[Sixstrings]

Brain fart, I meant to say the Anglican Church, referred to in this country as the Episcopal church. Still, Protestants all.

Protestantism started in Germany with Martin Luther and his 95 thesis or whatever that was, a list of reforms he nailed to the church door.

The reformation spread through the germanic lands.. then was big in Holland and such.

KING HENRY liked it because he wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn't grant one.

And then came all the troubles with the catholics in england vs. the new anglican protestants. Mary, Queen of Scots conspiring with the French.. struggles with Queen Elizabeth (Henry's daughter).

Later on, Puritanism spread to Britain. And that caused some trouble for a while. UK had a dictator for a while, puritan guy. (Cromwell?)

Puritans got run out.. came over here to America.. along with a lot of other protestant sect dissidents in Europe.

I think really, the most firebrand religious all emigrated here to America.

I don't really think there's any of that left in the UK, ever since then. Anglican church is like a traditional kind of thing. They're basically catholics but it's just that King Henry needed that divorce, so the British monarch became head of the church rather than the pope.

-- Sixstrings off-the-top-of-my-head annotated history of the British Isles.

[Sixstrings]

The brexit fallout seems to be settling a bit, with markets stablizing / bouncing back a tad.

About $100 billion was wiped out of Americans' 401k accounts.

Interestingly, the effectively devalued British pound could be GOOD for their exports.

Long term though, they could lose their big financial sector industry to Germany. If I understand it correctly, without that EU agreement then Europeans can't use financial services based in London. British banking / financial products would have to relocate to Europe, if no new agreement is worked out.

This will work out being bad for London, maybe good for the countryside (which is maybe what country folks had in mind ).

Something to remember though.. that financial sector is BIG in the City. That's a lot of tax revenue that was going to NHS and a lot of other things, that would have to be cut now if the UK loses that industry. (unlike us in the USA, UK was taxing their financial sector and it provides significant revenue for the government)

All the credit ratings agencies have cut UK's sovereign rating, from AAA to AA.

Over in Japan, brexit rocks the already soft economy with the flight to the yen, and a more valuable yen, hurting Japanese exports:

Halfway Around The World, Brexit Hits Japan's Already Soft Economy

Japan's exports instantly became pricier — and less competitive — as the value of the Japanese yen soared. Japanese households, meanwhile, are still cautious about spending money needed that could help energize the economy.

"We need to take all possible measures to prevent this [Brexit] from affecting the Japanese economy," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said at a news conference Monday. He didn't signal which measures Japan would take.

It's dismal timing for Abe, who was elected in 2012 on an eponymous plan and promise — "Abenomics" — to revive the Japanese economy after years of stagnation. ...

Limited Safety Net

One Thursday a month, dozens of working-class Japanese line up under a train overpass to pick up a free basket of food.

"Seaweed, tea, sauce, biscuits in a can, emergency-type food," Michiko Sato shows us, as she digs through her basket. "And dry curry."

It's made possible by the Second Harvest, a non-profit national food bank. The government here doesn't provide much in the way of help for the working poor, since companies have traditionally employed people for life. Since that's changing, the stress of a bad economy has hit non-corporate employees like Sato especially hard.

"I feel like that's one of the biggest problems.There's only temporary jobs available to people like me," Sato says. ...

But it's not enough to feed her teenage son, and there are few places to turn for help.

Government statistics show 55 percent of single-parent households — most headed by women — live in poverty, defined in Japan as those with no more than about $9,900 in disposable income a year. That's one of the highest such rates in the developed world. ...

The mothers at the food bank pickup say they don't have time to consider the geopolitics involved. They just want to reliably feed their families.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/06/28/483653431/halfway-around-the-world-brexit-hits-japans-already-soft-economy

[vtsnowedin]

Brain fart, I meant to say the Anglican Church, referred to in this country as the Episcopal church. Still, Protestants all.

Protestantism started in Germany with Martin Luther and his 95 thesis or whatever that was, a list of reforms he nailed to the church door.

