Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 91 to 104 of 104

Thread: Brits Out!

  1. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    On the most important and relevant issues, i support Marine Le Pen views:

    - Profound reform of the EU
    - Reform of immigration laws
    - Reform of the Schengen Space's function
    - Protection of national social values and characteristics

    What we nowadays have in the European Union it's simply unsustainable and unacceptbale. Otherwise, Western Europe's societies and economies may collapse. So, on that point, i agree with what Marine Le Pen identifies as the most urgent issues to be solved. I just don't know if she will take it too far, and put in motion a politic that goes behond the current needs. But she seems to be more reasonable, more clairvoyant, more balanced than Jean Marie Le Pen, her father. By now, i believe that Marine Le Pen as Presidente of France could be a very good thing not only for France, but for Europe. She could influence european governments in order for them to put in motion the transformations in the EU, and to reorganize and give a better function to their own countries.

  2. #92
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    i agree with what Marine Le Pen identifies as the most urgent issues to be solved.
    The most important issue for Western Europe is their loss of cultural identity and national pride. 'Multiculturalism' (which in ALL cases of its implementation means fewer white people, and absolutely nothing else) has to be killed brutally, and it has to happen right now. I'll vote for and support any party, no matter how extreme, which has this as its primary or core motivation.
    Last edited by Clopin; 02-20-2017 at 01:48 PM.
    So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether

  3. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin View Post
    The most important issue for Western Europe is their loss of cultural identity and national pride. 'Multiculturalism' (which in ALL cases of its implementation means fewer white people, and absolutely nothing else) has to be killed brutally, and it has to happen right now. I'll vote for and support any party, no matter how extreme, which has this as its primary or core motivation.
    As i said, national characteristics and values. Something that the left and globalization enthusiastics have been trying to destroy in the last 25 years.

  4. #94
    Registered User Emil Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Lendo View Post
    As i said, national characteristics and values. Something that the left and globalization enthusiastics have been trying to destroy in the last 25 years.
    The rot set in almost immediately after 1945 and has continued since .
    You might care to read my novel Pro Bono Publico which exemplifies the destructiveness of 'liberal democracy' to a traditional society and the cause of its disintegration.
    You can google it for a synopsis.
    "L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.

    "Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.

  5. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    The reason why i determined a time line of 25 years was because i was talking about the EU process only. Worldwide, yes, this globalization politic started after 1945, with the afirmation of the US as the main super power in Western World and the deeper and deeper division between West and East; what the United States did was a intense, effective but dangerous (for the other countries) politic of acculturation of the Western world, including Europe, which was by definition the most preponderant cultural continent in the all world. American way of life, american music, american cinema, american TV, american clothes, american food... the US started to exporte his culture as a way to impose a mindset and a philosophy threw out Western Europe.

    Which is quite surreal if, as i said earlier, we have in mind that before the Second World War the United States was still considered a undeveloped country in terms of social system and in terms of culture. Nobody would even consider the United States in the matters of culture, whether we talk about cinema, painting, literature, whatever. The cultural capitals of the world were Paris, London, Viena. Not New York or Chicago. The United States were, in 1939, seen as today we see countries like Brasil or China: a big and growing economy, but a country with a lot to develope.

    And with the fall of the Soviet Union and the "liberalization" of China that acculturation politic by the US was extended to the entire world, completely. The areas of influence of the other countries were completely broken, and the american life style got to countries like China itself, Eastern Europe countries like Poland and Czech Republic, and even to Latin American countries that were under socialist influence, like Colombia or Bolivia. In fact, the way the americans extended their cultural, political and economical influence to the entire globe is the main reason why Putin adopted such an agressive strategy concerning Eastern Europe affairs: Russia feels that the americans are literally surrounding them, estableshing new areas of influence around Russia, in what was before the primary and natural russian area of influence. Not only Russia is losing the influence in it's region, but the United States is replacing Russia in those countries as the super power who influences the political, economical and social system. Putin is now reacting like regional super powers usually react when another super power enter's their area. With the "extra" that Putin know's that Europe is not in the condition (politically and economicly) to militarly protect any Eastern country, and that Russia is an absolute militarly super power.
    Last edited by Lendo; Yesterday at 05:17 AM.

  6. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A rural part of Sweden, southern Norrland
    Posts
    1,782
    I've been a member of Nej till EU for many years now. I get its Kritiska EU-fakta, and campaign for Swexit. I am also in the British Bruges Group, http://www.brugesgroup.com/, though only receiving updates from them. Recruiting Ukraine to the EU was a major misjudgement, so much of Ukraine is Russia-speaking, most especially the two far eastern provinces, together called the Donbas.

    it is an ironic fact that the EU recruitment of Ukraine is the main reason why we are in a new Cold War. The real reason for this is that the EU wanted to give the USA the base at Sevastopol, but Russia took it back after the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko who is still President except that he has fled to Russia. He was primarily elected for his friendly stance towards Russia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine). Its for this reason that Russia sees the present government of Ukraine as a Junta. In addition, the EU has a considerable democratic deficit in its organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...European_Union.

  7. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    Let's not forget that the respect for the russian area of influence was one of the garanties that the americans gave to Russia for a peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, while Russia commited to respect the independence of several states like Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia. Not only their independence, but also the right to keep some infrastructure and weaponry. This was the main basis of the political process lead by Ieltsin and some other european members: the Soviet Union would disappear, Russia would recognize the right to independence to many territories, but it would maintain a self area of influence, free of american and western european interference.

