One has to put it in the historical context though. They just want to piss at the UK and a tiny country will need a saint patron power in any case and the EU happens to be available (and willing) to play the role.
Imagine being poor with bills to pay and having to spend your energy to make ends meet, instead of battling the judiciary bureaucracy.
Someone hasn't swallowed the pill yet.
It's a nice theory but the club owner (manger?) outed the connection himself, very early in the whole shitstorm.
Postmodernism part deux is just deliberate nonsense feeling righteous about seeking power with violence.
Truth.
A few of the mob found some unsecured area, climbed the tower and dropped the drawbridge. Then the mob preceded to slaughter and decapitate and dismember the ~150 troops inside, then parade their mangled corpses around the city.
Nonsense.
Only a troop of besiegers came from the side of the armory and dropped the drawbridge, then axed down the door to the courtyard, where they met with and delivered their demands to de Launay. And it wasn't "unsecured". There were "no fire" orders. But that's not the critical flaw in your understanding. This is it:
The courtyard was (obviously) in the enclosure of the outer walls and the defenders well barricaded inside the fucking castle.
So how exactly, in your expert narration, did the thousand-strong mob enter the inner castle where all the soldiers were holding the fort? Teleportation?
It's funny on here how everyone's knowledge of history extends to The History channel, but all pontificate so grandly about it. (basically you are completely wrong)
This isn't just a mild case of projection, is it?
First of all, I like people who know the word epistemology.
Second, of course it is true that Germany was the big European academic hub. Huge tradition, can't be discounted. Two world wars destroyed it.
The point was that many prominent post-modernists were Marxists (I use this as an umbrella term for the various hardcore left factions) and have played a big role in the propagation of postmodernist theory. Some examples:
Lyotard (rhymes with Libtard) Althuser Derrida Foucault
And, to no one's surprise, many post modernists where openly pedo advocates.
Funny how you left out the Marxists - the principal driver of it - out of the Postmodernism picture.
It's not supposed to last, its use is to usher into power the people who control it. Then it can be discarded if needed.
They have become the new "church ladies" and the new mainstream opinion.
^ Says all.
Bastille fell from treason (basically ordered to not really resist and eventually surrender).
So give us the new data. Because before you posted this nonsensical platitude, you actually checked the fact, right?
Based on the letter brightness, I'm gonna go with 'shopped but it is as you said. It could perfectly have been real!
It is amazing to me how lots people can't grok that Nazis where hardcore left.
Jews were also persecuted in the Soviet Union and removed from positions of power. On the broader racial issue, there were two classes of citizens in the Soviet Union, Russians and the rest, with large-scale ethnic cleansings.
Homosexuality was illegal for the most part of the Union's existence.
So I don't see what you call social conservative policy as a major dividing issue between the Nazis and the Commies.
What do you mean? His analysis is mostly correct. The other big dividing issue was that Commies are Internationalist Socialists while Nazis were Nationalist Socialists. In the eyes of the Commies, the Nazis weren't the real left.
Yes. But according to reductionists, those things have nothing to do with the abhorrent WW I "peace" treaty terms and the imposed uber-leftist "democracy" that was constructing huge conflicts between urban and countryside residents (ring any bell?). It was just bad Germans who did not have anything else to do but launch WW II.
Regarding 1-3, as I mentioned, the review process doesn't actually get into the validity of claims. Just sees if you've ticked a list of checkboxes.
Regarding 4, it sounds like this should have been caught.
That said, there are reviewers who are hardcore and care deeply about their review. But it's not the rule by any means and especially not outside of hard sciences (math, physics etc).
People think "peer review" actually means something important. Can't be further from the truth. Peer reviewing isn't a validation of your research. It's a rough cut to see if any glaring faux pas has been committed. The actual scientific discussion happens by competing papers.
The raison d'etre of a union is money.
Your level of resistance dictates the level of violence used to achieve compliance.
As far as this is goes, there's no disagreement. Where things go awry is when the penalty for resistance far outstrips the level of it.
You're advocating for a barbaric standard. "if you resist, it's fine if you end up dead. And oh by the way, you're not the one who gets to decide what constitutes resistance and what the level of it is, it's whatever the people with the guns say it is".
Yes, it was a rare incident, at least if we accept the statistics as accurate. And of course, it doesn't justify any rioting.
But from this to "oh, well, it's fine, he wasn't an upstanding citizen so it doesn't count" and to pretend that he was resisting in a way that the police officers where in danger and forced to used a dangerous and discouraged technique, well, it's a huge stretch.
Never heard of him.
What exactly do you think Affirmative Action is? This is what it is.
Literal spies.