You should know a thing or two about malice Melkor Morgoth :-)
But yes of course it is malice of forethought, it is called the asylum ‘system’ after all, thus they create the system to facilitate their nefarious ends, they know we hate it, and that’s partly why they do it. Surely by now it is clear, no matter the party in office, that the powers that be hate ordinary folk, and are undermining everything we hold dear and destroying everything we love. They are globalist ‘nowheres’ and despise us ‘somewheres’ and so they subvert our democracy in an attempt to destroy the ‘somewhere’ that we love, so that it is unrecognisable to us, in the hope that we will hate it as much as they do. They rewrite our history so that we do not have pride in it anymore, rather we apologise for it and distance ourselves from it, again unmooring us from the place and people we love. Orwell saw that the working class people of Britain were very patriotic, and could never be seduced by socialism, and ever since he pointed that out, the enemy has been hard at work chipping away at that patriotism, trying to inculcate in us the same level of hatred for ourselves, that they have for us, and sadly this seems to be working especially amongst the young. It is a malicious abusive relationship, and ironically the abusers are supposedly our servants. The Shire is full Morgoth and yet the orcs keep coming, because the intention is to turn the Shire into Mordor.
You are doing plenty mate, we need the mass of Hobbits to rise up and throw off the shackles as best as they can. It is no longer enough to just go along with this just to get along. Most folk have a ‘live and let live’ mindset which in the main is a good thing, but only if you are dealing with reasonable people, but with a malicious enemy ‘live and let live’ is appeasement. You referenced Stalin and his disbelief that the Germans actually invaded, he had fooled himself into believing, that in fact Hitler was the only person in Europe he could actually trust. It is almost as if he didn’t read what Hitler wrote, or listen to what he said, the Nazi’s were very open about their hatred for the USSR and that they planned to take its resources and ‘living space’ . And so for us it is the same, the globalists are very clear and open about what they want to achieve, and yet we are surprised when they actually do it. The time is up for niceties, the ordinary little folk must now stop appeasing this most malice of enemies and wake up, speak up, rise up and clean up!
It's a tough one. Perhaps the only real answer is to watch Dr Steve Turley for whom it seems, no matter how dark the day was, it ended up being another epic own for conservatives.
Yes, it is malice, not incompetence, and yes, people are very reluctant to come to grips with that. But it is not only the already terrifying nature of "plain" treason that I see here as a factor. Treason, though repulsive, can often be understood in common sense terms. Consider a Communist traitor in Cold War America. The Soviet Union was basically a competing power bloc with an ideology that was intellectually rigorous and purported to solve the major problems plaguing the world. The Soviet Union also did a lot of propaganda, even if it wasn´t as effective as that of the West. A traitor to Communism could at least be understood in the same way as a traitor in the Middle Ages during a war of succession, where he for whatever reason switched allegiance to a different nobleman. In the Cold War, the traitor perhaps found the competing power bloc and its promises more attractive and its morals more convincing. This is relatable from a human perspective.
Yet in the present case, it is not easy to see whether or not an enemy faction or party as a power bloc with any promises even exists. Having an enemy to turn to would appear to be a prerequisite for treason in the conventional sense. Otherwise, treason just becomes destruction of one´s own for destruction´s sake. The policies you describe here are particularly difficult to understand in this regard, because they appear to directly benefit pretty much no one. Worse, they can´t even be justified by the climate narrative, which seems to be today´s only ideology with anything remotely resembling rigorousness. Thus, for treason in the present case even more malice than for "normal" treason would need to be ascribed.
What makes this even worse is that pretty much all institutions one conventionally understands as being "wardens" and "guards" of the people in some sense appear complicit, at least by not speaking out and stating the obvious. Thus, the only way to square this observation of malice is to assume treason not by one individual or one party, but by the establishment in its entirety. Obviously, this makes the situation even more difficult to take in. I am reminded by "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" with Donald Sutherland, where everybody they turn to for help has already been replaced by a bodysnatcher and is therefore an enemy. Perhaps this would be a suitable movie for you to review.
The people of the land vs the internationalists. Or the Somewhere's vs Nowhere's as somebody else has put it.
Essentially, the transition would always require the political class to ''Cross the Rubicon'' and both 1948 or 1997 could be pin-pointed as that crossing.
Yes, but even here it is difficult to communicate in a simple way how an anywhere-professional-type or even an oligarch would benefit from, in this case, causing deliberate overcrowding in a country. One can make the connection - and it has been made - but it is much more complicated in my opinion to explain than, for example, the case of a traitorous scientist giving American military or industrial secrets to the Soviets.
