[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 429058)
Message
File  []
close
File
removed
>> No. 429058 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 6:39 pm
429058 The absolute state of Britain
Why is Britain so heavily mocked by the internet, particularly the fringe right? Almost every right-leaning discussion space features torrents of comments all finding newer ways to attack Britain especially with regards to free speech and grooming gangs.

What do you suppose the problem could be? Are they all delusional or lying? Are they speaking uncomfortable truths?

(A good day to you Sir!)
Expand all images.
>> No. 429059 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 7:00 pm
429059 spacer
The Aut-Right and its like are primarily American. My completely unsourced gut-feeling would be that the UK is, and has been, heavily attacked by the likes of Fox News for years - bullshit stories about eskimoc Only Areas and the like. It's probably one of the only countries your average septic knows anything at all about, and it helps that we speak the same language.
>> No. 429060 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 7:49 pm
429060 spacer
Bloody jealous aren't they, that's why. They're all hiding their love for Britain behind the mockery.
>> No. 429061 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 7:55 pm
429061 spacer
I hadn't noticed to be honest, it's probably just who you spend time with.
>> No. 429062 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 8:13 pm
429062 spacer
On reflection, if Nazis are making fun of you then you're probably doing something right.
>> No. 429063 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 8:25 pm
429063 spacer
We exemplify three of the biggest issues in American politics - gun control, healthcare and eskimo immigration. We prove that it's possible to massively reduce the number of guns in society without causing a spike in crime. We prove that you can run a decent healthcare system on a shoestring budget if it's all nationalised. We prove that eskimo immigrants are mostly hard-working, law-abiding citizens and don't immediately bring about Sharia law as soon as they arrive. We do it all in the English language.

The alt-right have to attack us, because otherwise our mere existence demolishes some of their most important policy platforms. They have to pretend that our cities are warzones, otherwise they'd have no argument when the left say "if you get rid of the guns, fewer people die". They have to pretend that NHS death squads hunt downanyone who is deemed unfit to live, otherwise they'd have no argument when the left says "we could give everyone decent healthcare for less than we're paying now if the government got involved". They have to pretend that Birmingham is under the control of the Caliphate, otherwise they'd have no argument when the left says "eskimo immigrants aren't angels, but they're basically the same as anyone else and aren't worth worrying about".

That principle applies more generally, it's just most obvious in those cases. They don't need to attack other countries quite so much, because of the cultural isolationism of a lot of people on the American right - they won't read subtitles, they won't listen to anyone with a strange accent and frankly they don't care what happens in those funny foreign countries. Britain is too similar to the US to ignore, so they have to demonise us.

There's just enough of a kernel of truth for it to seem plausible to someone who doesn't know any Brits and has never spent time here. We've had a spike in stabbings in the last couple of years, taking our murder rate from "vastly lower than the US" to "still very much lower than the US", but someone who plays fast-and-loose with the facts can make it seem like you can't walk down the street in London without getting stabbed. The NHS is far from perfect, most of the problems it does face are due to recent underfunding, but you can show footage of patients waiting in corridors and make it seem like any government intervention in healthcare will immediately turn your hospitals into refugee camps. There are plenty of Christian grooming gangs (I'm looking at you, Pope Francis), there's no real evidence that eskimos are more carpet-baggery than the general population, but with a few horrific stories you can make it seem like Britain is besieged by eskimo rapists.
>> No. 429073 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 10:41 pm
429073 spacer
How the fuck did OP not get banned for his picture?

You have to be careful with standards. Once they slip, people will think that this sort of thing is tolerated here.
>> No. 429075 Anonymous ## Mod ##
22nd July 2019
Monday 11:55 pm
429075 spacer

serveimage.jpg
429075429075429075
>>429073
Done.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 429076 Anonymous
22nd July 2019
Monday 11:58 pm
429076 spacer
>>429075
Ban this filth.
>> No. 429080 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 12:37 am
429080 spacer
>>429058
I have the pleasure of dealing with American colleagues, most of whom are perfectly pleasant folks though one in particular, while not exactly alt-right, is veering in that direction. Free speech, policing and gun control occasionally comes up. "Policing by consent" an discretion seems to be an utterly foreign concept to him, he's convinced that wrong-think gets you arrested here on a daily basis and we are but lucky to not have been caught yet. He gloms onto occasional weird cases as if "Florida Man" represented all of the US. Guns in particular are a weird subject. Sure, I can't pop into Aldi and pick up a shotgun, but then I can be fair certain no cretin around here is carrying a gun. If I want something for plinking or recreational shooting I can get something suitable without hassle. And for more serious hunting, I could get an FAC weapon by being mildly sociable and generally sensible. You know, the kind of thing you'd want a gun owner to be anyway.

It's an odd mindset, but a bit like that strangely religious relative you just nod and smile and the world keeps turning.
>> No. 429081 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:06 am
429081 spacer
tfw britfag
>> No. 429082 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:15 am
429082 spacer
>>429063
I've never really encountered the argument that the freedom to own firearms reduces crime. It's something seen by supportive Americans as a fundamental right of citizenry that shouldn't be contingent on its social effects at all. If you want foreign examples for or against then you can look in many places: Switzerland for example had practically mandatory gun ownership for decades while having lower crime rates than America, and for that matter, us. You're far more likely to come across the argument that gun ownership increases your ability to defend yourself if you are unfortunate to be a victim of a violent burglary or mugging. If a group of men burst into my house at 3am I suppose I'd have to hope they were nice enough not to murder me while I rang the police. I can understand why Americans find this state of affairs unacceptable, even if I don't agree with the level of gun availability they have.

Opposition to public healthcare is peculiarity of American politics I've never truly understood. I don't believe it's solely an alt-right belief though - there are plenty of alt-right Europeans like Generation Identitaire who don't hold such views, and whose objections are likely of the bent that healthcare resources are being misallocated. On the point of Europe, I'd say Sweden is the bugbear of the alt-right more than Britain, although perhaps they react to us more due to the proliferation of our tabloid press and our shared language.

On the subject of our Eskimo population though, if you think anyone anywhere looks at Britain as a positive example of Inuit immigration then, well, I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you. Their employment and educational achievement rates are significantly below average. We spend hundreds of millions on a security apparatus preventing them from indiscriminately mass-murdering us in public places. We have hundreds of parallel religious courts for the arbitration of things such as divorce, which are blantantly whale poacheric, unfair, and opaque. Not to mention the social division, the lack of intermarrying due to their tribal and religious prejudices, the fact that they are massively overrepresented in our prisons and in statistics for severe birth deformities due to generations of marrying first cousins. And the little matter of the systematic sexual abuse of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of underage girls up and down the country, which we've found everywhere we've looked and which we apparently felt compelled to ignore out of fear of the kind of 'dolphin rape' we're so eager to prove we're growing out of. In fact if you could name a single positive influence on British culture this movement of people has had, just one, I'd be grateful. And you're not allowed to say curry.
>> No. 429083 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:19 am
429083 spacer
>>429082

Samosas.
>> No. 429084 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:32 am
429084 spacer
British right old media commentators, DESTROY American new media right commentators


>> No. 429086 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:42 am
429086 spacer
>>429080

I talked to a lad in the U.S. once, admittedly a white trash redneck, who probably wouldn't even have put his fist in your face for calling him such. Anyway, he said something to me like "When I hear on the news that you guys in Europe still have kings and queens, then I am glad I live in 'Merica, we have freedom and democracy here and we like it that way".

