Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[The Seventh String]

I wonder what this US based nonsense is supposed to have to do with the UK?

Nothing much, but why should the gullible proportion of the citizens of the US be spared PoE’s attention?

And US-orientated conspiracy theory stuff like that can be a pretty good way to get lots of youtube views. And youtube can be monetarised if you get enough views/subscribers, you can use youtube to plug your patreon account to get donations and so on. PoE is hitting quite a few key words in the battle for gullible American’s time and money.

He’ll be into flat Earthism and Biblical literacy and prophesies next.

Though I bet he’ll never get into accepting Re as payment for anything.

[Siegfried Shrink]

On the Biblical literacy front, maybe he will accept Re as his saviour?

Maybe he will come across Isaiah 53.3

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5-yTzY1dn4

[longdog]

I'll see your Isaiah and raise you a rather apt Ecclesiastes...

"Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us"

[Chaos]

Latest garbage. "53-47 KAVANAUGH

lol. yeah. he's not even paying attention.

[notorial dissent]

POE's nonsense has already been floated in the US and it was a resounding failure, with several of the suckers going to jail. Rubber checks are not ignored or tolerated in the US and when they come down they usually come down really hard. So while there may be a lot of suckers here, the end result is pretty quick and pretty unpleasant.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

I concur with the above; this is just Peter attempting to build his 'brand'. He's seen the undue attention given to the likes of Alex Jones and other alt-right firebrands, and he's wondering "why aren't I getting some of that? I've been spouting this kind of gibberish for years!"

But despite having cast off the shackles of common sense and reality that bind you or I, this is the best he can come up with:
"So, ah... those three, uh, buildings on 9/11 were brought down by a nuclear explosion."

Imagine being able to say anything you want, yet your imagination is so weak you can't come up with anything more progressive than a 9/11 demolition bit. Shoulda gone with gay frogs or pedophiles on Mars, Pete! The world is your oyster! Stretch your legs a bit!

So Peter of England of Germany of America is going after the U.S. conspiracy market now. But don't worry, he's still your garden variety racist. This just in from a man who leeched off the German people for goodness knows how long, despite offering nothing and not being able to speak the language:
https://youtu.be/KX-8rIhOItU?t=1221

Peter - you were an immigrant, you fucking weapon.

[Siegfried Shrink]

You cannot be a good con-man if you believe anything you are telling the marks. I am not saying he was ever a good con-man but he is not a very convincing speaker when it comes to this rubbish.
I think he thinks it is as silly as I do but he is willing to give anything a try rather than do anything useful. This may be harder work than actual work.

[longdog]

Peter - you were an immigrant, you fucking weapon.

Brown people are immigrants. White people are ex-pats.

That's a very basic error you've made there Zeke

[Tevildo]

Imagine being able to say anything you want, yet your imagination is so weak you can't come up with anything more progressive than a 9/11 demolition bit. Shoulda gone with gay frogs or pedophiles on Mars, Pete! The world is your oyster! Stretch your legs a bit!

Gay frogs are taken, unfortunately. Look up "atrazine frogs" using your favourite search engine.

[JimUk1]

Peter - you were an immigrant, you fucking weapon.

Brown people are immigrants. White people are ex-pats.

That's a very basic error you've made there Zeke

White people are also settlers, not colonists, apparently?

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Peter - you were an immigrant, you fucking weapon.

Brown people are immigrants. White people are ex-pats.

That's a very basic error you've made there Zeke

White people are also settlers, not colonists, apparently?

There was a really good Henning Wehn bit where he did a vox pop of random (white) people in Britain, openly asking what the definition of an immigrant was. "Romanians", "Polish", et cetera. Then he asked, immediately afterwards, what you'd call a retired couple living in Spain. You guessed it: ex-pat.

I can't find the timestamp but it was somewhere in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ocOEHPmOL4

[rumpelstilzchen]

There was a really good Henning Wehn bit where he did a vox pop of random (white) people in Britain, openly asking what the definition of an immigrant was. "Romanians", "Polish", et cetera. Then he asked, immediately afterwards, what you'd call a retired couple living in Spain. You guessed it: ex-pat.

True, but those ex-pats are not necessarily white.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

There was a really good Henning Wehn bit where he did a vox pop of random (white) people in Britain, openly asking what the definition of an immigrant was. "Romanians", "Polish", et cetera. Then he asked, immediately afterwards, what you'd call a retired couple living in Spain. You guessed it: ex-pat.

