Goodbye forever

Scotland will try climbing over the wall soon. We love you EU!!

'@Cinnamongirl23' Yes! Do it!! Leave the Britain and join in EU. Just to give extra nut-kick join the Nordic council too. :yes:

@real-cool-cat or just build the Wall around London, call that Britain (call the rest of it Greater Britain) and then stay in the EU

@CaptainBritain that's a little mean to just about the only area of England that wanted to stay

'@DalRiata' then keep the wall, let London stay in EU, everyone else leaves. Seems obvious.

@comrade_Comrade #9583203 But Scotland wants to stay too And Northern Ireland I think, but they already have the sea to use as a wall so they're lucky

'@Zeust' I think there is a joke about Brits wanting to have a referendum on whether they want to keep Scotland or not. Same could be said about Northern Ireland.

@CaptainBritain And make someone else pay for the wall as they do in the US.

@real-cool-cat yes would love to! If only. It's the principle of being globally aware and accepting of everyone at the end of the day.

@Cinnamongirl23 I promise I'll be there for the after party.

@Cinnamongirl23

We love you too Scotland, you're the best! Just go ahead and dump that twat of a southern spouse of yours. We'll gladly take you back.

@Cinnamongirl23 If you had to join a nordic counrty instead, wich would you join? Norway does have a lot of money.

@Rogers good question. I love Norway. But I think Scandinavia would still consider Scotland too conservative to join, despite we are more socialist than some of our neighbours.

@Cinnamongirl23 How ironic it would be if Scotland got their independence from the UK only to immediately surrender it to Brussels.

@Lambert2191 as much as I want to, I doubt we will get independence from the UK.

@Cinnamongirl23 good.

@Lambert2191 it's not but each to their own.

@Cinnamongirl23 See if you can refurbish Hadrian's Wall a bit. That will keep England out!

@ImportViking haha I can imagine the Unionists response if our Scottish government funded that. You only need to disagree slightly and they get so angry and fling personal insults like confetti.

England wants to be its own country again, but makes it clear that it is not the enemy of the other nations on the continent and hopes for friendly relations. It would be extremely stupid if the EU tries to punish England as the UK can do find without it and it will be like throwing gasoline on the fire of nationalism.
For the people of France I hope for a Marine Le Pen victory, hopefully a Frexit will be enough to convince even our dull politicians that it is time for us to leave. A Kalmar 2.0 union would be better for us.

@rphb It's not like the EU forced you to join. This isn't like the 100+ times you've invaded other countries to try and colonize them. In fact, quite the opposite. You applied to join.

@Leviathantamer We didn't vote to join either. We voted to join the EEC, which was all about trade and the economy. If it had stayed that way, we wouldn't see a reason to leave. It didn't however, and turned into a political union of which we never signed up for. So I'm sorry, but you are very, VERY mistaken. Also very rich of a yank to call out another country for invading someone ;)

@Lambert2191 What can I say? We're just living up to the standard that Britain set. I'm not a Hypocrite, we've done some bad shit. Doesn't excuse either of what our countries have done. It still stands that there are only 22 countries in the modern world that Britain hasn't tried to invade or colonize.

I mean can you imagine just how much happier India would've been if they knew you could just get rid of the British by having them vote to leave?

@Leviathantamer You do realize that historically in every situation where colonization has happened the home country lost more money, goods, and human capital then gained back from their colonies. Sure the traders, merchants, banks and transporters made a large profit but the governments and countries themselves that funded the development never obtained enough profit to actually make it worth the colonization.

The Fact is Countries like Canada, India, and Australia would not be where they are today it wasn't for British colonization. This is coming for an American fyi.

@Leviathantamer Actually, that doesn't still stand. I know of which picture you are referring and it has been debunked so thoroughly that I didn't think anyone still took it seriously. It coloured in red countries that we had never invaded, but apparently because they are affiliated with a country we had, that makes us bad... regardless, we have a 1000 year history, more if you want to count the Anglo Saxons, and in that time, warfare was normal. War was the natural state of things. Times have changed, and you cannot judge the past by the standards of the present... and while Britain is a lot better now, America is still a warmonger

'@Leviathantamer' Denmark invaded and colonised other countries? No, we were way to busy fighting an endless war with Sweden over Scandinavian dominance to participate in the colonization race.

But for these nations that did, such as England and later the United Kingdom, they were motivated by the mission to civilise and the white man's burden, they brought benefits to the countries they colonized, they helped them immeasurably.

@rphb
"But for these nations that did, such as England and later the United Kingdom, they were motivated by the mission to civilise and the white man's burden, they brought benefits to the countries they colonized, they helped them immeasurably."

If you forget all the horrible shit they put those colonized countries through, lots of which is still affecting those former colonies today in pretty fucking bad ways, then yes, they sure helped those countries that were doing pretty fine for themselves before Europeans came along.

Also, you forgot the part about "taking all their money, land and natural resources for themselves" as well as "giant Pan-European dick-measuring contest" from the motivations for colonization.

'@Vilkku92' If thou art in the mood look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGERS905pPk

But the difference between us is that I am not looking that the colonialism from behind the rose coloured linces of Social Justice Warriors professors. From India, to Africa and the New World the European presense improved the conditions of the local population and made them richer. They made everyone richer, first and foremost themselves of course, but everyone got richer as a result, that is the thing about capitalism, it is better for everyone, not just the few on top.
The hunt for resources meant increased trade, increased production, increased development.

But the Europeans didn't just came as capitalist, they also came as Christians, which means that they came with a genuine desire to help, to civilise.
The term "the white man's burden" is not ironic, it refers to the notion that it is the burden of the white man, to civilise the rest of humanity, to help them out of barbarism and savage.
If thou think that slavery and cannibalism is good, then thou can claim that it would have been better to leave them to their own devises, but if thou art against these things, thou hast to admit that I am right.