The reformation spread through the germanic lands.. then was big in Holland and such.

KING HENRY liked it because he wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn't grant one.

And then came all the troubles with the catholics in england vs. the new anglican protestants. Mary, Queen of Scots conspiring with the French.. struggles with Queen Elizabeth (Henry's daughter).

Later on, Puritanism spread to Britain. And that caused some trouble for a while. UK had a dictator for a while, puritan guy. (Cromwell?)

Puritans got run out.. came over here to America.. along with a lot of other protestant sect dissidents in Europe.

I think really, the most firebrand religious all emigrated here to America.

I don't really think there's any of that left in the UK, ever since then. Anglican church is like a traditional kind of thing. They're basically catholics but it's just that King Henry needed that divorce, so the British monarch became head of the church rather than the pope.

-- Sixstrings off-the-top-of-my-head annotated history of the British Isles.

Not a bad summary and quite brief by Sixstring standards.

I think really, the most firebrand religious all emigrated here to America.

The Patriarch of my family was among them and one of the first in America to preach for a separation of Church and State. Circa 1645.

[Newfie]

Pendandic bickering. I get KJs point even if he muffed a factoid.

On the other hand I would not be surprised to find most native British believe they were the founders of Protentantisim. 93% of American male drivers think they are above average ya know. Perception is reality.

[Sixstrings]

Pendandic bickering. I get KJs point even if he muffed a factoid.

On the other hand I would not be surprised to find most native British believe they were the founders of Protentantisim. 93% of American male drivers think they are above average ya know. Perception is reality.

Well they most certainly did not start the reformation. That was a German thing, and it spread to Holland. And then started spreading into the UK a little bit, and if I recall my history it was someone at court that started talking to King Henry and crafty old Henry saw an opportunity: (a) get that divorce he needed, (b) tax the church lands / have control over them and (c) be free of Rome.

It was a BOLD thing to do, and Gas rightly points out some historical correlation to Brexit.

Breaking with Brussels is like the break with Rome.

The English Reformation was not without consequence though, and set off centuries of events and turmoil, shaping the New World too -- MUCH turmoil and civil wars and inquisition and horrible persecution and suppression of catholics. That was a CATHOLIC country. The people were catholic. Protestantism was something new, and Henry elevated it.

As time went on, the English reformation fully formed and was about more than just Henry's divorce and state control over the church. Our Bible, of course, was commissioned by King James. That was a reformation idea, that average people should be able to read it, and in their own language they can understand.

Something the puritans didn't like though.. James also put a big huge picture of himself in the Bible, and the message there was clear, about the divine authority of the King.


Rex Jacobus Magnus Britanniae, Francia, et Hibernia, latin for King James the Great of Britain and France and Scotland. (I think he was just claiming the French crown)

Bible Wars: Competing Translations

During the reign of Mary I, Catholicism was reinstated as England's official religion. A group of Protestant scholars fled to Switzerland, where they began work on an English translation of the Bible. Their version appeared in parts between 1557 and 1560. The Geneva Bible, as this translation is called, included marginal commentary and annotations that expressed Calvinist ideas.

The Geneva Bible was popular not only with Scottish Calvinists and English Puritans, but also with a broad English audience. The marginal commentary made the Bible text more accessible to the average reader. But to leaders of the Church of England, the Geneva Bible was highly suspect. Word choices within the text, as well as the textual commentary, challenged traditional church structure and beliefs.

Why the King James Version?

The Puritans hoped that the new king would be supportive of their reform efforts. In truth, James abhorred many of their views, especially their denial of the divine authority of kings. He believed the Puritans and the Geneva Bible were hostile to the monarchy, while the Church of England reinforced the king's authority.