For many of the people working in these institutions, it could be as simple as fear of ostracism, loss of work/income etc that could very easily come from putting up the simplest levels of resistance. All of the odds are stacked in favour of The Party whichever way one looks at this.
It seems to me both natural and correct to put the blame on the head of the rotting fish that is our democracy. And despite how clearly the government appear to be mere puppets of more powerful people, their role is supposed to be governers on behalf of the nation makes them, if not the only candidates, then nevertheless prime candidates for such accusations as Morgoth has made.
It's a clear new position, Morgoth. From now on, every single position of those in power will have to face that question from me. How do I know, a priori, that this is not a malicious position? What scares me is that "expect the worst" approach will miss a precious few times it's not right and of course, we know that the exception proves the rule with these people.
Even the normies know what the implications of this truth would be. The word "malice" when applied to government is the thin end of a wedge that shatters the social order and unleashes forces only seen in places like Rwanda or Cambodia. Small wonder they turn their faces away.
Well it's definitely not incompetence. Malice is defined as a desire to harm. The act of harming may just be the means to an end. I mentioned in a previous post that I don't think somebody like Sunak hates us. He doesn't love or hate anything. He's managerial and seeks efficiency. Our department may be the one that's kept the business running for countless years, but he and his ilk see us as dispensable going forward.
Of course Sunak is just a high-ranking foot soldier. But why do we assume that the shadowy men who are really in charge hate us either? Once again, the act of harming may simply be the best way of achieving an objective. "Nothing personal you understand, old boy!"
Malice is an emotional intention. In strategic battles, the emotional tend to get defeated by those who put their faith in cold hard logic. Historically, we have enjoyed a great deal of success by being more logical and less emotional than our opponents. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves up against a tribe that is even better at this than us.
The people that govern us, superficially at least, treat us as they do because they are mere puppets controlled by the most powerful men in the tribe that has successfully conquered us. We think about what is happening to us and we get angry. Voices are raised and tempers become frayed. Not enough to actually fight back though. Just sufficiently that we are unable to think as clearly as we possible could.
When dealing with such an enemy, you have to look for weaknesses. In what way is this tribe vulnerable? For me, that vulnerability lies in its reliance on usury. Wherever it has marauded, usury has been its powder keg.
The tribe has been extraordinarily successful in discouraging our people to speak ill of it - even to think ill of it. Anybody attempting to sway their opinion can be swiftly picked off, but even if they were not then their efforts would be given short-shrift. The tribe is actually very popular and has cleverly persuaded our people to look elsewhere for those that mean them harm. In fact, most feel a genuine sense of guilt about how the tribe has been historically treated.
But usury is definitely not popular. Virtually all of our people are in debt and wish they were not. They don't know who they owe the money to. If asked, they might tell you it's "to the bank".
Were there a political movement based on the ending of usury and a cancellation of all debts, this might well be very appealing and there would be no need to even mention who would suffer from such policies. Let's not forget that virtually all of the debt in the world is essentially owed to the same few men and perhaps just one man.
As nothing else seems to be working, how about we try that? The tribe may well have successfully persuaded our people to turn against God and to embrace consumerism. Weak-minded they may well be, but they understand that they can buy more stuff and perhaps even work less hard if they weren't in debt.
Right now, we are attempting to sell something that there is clearly little appetite for and so we are having virtually no impact. Let's be a little more logical and follow the money.
That's true, but we (along with most of Europe) are already under attack from America and they don't need bombs to hurt us. My point is that it's probably impossible to get ordinary people to understand who they are up against. The tribe can always control the narrative there. It's much harder for them to do so on money-lending, particularly when no specific group is overtly being blamed. It's something our people can at least unite behind, because nearly everybody feels the money-lender's heel pressing on their necks.
Morgoth, with all due respect and having given this some more thought, I think what you are essentially saying there is that the problem is that our enemies are much more powerful than us. Of course that is true, but it will be true whatever strategy we adopt.
It's also true that, should we come up with any kind of strategy that bears fruit, our enemies can use deadly force against us. I think that's just something we have to accept and hope that they don't, simply because the only other option is to keep letting them do what they want to us.
At this point, we only have our king left on the chessboard and our opponents have 4 queens and plenty of other pieces. Our only hope is to keep moving and hope they make the blunder that stops them winning the endgame outright.