The thing is as a Christian, I am concerned about Good and Evil. Socialist are only concerned about power, because they don't believe in God, they don't believe in Objective morality.
Power comes in many forms, class struggle, gender struggle, race struggle, real or imagined the sympathy always falls on the less powerful group, irregardless of who is right, of who is just. Because for a socialist, justice don't exist, only power exist, and everything is a power struggle.

@rphb
And why exactly does all of this require colonies? Couldn't the same have been achieved through trade, exchange, missionaries and other means which do not require bringing in a bunch of guns and soldiers, killing everyone who opposes you until there is no one left willing to oppose you and then forcing the rest to do your bidding. Japan sure seems to be doing fine for themselves and they were never colonized.

This is probably a good time to point out that the arrival of Europeans did not, in fact, stop slavery. In fact, one could argue it increased slavery, what with the Europeans first enslaving the American Indians and then shipping millions of Africans to the new world as slaves. Were the Africans practicing slavery themselves? Sure, but the Europeans did not do anything to stop them until the mid-1800s, and the African slave trade from 1500s onward - along with all the related wars in the area - sure were stimulated by the massive increase in demand of slaves by the Europeans. Not that Europe was any kind of peaceful utopia itself at this time.

Not that Christianity was all about peace, harmony and civilization at the time of colonialism or before, either. 1500s to late 1600s, after all, saw war after war being fought by Christians against other Christians on the pretext of those Christians being the wrong kind of Christians. Catholic against Protestant, Orthodox against Catholic and Protestant against Orthodox were major divides in Europe at the time and blood was shed over this. Now, one could argue that all of this bloodshed merely used religion as an excuse in a struggle for power, but that exact same argument can be made for the role of religion in colonization.

Oh, and I am not sure why you had to bring socialism into the mix. Perhaps you saw my comment as being somehow inherently leftist in its view of colonialism? I can assure you that many non-socialist people, myself included, do in fact hold these view. Furthermore I never said anything about capitalism in my previous comment either, as far as I can remember. Why exactly are you bringing all of this up?


P.S. Thou should not use antiquated grammar in thine comments.

'@Vilkku92' The colonies were needed in order to have direct control over critical resources, which is important is one wants an independent strategic defence strategy.
Japan does well because they are a High IQ country.
A High general IQ is a purely racial trait. The Far eastern and the western Europeans have the highest average general intelligence.
And Japan was very much in favour of colonisation until they were defeated in WWII and had to abandon their dream of an independent strategic defence policy. They were trying to colonise all of the Pacific's region, and without the Christian humanist dimension this naturally lead to a more bloody end.

Kings and emperors always wants power, but Christianity constrains what is permissible, because it have a moral base that is not derived from power itself.
That is also why socialism is so dangerous, because it is an ideology that reject Christ, and thereby only accept power as a source to Morality.

@rphb
Ah yes, I should have known I am speaking with a racist. Got it, there is no more point in talking, neither of us is going to change their views, our premises are too far apart. Still can't understand where you got the idea of bringing socialism into the mix but fine.

'@Vilkku92' Doth thou dispute the science, or art thy objection solely based on ideological conviction?
I know racism is a thoughtcrime, but as George Orwell said: "In an empire of lies telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

@rphb
I do not dispute the science, I merely believe the science you rely on is faulty and discredited, but I also know you are not going to agree with me on that matter and I don't have the time or the energy to go looking for citations for my claims and/or against your claims over an internet argument.

Also I was merely matter-of-factly stating the fact that you are, by several definitions of the word including the original ones, a racist. After all, you said "A High general IQ a purely racial trait," which is, in fact, a racist statement as it implies belief in inherent differences in the mental faculties of people of different races.

Unless, of course, you are an ACTUAL troll, which I guess is not impossible. Damn Poe's law...

'@Vilkku92' I think the science behind IQ is pretty conclusive, just look at one of the many famous twin experiments, where biological identical twins were separated at birth and had different upbringing. Their adult intelligence is always almost identical.
Or as I said, look at the effort the former colonial masters from Europe put into educating the local population. Take India for instance, a country that had long benefited from being under British rule. The institutions that the British left behind are in shambles.
Or South Africa, the most painful example, that is going the way of Zimbabwe.

The most intelligent and best of Negroes in the world are the ones that live in the United States. They are better of because it is a primarily white country, and thereby can benefit from white rule.
They have an average of 5 point higher IQ then their African cousins, and the explanations from that vary from culture having a minor effect to simple interbreeding.

Try to think logically for a moment, can thou think of any reason, why people, that have developed under vastly different geographical environment still somehow ends up exactly the same when we don't see that anywhere else in nature.
And I am not saying that Negroes are racially inferior in every way, they have adapted to their environment and are better at surviving in it then we are. I cannot run after a gazelle until it collapses from exhaustion like they can, and we use that physical superiority in all sorts of professional sport.

The reason why Nordics and Han Chinese have so high an IQ compared to the rest of the human races is because they developed in an environment where long time planning was critical for survival.

@rphb You really aren't making the argument you think you are.

'@Hyporia' Refresh my memory then, what is wrong with it

@rphb The Reason the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans are smarter than americans is not the fact that they are asian it's because they have a superior education system than to American and European nations. If Asians were simply more intelegent as a race how come the Philipines rates 65th in education while the US rates 27th.

