Minority Report. Philip Dick got there decades back - he knew what was coming. Canada. God help them. What were they thinking electing this bastards? NZ same with Ardern. My wife's a Kiwi. Never going back.
Am seriously beginning to wonder if election fraud is the most real danger now, and if it has not been going on globally since long before the US 2020 election. It would explain Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand. In all honesty, I struggle mightily to accept that recently so many countries have voted into office people who have nothing to do with their culture or history, and who are destroying their societies. Only because their TVs instructed them to? That's a stretch for me.
In the recent UK by-election in Rochdale, George Galloway's Worker's Party won - over 40% of the votes were postal votes, and almost all for him. He's a firebrand, it's a Muslim area and he campaigned heavily on Gaza. Muslim areas are famous for "block" voting - vote as the Imam says.
Postal voting is known to be fraudulent here. Especially in Muslim areas.
The Electoral Commission's response? "Nothing to see here. Move along quietly please"
Core law. Do NOT upset our Muslims. Everyone else can 'eff off.
A few years back in my neck of the woods someone ( a sharp troll level 10+) posted signs saying: "Islam is right about women."
His signs were decried as "Islamophobic and hateful"; with no further explanation.
(I'm assuming 50/50 sex of which there are exactly 2 and I suppose that's "hateful"?))
I've often wondered if signs that said: "Islam is wrong about women" would be treated in the exact same way(?) And, of course, they would. Those too would of course be considered "Islamophobic and hateful".
It might be worth the short trip to Canada to really find out. Let's hold the fort and not let us find out here. "I'd rather live in a polarized country, then a "nice" country that acquiesces to evil."
And to think Canadians used to call US the Benighted States of Hysteria. WTF? Is the Canadian Government using Brave New World as a how-to book?
Seriously, this is why I am opposed to all hate speech laws. Who decides what's hateful? Funny how it always becomes the authorities, who find anyone questioning their authority to be hateful.
Free speech encompasses "hate" speech. It's a nonsense concept, as is the "hate crime". Once in the UK, we were all equal in the eyes of the law - the secular derivation of us all being equal in the eyes of God. And now in our godless society, we now have special crimes, ONLY for certain groups of people.
Clearly, the West is living under a One World Government, TPTB inserting brown/black people to lord over us for their amusement. The 2A prevents these people from going Full Canada on us, but the Globalists' preferred political party (https://spectator.org/americas-ruling-class/) is working furiously to ban semiautomatic rifles in their satrapies and complete the sweep of what used to be called Christendom.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
It is the ONLY obstacle standing in their way, Doc. At least in the United States. God bless my brothers there ... the strong of heart, the lovers of truth!
Oh, Canada. The truly pathetic thing is that there likely is almost a majority of Canadians, passive sheep that they are, who think that’s fine and dandy, eh?
“Why are you arresting me Officer McGillvary?”
“We heard you were thinking about parking on a SNOW ROUTE, and we hate that, so it’s a HATE CRIME”.
The reality is that what they're telling us is 'pre-crime' they see as real crime - the crime of blasphemy against their gods. The gods of state, mammon, eros, babble - whichever the daily sacrifice demands.
So, they call out to the state to make -you- the daily sacrifice. Human sacrifice, or your wealth, enshrined into law.
All so legal and tidy.
We can't have any potential sacrifice go to waste, after all.
Man's favorite pastime throughout history has been trying to predict the future. Unlimited amounts of energy have been spent on this futile endeavor. It's the ultimate God-like quality. So to punish people who might do something in the future is truly evil and contrary to the natural order. Woe to the 'Man is God' devotees!
A suicidal regime seek its own destruction. All socialist regimes are suicidal. Then, this regime seeks its own destruction.
I'll prove it.
All policemen might commit crimes. They are more likely to do so because of the nature of their job. Therefore, police officers should start arresting themselves now, maybe bashing their own heads using a large mirror to not miss.
But, if policemen are 150% blindly obedient to any order the commies in power give, how could they ever commit crimes against the inverted regime?
Very easy: Any person of the set of legislators could potentially speak against the regime. Therefore, all legislators are pre-criminals. All police officers should go arrest all legislators. A warrant? Let the police write their own warrants in the moment they need it, which is what "pre-crime" legislation is all about: abolishing some positive civil rights to enforce others.
But, in planning to arrest the legislators for the crime of pre-crime, the officers would be committing a pre-crime crime. My head is spinning as I write this.
