- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3730 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
65 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 429058
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!)
|>>|| No. 429219
>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
>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
>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
>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
I had a feeling anglers were all cunts. Looks like my suspicions were correct.
|>>|| No. 429440
a prefix without a suffix.png
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
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
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
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
>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. 429476
>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.
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. 429510
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. 429514
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
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
> The weird thing is I actually vastly prefer the idea of the internet being full of Russian/Chinese psyop propaganda than American.
|>>|| No. 429533
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
>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
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
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
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
>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.
Moors invade Spain
The odd bit of empire and colonialism
That's about it. I don't even know whether that's in the right order.
|>>|| No. 429733
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
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
Napoleon is either post, during, or is, the french revolution depending on how you look at it.
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.
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
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
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
>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
>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
>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
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
>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 ]