'@Hyporia' Thou make a valid point questioning my conclusion of causality, because correlation does not equal causation.
The first answer to why the Philippines rank so much lower then the Chinese is because they are a different race.
The general idea of the three races are a good guiding principle but it is not all that adequate as the world is more complicated then that.
As just one example, the Neanderthals are a slur for the less intelligent primitive, previous human genus, but the out of Africa races actually have about 3% Neanderthal DNA in their genome where the pure Negroid race do not.
Another fascinating fact is that one can also determine the race of a person simply by exterminating the skull. Its very fascinating just how big the difference is in the size and shape of the skulls between the races.
Even a lay person can see the clear differences when comparing a skull from a member of the Aboriginal race with the European Caucasian.

For what thou said about the school system. That doesn't actually affect General Intelligence. The purpose of schools are not to make people more intelligent, because that is impossible, but rather to make them more knowledgeable.
To use computer terms, our General Intelligence is like a processor, it determines how fast our brain works, how good it is at solving problems, knowledge is about how much is stored in the hard drive.

This is also why it is important when doing an IQ test that we sterilise it so it doesn't include trivia or other knowledge based skills.

And although thou hast not come with that objection, it is one that a lot of the race deniers bring up, so I will preempt it. One can always find anecdotal evidence of acceptance. This is not about that one Genius Negro that stuns everyone with his brilliance, it is about the average general IQ of the race.

@rphb Neanderthals come from Europe Dipstick, and a shit ton of them lived in France. And when the ice age came to an end most of them would have migrated north to Russia and Scandinavia. So if Africans have 3% Neanderthal DNA I wonder how much Neanderthal DNA YOU have.

'@Hyporia' No no no, Negroids do NOT have any Neanderthal DNA, It was the other races, the ones that exited Africa that have the 3% Neanderthal DNA in them, because only they met the Neanderthals.
Try to pay attention, my point was that the modern Europoid and Mongloid race is a mixture of Homo Sapience and Neanderthals.

This doesn't really says anything, other then that which we already know, that the human races are biologically different. I know it is popular to pretend that biological differences does not exist in humans, that humans are somehow uniquely different from all other animals in that regard, and that both race and gender are social construct, and this is just one example to show why that view is nonsense.

Doth thou understand me?

@rphb Ah yes, great benefits such as the Rwandan genocide and The Seperation of India and Pakistan, not to mention the famines that occurred during the world wars.

'@Carolus'_Rex The problem with the doctrine of "Mission to civilise" was not its laudable goal, but the fact that it was incredibly naive, you cannot civilise the inherently irrational savage, that is why the former colonies have or are in the process of reverting back to their pre-colonisational states of barbarism.
As for thy example, the separation of India was necessary due to Islam, it cannot exist in peace with anyone, it never have, and as long as Islam exist there will be Islamic terror.
If we look long and hard enogh we may be able to find a counter example, but as a general rule, the vast majority of all terror is committed in the name of Islam, and the last third in the name of communism, the reason for that is due to their similarity. They both seek world domination though submission and conquest.
They are both deceitful, and both think that the end can justify the means. They are in short both Evil.

@rphb I did not say that I agree with the people of the time, we know that "The White Man's burden" was a thing at the time due to works such as "The Heart of Darkness" and "The White Man's Burden" in which they both say that people try to justify their actions with the mission to civilize.

'@Carolus'_Rex I am just saying that the socialist vilification of the west have become extreme, and they twist every word. "Savage" for instance, does not mean "noble" it means the exact opposite.
Their actions were justified and they did make things better. The problem is as I said that it was naive, the pilgrims thought that if just they converted the savages to Christianity, if just they thought them western values, they would become civilised like we are in the west.
The sad fact is that it is genetic, they are racially inferior and no amount of cultivation can change that. Try to do a search of IQ by country, only the far east is on par with the west

@rphb The EU project isn't failed like the UK implies, it has achieved a lot and I still believe in the goal. But it's grown too large, with too many small wheels turning, and it might need some restructuring. I believe the EU would have been better off if it was an union of unions. I believe it's easier to unite countries into smaller groups, and then unite these smaller groups into a larger group, rather than uniting individual countries into one large group. Say we created the Kalmar union again, and the Kalmar union would have been part of the EU initiative, which has the goal to unite unions and countries of Europe.

In any case, returning to an Europe where we abandon all unity is not a good idea. I hope the UK and France realizes this and will continue to help build a united Europe. And I think the contribution from us up north, to the project of fixing the EU, should be to recreate the Kalmar union which could to begin with have deals to cooperate with the EU while having EU membership as the long term goal.

'@heksesang' Have thou ever stopped to think about why thou would want such unity? of what it will archive?
I am motivated by Good and Evil, by Right and Duty and by Vice and Virtue, which is all objective moral traits.
We need a good world, where people's Rights are respected, Rights such as Life, Liberty and Property.
If thou agree to these goals, if thou agree that humans are inherently Good, then there is such a thing as an optimal size for a state.
The state needs to be big enough to be sovereign, but not larger then it adequately represent the will of the people.
While people can and do disagree on most things, there is one thing that everyone must agree on, and that is the will to remain a member of the union.
Anyone that is a member of a union or a "club" as thou put it, that don't want to be, and is bared from leaving, is a prisoner and a slave.

The purpose of the state is to protect the nation from outside aggression, it is its one purpose, inside aggression can be handed by much smaller subunits and everything else should not be dependent on the violence of the state.
Because states are violent, it is force, it can be legitimate, but most often it is not.

Why should we make a state unnecessarily big and powerful?
It makes it harder for the smaller parts to control it, (making state oppression much more likely and harder to escape)
It makes it less unified. The European nations share neither language nor culture, the only thing they have in common is Christianity and the EU is openly hostile towards it,

And it increases not decreases the chance of a catastrophic conflict. Unions throughout history increases tension. They are always expansionist and they can only expand to a certain extinct before they hit the sphare of influence of another powerful external force. At that point the only options are desolation or war.