Malice isn't quite as emotional as you're making it out to be. It simply means ill will. If I set out traps for rodents in my shed it's with malicious intent. If they step into the traps it's not by my indifference or incompetence; it's not that I don't care if they die in the trap or that I'm so stupid as to wish them the best but foolishly set.out traps with their preferred food. It's done with an intent to harm and eventually to remove the rodents from the shed. This is exactly what our rulers are doing now with their policies and to not see it as such is just am elaborate mental coping mechanism.
True but you don't hate the rats either. You just know you are better off without them. There are good reasons for the elites to want rid of ordinary white people. At least until recently, white people tended to act collectively to get what they wanted. They were good at forming unions, societies, co-operatives and the like. We have become more atomised now and less inclined to act this way, but still do so far more so than a lot of other groups.
Black people, the world over, never tend to get organised like that. If the labour market was black then elites would have no fear of organised uprisings, legal challenges, strikes, etc. If the work is going to be menial, with AI and robots taking care of the technical stuff, then the elites may well be better off without white people. You might think that blacks lack the conscientiousness required, but they would be forced to adapt should the welfare state effectively be removed.
Perhaps the work will just be running on a treadmill, turning cheap food into electrical energy? One thing you can be sure of is that, should we be successfully replaced, the powerful have plans for the ordinary and powerless people that are going to be coming in. When we are gone, you can bet that moves will be afoot to divide these people, saddle them with guilt over something and to attack every aspect of their culture.
Those that stay behind, in the third world, may be the fortunate ones.
The latest Devon Stack/Blackpilled video is out today on Bitchute (Diamond Mines Edition). Somebody donating in the recorded live-chat brings up the subject of usury and Devon has some good ideas on this at around 2:04:00. If these people can't lend your people money, they won't stop lending money - they will take their money some place where they can lend it because that is what they have always done.
In Dante's inferno he says the last, 9th circle of hell is reserved for traitors. Traitors to family and traitors to country. I like to think this is true.
Why would the elites want to destroy the common folk? What’s in it for them other than power? Is power the only reason? If they destroy the working class as a body, where does their income come from? I can see the argument for it being malicious, after all no one could be as simply incompetent as the governments we currently have. But WHY?
The vision of man they have is essentially of mass if interchangeable widgets which can be moved around and reformed according to their economic models.
From this perspective identity, and rootedness is a problem to be solved, not something to be accepted. People responding to my video have said they aren't malicious because for them it's just a numbers game.
However, the malice, in my view, is in the betrayal, and the ways in which they solve this problem and that no amount of pain and suffering is ever enough to dissuade them. The deception of hiding the data on the census, for example, the means by which achieve their goals are utterly ruthless and dishonest.
The malice is also in the self-reinforcing rules and behavior that maintain the status quo for the "elite".
If one is a job searcher in the US, a PhD is "preferred" for a lot of tech/professional jobs. Compare and contrast what is really required for a lot of professional work (for example) now and perhaps 15, maybe 30 years ago before tertiary education costs went exponential.
If one wants to avoid generating educational debt -- which benefits who exactly - an extra layer of college administrator? -- there is always work at an Amazon distribution center!
There´s also malice in the liberal hypocrisy. Whatever the plans are, they are not being honestly presented to the general public. Yet in a liberal system, there should be no room for a Noble Lie on account of its liberal nature. This shows hyprocrisy not only with respect to specific policies, but with respect to the very foundation of the professed ideology itself. At least for other ideologies, a Noble Lie would not necessarily be a contradiction to foundational principles.
They don't have a stated negative motivation, but the absence of a truly positive and meaningful one speaks volumes, in my opinion. The lack of any genuine moral tone or content in political discourse (especially in the case of the Tories) ought to be a clear signal that these are not good people. The state Britons are in now is a direct consequence of the leadership we have endured for several decades.
Embrace the notion that the war is spiritual and that the Christian worldview is the only lens that makes sense. Our elites serve Evil, and the Evil wants nothing more than the destruction of humanity. That's the goal.
