Mick Tester

@stats_feed @grok is this accurate?

UK quietly regains position as the world’s 5th largest economy, per IMF. 1. 🇺🇸 United States ~ $32.38 trillion 2. 🇨🇳 China ~ $20.85 trillion 3. 🇩🇪 Germany ~ $5.45 trillion 4. 🇯🇵 Japan ~ $4.38 trillion 5. 🇬🇧 United Kingdom ~ $4.26 trillion ⬆️ 6. 🇮🇳 India ~ $4.15 trillion ⬇️ 7. 🇫🇷 France ~ $3.6 trillion 8. 🇮🇹 Italy ~ $2.74 trillion 9. 🇷🇺 Russia ~ $2.66 trillion 10. 🇧🇷 Brazil ~ $2.64 trillion

@RealDonKeith Just take a little bit of time to look up easy-to-access statistics on gun deaths in America vs the rest of the western world.

Australia took away its citizens’ guns, but 10 people at Bondi Beach are dead anyway because terrorists don’t care about gun laws. The only thing the Australian government did was make sure its unarmed, law-abiding, citizens are now sitting ducks, unable to defend themselves.

@iamtomskinner @grok Do mine @grok

Hey, @grok, who was the most famous person to visit my profile? It doesn't need to be a mutual, don't tag them, just say who it was. Bosh❤️

@crispinrovere @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin What ethnicity are you out of interest? I want a full description, dating back to your family tree’s ethnogenesis.

@tester_mick @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin People are Australian by nationality, not ethnicity.

@crispinrovere @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin Nobody in Australia is Australian 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

It's not 'my bullshit theory'. It's every other country on Earth's 'bullshit theory' and the entire established body of literature on ethnogenesis. Truly, it is *only* people in the UK that are confused about this. When those in India expelled the English, they weren't saying "everyone except those born in India".

@crispinrovere @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin About 1% of people in England are English according to your ethnogenesis bullshit theory. Same could be said for many nations on Earth. Next time I’m in Australia, I’ll remember that none of the people there are actually Australian because a random guy on Twitter told me so.

@tester_mick @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin Literally the *only* people on Earth who think that English ethnicity isn't a real thing are people in the UK, and then only when talking about the English. *That* is what is truly weird.

@crispinrovere @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin Oh okay. So everyone on Earth who claims to be English should therefore carry with them proof of their family tree which shows they have Anglo-Saxon DNA. Otherwise, they are not English. This seems entirely reasonable and not at all fucking weird.

One has to go to back to the ethnogenesis. Take Australia for example. Australia as a country is incredibly young. At present there is no Australian "ethnicity". There will be one in future as European Aussies continue to mix with East Asians. Eventually a new ethnicity will emerge over the next 300-1000 years.

@KonstantinKisin I genuinely cannot believe I am living in a society where a prominent public figure believes this is a perfectly reasonable thing to claim. What kind of insulated bubble are you living in?!

@KonstantinKisin The vast majority of people do not believe that you have to be white to be English. You are so wrong about that.

I hope the people who lie, misrepresent and talk shit about me keep doing it. I'm taking notes. 😉

@KonstantinKisin Unless you have a family portrait of Queen Boudicca hanging above your mantelpiece, @KonstantinKisin won’t consider you to be English.

The Moron Industrial Complex is desperately trying to fabricate outrage over the fact that I said there is a difference between being British, an umbrella imperial identity into which we can all integrate, as I have done, and being English which is a group that, at the very least, has an ethnicity dimension. Ignore the Moron Industrial Complex. It's for morons.

@FraserNelson By Konstantin’s definition, one’s ancestors would all need to have resided in England for one to be considered English. If your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents emigrated from another country, than you are not English. It’s utterly absurd.

Unexpected controversy!

@crispinrovere @CherylKerkin @KonstantinKisin By this definition, one’s parents, grandparents, great grandparents could all have been born and raised in England. But because your great, great grandparents were immigrants, one is not English. How far back does one’s family tree have to go? 300 years? 1000 years? PreRoman era?

To put it crudely: Had I been born in China, no-one would consider me Chinese. As for being a 'mongrel group' , the Anglo-Saxon/Normans have been English longer than Maoris have been in New Zealand! If the English aren't an ethnicity, no-one is. Meanwhile literally everyone else on Earth categorise 'the English' correctly. For example, when the locals expelled the English from India - they did not mean 'everyone except those born in India'.

@crispinrovere @KonstantinKisin Interesting. I was looking at Konstantin like he was the one talking with two heads. My parents are SouthAfricans. I was born and bred in England. Never in my life has anyone ever told me I’m not English.

@JoePopulista @nurseybird1 @i_iratus Hello my is Joe I have so many big things cos I am big and clever

My workshop is 900 square feet, may garage is 1100 square feet, and my yard is 1 acre. This past year I put in 14 tons of rock. Last week I moved a 750 lb boat motor , I pulled my boat AND camper to a lake twice a monthly all summer, And hauled away 20 full loads of yard waste , try doing that in your hot hatchback.

@Ralphy__Boy @MorganLaidler It’s hilarious how seriously Americans take themselves.

The U.S. national anthem became official in 1931- long before Trump was even born. There is a reason they call it the NATIONAL anthem- that’s because it represents the ENTIRE NATION- not an individual, not even groups, but the ENTIRE NATION. Notwithstanding your unpersuasive clean-up attempt, the REALITY is that you have insulted all 340,000,000 US citizens. Hope that clears it up for you.