Looking at the anti-Russian propaganda it is obvious what the EU wants, but I do not want nuclear winter and I bear no allegiance to a union that is openly hostile to my faith and my own national interest.


The other thing thou said about the Kalmar union is a good idea, but for different reasons. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not powerful enough to have their own independent strategic defence policy, but united as Scandinavia, they would be. We don't need the capacity to launch expensive foreign ventures, we only need the capacity to protect our own shores, without any outside help, that is what sovereign means.

As for the rest of Europe, just because we are not in a union with them, doesn't mean that we cannot trade with them, and be friends with them. But there is no need for state violence, it should all be on a voluntary basis.
Free trade is simply, it is simply about states doing nothing, free trade agreements is always about intrusive regulations that only benefit the regulators and big business and never the little guy.

Friends to all, allied to none, that is the basic of peaceful coexistence.

@rphb The notion that an EU member isn't "its own country" is rather ridiculous. That's like saying that belonging in a club, sports team, political party etc. makes you less of an individual. As for the "punish" bit... The EU is a club, and clubs have rules. The rules apply to all members, and if you choose to leave the club you're no longer entitled to any of the benefits the members enjoy. Simple as that.

'@MikeJ' I think "cult" is a closer analogy then club to what the EU is. And there is no advantages of being members of the EU.
The EU does two things
It robs wealth from individual countries and then "redistribute it"
And it produces and endless scream of regulations that everyone have to comply to.
All of this without enjoying the legitimacy that a nationstate have, namely the consent of the governed.
In Westminster politicians are elected by the people, and while they also impose regulations on the people like any government, at the very least the people can "fire them" by voting for someone else the next time.
The EU's regulation comes from unelected bureaucrats. And even if it were democratic, even if the EU parliament actually had real power in this cult, instead of being equivalent to a student council in a high school (the house of lords have more power), then it would still be an unnecessary additional level of government.

@MikeJ The EU wants to become the new US, where each country is more or less just a state. I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious; unified military, shared laws and regulations and shared currency. Personally, I'd like to see the EU down-scaled, like a lot. I do not like where it's headed at the moment.

@rphb How can Le Pen makes France leave EU, she can't even makes her father leave her party.

'@Fuyukii' She promises to held an election in France on their membership like in Britain. The concept here is to allow people the freedom to choose for themselves. And like everyone else, her father also have the Right to choose for himself.

@rphb Seeing how bad it was for UK to leave EU, I don't think that a Frexit will happen soon, even if Le Pen become president. Plus, France was one of the founders of EU has always been a part of it, whereas UK never really wanted to be a part of EU.
(And seriously, her father is a big joke and discredit her party, no wonder why she wants to kick him out)

'@Fuyukii' Yes it is bad for the EU that the UK leaves, the only ones that stand to benefit from the independence is the UK and all of its people, as well as all liberty minded and nationalist in Europe that wants to dismantle the monstrosity that is the fourth Reich.

@rphb I was saying that leaving EU affected UK in a bad way, not the opposite. (although the Brexit affected EU too, but that wasn't the subject)
And what is that "fourth Reich" you mentionned, I wasn't aware that the entire Europe has become german.

'@Fuyukii' No I guess thou weren't, but I meant it more in the form that it have become fascist.
And trust me, independence have never harmed anyone, but codependence on the other hand is always harmful.

Poor Britain shot for 1st place for stupidest thing done in 2016, but was bested by America once again.

'@lbisno1' yep, meltdown of just about every media or Hollywood personality about election results was pretty stupid. Then the fact that people crashed Canadian immigration site only to find out that other countries have borders and immigration control too.

@comrade_Comrade kek

I've followed SATW for years, and enjoyed every minute....but if it becomes nothing but Brexit and Trump references for the next four years, then it'll be time for me to sadly cut ties.

@PugBuddies But.. Comedy gold?

I mean what could possibly be more important/noteworthy then these two walking pinatas??

@Dasneko It's not like there's an entire world of current events jokes out there, right? ;)

Joking aside, it's looking like news organizations are going to be putting a lot of focus on Trump's administration over the next four years. (Here in the US, we've already been treated to articles about the dress one of his staffers wore to his inauguration, treated as if it were the most important thing in the world.) While I get that he's both an important figure and a source of comedy....honestly, it'd be nice to get away from him once in a while.

@PugBuddies Well just to put it into perspective the amount of gold Trump has already given us.

On the first day of getting into office Trump took a 3 day vacation saying that it would basically be strange not to have the first day be a "Monday" since you know.. Mondays are the first day of the week. Others have speculated that the huge protests (speculated to be the biggest in American history) scared him away.

Then we have him fumbling, trying to appoint his staff positions with a number of funny examples but still leaving 600 empty seats not to mention many without even a candidate. Many key positions are left open like the head of CIA because he was either too late, his nominee did not fulfill the proper requirements or he simply did not have anyone to fill the positions.

Then we have the hilarious attempt during his first press conference where he claimed the gathering at his inauguration was large if not a record. Something that all facts contradicts and in fact his is pathetically small. When being challenged on this their response was that they provided "Alternative facts" and maintain their talking points.

These are just things I remember on top of my head from the first 3 days. There are plenty more where they came from though. This is just going to be a never-ending string of hilarious screw ups.

@Dasneko I'm well aware of all of those; the media here has reported every detail, and internet users have mined those stories for all the memes they're worth. And frankly, I'm already sick of it. I know Trump is a buffoon--a buffoon I didn't vote for, but still a buffoon. And I'm well aware of the fact that the rest of the world (and half of Americans) think electing him was a mistake. A little Trump humor can help dull the pain of living in a polarized country with a polarizing president; but most of the Trump humor online is thinly veiled bitter criticism with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Humon's Trump comics, no matter how well done, will just (for me; I can't speak for every American, so this is solely my opinion, which others might share) become yet another voice in a crowd that keeps growing louder. The only way I'm going to cope with these next four years is if I find some peace and quiet, so to speak.