What do those people honestly think - that people get five lashes in the town square for criticising the Queen?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcJ-0bAHB4
>> No. 429088 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 2:45 am
429088 spacer
>>429082

There is definitely truth to what you said, and I largely agree with it, but you took a slight step too far into what is not the right attacking that which undermines their dogma but into what is the leftwing dogma. Specify your final point.

However you slice it the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was a fucking shit show, but what made it a shit show, was not the race of the background of the perpetrators, but the deliberate lack of response because of the background of the perpetrators, specifically the law not being applied impartially and turning a blind eye, that is the point that plays into the hands of the far right pundits for the reason that their behavior should have been treated as demonstrably wrong but wasn't.

From this it is very easy to build the narrative 'multiculturalism does not work and it is being covered up by the left because they are race traitors afraid of offending people'. Frankly stories like that prove every paranoid gay racist accusation true, and 'who knows what other ugly truths are being covered up and lied about just so people don't have to admit the failings of the multi-cultural rhetoric'. If a gang can get away with such horrific acts for 30 years, it is easy to paint the idea, paticularly to those who have no local exposure that there are small infractions covered over elsewhere single every day because why wouldn't you draw that conculsion?
>> No. 429089 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 4:14 am
429089 spacer
>>429084
Where did people get the idea that Ben Shapiro is alt-right? He's a garden variety Zionist neoconservative who likes to bait college-aged progressives.
>> No. 429090 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 5:42 am
429090 spacer
>>429089

Alt right is a term that has had very little and shifting meaning. It originally meant to the majority a younger conservative demographic so they were the millennial not sold on left wing values and had their own that weren't socially the same as the generation before. But the term has come to mean far right for a lot of people for two reasons. Firstly because the far right wants to rebrand itself and infiltrate any group that is vaguely sympathetic and tip them towards them. And secondly that there are left wing media groups particularly in America that want to label anything right wing as being secret nazis.

Ben Shapiro is alt right from when it was a vogue term. And baiting college age progressives was considered to be what being alt right mostly meant.
>> No. 429092 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 6:48 am
429092 spacer
>>429080
>he's convinced that wrong-think gets you arrested here on a daily basis and we are but lucky to not have been caught yet. He gloms onto occasional weird cases as if "Florida Man" represented all of the US

There's no delicate way to put this; a lot of Americans are incredibly ignorant and insular. When I've been over there I've been sincerely asked whether we still travel around on horses, convinced that we live in Ye Olde England.

Throw into this combination that the Daily Mail is incredibly popular with Seppos and you can understand why they end up with a very warped perception of this country, where extremities are given the impression of being commonplace. That said, Rotherham and the like was, and still is, a national disgrace.

Sage because we always fall for obvious bait threads.
>> No. 429096 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 12:32 pm
429096 spacer

Sense.jpg
429096429096429096
>>429063
Sense.

>>429080
>I want something for plinking or recreational shooting
Off topic perhaps but i've been wanting an air rifle or pistol for some time now, mainly for target shooting and the occasional rabbit, but i don't have permissioned access to farmlands and doubt i'll get any.
I read in some related gun laws that air rifles and pistols aren't considered firearms when under a certain pressure - I think it was 3 pounds for pistols and 6 rifles, but i might be wrong. I'm wondering if low powered rifles/pistols are simply those cheap BB guns you find in giftshops or if there are manufacturers of reasonably powerful rifles that don't have to be licensed? How would you even go about proving the pressure utilised by an air rifle when you're eventual arrest is inevitable?
>> No. 429097 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 12:38 pm
429097 spacer
>>429096

>How would you even go about proving the pressure utilised by an air rifle when you're eventual arrest is inevitable?

You get speed readers based on a combination of that and the mass of the projectile you can demonstrate the presure.
>> No. 429098 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:10 pm
429098 spacer
>>429090

All of these terms do. If you visit any of the political reddits or browse twitter for a bit, you'll see there's a very entrenched system of two competing circle jerks. One is "alt right" and the other is just "the left". Neither of them are really anything to do with their former identities- The alt right is all about white genocide and freedom of speech, and the left is all about destroying the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and trans rights.

It's a strange state of affairs, where someone merely identifying as either leftist or a right winger immediately brings with it this automatic landslide of assumption and baggage, and the quality of political discourse has gone through the floor. People are sliding into polarised groups, increasingly ignorant of what the opposite side actually thinks, and creating a cycle whereby they just give each other more fuel to dislike one another.

The weirdest thing about this modern political climate is that economics seem to be completely irrelevant. Being on the left or right is entirely about wether you believe in gay marriage or thing the paintings of slave owners should be taken down and so on, with the neo-liberal capitalist system we live under almost entirely taken for granted, an unchanging law of physics. The lefties only want to force more trans black disabled CEOs into corporations, and the right only wants to make sure immigrants stay in their own country. None of them question the system itself.
>> No. 429099 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:22 pm
429099 spacer
>>429096

The power limit is 6ft/lbs for pistols and 12ft/lbs for rifles. Anything below that limit is still legally a firearm and still needs to be handled responsibly, but you don't need a license to own or use one. There are plenty of high-quality air rifles available that are designed within those power limits, many of which are specifically designed for vermin control or target shooting.

The guns are calibrated at the factory to meet the power limit and will continue to do so throughout their working life unless you tinker with bits that you shouldn't. If your gun does require servicing, the muzzle energy will be tested by the gunsmith with a ballistic chronograph to ensure that it's still legal.

Home delivery of air guns was outlawed in 2006, so you'll need to visit a local registered firearms dealer to buy one. You do need to show ID when you purchase an airgun. You can buy and sell airguns privately, but I wouldn't recommend it for a first gun on the off chance that you end up with a dud.

A basic kit with an air rifle and scope will cost you about £200 new, or as little as £100 second-hand. A tin of 500 pellets costs about £10. Competition-grade target rifles start at about £1000 new. Cheaper air rifles are either spring powered (which require cocking after every shot) or CO2 powered (which use disposable gas capsules); more expensive rifles are powered by compressed air and refilled with a pump or SCUBA cylinder.

Wherever you're shooting, be mindful of where your pellets might end up. You're breaking the law if the pellets cross the boundary, pellets can cause serious injury at distances of up to 50 metres and an airgun pellet will easily rip through a wooden fence. Airguns being transported in any public place must be unloaded and kept in a secure bag or case.

If you're in any way unsure about your legal rights and obligations, ask at your local registered firearms dealer. If you have an interest in competitive shooting or need help finding land to shoot on, I'd suggest contacting your local airgun club.
>> No. 429100 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 1:50 pm
429100 spacer
>>429099
Minor addendum: home delivery wasn’t outlawed explicitly. Transactions have to be face to face, so some RFDs will home deliver and do the paperwork etc on your doorstep.

