Yesterday, I came through this, which again confirms my opinion about how Europeans think about Americans.
quora.com/Why-do-many-Europe … rc-A-Donis
For the record, whatever this gentleman has said above, is not my opinion. I am just quoting him to explain how an average or at least some Europeans think about US.
With love,
Sanjay
But, I will certainly agree with this person about the understanding and the use of the English language by Americans.
During my interactions at ILP and some other similar sites, I think that most Americans tend to use very intruded and confused English, though they think they are doing it perfectly.
I am not an expert of English either, but I never feel any problem in understanding what is being said by others, except when I come across to American English at fourms.
With love,
Sanjay
But to defend them by way of some latitude, Americans are throroughly wholesome, and modern at the same time. They invented jazz, and the American in Paris may turn ugly American, but there is a sad detachment about them from the world stage, they inscibe themselves within their own psyche, and go out of their way to reaffirm their own sense of social reality , as a function of ther ‘being in the world’ They can boast of theor territory as extending from sea to shining sea, and of ushering revolution into a unsupportable regal world. Their lack of depth, is commesurate with modernism, their art reflects it, and there is a freshness, a naivety that is at once signifies the perfrct idiom of the self made man, while at the same time, constructing a pathos within the kernel of their edifices. This includes the psychic ones, and here, the meaning is justifyably one, with the idea of prefab, and pre-planned obsolescence. To justify it, they point to the tremendous lack of cost effectiveness in keeping up the appearance of edifices, long ago devalued, and prostituted by vulgar tourism.
Sometimes it seems like I have correctly predicted the future. Other times, it seems like I got it wrong.
I have no idea
@ Orbie.
The City of London was a a very special target during the Second World War.
agreed. But it was too bold of a strike. It’s like striking Berlin in the beginning of the struggle. Doesen’t make much sense, cause the Ruhr was much more strategic. The political elite were all in underground bunkers, anyway. There would have been only human, civilian casualty. The fear factor, tht’s it. To make civilians shudder, and somehow make them tremble, but the same went for the Royal Family. They were nowhere near danger.
The royal family was no target.
[size=109]GDP density (GDP per km²):[/size]
[size=109]GNI per capita based on PPP:[/size]
[size=109]For comparison:
The per capita income in the provinces of the Roman empire in 14 AD:[/size]
I want to give you some links, because they may be interesting for this thread too:
They may or may not have been, however, hitting them would have caused enormous psychological and political damage. The same way, that HitlerWAS definitely a target. He was even a target of his own inside military group.
Re OP
That depends what the Muslim majority in Europe, especially the future Germanistan, eventually decide . Therefore, I would have to say, extremely likely.
Some geographical facts and data and also some statistical data referring to the muslim Immigration to Europe (basic year: 2010).
Northern Europe includes 13 countries and territories: Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Isle of Man, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. Western Europe includes nine countries and territories: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands and Switzerland. Southern Europe includes 17 countries and territories: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Gibraltar, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Vatican City. Eastern Europe includes 11 countries and territories: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.
Muslim populations in Europe today are more youthful than their non- Muslim counterparts:
See also: pewforum.org/interactives/mu … n-graphic/ .
The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:
Yes, and the United States through NATO will be the direct cause of it.
Did the US or the EU or the communist Merkel (CDU = Communistic Dictatorship Union) herself already bring the war to Europe by letting the islam-fascistic conquerers in?
The question isn’t whether there will be a war or when. There is always a war in Europe. The real question is WHAT KIND of war. Modern war isn’t what it used to be. I don’t think Europe could fight a modern military war (which might be a good thing).
The European fight modern military wars all around the world, but they do it not on their own but in function of the USA as the leader of the NATO. And the Europeans have been forgetting to defend Europe for so long (too long?).
Where the NATO? The NATO is a defensive alliance!
Is the NATO what you call the “theater of the absurd”?
I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance. If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no right to exist and is - for example - a “theater of the absurd”. The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why NATO?
It’s a coordinated move by the United States and globalists to take Europe down.
What better way than civil war and an immigration catastrophy…