@PugBuddies

Please allow us foreigners a bit of amusement. We aren't living in America, and for us having Trump as US president is not an everyday occurrence; we are still in a bit of a shock. We need a bit of humor to slowly come to acceptance of the situation.

And Brexit is quite honestly amusing by itself.

@Grahor Yeah, I understand. And I know my opinion isn't shared by all Americans—if the recent explosion of Trump and Obama memes is any indication, then they're also looking for humor to help them come to terms. So, I definitely understand your position, even if I don't share it.

@PugBuddies Well to cheer you up I doubt it will be brought up allot but considering Humon did put out a fairly bold statement against Trump I doubt he will be let slide either. I mean USA was redone in Orange for a reason.

As for you. You have my sympathy but that is as much as I can give you.

@Dasneko And I get all of those reasons. I'm just….saddened by the whole situation, I suppose. I have Republican friends, and I have Democrat friends. Friends who reluctantly voted for Trump while calling Clinton "Crooked Hillary," and friends who are now calling all Republicans racist and sexist despite not knowing them at all. Trump and Clinton were two diametrically opposed candidates, and the media painted the campaign as a clear-cut good-vs.-evil battle (Trump was good on conservative media and evil on liberal media; the reverse goes for Clinton), but the situation on the ground was much more nuanced and much sadder.

People were forced to vote for a candidate they didn't completely agree with, or maybe strongly disliked, because they saw that candidate as the lesser of two great evils. There were some Republicans who genuinely liked Trump, and there were some Democrats who genuinely liked Clinton; but for the most part, Americans had a terrible choice forced down their throats. They made the one that seemed best to them, and now we're left in a country even more deeply divided than before, with hate groups venturing out of the fringe and grassroots protests leading, in some cases, to vandalism and property damage.

Point is: This was not a good election for my country. I love America. I know it's a deeply flawed country, but I want to believe that we can overcome those flaws and let our best qualities shine through. And this election showed me that this might not be possible in my lifetime. Nobody listens to each other. Republicans and Democrats dismiss one another's concerns with equal venom, and there's no way to convince the two parties to work together. I think Trump was a bad choice for President, but he's as much a symptom of the disease as he is a carrier.

So, long story short….I guess I just need a little more time to mourn this election and what it means for my country.

@PugBuddies For what it's worth you have my sympathy. I dare say that we Europeans don't critisise because we want to hurt you more, we are just confused and worried about our dear friends.

@Rogers Thanks. I wish I could be confused about this, because knowing the cause (two warring political parties, each so unwilling to give any ground that one would vote in an orange buffoon with a hair-trigger temper because they felt any change from the previous administration had to be better than the status quo) doesn't make it any easier to fix. I have faith that we'll pull through, though. We've made it through times of even deeper division before. I just hope we open our eyes and see how much damage this polarization has caused soon.

@Dasneko He aslo issued a gag order against the EPA, USDA, and the DOI preventi!g them from comtacting the public about anything. This gag order has been bipassed by the organization using an alternate twiter instead of their offical twitter, and many have ignored the gag order, but its meer exostance is a problem.

@PugBuddies

On that point I agree. It's drawn me out of lurker status simply because so many people seem to be unaware, or unwilling to accept, why Britain voted to leave. Which I think is largely a ~50:50 mix of assorted nationalism and deep frustration and anger at the political establishment coupled with finally having a real chance of showing their opposition.

Its just that this subjects brings out the worst in too many people. Hence it prompts strong views on all sides.

@stevep59 That's pretty much the situation over here with Trump. So many people, both at home and abroad, seem to be treating the election results as "every white person in America remembered how racist they actually are and voted accordingly." Which couldn't be further from the truth. Similar to how you said it was in the UK, a lot of what compelled so many people to vote for Trump was deep-seated anger at the establishment, a feeling that, for the past eight years, the government had ignored what they wanted and treated their concerns as invalid.

It's a sign of the times that I'm afraid to leave the above paragraph as-is without any qualifiers or disclaimers. Tensions are high, and emotions are strong on both sides. And, sadly, BOTH Republicans AND Democrats are equally likely to dismiss each other's concerns, no matter how valid those concerns might be. A Democrat friend of mine brought up the Affordable Care Act, and I said that Republicans were leery of it because of the whole "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it" thing. Their response? A sarcastic "Aw, poor babies." NO. The thought of my government passing a bill without letting the public know what's in it is TERRIFYING. That shouldn't be dismissed.

I say this not to get people to side with Republicans wholeheartedly; I certainly don't. I say it because the story being told is that all Republicans are racist jerks who don't think poor people should have healthcare or that women should have human rights, and because that story is exactly that--a story. The reality is that people here are scared. Democrats were scared of seeing social programs implemented under Obama reversed, and they voted accordingly. Republicans were scared of seeing their government gain too much power, and they voted accordingly. This isn't a case of good-vs.-evil, but of frightened people doing what seemed like a good idea at the time. And until that truth is understood, there will be no fixing the situation.

@PugBuddies

Sorry, missed your reply earlier. You raise good points. While I didn't agree with everything Obama did I sided far more with him than with the Republican right, being a radical liberal nationalist. As you say it was a question of a deeply divided nation with the candicates swinging to extremes.

Also that a large proportion of the Trump support seems to be largely based on frustration at an establishment that has increasingly ignored them, although I think its been going on a lot longer than 8 years, like in Britain.

