberg and our reservations do not end there. We already have a superpower and a hyperpower why do we need another one? Haven’t we learnt anything? It strikes me that the only real reason to embark on the European train is to prevent a future European war (it has been mentioned) and I want to know why this is a possibility. Yet even if a European war is unavoidable if we do not have complete federal European integration then so to is a confrontation, at a later stage between superpowers. Europe and the USA do not get along at the best of times I’d hate to see them squaring up in some distant future dragging in my children and my grand children. It is simply not acceptable and as for another European war? Making it federal and integrated will not discount the possibility of war even if it was a civil one.

I’m sorry I have racked my brains to try to explain this and what I write never seems to get my point across. I have said I do not feel superior to Europeans yet I do not feel inferior either I see no difference but a federal Europe is not acceptable to me and as an aside, if the UK is embargoed by Europe as a result of a possible withdrawal from the EU, it would be legally and morally wrong. It would also be economically disasterous to many campanies both in Britain and the EU and politically inept. Which I suppose makes the possibilty almost inevitable.

Thanks Phil .
More clear now . I don’t share all of your views (some of them though) but I undertsand them better now.

Dis. Just where do you get off? Do you burn crosses and wear white robes and a pointy mask? Well you did invite me to call you a racist so I have taken up the offer. You sound like a white supremacist and its worrying. Please. Get a grip.

There is no tradition of personal freedom in France. And not in most of the rest of Europe either. That has a lot to do with Protestant vs Catholic views of society. (And the U.S. goes full steam ahead to lose it, and I don’t mean Bush, it started centuries ago).

Once again, I will try to sound not too arrogant, but man, where have you got this information from? Never heard about the three words “egalité, liberté, fraternité”. French ‘philosophes’ like Montesqiueu and Voltaire CREATED the concept of individual freedom, whereas the British (Scots) like Hobbes have formed the Leviathan, based on a society where people give some of their power to a despot/king. The Protestants vs Catholic view is the Max weber-argument, but has nothing to do with individual freedom, but with capitalism. Ever read the book “Sophies World”? Look if you want to use philosophical arguments that’s quite dangerous, because you can’t simply compare them and call one better. Aufklarung has a different meaning in France, in the UK, in Germany and the rest of Europe. But France today is not the same anti-religious “rational prison” (Taine) it was 200 years ago.

Because they are setting the EU on a path leading to a new kind of feudalism.

A new kind of feudalism, great. Doesn’t that mean that there will be a weak central gov’t or no gov’t at all. Isn’t that the contrary of “evil powerful Brussels”?

Thirdly, your scenario is complete utter utter BS! I can forgive you your thoughts on the future, because this might actually happen (when pigs fly). However, your historical arguments are not even worth commenting on it, because books are written about it.

Reluctant to play with the rules? Thats rich coming from a Frenchman! 😮

Geforce you have changed your tune. Was it the knowledge that some people did not agree with your view on Europe that turned you against the British? Since when did you become a Eurosceptic? Try to be consistent, try to be fair and unbias and try to listen and take on board our hopes and fears for Europe because if you do not we can only assume that European, especially French intentions towards Britain (which judging by the last few posts and completely unprovoked are subtly hostile) are rather less than honourable. Its interesting that your hostility and distaste does not extend to Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc, why do you single out the British?

I have not changed my tune. In fact, I’m as pro-European as before, but I am sceptic towards the EU instititions itself, not the ultimate goal of trying to form a European confederation. So, for this reason, I think it would be better if the UK would drop out. It’s better to have a small EU than a large one which is not functioning because of veto’s. Either you join, and continue the project, or you drop out of it. AFAIK the British were there on the summit of Maastricht back in 1993 where the EU was created, not? It’s not like there was a “putsh” and now you are part of a Union you never wanted to be part of. If that is the case, there’s something fundementally wrong with your democracy. I’m just defending my point of view, I still like the UK as a country, and for the people, but maybe it’s better if we divorce in peace than continue with this sh!t. I’m not singling out the British in any cas (in fact I said So there’s no simple reason why Britain would be any different from the rest of the continent. but on this board, it’s mostly British who are bashing the EU. If any memberstate is against its will in the EU, I think it should drop out now.

And a EU-superstate :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I wish, to be honest, but I’m not so naive to believe in this. The EU currently is way too bureaucratic, and by chosing weak EU-commissioners, this ain’t gonna change in the near future. Belgium offered two fine candidates the past 10 years, but twice a British veto blocked our candidates because they were against the war in Iraq or some other case. As long as candidates for the highest posts are chosen not for their skills but because they can’t create any trouble (are weak) for the national gov’ts, the EU is going to stay an expensive economic boder-union.