True, but those ex-pats are not necessarily white.

From the perspective of a UK resident, the immigrant/expat classification is logical and appropriate - nothing to see here.

When I lived abroad, the locals would call me a foreigner, I considered myself part of the local community. The foreign government considered me a permanent resident, the UK government considered me an non-resident citizen. All were equally true. It was all a matter of perspective.

People like Henning Wehn trying to be clever by using semantics is more a reflection on his agenda, than on those interviewed.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

People like Henning Wehn trying to be clever by using semantics is more a reflection on his agenda, than on those interviewed.

It is more a reflection on the fact he's a comedian.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

People like Henning Wehn trying to be clever by using semantics is more a reflection on his agenda, than on those interviewed.

It is more a reflection on the fact he's a comedian.

Yes, he's a comedian and his agenda is to e_ _ _ _ _ _ _n ?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Yes, he's a comedian and his agenda is to e_ _ _ _ _ _ _n ?

Execution?

[JimUk1]

There was a really good Henning Wehn bit where he did a vox pop of random (white) people in Britain, openly asking what the definition of an immigrant was. "Romanians", "Polish", et cetera. Then he asked, immediately afterwards, what you'd call a retired couple living in Spain. You guessed it: ex-pat.

True, but those ex-pats are not necessarily white.

From the perspective of a UK resident, the immigrant/expat classification is logical and appropriate - nothing to see here.

When I lived abroad, the locals would call me a foreigner, I considered myself part of the local community. The foreign government considered me a permanent resident, the UK government considered me an non-resident citizen. All were equally true. It was all a matter of perspective.

People like Henning Wehn trying to be clever by using semantics is more a reflection on his agenda, than on those interviewed.

I’ve lived abroad, and everyone called me a forgiener, but it is true, the British press (to my recollection) has never referred to expatriates as “migrants”

http://education.abc.net.au/home#!/medi ... -to-sydney

Where as....

[ManontheClaphamBus]

True, but those ex-pats are not necessarily white.

From the perspective of a UK resident, the immigrant/expat classification is logical and appropriate - nothing to see here.

When I lived abroad, the locals would call me a foreigner, I considered myself part of the local community. The foreign government considered me a permanent resident, the UK government considered me an non-resident citizen. All were equally true. It was all a matter of perspective.

People like Henning Wehn trying to be clever by using semantics is more a reflection on his agenda, than on those interviewed.

I’ve lived abroad, and everyone called me a forgiener, but it is true, the British press (to my recollection) has never referred to expatriates as “migrants”

http://education.abc.net.au/home#!/medi ... -to-sydney

Where as....

I understand 'migrant' to mean someone who moves from place to place - usually to seek work (The Oxford and Collins Dictionaries are my basis for this), the correct term for someone leaving their own country to settle in another is 'emigrant', as used in this newspaper article. Hopefully the British Press is still literate enough to understand the difference between the two terms, thus the lack of use in this context.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/genera ... -year.html

[BoomerSooner17]

The way that I understood the terms "immigrant" and "emigrant" when I was taught them in American public high school is that a person who moves to a different area is simultaneously an immigrant and an emigrant: they are an emigrating from their area of origin and they are also immigrating to their destination. As was mentioned earlier, the term depends on one's point of view and location. Just my $0.02.

[AiusLocutius]

The way that I understood the terms "immigrant" and "emigrant" when I was taught them in American public high school is that a person who moves to a different area is simultaneously an immigrant and an emigrant: they are an emigrating from their area of origin and they are also immigrating to their destination. As was mentioned earlier, the term depends on one's point of view and location. Just my $0.02.

Correct.
The matter of interest is the difference between migrant (im or em depending on point of view) and refugee.
A person may migrate from their country of origin. However should they arrive at the following country and cross the border without fulfilling that countries prerequisites, then they are either an illegal immigrant or a refugee. Should they stay in that country and request asylum they are a refugee. Should they continue to another country. For example people walking through Mexico from Honduras to the USA. Then legally they have no status and should be sent back as they did not request asylum in the first country. Illegal means just that. This is why Mexico is now starting to strengthen it's Southern border. It can see a time that the USA will put them all back in Mexico and say, "It's your problem, not ours"