Dear America, We're not booing your hockey players. We're not booing your country. We're not even booing you. We're booing your asshole of a president who keeps threatening our sovereignty for zero reason. Once he leaves us alone it'll stop. Hope that clears it up for you.

@JohnnyWhiskyTX @VincentOshana Most of the world thinks Americans are cunts and Canadians are great

@VincentOshana Canadians are jealous that they’re not respected in the world like Americans are. They let weakness lead them

Canadians are booing during OUR national anthem every chance they get. Classless. No respect. No gratitude. Their military is a joke, their healthcare system survives because of OUR medical advancements, and their economy depends on OUR trade. Their entire way of life is cushioned by the fact that the U.S. exists. When trouble comes, we’re the ones protecting them and keeping them from falling apart. They boo our anthem while benefiting from everything we provide, spitting in the face of the country that carries them. All of this happens right in front of their weak, beta male, spineless Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the poster boy for failure and submission. I’m glad we didn’t just beat them in the game, we beat the shit out of them too.

@benonwine No

Would you VOTE for JD VANCE if he was British and Running for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? 🇬🇧 🇺🇸

@Neccccy No

Would you be happier, proud and feel safer if these 2 were in charge of the UK?

@SBarrettBar Imagine having the audacity to speak on behalf of an entire country. Most of whom think people like you are bellends.

Dear America, May we please borrow JD Vance. Yours in kind affection, The United Kingdom

@RnaudBertrand You have articulated my thoughts exactly in a way that I could not have done. Thank you

Really hard not to make the parallel between JD Vance's speech right now at the Munich Security Conference and Putin's 2007 speech at the very same podium. x.com/business/statu… Both were watershed moments that fundamentally transformed the existing consensus. Putin at the time delivered the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment. JD Vance's speech will probably be remembered as the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the post-WW2 Western alliance. As a European, I'm in two minds about what Vance said about Europe. He is of course right about many things. For instance Europe's attitude with respect to Romania's elections was beyond appalling and unequivocally antidemocratic. I myself called it out repeatedly on this platform. But - and this is a very big BUT - on Romania and much of Vance's criticism directed at Europe, the U.S. was right there alongside Europe acting jointly, and often even guiding Europe's actions. Specifically on Romania for instance, I believe that the US State Department was first in issuing a statement on December 4th (2021-2025.state.gov/statement-on-r…) expressing its concern about "Russian involvement in malign cyber activity designed to influence the integrity of the Romanian electoral process" which led to the elections being cancelled two days later (and which, it was later proven, was completely false: it turned out that this "malign cyber activity" were paid for by the very Romanian party in power that cancelled the elections!). It's only after that State Department statement that the Europeans followed the U.S.'s lead. So it's a bit rich, even very rich, for Vance, less than 2 months afterwards, to lecture Europeans on this without as much as acknowledging the U.S.'s own role in a lot of it. Same could be said about European content moderation and "censorship." He conveniently forgets that much of Europe's current approach was developed in close coordination with American agencies and tech companies. The EU's content moderation framework didn't emerge in a vacuum - it was heavily influenced by American practices and pressures. Or take Vance's criticism of European mass migration policies. He spent a big part of his speech lamenting over the attack in Munich yesterday by (apparently) a young Afghan asylum seeker, describing it as a direct "result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the [European] continent". But he conveniently fails to mention why Afghans migrated en-masse out of their country, which might have a little something to do with a certain great power that decided to wage a 20-year long war over there and completely wrecked the country... Same story for many migrants in Europe, a huge share of them being a direct result of disastrous US foreign policy decisions. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with Vance's stated intentions to meddle in European politics. He calls out - rightly - Europe for not living up to its democratic values, yet in the same breath he's explicitly announcing America's intention to intervene in European politics by supporting certain movements against established institutions. He criticizes European elites for not respecting democratic choices while simultaneously suggesting that a Trump administration would actively work to influence those choices. How is this any different from the kind of interference he hypocritically condemns? Perhaps most worrying of all, Vance's vision seems to completely disregard why the post-WW2 European architecture was built in the first place. Europe is the place where both world wars started, 100% of them. The past 80 years were a uniquely peaceful time in European history: due to the high density of states in a relatively small geography and the somewhat disagreeable character of many European nations (the French very much included), the continent had been in almost constant conflict for the previous millennium. I really dislike European institutions as much as the next guy but I don't forget the original spirit with which they were built: to put an end to endless war in Europe. By positioning America as an ally of nationalist forces against these institutions, Vance isn't just ending an alliance - he's actively working to unwind the entire post-war European peace architecture, which could have immense ramifications. In fact I think we can even legitimately ask ourselves if the U.S. doesn't now have war in Europe as one of its strategic objectives. Given the U.S.'s history in triggering wars left, right and center when it believes they're in their interests, and given Vance's speech, I think the question has merits. All in all, I'm not ashamed to say that I much prefer Putin's 2007 speech to Vance's. Whatever you may think, Putin remained within the confines of what he thought were challenges to Russia's national interests, issues like NATO expansion or American attempt at global hegemony. He didn't try to meddle in intra-Western politics or position Russia as an active force for undermining Western institutions from within. His vision was about creating a multipolar world where Russia would be one independent pole - not about dismantling the internal architecture of other poles. Where Putin wanted to limit Western power globally, Vance seems to want to fracture the European order locally. That's a far more dangerous proposition. I'm all for reforming Europe and I constantly call for it. But to me by far the biggest issue for Europe is its lack of sovereignty and strategic autonomy, especially vis à vis the United States, in almost all domains. If Vance's speech could have any silver lining, it would be to finally wake Europeans up to this reality: let's hope that for once Europe draws the right lesson.