So, as the policeman arrests the fearful legislator, he should be banging with a club both the legislator's head and his own head. One for thee, and one for mee, that is social equitee.
So, with no legislators sophistiphizing in a parliament the destruction of western freedoms, the regime would be wounded.
Moreover, the surviving police officers should also arrest any member of the executive and the judicial branches, because they also fit the definition of pre-crime.
About journos, forget the arrest, just shot on sight and leave the corpse for the coyotes.
So, the inverted regime would lose five important tentacles: journos, judges and prosecutors, functionaries and ministers, legislators, and police officers.
Which would be suicidal.
And it seeks its own destruction.
Which is the destruction of individual people, because the institutions of the regime are made of people. People who hate people. People who hate the rule of law, and also hate limits on power.
People who are so crazy that they forget they are people, and they imagine themselves to be a neutral and impartial cog in the machinery of power. That false belief would calm their conscience if they had one.
But would this achieve the happy outcome sought by the suicidal regime? Probably not, because socialism may be suicidal, but normal people really hate suicide, and do all sorts of foolish concessions to prevent that one thing that they believe is the worst that can happen.
But let's face it: socialist regimes regulating themselves to death is not a bad outcome for anyone. It is just.
It would be more just to have never allowed the Fabians to infiltrate. The injustice of the past is haunting us today.
Oh, that wouldn't be misused at all. <sarcasm> No politician in his right mind would accuse his opponent, or a journalist, or a common citizen of pre-crime. <Sarcasm> Right? Right? Bueller?
"We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?”
“Why?”
“It saves time."
Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent
Pratchett accurately predicted the world to come - Orwellian prescience with a healthy dose of humor!
One could wish both prophets had been wrong!
Pratchett's work is classified as fantasy, but it often reads more like non-fiction.
Minority Report. Philip Dick got there decades back - he knew what was coming. Canada. God help them. What were they thinking electing this bastards? NZ same with Ardern. My wife's a Kiwi. Never going back.
Not to mention Ireland.
Was looking for the MR reference and found it
Am seriously beginning to wonder if election fraud is the most real danger now, and if it has not been going on globally since long before the US 2020 election. It would explain Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand. In all honesty, I struggle mightily to accept that recently so many countries have voted into office people who have nothing to do with their culture or history, and who are destroying their societies. Only because their TVs instructed them to? That's a stretch for me.
In the recent UK by-election in Rochdale, George Galloway's Worker's Party won - over 40% of the votes were postal votes, and almost all for him. He's a firebrand, it's a Muslim area and he campaigned heavily on Gaza. Muslim areas are famous for "block" voting - vote as the Imam says.
Postal voting is known to be fraudulent here. Especially in Muslim areas.
The Electoral Commission's response? "Nothing to see here. Move along quietly please"
Core law. Do NOT upset our Muslims. Everyone else can 'eff off.
Examples
https://www.startpage.com/do/search?q=postl+vote+fraud+2004&segment=startpage.brave
No changes to checks have been implemented since the cases linked to from 2004 and 05 in the search above.
A few years back in my neck of the woods someone ( a sharp troll level 10+) posted signs saying: "Islam is right about women."
His signs were decried as "Islamophobic and hateful"; with no further explanation.
(I'm assuming 50/50 sex of which there are exactly 2 and I suppose that's "hateful"?))
I've often wondered if signs that said: "Islam is wrong about women" would be treated in the exact same way(?) And, of course, they would. Those too would of course be considered "Islamophobic and hateful".
It might be worth the short trip to Canada to really find out. Let's hold the fort and not let us find out here. "I'd rather live in a polarized country, then a "nice" country that acquiesces to evil."
I recall that.
Might be fun to parody the woke HSBC ads with questions like that
And to think Canadians used to call US the Benighted States of Hysteria. WTF? Is the Canadian Government using Brave New World as a how-to book?
Seriously, this is why I am opposed to all hate speech laws. Who decides what's hateful? Funny how it always becomes the authorities, who find anyone questioning their authority to be hateful.
Free speech encompasses "hate" speech. It's a nonsense concept, as is the "hate crime". Once in the UK, we were all equal in the eyes of the law - the secular derivation of us all being equal in the eyes of God. And now in our godless society, we now have special crimes, ONLY for certain groups of people.
I don't know who you mean by "we" and "them."
I see what you mean. That's what I get for posting when it's past my bedtime.
Better than me posting under the influence.
Umm ... have to admit that "past my bedtime" and "under the influence" sometimes can coincide for me. It's been known to happen :)
Only sometimes? You're doing better than me, man.