I would still thoroughly recommend going to a physical store so you can handle a few guns and get a feel for what you like, e.g. different stock options or what kind of optic you get on with.
>> No. 429101 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 2:31 pm
429101 spacer
>>429082
Switzerland is an interesting case. Contrary to popular belief, it does have fairly strict laws on gun ownership. The key difference between the US and Switzerland is that many of the guns in Switzerland come from the tradition that someone passing out of national service gets to keep the gun they were issued, which has the consequence that almost everyone who owns a gun there will have been properly and thoroughly trained in how to use and handle it.
>> No. 429102 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 6:33 pm
429102 spacer
>>429101

Switzerland is a good example of how to do gun ownership right, at least if you believe that gun ownership ought to be a wider and more fundamental right than it is here. Because in principle I do believe that free citizens of sound mind should have the right to possess a means of self-defence, and in the implausible scenario of a dictatorial, oppressive government, an ability to resist it accordingly. I won't drag up that Orwell quote I'm sure you've all seen but I do agree with it.

I just don't have faith that we'd do it at all well here, and our instinct to ban dangerous things would soon flare up after another Dunblane. Guns should be restricted to those of good mental health, and with clean criminal records and sufficient training - I could easily see it becoming a class issue amongst the myriad other problems. If national service was reinstated it could be contingent on completion of that. I'm just thinking out loud now, there's no national appetite for this issue at all anyway.
>> No. 429103 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 7:27 pm
429103 spacer
>>429102

I don't think that we have much of an appetite for relaxing our gun laws, nor do I think that the Americans would be happy with "everyone has a gun, but it's government property".

As the author of >>429099, I don't have many qualms with our gun laws, which are less restrictive than most people might think. The handgun ban was a genuine shitter and I don't see why there couldn't be an exception for single-shot smallbore competition guns, but otherwise our laws aren't much of an encumbrance for responsible shooters. Nobody can honestly claim that there's a legitimate sporting use for an AR-15 or a Glock, but they present a horrendous risk of misuse.
>> No. 429104 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 9:47 pm
429104 spacer
>>429103

The weird thing about American gun culture is that it's very much an enthusiast hobby in the same way as cars or bikes over here.

You could say there's no legitimate road transport use for a Lamborghini but people have them and take them to shows and so on, it's sort of the same in America with an AR-15. It's the AMERICAN gun that the AMERICAN army uses and turning up to the range with one gets a lot of middle aged nerds chatting to you like you do if you turn up to a car show with a 1960s Jeep you've kept running.

The thing about gun laws here is that they're not really as restrictive as most would think, but you do have to jump through a lot of hoops. We'd never be able to develop the same level of gun craziness they have anyway- Nobody here has a garden big enough to play with real guns unless they're part of the aristocracy anyway.

In fact I'm fairly sure it's technically illegal to use your air rifle in most English gardens- There's something about having to be at least 18 metres from a road or public pathway is there not?
>> No. 429105 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 9:54 pm
429105 spacer
>>429104

>The thing about gun laws here is that they're not really as restrictive as most would think, but you do have to jump through a lot of hoops. We'd never be able to develop the same level of gun craziness they have anyway- Nobody here has a garden big enough to play with real guns unless they're part of the aristocracy anyway.

I think this is a crucial point people tend to miss in the US vs UK gun stuff, we simply don't have the space for widespread gun hobbyship here,that and the fact it's hammered into them as an immutable freedom of being An American. I own guns and have shot for a long time, but as you rightly say, it's only really because my grandparents happened to own an ex-farm with an acre or two that I could ever really get 'into' it.

>In fact I'm fairly sure it's technically illegal to use your air rifle in most English gardens- There's something about having to be at least 18 metres from a road or public pathway is there not?

This is also true, but for proper plinky air rifles it's more of a guidance than a law, that is, don't shoot your neighbours cat and you'll never be called out for it. Having said that, I can't imagine it being very fun to shoot cans in your 3x3 metre yard anyway.
>> No. 429106 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:00 pm
429106 spacer
I think it's because we are laughable tbh.

- Pride in Britain is screamed down by rampant far-lefties
- Saying the UK is inherently evil/racist/sexist/shit is seen as the normal, cool thing to do
- In school you're only ever taught about the evil things britain did (I remember in year 8 we spent a whole year covering the empires misdeeds in India, China and South Africa)
- Multiculturalism is hailed as this massively great thing whilst british identity is seen as kind of shit at best, demonized at worst
- White guys are literally satan
- Can't take care of our own yet we have tens of thousands more coming in
- Yobbish and vile behavior isn't dealt with and the police are viewed as weak, understaffed and outgunned
- politically we're at our weakest ever, we're filled to the gills with dipshit Etonians who don't give a toss about the people, just the money

We're literally Sweden lads.
>> No. 429107 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:01 pm
429107 spacer
>>429103
That's a bit harsh. Going off into the weeds a bit, but an AR-15 with a Grendel 6.5 upper is a perfectly servicable hunting rifle, for example, though it obviously only exists because an AR-15 is already a commonly available rifle in the first place (in the US).
>> No. 429108 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:07 pm
429108 spacer
>>429106
Typical snowflake
>> No. 429109 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:09 pm
429109 spacer
>>429108
And just what about my post says snowflake to you? Can you deny any of it? What do you mean by snowflake? Cmon lad sit up and speak your mind. I'm dying to hear it.
>> No. 429110 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:19 pm
429110 spacer
>>429109

TROLLED TO TEARS
>> No. 429111 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:22 pm
429111 spacer
>>429104

>In fact I'm fairly sure it's technically illegal to use your air rifle in most English gardens- There's something about having to be at least 18 metres from a road or public pathway is there not?

It's an offence to shoot within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if someone is endangered or injured. Most people with a decent-sized garden could do a bit of plinking perfectly safely and legally.

>Nobody here has a garden big enough to play with real guns unless they're part of the aristocracy anyway.

There are loads of clubs with their own ranges and loads of farmers who are happy to let someone do free pest control on their land. I live in a perfectly normal suburb, but within easy travel distance there are two gun clubs with rifle ranges, two field target clubs with full 40-lane courses and a clay pigeon club. Shooting carries the image of toffs on a country estate, but it's not difficult for a small club to raise the funds to buy a boggy field or a bit of woodland.
>> No. 429112 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:27 pm
429112 spacer
>>429107

An AR-15 will obviously work as a hunting rifle, but you don't need a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine to bag a deer. A bolt-action rifle will do the job perfectly well, while posing a far smaller risk of misuse.
>> No. 429113 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:36 pm
429113 spacer
>>429112
I completely agree! I was trying to forestall the "but actually" arguments, over here where by far the most common quarry is either flying or fox and smaller it would be ludicrous.
>> No. 429115 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 10:52 pm
429115 spacer
>>429113

I'd fucking love to shoot clay pigeons with an AR-15, mind.
>> No. 429117 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 11:06 pm
429117 spacer

1513929741396.png
429117429117429117
>>429110
Now now, you're embarrassing yourself lad. Settle down and read your Guardian. The mean internet man wont make you explain your gay little buzzwords and make you feel silly.
>> No. 429118 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 11:17 pm
429118 spacer
>>429117