In 1604, James convened an assembly of leaders from the Church of England and the Puritan faction at Hampton Court to allow them to air their grievances and talk about ecclesiastical reform. James did not approve of the Puritans' propositions, but when they mentioned a possible new Bible translation, James jumped at the suggestion. While the Puritans may have wished for a revision of the Bishop's Bible, instead, James sanctioned a new translation entirely.
http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/kingjamesbible/why-kjv.php

In America -- this was a place where all the various religions and sects fighting each other in the old world, could emigrate to and live in peace with each other.

Persecuted puritans AND persecuted catholics.. fighting each other over there and the crown and the crown's church too, yet living together in harmony over here.

And new protestant sects and new fangled brand new religions, of all types.

Everyone could live together, because of the principle of separation of church and state, and religious freedom for all.

Europe's religious wars.. it's millennia of history.. we have never had that. As far as who WE are as Americans, it's important to understand all this. It's why we would never want to do things quite like France does, like just banning muslim womens' head coverings in schools or something, strict regulation of culture, etc. And we can't tell people where they can't build a mosque, etc.

Maybe slowing down immigration is a good idea (I agree with that, not sure it's a #1 voting priority for me though if that would mean too far right policies overall / any dictatorish or fascistish stuff starting up. If it could just be like Eisenhower reducing immigration, or how the Australians are tough about their borders yet they aren't bigots or fascists, then okay).

Food for thought folks.. encourage assimilation as far as the English language and "the American Way" and consumerism / democratic capitalism.. everyone should identify as Americans #1 first and foremost, and that's the American Way and always has been and it's what allows otherwise disparate cultures to live together in peace.

It's actually a lot like ancient imperial Rome used to be; Rome was VERY international, all roads led to Rome and it had every religion / culture in the known world from Africa to gauls and barbarian Germania.

What united these otherwise disparate people? That they were ROMAN first, and WANTED to be. Roman republic, Roman citizenship, Roman law, and the "Roman Way," which was open to any kind of immigrant and culture.

[Sixstrings]

A kick in the teeth for the elite and the new world order.

Well yeah, but WHAT IS "the new world order?"

Is it neoliberism? If THAT must go, then what is the inverse? Far right wing?

And what is neoliberalism, really? Is it just "the american way" kind of thing, and democratic capitalism and consumerism and then otherwise people can have their different cultures but then there is national unity via the secular culture, and disagreements are settled by rule of law and reason and logic?

And science and reason being prominent, over religion and authoritarian dogma?

The thing about neoliberalism (speaking about the US) is that it has its roots at the founding of the USA. Religious freedom, TOLERANCE of differences as long as nobody steps on their neighbor's rights.

Neoliberalism is humanism.. that's the "Star Trek" future.

Is that not more advanced than going backward, and putting walls up and nations having more Putin-style type of strong leaders? And then freedom is suppressed, which means innovation gets suppressed, which means less economic growth and prosperity.

I'm just asking some questions here, about what "the new world order" really is. If it's American style values, I'm not sure I'm comfortable about all that going out the window. Humanism comes from the Age of Reason, at its root, in the 1700s.. the American republic founders were enlightenment age of reason men..

French historians traditionally place the Enlightenment between 1715, the year that Louis XIV died, and 1789, the beginning of the French Revolution. Some recent historians begin the period in the 1620s, with the start of the scientific revolution. Les philosophes (French for 'the philosophers') of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffee houses, and through printed books and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and the Church, and paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries.[5] A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism, trace their intellectual heritage back to the Enlightenment.[7]

The Age of Enlightenment was preceded by and closely associated with the scientific revolution. Earlier philosophers whose work influenced the Enlightenment included Francis Bacon, René Descartes, John Locke, and Baruch Spinoza.[8] The major figures of the Enlightenment included Cesare Beccaria, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant. Some European rulers, including Catherine II of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Frederick II of Prussia, tried to apply Enlightenment thought on religious and political tolerance, which became known as enlightened absolutism. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson visited Europe from America during this period and contributed actively to the scientific and political debate, and later incorporated the ideals of the Enlightenment into the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Is the above not the height of Western Civilization? SCIENCE? REASON? Freedom, not authoritarianism. Republics, not despotism?

