Tag Archives: European Union

Refugees allowed into Italy after threat to drown babies

Almost 1,000 illegal immigrants landed in Italy yesterday after threatening to throw babies into the sea if their rusting ship was turned back.

The 240ft Monica had been spotted in international waters during the night.

When Italian coastguard boats drew alongside, the crews were shocked to see men and women on board begin dangling the infants over the side.

The refugees – mostly Kurds and many said to be heading for Britain – calmed down only when they were assured they would not be turned away from Italy.

The ship was towed to the Sicilian port of Catania, where 400 men, 200 women and 361 children were taken to Red Cross shelters.

A 21-year-old woman had earlier been lifted off by helicopter after giving birth to a girl. They were doing well in hospital last night.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105630/Refugees-allowed-Italy-threat-drown-babies.html

‘Refugees’ in Austria on hunger strike because state isn’t giving them EUR 2000 per month each in ‘pocket money’

‘Refugees’ in Austria on hunger strike because state isn’t giving them EUR 2000 per month each in ‘pocket money’. Left libertarians yell, ‘Let them in, they want to work!’

www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20150916_OTS0149/christian-ragger-unverschaemte-forderung-einzelner-fluechtlinge

Muslim migrants in Germany are converting to Christianity “in droves” in the hope it will improve their chances of winning asylum.

Muslim migrants in Germany are converting to Christianity “in droves” in the hope it will improve their chances of winning asylum.

Hundreds of Iranians and Afghanis have been baptised at Trinity Church, a Lutheran church in Berlin, where Pastor Gottfried Martens offers a three-month “crash course” for new converts.

AP reports on one baptism where Martens asked Iranian refugee Mohammed Ali Zonoobi: “Will you break away from Satan and his evil deeds? Will you break away from Islam?” To which Zonoobi fervently responded: “Yes”.

Martens then baptised him “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Mohammed renamed himself Martin.

Martin Zonoobi, a carpenter from Iran, arrived in Germany with his wife and children five months ago. He is one of many who have converted, with many claiming true belief has prompted them.

Refugee Road — the importance of treating behavior as property

Behavioral norms must be treated (and defended) as property. Doing so would allow a limited number of people from other cultures to immigrate. Not doing so, is treason against the native population, the loss of high trust (which is VERY expensive to achieve), the deterioration of society, and the seeds of racial hostility.

11988373_509966645824892_7290431701338019166_n

11951274_509966749158215_6167520445604323404_n

Muslim’s on the Macedonia border refuse ‘Red Cross’ food parcels because the red cross symbolises Christianity.

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.

www.facebook.com/strawb31/videos/1011087625590347/?fref=nf

18th-19th century Etiquette for dueling

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.”