Oh my god, please stop posting like this or leave. I can't even be arsed to ban you, just go.
>> No. 429119 Anonymous
23rd July 2019
Tuesday 11:18 pm
429119 spacer
>>429109
>And just what about my post says snowflake to you?
All the being upset and whinging about things.
>Can you deny any of it?
Yes.
>What do you mean by snowflake?
A person who is easily upset and does all the whinging.
>Cmon lad sit up and speak your mind. I'm dying to hear it.
Oh wow condescension you're so clever.
- Pride in Britain is screamed down by rampant far-lefties
National pride is a laughable thing, not people making fun of it.
- Saying the UK is inherently evil/racist/sexist/shit is seen as the normal, cool thing to do
The UK has done and continues to do atrocious things.
- In school you're only ever taught about the evil things britain did (I remember in year 8 we spent a whole year covering the empires misdeeds in India, China and South Africa)
That's entirely subjective. All I remember covering was how we won WWII and invented the industrial revolution.
- Multiculturalism is hailed as this massively great thing whilst british identity is seen as kind of shit at best, demonized at worst
This is all perfectly fine.
- White guys are literally satan
Old white guys are. You know, the establishment dipshit Etonians.
- Can't take care of our own yet we have tens of thousands more coming in
I don't think alt-right people give a shit that we can't take care of our own.
- Yobbish and vile behavior isn't dealt with and the police are viewed as weak, understaffed and outgunned
Yes to a degree but it's not like many people actually live in fear of organised gangs such as in the US.
- politically we're at our weakest ever, we're filled to the gills with dipshit Etonians who don't give a toss about the people, just the money
Yes okay.
>> No. 429132 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 1:20 pm
429132 spacer
>>429118

I enjoy the complete lack of self awareness in their image choice.

If I could go a bit tin foil for a second. People on image boards don't talk like this anymore and they certainly don't use memes from 11 years ago.

This is psyops because people were considering allowing greentext to show what 'this image board would be like if we lowered our standards.

You basically got Roman soldiers to dress up like barbarians and attack the peaceful fringe states of the empire to remind people to pay their tithes.

WATCHED OVER BY MODS OF LOVE AND GRACE.
>> No. 429133 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 2:29 pm
429133 spacer
>>429119

I enjoyed how you forgot to greentext mid-post.
>> No. 429134 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 2:38 pm
429134 spacer
>>429133

There were already dashes, didn't see the need.
>> No. 429136 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 5:09 pm
429136 spacer
>>429075>>429076

DEMOCRACY MANIFEST
>> No. 429137 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 5:09 pm
429137 spacer
>>429132

>If I could go a bit tin foil for a second. People on image boards don't talk like this anymore and they certainly don't use memes from 11 years ago. 

Ignorance is bliss.
>> No. 429151 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 11:35 pm
429151 spacer

trap.jpg
429151429151429151
>>429099
> Wherever you're shooting, be mindful of where your pellets might end up. You're breaking the law if the pellets cross the boundary, pellets can cause serious injury at distances of up to 50 metres and an airgun pellet will easily rip through a wooden fence. Airguns being transported in any public place must be unloaded and kept in a secure bag or case.

And keep your pellets away from the weapon. There should be no chance of mistaking your weapon as "ready to fire", so keep your gun in the boot of your car and the pellets in the glove box for example. Gun cases and bags often have little compartments, use them for paper work, your silicone cloth or whatever but never for pellets; it just avoids hassle.

As other lad already explained, you can shoot where you like with permission as long as you're safe. Safe means you need a backstop. Pellets love to bounce so your backstop needs to be either soft enough to catch them or designed to trap them (a "pellet trap"). Plumber's putty (plumber's mait) works well as long as you smooth it over every now and then, pic attached has eaten around 5000 flat head pellets (I fish out the inevitable larger clusters when doing genuine target shooting every now and then). It's 6x6", 4.5" deep roughly, cost about a tenner to make and hasn't missed a beat. It's relatively quiet to boot. You'll need a much larger stop behind this to catch the occasional flyer or when you miss because you sneezed at just the wrong time. This still shouldn't bounce, so either thick and soft or hard but brittle (like a brick wall).
>> No. 429152 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 11:41 pm
429152 spacer
>>429151
And if you're not sure if your gun is loaded, always check by safely looking down the barrel.
>> No. 429154 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 11:48 pm
429154 spacer
>>429152
You should always look down the barrel and pull the trigger to ensure it will fire as expected.
>> No. 429155 Anonymous
24th July 2019
Wednesday 11:57 pm
429155 spacer
>>429151

>pic attached has eaten around 5000 flat head pellets

Why are you wearing gloves?
>> No. 429158 Anonymous
25th July 2019
Thursday 2:05 am
429158 spacer
>>429154

Not sure how to embed with the timestamp.

https://youtu.be/WR1r_85bOZU?t=3m6s
>> No. 429174 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 1:33 am
429174 spacer
>Are they all delusional or lying?
There's definitely a degree of cognitive dissonance involved in many of their complaints. Both left AND right-wing circles in different places will admonish the UK for many of the same things, whether it's to do with our past or our present. I've seen these garden-variety Neo-Nazis use liberal videos to explain why we were wrong for fighting in WWI, as if we were the only contender against the Central Powers and were deliberately trying to prevent some sort of magical, perfect version of history that was undoubtedly going to happen (because if there's any one man that I could see leading Europe into a new age of glory, it's Kaiser Wilhelm II).

I find the criticism rather tiring, because many of these people don't really know much about the UK despite all the Wikipedia articles they've read convincing them that they do. This thinking isn't restricted to Americans. Half of them couldn't name more than two English cities without looking it up, and their complaints are all most likely issues plaguing their own countries to some degree. If you want to complain about us, that's absolutely fair, but maintain your own back garden, first.

Incidentally, to perhaps take a slightly hyperbolic shot at them, I think there's something quite sociopathic or at the very least, unhealthily misanthropic to have ENTIRE folders saved that are solely dedicated to how much you hate the UK. I just can't imagine being so childish and obsessive that you'd compile such a thing.
>> No. 429175 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 6:20 am
429175 spacer

StickyPuttyGloves.jpg
429175429175429175
>>429155
To keep fingerprints off the gun.
So I don't touch too much lead and can clean up the putty without getting my hands dirty. Before, hands after, after.
>> No. 429179 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 11:13 am
429179 spacer

71P1FbKkLzL.jpg
429179429179429179
>>429175

Or you could just buy a steel pellet trap for about a tenner.
>> No. 429181 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 12:01 pm
429181 spacer
>>429175

You have obviously never gone fishing.

Despite the ban on lead sinkers, you still see fellow anglers using split-shot lead beads and handling them with their bare hands. And if you go surf or rock fishing in the sea, larger dipsey sinkers between 3 and 5 ounces made of lead are still the standard, which you also handle with your bare hands.

Not saying you shouldn't wear gloves like in your picture, just that elf and safety may have gone a little bit to your head. Are you also the kind of person who puts on safety goggles to open a champagne bottle?