@stevep59 I'd say it has, too, but I mention the last eight years because that's what I remember best. But yeah, there's a lot of frustration on the conservative side, and the fact that American liberals basically tell them "shut up, nobody cares, our concerns are valid and yours are not" doesn't help allay their concerns. And the real irony here is that if those concerns had been addressed and discussed civilly well before the election, then Trump may not have been elected in the first place.

@PugBuddies The fact that a large part of the people have been ignored, often with open contempt, seems to be a big problem in the western world lately. All of the political elite, left and right, is involved in this elitism. But there is hope. Many are obviously ready for a change.

@PugBuddies
Don't worry, like most everything, we will get to a point where it won't surprise us and won't really be news, just someone spinning in circles doing what they do, be it Trump or brexit, but for now its new, with time it will pass.

@PugBuddies
Agreed. I always thought it was 'SCANDINAVIA and the World.'
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing America, England, and other countries, as well as comics based on current news, but I prefer the strips that featured funny facts and the antics of different nations, political or not.

@chaosgirl13 Agreed. My favorite part of SATW has always been learning about history and culture in a humorous way. Like the recent strip about Qin Shi Huang, or how France got its people to eat potatoes, or the ones about Denmark during WWII. And although it's several years old, the one where the Vatican learns about horrifying Scandinavian Christmas traditions remains one of my all-time favorites.

@PugBuddies I just like seeing the countries having fun and getting into trouble. I'd like to see a continuation of the 'SATW to the Big Screen' strip, like why Sweden was in the marsh, or why Norway and Denmark are talking to little animals; sometimes, fan speculation just isn't enough. I'd also like to see different AU settings and ideas, like maybe a film noir style strip.

@PugBuddies But there's not been a Trump joke since November and no Brexit reference since July.

@PugBuddies Out of the last 10 comics there's one about Trump and this one about Brexit,, so that's one out of five and not the majority of the comics. Humon is writing some comics about what's happening here and now from her outlook, but mostly about funny things like the last comic.

Can I just add, please stop likening Brexit to Trump winning the election... they're not even close to the same thing. I supported Brexit, I voted leave... and I think Trump is a complete and utter 'tard that should be nowhere near any public office, never mind the presidency. You can't keep painting leave voters as racist, xenophobic morons. Brexit was not a right wing coup, nothing of the sort. I am generally left leaning, I support free healthcare and education like exists in Finland, I support many social policies, and I generally give a shit about people, regardless of their origin or skin colour. Brexit was not a left vs right issue.

@Lambert2191 I'm sorry, you must be operating under the assumption that the Western world isn't 100% black & white when it comes to politics.

@DarkMage7280 I'm ever the optimist :P

@Lambert2191
for a lot of people it was about immigration issues. TO pretend that everyone is unjustly drawing some comparisons between the two political climates is being a bit defensive. Yes, many brexiteers voted over political philosphies, as did many Trump supporters (Clinton was not a perfect option) and it would be naive to paint every supporter of Brexit or Trump as racist, ignorant, reactionaries. That is why they are compared. Two major, unexpected votes showing a disconnect between the popular vote (or at least the electoral college) and the established political understanding. The two situations are interesting comparisons between seperate, but mirroring political systems. It's not saying all Brexiteers would support Trump, or all Trump supporters agree with Brexit.
I'm an American living in Britain for over a decade, resident dirty foreigner. It easier to see my own country clearly from this view, and gain deeper insight into British politics... between the two it's a secial and unique view of insanity.

@ekgjester According to exit polls, immigration was 3rd behind sovreignty and economy. Regardless, being concerned about unchecked immigration is not a racist or xenophobic worry.

And yes, I am getting defensive, but not for no reason. I see time and time again links being drawn between the two, saying that those that voted for leave are the kinds of people that would vote for a stupid orange man. Fuck that noise. It is complete garbage. YOU may not be saying it, but plenty are.

Brexit is not insanity. Continuing to be a part of this ever strengthening political union, part of the largest, and most stagnant trading block in the world... forking over our rights to forge trade deals with whoever the hell we want in favour of this single market... that is insanity.

@Lambert2191 The reason most accuse pro-Brexit voters as "racist, xenophobic morons" is because one of the big reasons listed in favor of leaving was the ability to prevent immigrants from entering Britain and to deport immigrants currently within Britain.

@PaxRomana Being anti unchecked immigration is neither racist, nor xenophobic, nor moronic. No one is saying there will be ZERO immigration at all for the rest of time. We're simply saying that we are a free and independent nation and as such we, not Brussels, should have control in our own country. And that includes the borders. And besides, the immigration issue was 3rd behind Sovreignty and Economy when it came to why people voted, according to exit polls.

@Lambert2191 I'm not exactly an expert on the subjects, but I find both are *mostly* supported by those against Globalism. One of Trump's biggest backings was by those who want to move America away from Globalism back to Isolation (after kicking some ISass first). The same, from my understanding, kind of comes to Britain, but rather than completely rejecting Globalism, they're trying to tackle the Globe on their own terms: reject Immigration, strengthen ties with the Commonwealth, and use Trade agreements they brokered themselves to make Britain the forefront of the globe once more (as is the British Way)

@Lord_Skata Well you mention in the latter part of your comment about Britain becoming global... that's not exactly anti Globalism.

