Anyone else want to see him slap all that meat in between two buns @5:15? MMmmmnnnnggggthbthbthb...

Either way, I guess they were running out of ideas when they included the "English" version. I don't think England has any seasoning to speak of.

"English Pub"? Never had a steak seasoned that way in any English pub I've been to. And I live in England and go to the pub all the time. Bouillon powder on a steak? Yerch.

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.

Yay, all the way.

But better prepare the strategic popcorn reserve. If they truly pull it off, the British establishment will go into full-blown scorched earth mode, the Belgian and Spanish establishments will shit themselves -- and the average schmuck will get it up the ass.

Whatever the majority vote for, it's going to get ugly.

Economically, it'd be really counter-productive for them to leave.

They currently receive more in revenue that they pay in taxes and receive more generous social programs than England. Like mentioned, they'll get full control over their oil reserves just as output begins to decline. Also their banking sector (relative to their economy/tax take) is huge and will have to shrink as investors will see it as a risk and divest otherwise.

They'll most likely retain the pound as the currency by default (at least in the short term), but lose control over interest rates. If the economy sours they will have the same problem that indebted Mediterranean countries had, in that all the pressure will fall on wages and job cuts rather than being eased by lower rates or currency depreciation. If they join the euro, they will of course have same issue.

Speaking of which, an interesting point is that with a large liberal wing of the UK leaving, this will strengthen conservative arguments to leave the EU.

Gun control worked fairly well in Australia, no? For law abiding and not, and enforcers too. In England too, where it DID mean 'disarming' the average cop (not all cops, they do still have guns, they just don't wear them on a daily basis for normal contact with the public, so they have far fewer officer involved shootings). Enforced gun control would mean disarming anyone found with an illegal gun, not the law abiding, not just minorities.
As said above, about 90% of Americans said they favor some type of gun control. Gun control does not mean gun eradication, just as car control (speed limits and other laws of the road) does not mean car eradication. Duh, I'm so sick of that insanely wrong 'argument'.
Federal law 'nullified by the states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies"?!? Wow.
Are you even American, because you have absolutely 0 grasp of the American governmental system (evidenced by your stated position that voting is worse than useless, and you've indicated the same about voicing your opinion to your 'representatives'..."useless". ?!?).
In America, the Fed can't be over-ridden or 'nullified' by the states, it's pretty clear, cut, and dry. It's certainly been tried, but never successfully, because our law says the Fed trumps all other government and they have the national guard and army backing them up. For instance, many states have 'legalized' marijuana, but no where is it actually legal because it's still federally illegal, they simply aren't prosecuting people for small amounts normally...but they are still prosecuting larger marijuana cases and seizing money and property, even where it's 'legal' because the state 'nullified the federal law'. Another good example (better actually) is ending school segregation. How did 'nullification' work out for those states that ignored/contradicted/'nullified' the fed? I'll answer for you...Not so good.
Please take a civics class, or be prepared to be contradicted at every turn until you get how the system is designed and operates.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

I don't think she/he's trolling - i think she/he's an idiot. It reminds me of that picture i see around - "hurrr durrr i'm a idiot!" "go away idiot" "joke's on them, it was all a ruse!" ... In other words, if it looks and sounds like an idiot then it's an idiot, even if it's intentionally being one.

The only possible explanation is that she/he is some kind of innovative anti-troll that states the best possible argument for the worst possible opinion - worst as rated on a scale of how damaging and unfair it is to society; religion, the environment, equality - all videos that she/he has been spouting the most abominable shite about within the last week alone! She/He sets up the perfect bad argument for someone to come along and blow it up point by point, all of which she/he pointedly ignores. Everyone who reads past comes to understand the argument, see that one side makes sense and is rational, and comes to the correct conclusion.

In which case i hope you'll all join me in a great big thanks for her/his contributions to highlighting the plight of the boot-trodden minorities. You never fail to set up the perfect knock down for anyone who has any kind of reasoned understanding of anything you post about. Back in the 00s here in England we all thought Dom Joly and Sascha Baron Cohen were crazy fools, but they were 10 years ahead of their time. And now Zach Galifianakis is standing on the shoulders of giants. Great work, @lantern53.

Likewise in England.

All hail Her Grace, Elizabeth of House Windsor, second of Her Name, Queen of England and the First Men, Lady of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm!

Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't red flag the event until they could remove him.

The description was along these lines btw:

Jack Cottle, 21, was driving his girlfriend's white Volkswagen car and managed to sneak onto the Brands Hatch Circuit in England, where racing was taking place. Jack succeeded in avoiding the security at the stands, entering the track and competing with the real competitors. His girlfriend is terrified and asked him several times to stop, while a friend filmed the scene from the rear of the vehicle. Police arrested Jack following the release of this video, he was released on bail and faces a heavy fine. The participants of the race want compensation for their position on the podium has been greatly marred by the arrival of this competitor. The fine could be up to € 130,000.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'PSA, England' to 'PSA, England, Violence, Man, Woman, Unequal Reaction' - edited by littledragon_79

And in the same breath you could say that rampant military conquest created the modern world and drove scientific advances etc, but while the Muslims were pottering around the the Middle East, Spain/England/France etc were plundering the entire world. Lead by militants and the religious. Oh gee...

Your conclusion that the majority of Muslim's is as factually bankrupt as the assertion that "playing video games makes people violent". Millions of people are Muslims, but extremist attacks are relatively minor on the grand scale of things. Your casual causality is not born out by what actually happens in the real world.

i am usually pretty perceptive and pick up small details that many may deem innocuous and irrelevant,it fuels my intuition.which i have learned to trust over the years.....and it has served me well.

maybe it is the poet in me.i see/absorb everything.

wish i could head to england to hang out with you and your family..that would be a hoot!
have a feeling we would get along fabulously.

stay awesome rae!