Can't say I've warmed up to the new alternatives to lead sinkers though. There are tungsten/steel alloy sinkers, and although they have an even higher density in g/m³ than lead, they can cost up to five times more. You do go through your share of sinkers everytime you go fishing when you hit a snag, so when a solid lead 4oz dipsey costs 80p and a tungsten alloy dipsey of the same weight is over £2.50, the cost kind of adds up over time.
>> No. 429189 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 7:14 pm
429189 spacer
>>429181

>Not saying you shouldn't wear gloves like in your picture, just that elf and safety may have gone a little bit to your head.

Not them but lead is one of the most toxic substances you will come across in your normal life. It has no safe exposer level.

The reason it has no safe exposer level is that it never leaves your body it builds up over a life time until it kills you.
>> No. 429190 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 7:18 pm
429190 spacer
>>429189
Exposure not exposer but otherwise good post.
>> No. 429191 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 7:20 pm
429191 spacer
>>429189
This is why it's best to avoid getting shot by lead bullets.
>> No. 429192 Anonymous
26th July 2019
Friday 7:20 pm
429192 spacer
>>429179
I prefer the ᵗʰʷᶦᵖ from mine over the 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚 from those.
>> No. 429199 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 12:55 am
429199 spacer
>>429189

>The reason it has no safe exposer level is that it never leaves your body it builds up over a life time until it kills you.

If you sprinkle it on your Frosties every morning, yes.

Very occasional skin contact with lead pellets or fishing line sinkers - most definitely not.

I personally know 70-year-olds who have been fishing with lead sinkers all their lives and are as fit as a fiddle, for their age anyway.

Easy on all the alarmism, lad.
>> No. 429210 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 12:08 pm
429210 spacer
>>429199

>I personally know 70-year-olds who have been fishing with lead sinkers all their lives and are as fit as a fiddle, for their age anyway.

You surely know how stupid that logic is right? 'I know a man who is 90 who has smoked every day if his life' therefore smoking is harmless.


>Easy on all the alarmism, lad.

I did nothing of the sort. I told you the medical fact, that lead is considered to have no safe exposure level because the body can't ever get rid of it so it builds up. As opposed to say arsenic where I could have a small amount every day and have it never be a problem.

If you consider facts alarmist you might want to evaluate why you think that.
>> No. 429212 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 12:41 pm
429212 spacer
>>429210

>You surely know how stupid that logic is right? 'I know a man who is 90 who has smoked every day if his life' therefore smoking is harmless.

Nonsense. It's statistically documented that one in two long-term smokers will die from the health effects of their habit/addiction. And yes, everybody knows that one uncle who smoked like a chimney and outlived everybody else. And most people also know that those statistical outliers are no reason to believe that you have similar chances if you keep smoking all your life.

But I have honestly never heard of even a single person who died from handling lead sinkers all their life.

That still doesn't mean lead is safe to sprinkle on your cereal or that tungsten alloy sinkers, if reasonably priced, aren't an alternative worth adopting. But you have to have some perspective.

I would personally switch to tungsten dipsey weights for my sea fishing if they weren't so expensive. As I said, a 4 oz solid lead dipsey is around 80p, whereas tungsten dipseys of similar weight are £2.50 and more. I'm reluctant to spend 30 quid on a ten pack of tungsten dipseys when I go on a weekend fishing trip, when the same quantity of lead dipseys can be had for under a tenner.
>> No. 429213 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 12:43 pm
429213 spacer
>>429210

Another medical fact is that metallic lead is not absorbed through the skin. As long as you wash your hands afterwards to prevent ingestion, handling metallic lead with bare hands is perfectly safe.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg305.pdf

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l132.pdf
>> No. 429215 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 12:58 pm
429215 spacer
>>429212
>But I have honestly never heard of even a single person who died from handling lead sinkers all their life.
The symptoms of lead poisoning are not dissimilar to the symptoms of dementia.
>> No. 429216 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 1:22 pm
429216 spacer
>>429212

Well lead kills about half a million people a year globally which I'll grant you is small compared to tobaccos 7 million so 1/14 of the one of the most notorious killers, with the key difference that no one is pumping lead into their lungs where as people go out their way to for tobacco.


>But I have honestly never heard of even a single person who died from handling lead sinkers all their life.

You are missing the point it isn't just the lead sinker the point is it is every place that you have ever been exposed to lead ever, you might be young enough for it to have never been an issue, but it wasn't that long ago it was coming out of the back of every car, painted on the walls of your house, and in toys. It is certainly recent enough that there are people who that lead sinker might be the tipping point after a life time of exposure.

>>429213

I don't know about perfectly safe, I would be quite cautious about using it in the process of catching something I was planning on eating, I realize it isn't supposed to end up in the fish, but fish are really stupid so who knows.
>> No. 429217 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 1:48 pm
429217 spacer
>>429216

> but it wasn't that long ago it was coming out of the back of every car, painted on the walls of your house, and in toys

But that's again the point. Lead was emitted into the environment that way in quite large quantities. To the point that correlations have been proven between the growth of car traffic in the U.S. between the 1950s and 1970s and an increase in juvenile delinquency from the 70s to 90s as a consequence of young peoples' nervous systems being exposed to lead from petrol and car exausts when they were growing up as children.

Again, as a weekend angler occasionally handling lead sinkers with your bare hands, your lifetime intake dose should be orders of magnitude below what teenagers in the U.S. were routinely exposed to if they walked a quarter mile along a busy city street every other day.

You are missing the point that I am not arguing against the toxicity of lead. It's pretty toxic as it goes. But it's a matter of degree, as with any poison.
>> No. 429219 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 2:35 pm
429219 spacer
>>429217

>Again, as a weekend angler occasionally handling lead sinkers with your bare hands, your lifetime intake dose should be orders of magnitude below what teenagers in the U.S. were routinely exposed to if they walked a quarter mile along a busy city street every other day.

Then it is a good thing people who angle now are not a completely seperate subset of humanity from the people who were alive from the 70s to the 90s otherwise we might have a problem.

>But it's a matter of degree, as with any poison.

They you still haven't understood the concept of 'no safe level of exposure'. There is no tolerance, there is no resistance there is no building up an immunity, there is no flushing out the toxins there is just lead building up from multiple sources over a life time and killing you decades later.
>> No. 429220 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 2:46 pm
429220 spacer
>>429217

>But that's again the point. Lead was emitted into the environment that way in quite large quantities. To the point that correlations have been proven between the growth of car traffic in the U.S. between the 1950s and 1970s and an increase in juvenile delinquency from the 70s to 90s as a consequence of young peoples' nervous systems being exposed to lead from petrol and car exausts when they were growing up as children.

All of the lead from cars was alkyl lead, which is by far the most bioavailable (and therefore dangerous) form of lead. Lead paint is mostly lead carbonate, which isn't far behind.

Table salt is sodium chloride. Chlorine gas will turn your lungs into bovril, sodium metal spontaneously combusts in water, but sodium chloride is a tasty seasoning. Many lead compounds are extremely toxic, lead vapour is extremely toxic, but solid metallic lead is perfectly safe unless you eat it.
>> No. 429221 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 3:14 pm
429221 spacer
>>429219

>They you still haven't understood the concept of 'no safe level of exposure'. There is no tolerance, there is no resistance there is no building up an immunity, there is no flushing out the toxins there is just lead building up from multiple sources over a life time and killing you decades later.

