LostRepublic News Feed:
Muslim’s on the Macedonia border refuse ‘Red Cross’ food parcels because the red cross symbolises Christianity.Posted in Egalitarianism / Culture Wars, European Union, Immigration on August 29th, 2015
Muslim’s on the Macedonia border refuse ‘Red Cross’ food parcels because the red cross symbolises Christianity.
Amazing don’t you think that they’ll accept a Christian Countries, social housing, Benefits and Health care though.
Etiquette and rules for dueling included the following:
1 No duels were to be fought on Sunday, on a day of a Festival, or near a place of public worship.
2 A gentleman, who valued his own reputation, would not fight a duel with, nor act as a Second to, a person who aggravated and increased discord or violence by striking someone with his fist, a stick, or a glove or called the person a liar, coward, or any other irritating appellation.
3 The Second was to be “a ‘man who [was] not passion’s slave,'” and no gentleman was to accept the position of a Second, “without first receiving from his friend, a written statement of the case upon his honor.”
4 When “bosom friends, fathers of large, or unprovided families, or very inexperienced youths…[were] to fight, the Seconds [were to]….be doubly justified in their solicitude for reconciliation.”
5 A Principal was not to “wear light coloured clothing, ruffles, military decorations, or any other…attractive object, upon which the eye of his antagonist [could]…rest,” as it could affect the outcome of the duel.
6 The time and place was to be as convenient as possible to surgical assistance and to the combatants. The Royal Code of Honor noted that “special precaution should invariable be used, to prevent…carrying wounded gentlemen over walls, ditches, gates, stiles, or hedges; or too great a distance to a dwelling.”
7 The parties were to salute each other upon meeting “offering this evidence of civilization.”
8 As there were always unexpected advantages—the terrain or light—advantages were to be “decided by the toss of three, five, or seven coins…carefully shaken in a hat,” and the challenged party was entitled to the first toss, the challenger to the second, and so on until the advantages were decided.
9 No gentleman was allowed to wear spectacles unless they used them on public streets.
10 There was to be at least 10 yards distance between the combatants.
11 The Seconds were to present pistols to Principals and the pistols were not to be cocked before delivery.
12 The combatants were to present and fire together without resting on their aim at the agreed upon signal.
13 After each discharge the Seconds were to “mutually and zealously attempt a reconciliation.”
14 Each combatant would fire one shot and if neither was hit but the challenger satisfied, the duel was declared over. However, if the challenger was unsatisfied, the duel continued. But no more than three exchanges of fire were allowed, as to exchange more shots was considered barbaric.
15 The offended party determined what conclusion was acceptable and there were three possible outcomes: 1) first blood (the duel ended when one combatant was wounded); 2) the duel continued until one combatant was physically unable to proceed; or 3) death, a combatant was fatally wounded.
16 Neither the Principal nor the Second were to abandon an injured gentlemen “without…securing for him a proper conveyance from the field.”
17 After the duel was over, the Seconds were to remind friends and relatives of the combatants, that the slightest indiscretion could renew the breach and Principals were also to abstain from conversation upon the subject so as not to reopen closed wounds.
One nineteenth century article concluded that dueling “is not only a useful method of resenting an injury, it is an admirable school of manners as well. Its effect upon the seconds is no less beneficial than its effect upon the combatants. While these require courage and address, those are lost without vigilance and tact; and the law which blinks at the illegal duel so long as it is fought in strict accord…would instantly punish an accident.”
She says the magic words. “Accountability.” Also, “There is no such thing as white privilege.”
Gramsci argued that communists’ route to taking power in developed, industrialized societies such as Europe and the United States would be best achieved through a “long march through the institutions.” This would be a gradual process of radicalization of the cultural institutions . . .
In the context of American culture, “the long march through the institutions” meant, in the words of Herbert Marcuse, “working against the established institutions while working in them.” . . .
While the Frankfurt School was neo-Marxist, many of its adherents were less interested in economics and redistribution of wealth than in remaking and transforming society through attitudinal and cultural change. They incorporated Marxist class theory into sociology and psychology while also assimilating Freud’s theories on sexuality. Thus, Marx’s theory of the dialectic of perpetual conflict was joined together with Freud’s neurotic ideas, creating a sort of Freudian-Marxism. Their stated goal was a total transformation of society by breaking down traditional norms and institutions such as monogamous relations and the traditional family. This was to be accomplished by promoting and legitimizing unhinged sexual permissiveness with no cultural or religious restraint. . . .
Alinsky’s handbook, Rules for Radicals, first published in 1971, included an admiration for the prince of darkness, Lucifer, noting that he was “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom…”
By the 1960s Marcuse and Alinsky were recognized as two of the most influential leaders of the New Left, which gained strength and numbers by taking a leading role in the anti-Vietnam War movement. However, Alinsky and Marcuse were critical of the violent and confrontational tactics of many of the anti-war radicals, such as Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, preferring instead that radicals work behind the scenes and bore into the establishment. This was seen later in the 1960s with Alinskyites positioned to take advantage of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” programs, to direct federal money into various Alinksy projects.
Alinksy succeeded in what would be a crowning achievement: the recruitment of young idealistic radicals — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — who would go on to climb to the top of political power in the Democratic Party. Hillary wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969 on Alinsky’s methods and remained a friend of Alinsky until his death in 1972. A decade later, Barack Obama was trained in the methods and Rules for Radicals in the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago. . . .
One of Alinsky’s unique contributions, explained as the seventh Rule for Radicals, was the tactic to avoid debate on the issues by systematically silencing, ridiculing and marginalizing people of opposing views. At the same time, allies in the media provided cover and a framework of acceptance for radical issues and leaders. Traditional values of morality, family, the work ethic and free market institutions were made to appear outdated — even reactionary, unnecessary, and culturally unfashionable. Ultimately this evolved into what has become known as political correctness, which now envelops the culture.
By 1980, the counter-cultural alliances would include radical feminist groups, civil rights and ethnic minority advocates, extremist environmental organizations, and advocates of liberation theology, anti-military peace groups, union leaders, radical legal activist organizations like the ACLU, human rights watch-dog organizations, community organizers of the Alinsky model, national and world church council bureaucracies, anti-corporate activists, and various internationalist-minded groups. Working separately and together, these groups could count on a sympathetic media and favorable coverage, which facilitated building bridges to the Democratic Party and becoming vocal constituencies deserving attention and legislative action. . . .
By the early to mid-1980s a third of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives supported the budgetary priorities and the foreign policy advocated by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the leading revolutionary Marxist think tank in the United States, located Washington, D.C. Robert Borosage, the director of IPS, was succeeding in one of his stated goals to “move the Democratic Party’s debate internally to the left by creating an invisible presence in the party.”
”We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”
”The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…”
“It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present.”
First is by a Nigerian king.
The second by the king of Dahomey
The third is by a British colonial officer in Ghana
Mexico has started charging Americans $20 to cross the border into mexico. Anyone going from San Diego to Tijuana now has show a passport, fill out a form and if staying more than a week – pay 322 pesos, or roughly $20, for a six-month permit. Mexico says it wants to keep better track of who’s coming into their country.
I remain alarmed that the rhetoric is evolving as if with Machiavellian intent, exactly as it did in South Africa.
Liberty -> Equality under the Law -> Equality of Outcomes (impossible) -> Reparations -> Oppress White people -> kill the Boer.
This article uses a very DANGEROUS conflation of words. The author should be severely punished for inciting violence against Europeans.
I hate to keep noticing this, but the authors of the most white-hating ideas are always of a certain ethnic group.