However I do agree for the most part. Most voters (backed by exit poll data) voted leave because of the sovreignty issue. Many, myself included, see the future of the EU as being one of federalisation. That the EU will strengthen the political union until it is a country, not a trading block. If rejecting that is anti-globalisation, then sure. But as you said, outside of the EU, Britain would be free to seek out trade deals with any country in the world. And despite my utter distain for the Annoying Orange in the White House, I am rather excited by the prospect of a free trade deal between the UK and the USA, which Trump has hinted at ("front of the queue" etc)

@Lambert2191
While I agree, those supporting a group often get painted with the same brush as speech holders use in their arguments, as such if all we hear is that leavers are supporting for x reasons xenophobic e.t.c. then that's what people paint with.
Unfortunately this is because, at least in my book, the more reasonable stuff, really doesn't make good headlines, personally I think all media should be held accountable for what and how they spread information, right now it is just a competition to get the most sensationalism to get the most people to read/click, though the blame doesn't lie with them entirely, but also with us, we buy stuff if it is more sensational, thus they sell more of that. A bad cycle only consumers can break, but at least seemingly worldwide general population has become very apathetic. Which is unfortunate.

@xondk Well when the mainstream media is almost exclusively supporting the remain campaign, it's no surprise that they tried to paint us all as xenophobic bigots. Anything to help them win. As for what the campaign leaders said, the closest I recall any of them saying is that unchecked migration would be detrimental to the UK... and that's pretty obviously true.

No one is saying 0 migration, close the borders, let's build a wall blah blah... Not even close.

And for the record, the exit polls showed that sovreignty, then economy, THEN immigration were the biggest issues that made people vote leave. And being worried about immigration is not at all racist.

@Lambert2191
I don't know about "mainstream" mostly because it seems that it was more or less all media everywhere, even more obscure sites, that seemed to focus on displaying certain things, that said, this is from an international view, locally it can be quite different, and simply not be something easy to find from an international perspective.
So yeah, I agree, but unfortunately it is very common that the loudest voices, right or wrong, are what the group as a whole gets seen as.

@xondk "unfortunately it is very common that the loudest voices, right or wrong, are what the group as a whole gets seen as. "

This is quite true. I would like to think that it was just the loudest voices on the remain side that were calling leavers racist bigoted "little england affectionados" but I don't believe that for a second. I scarcely saw a single remain voter even attempt to understand our problems with the EU. Every single discussion I ever had on the subject ended with me being insulted, regardless of where that discussion took place.

@Lambert2191 Despite not being a leave voter, I agree with the sentiment you share - to compare voting in Trump with leaving the EU is not a fair one, and to compare the leave voters to Trump voters is worse. A few Brexiteers painted the others in a bad light through xenophobic views, but one cannot paint them all with the same (purple) brush. It was a democratic vote and leave won, that's basically all there is to it.

@Great_Scot I think the paint originated from the remain side to be perfectly honest. They painted us in the "xenophobe!" brush, and then found the minority that conformed to it, not the other way around.

@Lambert2191 Well I think that the comparison between Brexit and Trump is fairly accurate... In both cases it was a nationalistic point of view that were expressed, in both cases claims from the winning party was clearly lies, and in both cases we have no idea of what the result will actually mean...

We shouldn't paint "leave voters" as racist, xenophobic morons, but it is so damn hard, not to when so many clearly were... Just look at the result, with all the graffiti, pamphlets and so on that asked Poles living in Britain to "go home", and "stop taking our jobs", and not a few politicians talked about foreign people taking services and Britain for Brits... Still you are right.

@Schnakenburg It is not accurate at all. Both sides of both votes expressed nationalism. "Britain will be stronger in the EU!" is quite nationalist, as is "It is unamerican to turn away refugees!" "It is unamerican to do X Y Z that Trump is proposing!" blah blah.

In both cases, the losing side were full of lies too. Trump is of course full of bullshit, but Clinton was no saint of honesty. Neither was Cameron and co for the remain side. I would say that the leave side was a lot more honest than the remain but of course, you're going to call that bias and you clearly have your own preconcieved biases too.

"so many clearly were"
Oh fuck off. You mean so many were painted as such.

@Lambert2191 All you had to do, was looking at what people was saying on Facebook, Twitter and so on... And the number of cases where foreigners were harassed grew after the vote...
I am not saying that "all that voted one way" meant that thing, but facts are facts, and many were...

Think of this as someone wanting to leave a country club while trying to keep all of the privileges it grants members.

I feel like it should be Poland building that wall for Britain...

@CorruptUser Or perhaps USA will suggest that Britain should send the brick bill to Poland.

@CorruptUser Good idea!
But Poland might object to which side of the wall he's forced to stand on while building it. I'm imagining him up to his knees in the English Channel.

You're making it look like it'd be unreasonable for britain to expect friendly ties with EU countries after hard brexit, I dont see why really. It's rather silly.

@Finn123 It may look like this, if you take it more literally as I did. I took as it is unreasonable to expect a privileged relationship, which was also mentioned a lot in the possibilities. Even now, the May government says (if I remember well) that they will be able to negotiate the most important advantages suggesting that if not, they would become a tax haven. And this is indeed unreasonable, IMHO.

@EduardoSilva Depends on what advantages we are talking about.

@Finn123 I only saw your comment now, I do not log in so often even if I see the comic every week. I meant access to the unified market, without movement freedom. Meanwhile the situation has worsened for the UK, IMHO the current options are a) they have to follow EU rules but have no say on them, they have no access to unified market but are also free to hinder immigration if they want and b) they have to follow EU rules, they have no say on them, and they cannot limit immigration. The option "they do not have to follow EU rules" does not exist, because they want to export to the EU.

Of course I simplify, but in general terms this is how I see the situation.

PS: All this is particularly interesting for me because I am a member of a workgroup involved on establishing EU regulations. Funny enough, there I am "Germany", not Spain (I work in Germany, and CEN / CENELEC depends on your job and not your passport). And we had to say bye to "Great Britain" recently. He was a nice guy and we were all sad about it.