OMFG ehmygerd we're all going to die!


You're worse than that chap in the queue behind me at the supermarket till one time, while I was aimlessly swiping things on my smartphone. He told me to "please point my radiation device the other way" so he would not be harmed by the chemtrails electromagnetic waves coming from my phone.

I'd hate to have to tell you all the different things that accumulate in your body over time and largely stay there. For starters, have a look at autopsy pictures comparing the lungs of a lifelong (non-smoking) city dweller to those of a villager. Or give both of them a hearing test.

Honestly lad, have a think.
>> No. 429222 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 3:50 pm
429222 spacer
>>429220

>Lead paint is mostly lead carbonate, which isn't far behind. 

I remenber hearing about a mysterious case where a little girl nearly died from lead poisoning and where doctors had no clue at first what could have caused such a massive lead buildup in her tiny body.

Until somebody noticed the white paint chipping off their front porch in little flakes and put two and two together because that was apparently the girl's favourite spot of the house. The weathered white paint was found to contain copious amounts of lead pigment, which used to be in many white paints due to its brightness.

The problem was that apparently, many lead compounds like that have a sweet taste. Like lead acetate which was used to sweeten wine for some time. So the little girl probably thought nothing of it and picked the flakes of lead paint off the sides of the porch and ate them.

They were able to save the poor little girl, if just barely.
>> No. 429223 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:12 pm
429223 spacer
I had a feeling anglers were all cunts. Looks like my suspicions were correct.
>> No. 429224 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:23 pm
429224 spacer
>>429223

Anglers now and then think the same of non-anglers.
>> No. 429225 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:39 pm
429225 spacer
>>429224
Don't take the bait, lad.
>> No. 429226 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:53 pm
429226 spacer
>>429225

Water under the bridge.

I'm shit at context-appropriate puns.
>> No. 429227 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:54 pm
429227 spacer
>>429226

You could use some better lines.
>> No. 429228 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 4:58 pm
429228 spacer
>>429227
Now you're just fishing for responses.
>> No. 429229 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 5:00 pm
429229 spacer
>>429228
Still reeled you in, hook, line and sinker.
>> No. 429230 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 7:50 pm
429230 spacer
>>429229

You must be such a catch.
>> No. 429234 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 8:39 pm
429234 spacer
>>429230

I'm taken but don't worry, plenty more fish in the sea.
>> No. 429235 Anonymous
27th July 2019
Saturday 8:56 pm
429235 spacer
>>429234

As long as I don't have to sail the Red Sea.
>> No. 429440 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 1:08 am
429440 spacer

a prefix without a suffix.png
429440429440429440
Can someone explain the sudden popularity of this weird, grammatically odd shorthand that's more-often than not used as a disparaging term? It popped up out of nowhere a few years ago and it normally seems to be used by weirdos with a major bag of spuds. Haven't seen anybody calling the French 'Francos', yet.
>> No. 429442 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 6:22 am
429442 spacer
>>429440
I think it was to do with the Anglosphere, but then I kept seeing Anglo posted with a picture of Oswald Mosley. I don't know, I don't pay too much attention to these things so I could be way off the mark.
>> No. 429443 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 11:09 am
429443 spacer
>>429440

I've seen that (and Anglo-Saxon) used as a more specific way to criticise white people. I think the idea is that most white people in the US (and other anglophone countries) are assumed to be of Anglo-Saxon origin.

I assume it's used as a way to target insults more specifically to white people. It avoids lumping people of other white European backgrounds (for example, Irish) into the same category.

Boringly, it's used by left and right wing nut-jobs alike- talk of 'Anglo enthostates' and the like.
>> No. 429448 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 1:10 pm
429448 spacer

anglos.png
429448429448429448
>>429442

Certain foreigners insist that Brits and Americans of Anglo-Saxon background are responsible for the world as it is right now. As in, a world where the Nazis didn't win, which the teenlads over at the Other Place largely regard as a bad thing. Some of the Brits seem to revel in the reputation of 'Anglos' as sneaky, dastardly types with beady eyes.
>> No. 429449 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 1:16 pm
429449 spacer
>>429448

>Certain foreigners insist that Brits and Americans of Anglo-Saxon background are responsible for the world as it is right now.

Proof that foreigners are thick as shit. Look at the state of Britain and America, we couldn't organise a fucking meat raffle, let alone a global hegemony.
>> No. 429453 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 1:34 pm
429453 spacer
LGBTQ+?
We have our own identity, thank you.
>> No. 429473 Anonymous
10th August 2019
Saturday 7:34 pm
429473 spacer
>>429453

Yep, you're generally known as the mentally ill
>> No. 429476 Anonymous
11th August 2019
Sunday 12:30 pm
429476 spacer
>>429443

>I've seen that (and Anglo-Saxon) used as a more specific way to criticise white people. I think the idea is that most white people in the US (and other anglophone countries) are assumed to be of Anglo-Saxon origin.

You kind of have to say yes and no. European Anglo-Saxons make up a large part of the ancestry of modern-day Americans, but they are not really the overwhelming majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Americans#Ancestral_origins

It gets more complicated when you factor in that the Anglo-Saxons were actually originally German and hailed from Saxony in central Germany and Anglia in the extreme north of Germany. Angles had predominantly reddish blonde hair, distinct from Celts who were mainly ginger and Vikings who were more light blonde. Examples of clear Anglian genetic heritage are/were people like Roger Moore or Paul Gascoigne.

Maybe not that relevant these days, as the Angles and Saxons left Germany in the 400s to 600s AD to settle in Britain. But I like to share all the useless trivia knowledge in my head any chance I get.
>> No. 429477 Anonymous
11th August 2019
Sunday 1:01 pm
429477 spacer
>>429476
What hair did the Saxons have?
>> No. 429480 Anonymous
11th August 2019
Sunday 1:37 pm
429480 spacer
>>429477
From what I see these days it would have been mostly window's peaks.
>> No. 429482 Anonymous
11th August 2019
Sunday 4:51 pm
429482 spacer

UDR037_saxon_battering_ram_nibbs_A_72dpi.jpg
429482429482429482
>>429480

Nibbs Carter still has a magnificent mane.
>> No. 429483 Anonymous
11th August 2019
Sunday 5:25 pm
429483 spacer
>>429482

He looks like personal hygiene isn't one of his top priorities.
>> No. 429510 Anonymous
13th August 2019
Tuesday 4:52 am
429510 spacer
>>429448
This is largely how I see it used, too. The thing is, many of them don't mean to use it jokingly, these people use the term disparagingly. It's got this odd ethnic punch to it. We're not just English, we're ANGLOS. Calling us English (or even Anglo-Saxon, by that measure) is too good for us, we're ANGLOS, and that has this inherently negative connotation to it. Nobody in these circles calls Germans 'Teutons' or French 'Francos', though.

