Forwarded from Cultured American
Around the year 1700, about 80 percent of the population of what was to become the United States were of English (or Welsh) descent, with about 11 percent of African origin, and the rest being Dutch (4 percent), Scottish (3 percent) and other European. The imprint of the British on early American society was overwhelming, diverse and long-lasting: the regional and cultural differences between the settler groups created distinct regional and cultural identities in America.
In the following, we shall demonstrate the differences in each folkway that has defined the American folk based on their years of settlement. These are the following folkway and their time period:
- The Exodus (1629-41)
- Cavaliers and their Servants (1642-75)
- The Friends’ Migration (1675-1725)
- The Flight from Northern Britain (1717-75)
In the following, we shall demonstrate the differences in each folkway that has defined the American folk based on their years of settlement. These are the following folkway and their time period:
- The Exodus (1629-41)
- Cavaliers and their Servants (1642-75)
- The Friends’ Migration (1675-1725)
- The Flight from Northern Britain (1717-75)
“Gabriel Attal, né le 16 mars 1989 à Clamart (Hauts-de-Seine), est un homme d'Étatfrançais, nommé Premier ministre le 9 janvier 2024, démissionnaire depuis le 16 juillet 2024.”
“Son père, Yves Attal (1948-2015), avocat et producteur de cinéma, descend par son propre père, Claude Attal (1916-1978) né à Tunis, naturalisé français en janvier 1937 et devenu chef de service en pédiatrie à Paris, d'une famille juive tunisienne, et par sa mère, Jeanine Weil(1920-2011), d'une famille d'Ashkénazes parisiens d'origine alsacienne. Un de ses cousins maternels éloignés est Théophile Bader, cofondateur des Galeries Lafayette). Son père, non-pratiquant, se référant à leur patronyme, lui a dit un jour : « Tu te sentiras toute ta vie solidaire des Juifs car tu subiras comme eux l'antisémitisme ». Il meurt d'un cancer foudroyant le 12 novembre 2015 à Paris, à l'âge de 66 ans.”
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Attal
“Son père, Yves Attal (1948-2015), avocat et producteur de cinéma, descend par son propre père, Claude Attal (1916-1978) né à Tunis, naturalisé français en janvier 1937 et devenu chef de service en pédiatrie à Paris, d'une famille juive tunisienne, et par sa mère, Jeanine Weil(1920-2011), d'une famille d'Ashkénazes parisiens d'origine alsacienne. Un de ses cousins maternels éloignés est Théophile Bader, cofondateur des Galeries Lafayette). Son père, non-pratiquant, se référant à leur patronyme, lui a dit un jour : « Tu te sentiras toute ta vie solidaire des Juifs car tu subiras comme eux l'antisémitisme ». Il meurt d'un cancer foudroyant le 12 novembre 2015 à Paris, à l'âge de 66 ans.”
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Attal
Wikipedia
Gabriel Attal
homme d'État français
“Gabriel Nissim Attal de Couriss (French: [ɡabʁijɛlatal]; born 16 March 1989) is a French politician who has been Prime Minister of France since January 2024.”
“Attal was born on 16 March 1989 in Clamart, Île-de-France. He grew up in the 13th and 14th arrondissements of Paris with three sisters. His father, Yves Attal, was a lawyer and film producer; his mother, Marie de Couriss, worked as an employee of a film production company. His father was Jewish and his mother a Russian Orthodox Christian; Attal was raised in his mother's Orthodox Christian faith.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Attal
“Attal was born on 16 March 1989 in Clamart, Île-de-France. He grew up in the 13th and 14th arrondissements of Paris with three sisters. His father, Yves Attal, was a lawyer and film producer; his mother, Marie de Couriss, worked as an employee of a film production company. His father was Jewish and his mother a Russian Orthodox Christian; Attal was raised in his mother's Orthodox Christian faith.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Attal
Wikipedia
Gabriel Attal
Prime Minister of France to 2024
The House of Commons holds ultimate power in the United Kingdom. Both the power of the monarch and the power of the House of Lords have been severely diminished. This was a process that started in the English Civil War.
After the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell abolished both the monarchy and the House of Lords. Although they were both restored with the restoration of His Majesty King Charles II, the powers of both the monarchy and the hereditary aristocracy were diminished.
They were further diminished over the centuries as the House of Commons re-usurped more and more power. There were many schemes by the House of Commons to usurp ever more power, and one of the most atrocious ones was the Parliament Act of 1911 which severely reduced the power of the House of Lords. It was forced through by corruption with the House of Commons pressuring the monarch to create new peers to place in the House of Lords to vote for their corrupt agenda.
The Parliament Act of 1949 further destroyed the power of the House of Lords. It was a corrupt act made by the House of Commons.
The House of Lords Act of 1999 effectively removed the majority of hereditary nobles from Parliament and only 92 nobles are guaranteed seats in the House of Lords (90 of them are elected by the hereditary aristocracy). Only the Duke of Norfolk and the Baron Carrington are guaranteed seats without election, due to ancient legal agreements.