I can agree that the war is spiritual but not that the Christian world view is the only lens that makes sense. That’s just another form of vision through a lens of dogma. No different to the evil ones in principle. Thanks for your reply anyway. Cheers
You should know a thing or two about malice Melkor Morgoth :-)
But yes of course it is malice of forethought, it is called the asylum ‘system’ after all, thus they create the system to facilitate their nefarious ends, they know we hate it, and that’s partly why they do it. Surely by now it is clear, no matter the party in office, that the powers that be hate ordinary folk, and are undermining everything we hold dear and destroying everything we love. They are globalist ‘nowheres’ and despise us ‘somewheres’ and so they subvert our democracy in an attempt to destroy the ‘somewhere’ that we love, so that it is unrecognisable to us, in the hope that we will hate it as much as they do. They rewrite our history so that we do not have pride in it anymore, rather we apologise for it and distance ourselves from it, again unmooring us from the place and people we love. Orwell saw that the working class people of Britain were very patriotic, and could never be seduced by socialism, and ever since he pointed that out, the enemy has been hard at work chipping away at that patriotism, trying to inculcate in us the same level of hatred for ourselves, that they have for us, and sadly this seems to be working especially amongst the young. It is a malicious abusive relationship, and ironically the abusers are supposedly our servants. The Shire is full Morgoth and yet the orcs keep coming, because the intention is to turn the Shire into Mordor.
I struggle to answer the question I get every day ''what should we do about it?''
I've tried though.
You are doing plenty mate, we need the mass of Hobbits to rise up and throw off the shackles as best as they can. It is no longer enough to just go along with this just to get along. Most folk have a ‘live and let live’ mindset which in the main is a good thing, but only if you are dealing with reasonable people, but with a malicious enemy ‘live and let live’ is appeasement. You referenced Stalin and his disbelief that the Germans actually invaded, he had fooled himself into believing, that in fact Hitler was the only person in Europe he could actually trust. It is almost as if he didn’t read what Hitler wrote, or listen to what he said, the Nazi’s were very open about their hatred for the USSR and that they planned to take its resources and ‘living space’ . And so for us it is the same, the globalists are very clear and open about what they want to achieve, and yet we are surprised when they actually do it. The time is up for niceties, the ordinary little folk must now stop appeasing this most malice of enemies and wake up, speak up, rise up and clean up!
It's a tough one. Perhaps the only real answer is to watch Dr Steve Turley for whom it seems, no matter how dark the day was, it ended up being another epic own for conservatives.
I left the UK during the Thatcher regime, it was obvious then that the British establishment sees its people as a problem to be solved.
Yes, it is malice, not incompetence, and yes, people are very reluctant to come to grips with that. But it is not only the already terrifying nature of "plain" treason that I see here as a factor. Treason, though repulsive, can often be understood in common sense terms. Consider a Communist traitor in Cold War America. The Soviet Union was basically a competing power bloc with an ideology that was intellectually rigorous and purported to solve the major problems plaguing the world. The Soviet Union also did a lot of propaganda, even if it wasn´t as effective as that of the West. A traitor to Communism could at least be understood in the same way as a traitor in the Middle Ages during a war of succession, where he for whatever reason switched allegiance to a different nobleman. In the Cold War, the traitor perhaps found the competing power bloc and its promises more attractive and its morals more convincing. This is relatable from a human perspective.
Yet in the present case, it is not easy to see whether or not an enemy faction or party as a power bloc with any promises even exists. Having an enemy to turn to would appear to be a prerequisite for treason in the conventional sense. Otherwise, treason just becomes destruction of one´s own for destruction´s sake. The policies you describe here are particularly difficult to understand in this regard, because they appear to directly benefit pretty much no one. Worse, they can´t even be justified by the climate narrative, which seems to be today´s only ideology with anything remotely resembling rigorousness. Thus, for treason in the present case even more malice than for "normal" treason would need to be ascribed.
What makes this even worse is that pretty much all institutions one conventionally understands as being "wardens" and "guards" of the people in some sense appear complicit, at least by not speaking out and stating the obvious. Thus, the only way to square this observation of malice is to assume treason not by one individual or one party, but by the establishment in its entirety. Obviously, this makes the situation even more difficult to take in. I am reminded by "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" with Donald Sutherland, where everybody they turn to for help has already been replaced by a bodysnatcher and is therefore an enemy. Perhaps this would be a suitable movie for you to review.
The people of the land vs the internationalists. Or the Somewhere's vs Nowhere's as somebody else has put it.
Essentially, the transition would always require the political class to ''Cross the Rubicon'' and both 1948 or 1997 could be pin-pointed as that crossing.
Yes, but even here it is difficult to communicate in a simple way how an anywhere-professional-type or even an oligarch would benefit from, in this case, causing deliberate overcrowding in a country. One can make the connection - and it has been made - but it is much more complicated in my opinion to explain than, for example, the case of a traitorous scientist giving American military or industrial secrets to the Soviets.