I'm probably raving, but I've seen the term a fair amount and I'm always mystified by it.
>> No. 429511 Anonymous
13th August 2019
Tuesday 6:47 am
429511 spacer
>>429510
There's a reason Britain is known as 'Perfidious Albion'. For example, with the recent tensions in the Gulf many people here don't seem to grasp why the Iranians do not trust us.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7268665/JACK-STRAW-Iran-never-trust-Britons.html
>> No. 429512 Anonymous
13th August 2019
Tuesday 10:09 am
429512 spacer
>>429480

>Widow's peaks

FIFY, Illiterate Lad
>> No. 429513 Anonymous
13th August 2019
Tuesday 10:12 am
429513 spacer
>>429512
I'm not illiterate, whatever that is, I'm just stupid.
>> No. 429514 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 9:35 am
429514 spacer
>>429510

It's like calling Russians and Eastern Europeans "slavs".

It's definitely something that has been encouraged by the Kremlin's internet team, much like a lot of alt-right and otherchan /pol/ nonsense.

The weird thing is I actually vastly prefer the idea of the internet being full of Russian/Chinese psyop propaganda than American.
>> No. 429516 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 11:29 am
429516 spacer
>>429514

On the other hand, that idea predates today's world by over a century. Pan-Slavism as an ideology that seeks to unite all Slavic peoples first developed in the mid-19th century, and Joseph Stalin was later certainly one of its most fervent proponents, as he brought all Slavic nations under his rule in the post-WWII USSR and Communist Bloc.

It's really not inaccurate though to stress the common cultural and linguistic heritage of many Eastern European countries.
>> No. 429517 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 12:17 pm
429517 spacer
>>429514
> The weird thing is I actually vastly prefer the idea of the internet being full of Russian/Chinese psyop propaganda than American.

But why?
>> No. 429519 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 12:51 pm
429519 spacer
>>429517

Sometimes you just want to eat something different.
>> No. 429533 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 7:55 pm
429533 spacer
>>429516

Well, yes, but so does this particular incarnation of the word "Anglo". Most of the people who use it, in the modern weird internet politicised context, don't have the foggiest what an Anglo-Saxon is.

They do however know what the "Anglosphere" is. So they call English speaking westerners, generally the USA and Commonwealth, the descendants of the British empire, "Anglos".
>> No. 429534 Anonymous
14th August 2019
Wednesday 9:20 pm
429534 spacer
>>429533

>Most of the people who use it, in the modern weird internet politicised context, don't have the foggiest what an Anglo-Saxon is

To be fair, the term goes back to two obscure early-mediaeval German tribal kingdoms whose inhabitants decided to emigrate to Britain. You can't expect the average alt-right neckbeard to know what he's talking about when he uses the term Anglo-Saxon.
>> No. 429714 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 3:32 pm
429714 spacer

schizophrenia.png
429714429714429714
>>429511
This article's rather disingenuous and there's a lot I could easily comment on regarding Iran, but it's really got nothing to do with the thread. What I will say is that these people who I'm speaking of are largely very childish and misanthropic, and you're giving them far too much credit if you believe their odd complaints just stem from some methodical, unbiased recognition of the evils of Britain's past.
>> No. 429717 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 3:54 pm
429717 spacer
>>429534
Really, you'd expect people so concerned with European history to know better. I once saw a lad refer to Saxons as 'Anglos' in the context of the programme 'The Last Kingdom', which is primarily about Wessex. I can't even wrap my head around what he thought any of these words meant.
>> No. 429724 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 4:55 pm
429724 spacer
>>429717

It's the same with all those "Mediaeval" lads and lasses who like to dress up in fancy mock-mediaeval clothing, buy £200 swords online and drink mead from oxhorns and teach themselves Old English via youtube. I remember reading a piece a while ago in the Guardian or somewhere similar where a professor of mediaeval history said that most of those people wouldn't survive a week in mediaeval Britain despite all the things they think they know about mediaeval culture.
>> No. 429727 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 6:58 pm
429727 spacer
>>429717
>people so concerned with European history

Going off on a tangent here, but it's just dawned on me that my knowledge of Continental European history is piss poor.

Romans
???
???
???
Moors invade Spain
Conquistadors
Napoleon
French Revolution
The odd bit of empire and colonialism
World Wars
Soviet Union

That's about it. I don't even know whether that's in the right order.
>> No. 429733 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 8:55 pm
429733 spacer
>>429727

I'd fill in your ??? with post-Roman decline, Atilla, and Charlemagne.

There's got to be something important between Conquistadors and Napoleon, but I think it was mostly just the early days of colonialism, flintlocks and pirates and all that. Dutch East India company getting big. Nothing much kicking off on the continent because it was all about dying of dysentery in parts of America and the tropics people had reached and then got stuck.

You've also got Napoleon and the French Revolution mixed up. There was a few years of Les Miserables, then all the beheading and "Let them eat cake", then Napoleon basically seized control after the third or fourth stab at a republic fell apart.

Tie it all together with looking at the spread and influence of Christianity and you've got it just about covered I suppose.

I find it particularly interesting how the church basically occupied a sort of primitive EU/UN kind of position in the days before parliamentary governments started to develop and no longer needed it as much as a source of control. The opiate of the masses indeed.
>> No. 429743 Anonymous
20th August 2019
Tuesday 11:55 pm
429743 spacer
>>429733

To go off into a deep end, It's worth noting that there is evidence that the British Isles were first populated by paleolithic humans as early as the Eemian interglacial period, which was around 130,000 years ago.

There was a land bridge between mainland Europe and Britain which spanned all of the southern North Sea. The northern part of it was called Doggerland, the southern part was what is today the English Channel, and was probably washed away within a very short time by melting glacial water at the end of the last Ice Age. Both before and for some time after the last Ice Age which lasted from around 115,000 to 12,000 b.p., you could simply walk into Britain from the European mainland (a thought that must give BNP supporters cold sweats at night to this day). Rising sea levels following continued glacier melting then covered Doggerland under around 30 to 50 metres of water, but artefacts of Doggerlanders who lived there are still regularly found in fishing nets today.

Anyway, at the end of the Eemian interglacial, the advancing ice sheets of the last ice age that lasted made Britain vanish under several kilometres of ice one again. European human populations were pushed as far back as central France and southern Germany.
>> No. 429750 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 11:39 am
429750 spacer
>>429727
>Napoleon
>French Revolution

Napoleon is either post, during, or is, the french revolution depending on how you look at it.

>>429733

Attila is a bit less of a big deal then you would think. The Huns as a group were a big deal (mostly for their indirect affects on the roman empire by prompting others to run away into conqueroring roman territory. Attila is mostly remembered because a western Roman, lets call her princess, decided to play damsel in distress to him and he took is as a sign of her marriage and demanded half the Roman empire as his dowery to which he was prompt told and then made to fuck off.

The issue is very little is known about the huns in any detail so it is really that Attila is the one that banged heads with the Romans who we know a great deal about that he is the one that is thought of.

>>429727>>429733

You've both left out the reformation the renaissance and the elightenment/industrial revolution which are huge deals I am sure you both know about but didn't think of.
>> No. 429752 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 1:07 pm
429752 spacer
>>429750

Oh yeah, we did miss that.

I'd argue it fits in with my generalisation about the 15/1600s though. Renaissance was a cultural movement of that time.
>> No. 429754 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 1:17 pm
429754 spacer
>>429750
Wasn't the industrial revolution more of a British-led thing? I'm probably incredibly ignorant here.