It would be a sad thing if Western Civilization were turning back on that and know-nothing "but he sure sounds right" Trumpism rules the day.

Just food for thought.

I'm not sure what my point is, other than the USA (and French republic for that matter, though they had a lot more problems) was founded in the Age of Reason and on enlightenment (i.e. "neoliberal" or "humanist" values).

[Loki]

Pendandic bickering. I get KJs point even if he muffed a factoid.

His main point is also wrong on the facts.

Besides, the Moravian Church predated Luther by several decades. How's that for pedantic?

[Loki]

As an Englishman who voted (OUT) in the referendum I'll give my reasons.

1. I made my mind up to vote OUT many years ago.
2. The EU is totally undemocratic - un-elected leaders, never signing off the books etc
3. The EU wants ever closer union - we Brits don't (the majority). The Euro is a failed currency, ask the Greeks, Spanish & italians. Also Turkey & Ukraine etc may join soon - unbelievable.
4. I'm NOT against immigration, those who are here and of good civility are welcome to stay, HOWEVER Mrs Merkel invited millions into Germany - we can't, we are full. Simple as that. Help them IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
5. Obama = the establishment = my vote against. Silly sod should have kept his big mouth shut.
6. Ditto the European leaders
7. Ditto Cameron & Osborne
8. Ditto Labour.

We Brits don't like to be ordered how to vote.

The pound went down last Friday, as did some shares. My shares (ShellB, National Grid) went Up to their highest level !!

Right now the FTSE is up 2.87% on the day, EVERY share in the FTSE 100 is green (up). My shares have peaked for the year to date !!. The £ is up against the $ by 0.66%

All we need now is a Government (Trump is over here, we may keep him !!!!!)

Gas

Thanks for the list. That multitude of interacting factors was what drove the Brexit, a long simmering frustration with Project Europe. A desire to take back national sovereignty was the unifying factor. Remain's answer was "more of the same." Apparently the majority Brits are fed up with that option. So are many Americans.

What happens to UKIP now? I like Farage, but all I really know about him comes from watching a few speeches and debates, and reading statements about the Brexit. I've heard he's a love him or hate him kind of guy, kind of like Trump.

Seems like the Conservatives could bounce back if they selected a replacement for Cameron that was pro-Brexit. Boris? I also like him, but again, just from watching a few speeches and debates.

And what's Labour going to do? Their base just kicked them all in the balls. I haven't heard of any prominent pro-Brexit Labour politicians who could replace Corbyn, who just lost a no-confidence vote.

[Shaved Monkey]

Brexit is PO
Its the middle class getting squeezed trying to find something to blame

[dolanbaker]

The market "turmoil" probably made a lot of traders & speculators very rich, those who called it right would have sold sterling on Wednesday and bought it back Thursday morning for 10% less than they sold it for, traders of course winning as they sold two transactions.

[Sixstrings]

I apologize for my rambles upthread, going off into the English reformation and Age of Reason.

To try to boil my thinking down more succinctly..

The French republic, and the American republic, were founded in the Age of Reason. Science, humanism, human rights. "All men are created equal." "Liberté, égalité, fraternité."

In the latter 19th and then 20th century, peoples' movements took the form of socialist fascist far right, or communist / socialist far left.

But I'm just pointing out, for we Americans, what OUR country was actually founded upon. OUR guiding principles and founding documents. It was the Age of Reason, and the Enlightenment.

Science. Humanism. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson over in the salons of Paris, talking about science and philosophy and humanism and human rights; and what a RATIONAL, scientific not dogmatic, best kind of government could be.

So, I don't know.. the pro kremlin Russian type narratives, tearing down "the West" so much and liberalism.. UKIP in the UK, and far right over here in the US.. what are they really attacking? Is it really science, and HUMANISM and tolerance, and logic and reason over demagogues and fascists?