Other than the 92 guaranteed hereditary peers, the rest of the House of Lords is filled with politically appointed “life peers” who do not belong there and blaspheme the sanctity of the House of Lords. They are used by the House of Commons for their own corrupt purposes.
Throughout the centuries following the English Civil War, the House of Commons also increasingly bullied the monarch out of his power. The 1688 Revolution deposed King James II for failing to be an obedient lapdog to the House of Commons. From then on, the British monarch was but a puppet of the House of Commons.
After the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell abolished both the monarchy and the House of Lords. Although they were both restored with the restoration of His Majesty King Charles II, the powers of both the monarchy and the hereditary aristocracy were diminished.
They were further diminished over the centuries as the House of Commons re-usurped more and more power. There were many schemes by the House of Commons to usurp ever more power, and one of the most atrocious ones was the Parliament Act of 1911 which severely reduced the power of the House of Lords. It was forced through by corruption with the House of Commons pressuring the monarch to create new peers to place in the House of Lords to vote for their corrupt agenda.
The Parliament Act of 1949 further destroyed the power of the House of Lords. It was a corrupt act made by the House of Commons.
The House of Lords Act of 1999 effectively removed the majority of hereditary nobles from Parliament and only 92 nobles are guaranteed seats in the House of Lords (90 of them are elected by the hereditary aristocracy). Only the Duke of Norfolk and the Baron Carrington are guaranteed seats without election, due to ancient legal agreements.
Other than the 92 guaranteed hereditary peers, the rest of the House of Lords is filled with politically appointed “life peers” who do not belong there and blaspheme the sanctity of the House of Lords. They are used by the House of Commons for their own corrupt purposes.
Throughout the centuries following the English Civil War, the House of Commons also increasingly bullied the monarch out of his power. The 1688 Revolution deposed King James II for failing to be an obedient lapdog to the House of Commons. From then on, the British monarch was but a puppet of the House of Commons.
The British monarch has the potential of taking over the government.
Two conditions would be essential for him being able to do so:
1) Support of the Armed Forces. The House of Commons is unlikely to yield to the monarch’s exercise of regal authority unless the monarch backs up his legal powers with the use or potential use of force. That would mean the monarch would have to have the loyalty of the Armed Forces. Since the Armed Forces swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch, this is possible. However, like so many aspects of the British system, the oath is a custom and even Members of Parliament take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. How serious they take this oath would be an issue. The best case scenario would be control of the officer corps by monarchist members of the aristocracy, members of the Royal Family itself, and other sympathetic officers.
2) Rejection of democracy. Overthrowing the House of Commons would mean overthrowing elected Members of Parliament in favour of regal authority. This is best legitimised by a formal rejection of democracy and democratic principles. There could be an anti-democratic ideological movement to make this attractive to the population.
Two conditions would be essential for him being able to do so:
1) Support of the Armed Forces. The House of Commons is unlikely to yield to the monarch’s exercise of regal authority unless the monarch backs up his legal powers with the use or potential use of force. That would mean the monarch would have to have the loyalty of the Armed Forces. Since the Armed Forces swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch, this is possible. However, like so many aspects of the British system, the oath is a custom and even Members of Parliament take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. How serious they take this oath would be an issue. The best case scenario would be control of the officer corps by monarchist members of the aristocracy, members of the Royal Family itself, and other sympathetic officers.
2) Rejection of democracy. Overthrowing the House of Commons would mean overthrowing elected Members of Parliament in favour of regal authority. This is best legitimised by a formal rejection of democracy and democratic principles. There could be an anti-democratic ideological movement to make this attractive to the population.
Having an officer corps dominated by officers with monarchist views would enable a decisive potential takeover of the government by the monarch.
Traditionally, young men from aristocratic families spend a few years as officers in the Armed Forces. Many aristocratic men have monarchist views. If this tradition becomes popular again, a coup d’état against the House of Commons in favour of regal authority and military government would become a potential possibility. All it needs is a honourable and brave monarch to lead such a bold takeover.
There wouldn’t even be a civil war if the monarch had the full support of the Armed Forces, since there would be no significant armed opposition within the country.
Traditionally, young men from aristocratic families spend a few years as officers in the Armed Forces. Many aristocratic men have monarchist views. If this tradition becomes popular again, a coup d’état against the House of Commons in favour of regal authority and military government would become a potential possibility. All it needs is a honourable and brave monarch to lead such a bold takeover.
There wouldn’t even be a civil war if the monarch had the full support of the Armed Forces, since there would be no significant armed opposition within the country.
“A nation lives forever through its concepts, honour, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation's historical honour, of the nation's eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honour at all costs.”
- Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
- Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
Forwarded from The Golden One
🇪🇺 The current EU deepstate has arrested Pavel Durov (head of Telegram) for refusing to censor his platform.
Why did this happen?
Because our guys are not wielding the levers of power.
The solution?
To get our guys into positions of power.
Why did this happen?
Because our guys are not wielding the levers of power.
The solution?
To get our guys into positions of power.