I genuinely don't think I could tell you anything that happened in Germany between the Romans and the 20th century, apart from Martin Luther King and the odd composer. The same for Italy, apart from the likes of Galileo and the odd painter. Nevermind the smaller nations.
>> No. 429756 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 2:11 pm
429756 spacer
>>429754

>I genuinely don't think I could tell you anything that happened in Germany between the Romans and the 20th century, apart from Martin Luther King and the odd composer


Germany had a very chequered history even before the 20th century. It's really fascinating when you read about it, because for much of the second millennium AD, it consisted of a multitude of small kingdoms, duchies, and counties which together made up the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, but were very distinct from each other and each had their own aristocratic rulers, which were also frequently at war with each other, such as during the Thirty Years' War in the 1600s. This German system of regional rivalry was called Kleinstaaterei, literally "smallstatery". The aristocratic regional rulers and their families had absolute power over their subjects, and it was not uncommon for them to own entire towns or villages and everything in them. Unlike the eventually emerging British system of constitutional monarchy, Germany held on to that kind of post-mediaeval feudal system much longer than most other European nations, until its class of aristocracy and nobility formally lost all its privileges for good in 1919 following Germany's WWI defeat, after which Germany became a constitutional democracy for the first time in its history. This long adherence to quasi-feudalism is also cited as one reason why Germany was a bit late to the party with industrialisation, as many of its citizens lived in agricultural serfdom to a local lord far longer than people in Britain, often into the early 1800s. There was no social mobility, and for a long time, as a serf, you effectively had to have permission from your lord to even travel outside the land that he owned.

In Britain, on the other hand, geographical and social mobility emerged much sooner, which counts as one reason why industrialisation was able to take hold by the mid-1800s, because the masses of labour that you needed for industrial manufacturing were much more readily available.
>> No. 429757 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 2:17 pm
429757 spacer
>>429754
>Wasn't the industrial revolution more of a British-led thing? I'm probably incredibly ignorant here.

It most certainly was, but a British lead part of wider European history.

There are times in history where the great cultural shifts are really lead by one nation the 18th and 19th shifts are that time for Britain.

>I genuinely don't think I could tell you anything that happened in Germany between the Romans and the 20th century

It gets a bit fuzzy as 'Germany' is a modern concept

The Holy Roman Empire is obviously a big deal and they were as into the crusades as we were. The Teutonic kinghts and Prussia were a significant player in their history but they were more heavily focused in what is now Poland and Lithuania.


speaking of the Baltic states one of the other key events that you've all missed was the Battle of Vienna which represents the high point and beginning of collapse of the Ottoman Empire essentially it was the key make or break stand for the Holy Roman Empire, which is noted for when Polish winged hussars arrived halfway though and attacked the Ottomans from the rear with the sun behind them which is where the charge at helms deep is believed to be based on in Lord of the Rings.


>> No. 429759 Anonymous
21st August 2019
Wednesday 2:43 pm
429759 spacer
>>429757

>It gets a bit fuzzy as 'Germany' is a modern concept

That's certainly true. As I said, there was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation on the one hand, and all the regional rulers ultimately had to answer to the German Emperor, but the people and those regional rulers didn't consider themselves German, at least not as much as they saw themselves as Prussian, Hessian, or Bavarian. In its own way it was probably similar to the Scottish or Welsh today insisting on their own identity, but if you follow historical accounts, it was still much stronger than that in Germany.

It wasn't until the revolution of the late 1840s in Germany that the idea of a truly unified, as well as democratic Germany began to take hold, propagated mainly by young university students, as well as artists, authors and novelists of the German Romantic movement. The German Revolution of 1848 which embodied these ideals ultimately failed and the old powers were reinstated, but following the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71, Germany was finally unified as such for the first time, with Berlin as the capital. Which was no accident, because even within the new German Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia was the dominant force. Germany itself wasn't just turned into one homogenous territory in 1871, and still remained divided up into regional kingdoms, but the German emperor had much greater power over them than previously.
>> No. 430167 Anonymous
4th September 2019
Wednesday 5:55 am
430167 spacer
>>429759
The main thing that's worth knowing about the continent in much more recent history is what occurred in 1870. The Franco-Prussian war shifted the continental balance of power from France, to Germany, and this had truly profound effects. France had been in hot water for a while and Bismarck took advantage of France's obvious internal strife so as to attempt a unification of the Germanic peoples. Britain was certainly powerful, but we've rarely ever had any true aspirations for holding land on the continent, and France had stopped all that after Napoleon; which was why Britain and France were finally able to put to rest their ancient bugbears (well, on the battlefield, at least).

In my opinion, the conditions that set the stage of WWI, WWII and the eventual rise of America as the world's dominant power truly began with the Franco-Prussian war. The timeline of it is almost immediate. Germany went from a power that was almost deleted by Napoleon, to one suddenly capable of matching France, Britain, Austria, Russia, what have you in industrial and military might. And the French were mighty pissed off over the Franco-Prussian war...

I'm not making any moral judgements, I frankly get annoyed when people start getting all moral over the colonial era (this kind of moralising is very common on certain places I'm sure I don't need to name); but it IS interesting from a purely historical standpoint. The world certainly wouldn't look the same if France had actually beaten back the Germans (and perhaps, hypothetically, there'd have been no world wars).
>> No. 430318 Anonymous
7th September 2019
Saturday 4:39 pm
430318 spacer
>>430167

>The Franco-Prussian war shifted the continental balance of power from France, to Germany, and this had truly profound effects

France never really recovered after the demise of Napoleon's leadership. The Napoleonic Wars not only weakened France due to the internal power vacuum that ensued when he was gone, but also, the emerging powers of nationalist Germany and Austro-Hungaria certainly didn't make things on the Continent much easier for the French. The defeat in the Franco-Prussian War 1871 was then not really a shock to anyone in that respect, but certainly cemented what was going to be a crucial point in the already steady decline of France's dominance over Europe, which lasted into the early 20th century and at least until Germany was defeated in WWI.


>The world certainly wouldn't look the same if France had actually beaten back the Germans (and perhaps, hypothetically, there'd have been no world wars

There were always struggles for dominance over continental Europe, and if Germany had been defeated in the Franco-Prussian War, maybe France itself would have started a multi-national conflict of its own, perhaps instigated by radical forces wanting to reinstate quasi-Napoleonic rule over Europe. Somebody would have started a war sooner or later either way.

WWII also probably would have happened anyway, with or without Hitler at the helm. Germany was one of the world's hardest hit countries by the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression, because foreign investment and loans from American banks were really the crucial backbone in allowing Germany to prosper in the 1920s. Once all those banks and investment firms had taken a beating when financial markets fell off a cliff around 1929-1930, it spelled vast unemployment for Germans, more so than for most other European countries. And radicals, any radical, will always have the easiest time getting the masses behind them when those masses are down and out of a job. If it hadn't been for Hitler, then very likely it would not have meant that Germany wasn't in danger of being taken over by other like-minded radical reactionary forces. Who at some point probably would have tried to restore Germany's former hegemonial power in just the same way. Maybe without killing six million Jews and dreaming of Lebensraum in Russia, because that was mainly Hitler's hobby horse, but still, a war was likely either way.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password