For many of the people working in these institutions, it could be as simple as fear of ostracism, loss of work/income etc that could very easily come from putting up the simplest levels of resistance. All of the odds are stacked in favour of The Party whichever way one looks at this.
It seems to me both natural and correct to put the blame on the head of the rotting fish that is our democracy. And despite how clearly the government appear to be mere puppets of more powerful people, their role is supposed to be governers on behalf of the nation makes them, if not the only candidates, then nevertheless prime candidates for such accusations as Morgoth has made.
It's a clear new position, Morgoth. From now on, every single position of those in power will have to face that question from me. How do I know, a priori, that this is not a malicious position? What scares me is that "expect the worst" approach will miss a precious few times it's not right and of course, we know that the exception proves the rule with these people.
Even the normies know what the implications of this truth would be. The word "malice" when applied to government is the thin end of a wedge that shatters the social order and unleashes forces only seen in places like Rwanda or Cambodia. Small wonder they turn their faces away.
Well it's definitely not incompetence. Malice is defined as a desire to harm. The act of harming may just be the means to an end. I mentioned in a previous post that I don't think somebody like Sunak hates us. He doesn't love or hate anything. He's managerial and seeks efficiency. Our department may be the one that's kept the business running for countless years, but he and his ilk see us as dispensable going forward.
Of course Sunak is just a high-ranking foot soldier. But why do we assume that the shadowy men who are really in charge hate us either? Once again, the act of harming may simply be the best way of achieving an objective. "Nothing personal you understand, old boy!"
Malice is an emotional intention. In strategic battles, the emotional tend to get defeated by those who put their faith in cold hard logic. Historically, we have enjoyed a great deal of success by being more logical and less emotional than our opponents. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves up against a tribe that is even better at this than us.
The people that govern us, superficially at least, treat us as they do because they are mere puppets controlled by the most powerful men in the tribe that has successfully conquered us. We think about what is happening to us and we get angry. Voices are raised and tempers become frayed. Not enough to actually fight back though. Just sufficiently that we are unable to think as clearly as we possible could.
When dealing with such an enemy, you have to look for weaknesses. In what way is this tribe vulnerable? For me, that vulnerability lies in its reliance on usury. Wherever it has marauded, usury has been its powder keg.
The tribe has been extraordinarily successful in discouraging our people to speak ill of it - even to think ill of it. Anybody attempting to sway their opinion can be swiftly picked off, but even if they were not then their efforts would be given short-shrift. The tribe is actually very popular and has cleverly persuaded our people to look elsewhere for those that mean them harm. In fact, most feel a genuine sense of guilt about how the tribe has been historically treated.
But usury is definitely not popular. Virtually all of our people are in debt and wish they were not. They don't know who they owe the money to. If asked, they might tell you it's "to the bank".
Were there a political movement based on the ending of usury and a cancellation of all debts, this might well be very appealing and there would be no need to even mention who would suffer from such policies. Let's not forget that virtually all of the debt in the world is essentially owed to the same few men and perhaps just one man.
As nothing else seems to be working, how about we try that? The tribe may well have successfully persuaded our people to turn against God and to embrace consumerism. Weak-minded they may well be, but they understand that they can buy more stuff and perhaps even work less hard if they weren't in debt.
Right now, we are attempting to sell something that there is clearly little appetite for and so we are having virtually no impact. Let's be a little more logical and follow the money.
Problem is that's what gets you bombed off the Americans.
That's true, but we (along with most of Europe) are already under attack from America and they don't need bombs to hurt us. My point is that it's probably impossible to get ordinary people to understand who they are up against. The tribe can always control the narrative there. It's much harder for them to do so on money-lending, particularly when no specific group is overtly being blamed. It's something our people can at least unite behind, because nearly everybody feels the money-lender's heel pressing on their necks.
Morgoth, with all due respect and having given this some more thought, I think what you are essentially saying there is that the problem is that our enemies are much more powerful than us. Of course that is true, but it will be true whatever strategy we adopt.
It's also true that, should we come up with any kind of strategy that bears fruit, our enemies can use deadly force against us. I think that's just something we have to accept and hope that they don't, simply because the only other option is to keep letting them do what they want to us.
At this point, we only have our king left on the chessboard and our opponents have 4 queens and plenty of other pieces. Our only hope is to keep moving and hope they make the blunder that stops them winning the endgame outright.