    Since 2004 alone, 9 countries from Eastern Europe joined OTAN. The US even planned to install cruiser-missiles in Poland. Nowadays, the US has missiles in Eastern Europe that could hit Saint Petersburg and the entire West region of Russia. Not no mention the permanent fleat and troops on South Korea and Japan, that have also the capacity to take action in the East russian coast. This can't be considered respecting russian space, i believe.
    Last edited by Lendo; 02-22-2017 at 01:53 PM.

  8. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A rural part of Sweden, southern Norrland
    Posts
    1,782
    Several good points there, Lendo.

  9. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamwoven View Post
    Several good points there, Lendo.
    Thank you.

    By the way, since you're from Sweden, i would like you to clear something for me: concerning to what Trump said about Sweden, that something happened in the country, in some countries was printed that indeed was a problem in a swedish city, a conflict between the police and the residents of a neighborhood of muslim immigrants, and that Trump was probably talking about it, and not inventing an attack. Did it happen?

  10. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A rural part of Sweden, southern Norrland
    Posts
    1,782
    The trouble is that Trump didn't complete the sentence, he went off onto something else. In Malmö there have been criminal gangs that have been killing members of each other. He got it from a Fox News item, so it is something of the media twisting facts. There is no "conflict between the police and the residents of a neighbourhood of muslim immigrants." The police try to find who killed whom and why, to bring them to justice.

    I don't know what Fox News is like but it is a far right media, is all I know about it.

  11. #101
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    lol there's an entire wikipedia article for "grenade attacks in Sweden" (what?), the vast majority of which have occurred in Malmo.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...acks_in_Sweden

    Gotta love that diversity.
    So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether

  12. #102
    Registered User Emil Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Lendo View Post
    The reason why i determined a time line of 25 years was because i was talking about the EU process only. Worldwide, yes, this globalization politic started after 1945, with the afirmation of the US as the main super power in Western World and the deeper and deeper division between West and East; what the United States did was a intense, effective but dangerous (for the other countries) politic of acculturation of the Western world, including Europe, which was by definition the most preponderant cultural continent in the all world. American way of life, american music, american cinema, american TV, american clothes, american food... the US started to exporte his culture as a way to impose a mindset and a philosophy threw out Western Europe.

    .
    I don't think the U S deliberately set out to establish its culture in the West post- 1945,
    and, in any case, it's a sub- culture that, while through it renowned education system
    has produced many scientific advances , its ethos is still that of the petit -bourgeoisie.
    In short, it's a country long on cleverness but, due to its relative lack of experience, is lacking in wisdom.
    Last edited by Emil Miller; Yesterday at 11:20 AM.
    "L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.

    "Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.

  13. #103
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    8,298
    Blog Entries
    2
    I kind of agree with the "long on cleverness" but "lacking in wisdom" view of the US. I can't say I'm an exception to that.

    Regarding when modern globalization started, I think the seeds go back a few centuries and it started in Europe. Of course, the EU's origin and problems are more recent. A lot of good came from those centuries. I am glad to have washing machines and computers, but its excesses will get a correction whether we like it or not.

  14. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Emil Miller View Post
    I don't think the U S deliberately set out to establish its culture in the West post- 1945,
    and, in any case, it's a sub- culture that, while through it renowned education system
    has produced many scientific advances , its ethos is still that of the petit -bourgeoisie.
    In short, it's a country long on cleverness but, due to its relative lack of experience, is lacking in wisdom.
    I don't have a single doubt that the US deliberately set in motion a globalization process with a final goal of political and economical influence or dominance over many countries. More than not having a single doubt, it was americans leaders who stated that goal very clearly. Speaches, oficial memos, oficial plans, memorirs of american politians make very clear that the United States deliberately promoted their culture, economy and political elements in a clear plan of influence and control countries and continental politics. The post-1945 american politic for South America and for Africa it's very clear on that: the US promoted revolutions, coup d'etats and political conspiracies with the single purpose of politically controling many countries, and to have clear way for american companies to establish themselves in those countries, either exploring resources (oil, gas, gold, etc.) or having the monopoly of certain sectors of the economy. In the book "Engaging Africa", Whitney Schnneidman (who colaborated with american presidents Clinton and Obama) clearly explained how the US set in motion many revolutions and political conspiracies in order for politians and revolutionaries with ties or controlled by the US get to power. It's nowadays public how the US financed many guerrilla and terrorist groups in Africa for them to get to power and open the door for US companies in their countries.

    More than that, in Europe the US explicitly adopted a politic of persuasion and recruitment of countries to it's group of allies. And that politic of persuasion was based mostly in the exportation of american culture: music, cinema, clothes, american lifestyle, etc. Culture and economy were american weapons in a clear american politic for Europe of promotion of the american values and gathering european political support, in an effort for european countries not to succumb to the communist and soviet appeal. Because the soviets also tried to persuade Western Europe to join their political values, their political beliefs and social system, specially with the difusion of the works of communist philosophers and authors, suck as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Babeuf, etc. and the movies of soviet directors like Eisenstein. Plus, the work done by communist parties threw out all Europe, specially in France and Italy, where the communists reached considerable levels of political influence.
    Plan Marshall and the OTAN were two major economic and political weapons of american propaganda, while the Soviets had the Warsow Pact (their version of OTAN) and COMECON (their version of Plan Marshall).

    It's as simple as this: both the US and the URSS knew that they were the two super powers in the world at that moment (post-war), and they knew that they would be in the position for expand their influence, their global preponderance and their values. And they tried as hard as they could to gain influence in every continent in the world. The americans were specially well succeded in Western Europe, while URSS was well succeded in South America and some regions of Africa. China, naturally, garanteed some influence in some asian countries, like Vietname, Laos, Camboja and North Korea.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Similar Threads

  1. One For the Brits
    By Veho in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 07:47 PM
  2. Vernacular quiz for non brits.
    By MANICHAEAN in forum General Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-20-2010, 05:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •