I have many many pet peeves, so I'll just cover a few.
Anyone who plays the "Race card" - You utter utter fuckwits!
You've been sacked, get over it. No, it's not because you're black/chinese/pakistani/polish/etc, it's because you were shit at this job!
Person appeals, claiming "racial discrimination" and wins lots and lots of money, often putting people out of business, because of a grudge. Tits.
It also seems to be the case that everyone who claims "The *insert generic racist comment here* took my job" are making that complaint sat on their fat arse at home, because they're too lazy to look for a job, and need a scapegoat. I'm not saying that is the case for all of them, but a fairly high percentage!


Anyone who claims they've had their human rights violated.
eg #1 - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7370362.stm
eg #2 - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm
I could give a million other examples. Human rights is now a byword for "I can and will do whatever the fuck I want, be it burn buildings down, give you cheek, fire an airgun at children, punch you,etc etc. But if you hit me back, i'll sue"
Frankly, I'm sick of it, it's ridiculous.


'Reverse' Racism - It's not reversed, it's just racism. Banning an English person, from an english pub on St Georges day is ridiculous. What's next? "There is no such thing as christmas anymore, it's banned". England used to be the country of the proud. Britain had the largest empire ever known to man! And now look at us, we're the laughing stock of the world.
We find a famous quote becoming more and more true as time goes by - There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND" - Sir Winston Churchill


I could carry on for pages, but i'll leave you with one more...


People who don't recognise the significance of history - Let me explain this one. I come from a fairly educated family, all of us went to Merchant Taylors, Crosby. One of my sisters managed to attend Cambridge to study medicine (but that's another story).

Ok, now with that in mind, here we go. A while ago we were discussing history, specifically 20th century europe. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but I feel I know enough about the rise of Hitler to form a decent discussion.

I put forward a theory that "If it wasn't for the war, and the way he had led up to it, he would be regarded as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century." My reasoning behind this lies with a few historical facts and statistics.

*History*
After the Great War, Europe et al dropped the Versailles treaty on Germany. If you want the facts of that, go here - Treaty Of Versailles.

After that was signed, Germany lost faith in itself, leading to a rise of extreme Nationalism in places, people wanting to regain their nations personality. This (and many other mitigating factors) allowed the Nazis access to the hearts of the German people.

Hitler has been famous throughout history as a fantastic orator, this is how he first made his name, and under his, and his cabinets leadership, the Nazi party rose to take Germany by storm. When they arrived in power, Germany was still a crippled nation from the treaty. The policies put forwards by his party were revolutionary, reflected in one area where many governments have failed, unemployment. Through removing of certain civil liberties (eg certain machinery) the countrys unemplyment was reduced from 6 million to 1 million. People were even employed as balloon bursters in the parks, so that the pigeons would be scared away.

By doing things like that, he gave german people their pride back. He brought Germany back onto the World Stage.

That was (part of) my argument for Hitler. My sister's argument against him?
"He was an evil bastard."

That was her theory as to why it could never be the case. Now, that to me is an immature point, and it doesn't make any bastard sense! Argh!

I apologise for length, and possible spelling errors, as I'm writing this in notepad. Please please, if there's anything you disagree with, or I've got wrong, inform me!

EDIT: Sorry, my bile got in the way of my writing, Christmas is not banned, I was giving a hypothetical suggestion.

EDIT 2: Pavlov's Frog has pointed out a massive fuck up from myself, it wasn't the english empire. Balls.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 2 May 2008, 13:44, 12 replies)

One fairly major flaw
Christmas certainly hasn't been banned, I remember celebrating it less than five months ago. And please don't try and use the "Winterval" argument, it holds no water and has been shown to be a tabloid lie to sell papers.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 2 May 2008, 13:48, closed)

as well as the error
about Christmas being banned (which is Daily Mail-style rubbish) your theories on why the Third Reich came into power forget something.
Germany was actually a liberal, fun-loving kinda place after the Treaty of Versailles. Check out "Cabaret"; the Weimer Republic seemed quite cool.

It was the Wall Street Crash of 29 that screwed Germany up; yes, because they had borrowed money off the US to pay their reparations enforced by the Treaty.

To say that the Treaty created Hitler is missing a key element in the argument. And to see any benefit in what Hitler "achieved" is frankly shocking.

And England is far from being the laughing-stock of the world. Put down the Daily Mail, try seeing some of the world and you'll see this is far from the case.
( I_Was_Mordred, Fri 2 May 2008, 13:55, closed)

And I think you'll find it was the British empire
Not the English.

Though I shouldn't have to tell that to you, being from such an educated family
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:04, closed)

I've fixed my christmas error...
I wasn't saying the treaty created Hitler, I'm saying it created a niche for extreme nationalism, which was exploited.