Please send help. We're being held hostage by a mad woman.

@hikariuk We're being held hostage by a mad pumpkin

@hikariuk I think I'll let gomez field this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ7RB3fQAA0

@crwydryny I love the line. "has the world gone mad!" Sorry to say, yes, yes it has!

@hikariuk We are sending our mad man soon! You can keep him some place safe and dry, maybe the tower of London could be reopened as a prison for wayward leaders.

@hikariuk

And when you're done there, we could use a hand here too.

@hikariuk Over here, we feel ya.

@hikariuk help us all where is the united nations when you need them

@MadScot Spending your money.

@v0ider

So many saying "remember nearly half of us wanted to stay". I say that's not nearly enough. You'd need 75% at the very least, preferably 90.
Same thing here in Norway back in 1994, 52.2% voted against the EU and still the Yes-camp kept nagging. I'm sure if they had 50.1% for we'd be a part of this sick social experiment right now.
It's a matter of handing off sovereignty, which is a breach of our constitution. To change it needs 3/4 favor in parliament. Why should it be different for a vote of the people?
If you so dearly want to live in the EU then move there, don't go handing your country away on everyones behalf to the vultures in Brussels.

I totally agree with you, this "sick experiment" should end as soon as possible, for the good of the people all over europe!

Before the EU every single european country could enjoy the advantages of rampant nationalism, start a war with its neighbours for no reason at all. War Industries prospered and everybody had a job! There was a constant need for solidiers! People all over Europe totally enjoyed those wonderful times between 1900 and 1945 ! And those wonderful "strong men" in the lead ! Hitler! Stalin! Franco! Yes those were times we should really recreate!

@wurfel

I see that old myth is being aired again. Its not the EU, or even the EEC that was responsible for the period of peace in Europe after 1945. NATO, the threat from the Soviets and the existance of nuclear weapons, along with the war-weariness of people across most of Europe were all factors,

If you knew about the history of Europe you would be aware that the major wars occur when a single power/bloc seeks to impose its views on the rest of the continent. There are two powers currently seeking to do that and both of them are valid reasons for concern. Oneis a nuclear power ruled by a proto-facist which has long desired domination of the continent. The other is less visible as it works more subtely but its supporters still seek to undermine democracy and human rights. As is shown by many of its supporters the last few months.

There is a nasty rise in closed nationalism in assorted 'national' states but one factor in that is the existance of close nationalism amongst prominent supporters of the EU. You will always get bigots and fools who seek to blame others for their problems but having a bunch of fanatics who repeatedly tell everybody they don't matter and will be ignored isn't a good idea.

@stevep59 Here's a little something for you to read:
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1945-1959_en

A prime motivation for the EEC was to prevent another war in Europe. That's a fact. Of course, as we've come to know, some people prefer alternative facts...

'@stevep59'
"If you knew about the history of Europe you would be aware that the major wars occur when a single power/bloc seeks to impose its views on the rest of the continent."

This is an utterly false truism. Its completely inapplicable for WW1, and doesn't even work particularly well for WW2. Hitler was the main obvious power, but he was far from the only one running around bashing down borders in the 30's and 40's. Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and the USSR all participated in mainly nationalist oriented acts of irredentism.
This also doesn't apply to the 30 Years war, or the 7 years war.
Frankly the only one it really works well with is the Napoleonic wars. So yeah, no.

"There are two powers currently seeking to do that and both of them are valid reasons for concern. Oneis a nuclear power ruled by a proto-facist which has long desired domination of the continent. The other is less visible as it works more subtely but its supporters still seek to undermine democracy and human rights. As is shown by many of its supporters the last few months."

So....Russia for the first one, and the far-right populist governments and movements for the latter. Or was there something else you had in mind for the latter?

'@stevep59'
"If you knew about the history of Europe you would be aware that the major wars occur when a single power/bloc seeks to impose its views on the rest of the continent."

This is an utterly false truism. Its completely inapplicable for WW1, and doesn't even work particularly well for WW2. Hitler was the main obvious power, but he was far from the only one running around bashing down borders in the 30's and 40's. Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and the USSR all participated in mainly nationalist oriented acts of irredentism.
This also doesn't apply to the 30 Years war, or the 7 years war.
Frankly the only one it really works well with is the Napoleonic wars. So yeah, no.

"There are two powers currently seeking to do that and both of them are valid reasons for concern. Oneis a nuclear power ruled by a proto-facist which has long desired domination of the continent. The other is less visible as it works more subtely but its supporters still seek to undermine democracy and human rights. As is shown by many of its supporters the last few months."

So....Russia for the first one, and the far-right populist governments and movements for the latter. Or was there something else you had in mind for the latter?

@stevep59
Without the EEC/EU, Europe would have remained ruined/unstable for decades (in the 50´s, 150% growth), unable to rapay Marshall(USA would not have been so powerfull) NATO would have been unsustainable, and civil wars in Europe quite possible, between emerging communists and the others, paving the way to the warsaw pact, blast through, in other words the USSR would have won the cold war, as "who dominates Europe dominates the world"this is an old geopolitical maxim.
The EU of today is a misery, because of its pathetic pro merkelian political class, and total unwilingness to a democratic federalist reform, the project itself, quite desirable, as much as I am concerned.

@wurfel the EU is doing the same mistake as the allies did with the versailles treaty. Nothing has been learnt. They think they can bring peace and stability by sanctioning Russia. Instead they create hostilities.

@wurfel totally. Europe was basically unlivable between 1945 and 1992. thank goodness for the EU.

'@Stefflus83'
By this logic the "leave" vote was also not nearly enough.

@sagas No, I'm saying in some cases it was illegal to begin with. Mind I don't know the UK numbers for and against when they joined