If that's the case, then they're actually against Western Civilization itself, or what the height of it was anyway.. way back in the 1700s, in that Enlightenment, that new age of science and "the Age of Reason."

There's a British series on Netflix that's pretty good. "WWII in colour." I watched the first episode last night, it's on youtube if anyone's interested:

World War II In HD Colour The Gathering Storm Episode 1
https://youtu.be/oggvLkYh_Oc?list=PLH2l6uzC4UEW8ItmRdZ-Bj3tZfzPcSfja

It struck me that there's some similarities, to the current political situation.

Is "The New World Order" really so bad, guys? What IS "the new world order?" Isn't that just a peaceful world, and a lot of business being done and yeah maybe that needs taxed and help our workin' folk out more -- but that does not mean we are not fundamentally all a PART of that system.

If markets crash, if corporations fail, if business grinds to a halt -- that affects YOU, too.

According to that "WWII in colour" program, it was Woodrow Wilson that coined the phrase "New World Order." The intentions were good. He created the League of Nations, meant to peacefully resolve international disputes rather than ever have another awful world war.

So, I'm just offering some counterpoint here for consideration..

What is "New World Order," if it's just the "American Way" and the "Western Civilization Way" with human rights and humanism, a tradition going all the way back to Rousseau and Ben Franklin and Jefferson and John Locke, then that's okay with me. That's the core root of what MY country is.

The "trade deals," and "new world order" and "the globalism" and all of that.. if it promotes human rights and science and reason and progress, and global PEACE, over despotism and demagogues and a castle wall around every town.. maybe that's for the best?

Just offering a counterpoint.

[Sixstrings]

Long story short.. this is just an argument that can be made.. the trade deals and trade courts are a bit like "the League of Nations."

Wars are generally about money and trade and resources and power, and power blocs.

Rather than ever fighting China in the South China Sea -- with trade agreements in place, corporations can just fight it out in court instead.

The 1%, benefiting so much from globalism, really does need taxed a bit and just make the 99% a bit more happy -- but NOT throw the whole thing out. That's maybe not good for global peace, not good for our country, not good for our national defense interests, not good for the long term future, not good for keeping the Western-led global alliance of nations together, and strong.

President Obama just had a news conference with the president of Mexico and PM of Canada. A Canadian reporter said it would be devastating to Canada, if NAFTA were repealed.

Regarding a UK-US trade deal, Obama said that the reality is that UK's biggest issue right now is the EU. Where they sell half their goods. It's the EU they need to work a trade agreement out with, and that's their first concern (logically, he is correct).

Obama said that the "special relationship" with UK won't change though -- because of deep historical ties, common language, family ties, etc.

He said it's not helpful that the UK will have less of a voice in Europe now, though.

He said the UK is still a great defense partner and that will continue.

So that all makes sense -- UK is family, it's the mother country, we're with them regardless of what they do. The reality is just that their biggest practical issue right now is with the EU, which we can't do much about, UK and EU will have to work it out.

[vtsnowedin]

BUT - Take Kerry home before the piece of shit gets lynched.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... id-cameron



Gas

We don't want him back! If he gets justifiably lynched we'll blame it on some video or other.

[Cog]

BUT - Take Kerry home before the piece of shit gets lynched.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... id-cameron



Gas

We don't want him back! If he gets justifiably lynched we'll blame it on some video or other.

LOL What you did there, I see it.

[Newfie]

Junkers is surprised the Brits did t have a plan?

Really?

What was Merkles plan on immigration?

What was Obamas plan on Libia?

Just two recent examples.

We live in democracies, we dont need no stinking plan.

[SeaGypsy]

Latvia was destroyed because you can have dysfunctional & cruel barely functional despots but not functional practical non compliant ones. Merkel plans to reverse the demographic time bomb.

[Newfie]

Latvia was destroyed because you can have dysfunctional & cruel barely functional despots but not functional practical non compliant ones. Merkel plans to reverse the demographic time bomb.

Lost me on that one Sea.