And '29 wasn't the first currency trouble that germany had. What about hyperinflation? From 1921-1924 when the Dawes plan came into action, the country was in turmoil. Granted, that system failed 5 years later in '29, but the trouble started before then.

Hitler was scum, you are correct in that term. He will go down in history as a bitter twisted little man who was one of the biggest hypocrites mankind has ever seen. My point was, take away the war and the racism, look at him as a politician and a leader only, it's a very different picture than many people know.

And my point about England being the laughing stock of the world was probably going too far, you are correct. I just can't stand to see our country going to the dogs any more.

@Pavlov
Damn. You've actually got me there. That was a complete miswording from me.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:09, closed)

Slightly fuzzy logic there
Saying "If it wasn't for the war, and the way he had led up to it, he would be regarded as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century." is a bit like saying "if the ball had gone in the back of the net, it would have been a goal". It didn't, so it wasn't, so it's pretty much totally irrelevant.

In lovely rose-tinted revisionist history - "Nixon could have been one of Americas great presidents, if he hadn't been paranoid, bugged the Watergate building and then lied about it to the whole nation". But he did, so he wasn't.
(vertigo, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:11, closed)

@Vertigo
My point was only to illustrate that you can't only look at one portion of a persons history to judge them, you have to take in the full picture.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:14, closed)

Yes, but...
When that one portion of history involved dragging the globe into a 6 year war and actively trying to eradicate entirely a section of the population off the globe because they were Jewish, I think that's pretty fucking definitively the most significant portion, and that 'what-if's' don't really count for much.

Sometimes the simpler argument holds the most water. In this case, your sisters argument trumps yours.
(vertigo, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:21, closed)

"My point was only to illustrate that you can't only look at one portion of a persons history to judge them, you have to take in the full picture." No, I don't think so
Fred West might have been the best builder ever, but I think it's fair we forget that in light of his other actions.
Being good at x and y does not forgive committing z if z is a serious, unwarranted offence. If I go around being good for 20 years, then commit murder, the previous 20 years aren't really relevant.
( I_Was_Mordred, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:21, closed)

The reason I wrote this post...
Was to talk about my pet peeves, and now I appear to have opened a can of worms.

The reason why I look at Hitler in this way, is due to a history teacher I had several years ago. I was taught that to be able to write a good essay, you have to be able to argue both sides of the point.

I agree that there is more than likely a special place in hell for people like Hitler, but as long as we dismiss him off-hand as a "evil bastard", we won't learn anything from the mistakes that led him to power, and the world to war.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 2 May 2008, 14:41, closed)

I understand what you're getting at in the second part of your post
but unfortunately YOU are one of those people that don't recognise the significance of history, as indicated by the first half.

The whole 'Britain is going to the dogs' nonsense has been going on since the first thursday after someone coined the name 'Britian'.

One look at history will show you that Britain is no worse off, and in fact considerably better, than almost any point in it's history.

We are no longer slave masters, slave traders, occupiers, invaders (recent history aside).
We are a very wealthy small island nation with an enviable level of freedom and a wide racial mix. I would suggest we have some of the lowest levels of racial violence in the world, due mainly to our culture of tolerence and acceptance of other ways of life.

The idea that British culture is being somehow erased is complete nonsense - St George's Day hasn't been celebrated in any significant way for generations - the only reason St Patricks is more popular is because Ireland is a strongly Catholic monoculture with a huge ex-pat community.

The reason the English cross is rarely seen is because it was hijacked by a distasteful bunch of thugs and no-one wants to be associated with them. Even if it didn't have those associations you wouldn't see it waving from every house and shopfront like you do in the US because ostentatious displays of patriotism are vulgar and decidedly unbritish.
( chenobble rocking his explorer beard on, Fri 2 May 2008, 15:39, closed)

@chenobble
You make a very good point.

I'm afraid I am influenced to a degree by modern culture (and there aren't many people who can say that's never been the case with them) and so as a result I can only look back upon my 19 years on this earth for certain influences.

The best example I can think of relates to manners nowadays. When I joined High School in 1999, I was afraid, nay terrified of the 6th formers. You wouldn't talk back to them, you would let them pass you in the corridor, and you wouldn't dare insult them! When I left 6th form 2 years ago, it was under a cloud of trouble after a slapped a year 8 round the back of the head for shouting at my friend words along the lines of "Suck my dick bitch". That's just plain rude. But, I can't only claim that this is the case in Britain, it is more than likely it occurs elsewhere too. But I can only judge that on what I see with my own eyes.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 2 May 2008, 15:47, closed)

Also...
"the only reason St Patricks is more popular is because Ireland is a strongly Catholic monoculture with a huge ex-pat community."

Also, Guinness is really, really tasty.
(vertigo, Fri 2 May 2008, 16:08, closed)