Clearly, the West is living under a One World Government, TPTB inserting brown/black people to lord over us for their amusement. The 2A prevents these people from going Full Canada on us, but the Globalists' preferred political party (https://spectator.org/americas-ruling-class/) is working furiously to ban semiautomatic rifles in their satrapies and complete the sweep of what used to be called Christendom.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, "The Art of the Rifle"
And THAT'S why they're trying to disarm us.
It is the ONLY obstacle standing in their way, Doc. At least in the United States. God bless my brothers there ... the strong of heart, the lovers of truth!
You're absolutely right. How America holds up will determine the fate of the world. May God bless and keep you strong for what's coming, Prodigal.
Oh, Canada. The truly pathetic thing is that there likely is almost a majority of Canadians, passive sheep that they are, who think that’s fine and dandy, eh?
“Why are you arresting me Officer McGillvary?”
“We heard you were thinking about parking on a SNOW ROUTE, and we hate that, so it’s a HATE CRIME”.
Or: “Xwaddle allows HATE SPEECH. You have an account on it, therefore you must be planning HATE CRIMES, so off to the gulag with you!”
The reality is that what they're telling us is 'pre-crime' they see as real crime - the crime of blasphemy against their gods. The gods of state, mammon, eros, babble - whichever the daily sacrifice demands.
So, they call out to the state to make -you- the daily sacrifice. Human sacrifice, or your wealth, enshrined into law.
All so legal and tidy.
We can't have any potential sacrifice go to waste, after all.
Man's favorite pastime throughout history has been trying to predict the future. Unlimited amounts of energy have been spent on this futile endeavor. It's the ultimate God-like quality. So to punish people who might do something in the future is truly evil and contrary to the natural order. Woe to the 'Man is God' devotees!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7153674421503676417-2Wox
A suicidal regime seek its own destruction. All socialist regimes are suicidal. Then, this regime seeks its own destruction.
I'll prove it.
All policemen might commit crimes. They are more likely to do so because of the nature of their job. Therefore, police officers should start arresting themselves now, maybe bashing their own heads using a large mirror to not miss.
But, if policemen are 150% blindly obedient to any order the commies in power give, how could they ever commit crimes against the inverted regime?
Very easy: Any person of the set of legislators could potentially speak against the regime. Therefore, all legislators are pre-criminals. All police officers should go arrest all legislators. A warrant? Let the police write their own warrants in the moment they need it, which is what "pre-crime" legislation is all about: abolishing some positive civil rights to enforce others.
But, in planning to arrest the legislators for the crime of pre-crime, the officers would be committing a pre-crime crime. My head is spinning as I write this.
So, as the policeman arrests the fearful legislator, he should be banging with a club both the legislator's head and his own head. One for thee, and one for mee, that is social equitee.
So, with no legislators sophistiphizing in a parliament the destruction of western freedoms, the regime would be wounded.
Moreover, the surviving police officers should also arrest any member of the executive and the judicial branches, because they also fit the definition of pre-crime.
About journos, forget the arrest, just shot on sight and leave the corpse for the coyotes.
So, the inverted regime would lose five important tentacles: journos, judges and prosecutors, functionaries and ministers, legislators, and police officers.
Which would be suicidal.
And it seeks its own destruction.
Which is the destruction of individual people, because the institutions of the regime are made of people. People who hate people. People who hate the rule of law, and also hate limits on power.
People who are so crazy that they forget they are people, and they imagine themselves to be a neutral and impartial cog in the machinery of power. That false belief would calm their conscience if they had one.
But would this achieve the happy outcome sought by the suicidal regime? Probably not, because socialism may be suicidal, but normal people really hate suicide, and do all sorts of foolish concessions to prevent that one thing that they believe is the worst that can happen.
But let's face it: socialist regimes regulating themselves to death is not a bad outcome for anyone. It is just.
It would be more just to have never allowed the Fabians to infiltrate. The injustice of the past is haunting us today.
Yup. Minority Report without Precogs. Hmm. What could go wrong?
No words! There are just no more words I can use.
Such a shame. Can Canadians not rise up and defeat these clowns?
They are waiting for instructions from their TVs.
Bingo.
it’s called COMMUNISM
Oh, that wouldn't be misused at all. <sarcasm> No politician in his right mind would accuse his opponent, or a journalist, or a common citizen of pre-crime. <Sarcasm> Right? Right? Bueller?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRFGGu93pGI