Malice isn't quite as emotional as you're making it out to be. It simply means ill will. If I set out traps for rodents in my shed it's with malicious intent. If they step into the traps it's not by my indifference or incompetence; it's not that I don't care if they die in the trap or that I'm so stupid as to wish them the best but foolishly set.out traps with their preferred food. It's done with an intent to harm and eventually to remove the rodents from the shed. This is exactly what our rulers are doing now with their policies and to not see it as such is just am elaborate mental coping mechanism.
True but you don't hate the rats either. You just know you are better off without them. There are good reasons for the elites to want rid of ordinary white people. At least until recently, white people tended to act collectively to get what they wanted. They were good at forming unions, societies, co-operatives and the like. We have become more atomised now and less inclined to act this way, but still do so far more so than a lot of other groups.
Black people, the world over, never tend to get organised like that. If the labour market was black then elites would have no fear of organised uprisings, legal challenges, strikes, etc. If the work is going to be menial, with AI and robots taking care of the technical stuff, then the elites may well be better off without white people. You might think that blacks lack the conscientiousness required, but they would be forced to adapt should the welfare state effectively be removed.
Perhaps the work will just be running on a treadmill, turning cheap food into electrical energy? One thing you can be sure of is that, should we be successfully replaced, the powerful have plans for the ordinary and powerless people that are going to be coming in. When we are gone, you can bet that moves will be afoot to divide these people, saddle them with guilt over something and to attack every aspect of their culture.
Those that stay behind, in the third world, may be the fortunate ones.
The latest Devon Stack/Blackpilled video is out today on Bitchute (Diamond Mines Edition). Somebody donating in the recorded live-chat brings up the subject of usury and Devon has some good ideas on this at around 2:04:00. If these people can't lend your people money, they won't stop lending money - they will take their money some place where they can lend it because that is what they have always done.
In Dante's inferno he says the last, 9th circle of hell is reserved for traitors. Traitors to family and traitors to country. I like to think this is true.
Why would the elites want to destroy the common folk? What’s in it for them other than power? Is power the only reason? If they destroy the working class as a body, where does their income come from? I can see the argument for it being malicious, after all no one could be as simply incompetent as the governments we currently have. But WHY?
The vision of man they have is essentially of mass if interchangeable widgets which can be moved around and reformed according to their economic models.
From this perspective identity, and rootedness is a problem to be solved, not something to be accepted. People responding to my video have said they aren't malicious because for them it's just a numbers game.
However, the malice, in my view, is in the betrayal, and the ways in which they solve this problem and that no amount of pain and suffering is ever enough to dissuade them. The deception of hiding the data on the census, for example, the means by which achieve their goals are utterly ruthless and dishonest.
The malice is also in the self-reinforcing rules and behavior that maintain the status quo for the "elite".
If one is a job searcher in the US, a PhD is "preferred" for a lot of tech/professional jobs. Compare and contrast what is really required for a lot of professional work (for example) now and perhaps 15, maybe 30 years ago before tertiary education costs went exponential.
If one wants to avoid generating educational debt -- which benefits who exactly - an extra layer of college administrator? -- there is always work at an Amazon distribution center!
There´s also malice in the liberal hypocrisy. Whatever the plans are, they are not being honestly presented to the general public. Yet in a liberal system, there should be no room for a Noble Lie on account of its liberal nature. This shows hyprocrisy not only with respect to specific policies, but with respect to the very foundation of the professed ideology itself. At least for other ideologies, a Noble Lie would not necessarily be a contradiction to foundational principles.
They don't have a stated negative motivation, but the absence of a truly positive and meaningful one speaks volumes, in my opinion. The lack of any genuine moral tone or content in political discourse (especially in the case of the Tories) ought to be a clear signal that these are not good people. The state Britons are in now is a direct consequence of the leadership we have endured for several decades.
Embrace the notion that the war is spiritual and that the Christian worldview is the only lens that makes sense. Our elites serve Evil, and the Evil wants nothing more than the destruction of humanity. That's the goal.
I can agree that the war is spiritual but not that the Christian world view is the only lens that makes sense. That’s just another form of vision through a lens of dogma. No different to the evil ones in principle. Thanks for your reply anyway. Cheers
It is treason. I encourage you to elaborate on this and find all of the in-your-face things they say and do that are treason as defined by law.
This was a great video and the thumbnail captures it absolutely perfectly.