Nobody can enforce free speech Rights whether we say something nice, mean, true or untrue.
Why? Because the moment you allow the Gov to criminalize 1 word or phrase, they will use that as an excuse to criminalize many other words and phrases especially those that go against their own self interests.
Although there are certain things that should not be said to another human being, we the People enforce that through social norms. If someone crosses a social norm, we chin check them either verbally or even sometimes it can get physical but the law has no business in policing words. Take that shit to the Communist Country you so admire you Communist pig.
Even if someone says "fire" in a movie theatre as a joke would get his ass kicked by us but cannot be prosecuted because that is free speech unless a stampede caused people to get hurt or die. Then that would have to go up before a Jury trial to see if the Jury finds the person guilty for the victims that were created out of the scene. But the word "fire" is not enough to arrest anyone as that is his free speech Rights. But knowing that he would get his ass kicked by the audience is enough to shut such rascals down. There aren't many rascals that bad anyway so it doesn't happen most of the time. I've never heard of it.
Even in Court, if the Judge say you cannot say this or that, or speak about the case, etc.., he is violating your Rights and shrugging that off makes these tyrants even worst.
The solution that many are doing now is suing the shit out of any gov official that farts sideways with free speech Rights violations. They often make $5,000,000 per lawsuit and the lawsuit takes about 1-2 years max. A probono attorney will work for free as long as you give him a large portion of the profits (ie go 50/50 on the $5,000,000).
This technique can be used on any Constitutional Rights violations like the 4th amendment, 2nd amendment, etc..
It's like a new fad that is picking up because people are getting paid to defend freedom. It's not even hard. The lawyer does most of the work and by the time it's over, you become a millionaire hero.
What do these statement have to do with one another.
Cool, so just keep voting, right?
“Suit dismissed for lack of standing.” Whoops, now what?
And won’t work on any of them, yeah.
No forget voting. Abolish.
How? By voting for it? You know it won’t happen.
It will happen through natural causes.
So never, then.
There's only one cause (nature) for each effect (being) within...suggested pluralism (causes) tempts ones consent by voting.
Few are governing many by plurality...nature sets each being free from one another.
The founding daddies wouldn't approve that. They presupposed voting in their freemasonic enlightened republic. You complaining about free speech suppression and suggesting democracy be suspended is a contradiction.
Then what is the ideal goverment type, in your view?
Dual eagled monarchy aka symphonia where Church and state have unique roles in the governance and the monarch himself assumes a minor clerical office (a deacon). Thus state policy is influenced by the Church and its moral teachings.
A historical example would be the Byzantine empire which is the longest standing empire in history. It coincided with the golden age of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the ecumenical councils where the orthodox faith was dogmatized (this is the true Chruch before the falling away of Rome; it is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church).
But when the LGTBQAZDJEJOSOV agenda takes over that church, then what? What happens when the inevitable Doctrinal Error creeps throughout it? Or what if the monarch is bribed?
It never happened and it never will. The true Church will stand the gates of hell and to the end of times as the gospels teach us. The processes you mention are problems within the sects who are outside the Body of Christ (since they're not the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Sure, liberals, freemasons, ecumenists and modernists attempt to infiltrate and subvert the Church sure but it's grounded in tradition, dogma and the Church fathers - it's not susceptible to modernization in any way. Its teachings have remained unchanged for the past 2000 years and it will always remain the same, because the word of our Lord is unchanging.
Today what the true Church is is more obvious than ever just by looking at what the supposed "Churches" teach: Rome, the anglicans and most of the protestants are pro skittles, pro immigration, pro globalism, pro climate change, pro ecumenism (receptive of other religions), pro vaxx, pro feminism (female preachers, deacons and bishops) - they are completely aligned with the NWO agenda which is antichristian and satanic.
This is what makes Eastern Orthodoxy unique because while Roman Catholicism also lays claim to tradition and apostolic succession, it has deviated and "evolved" their doctrines, structure and faith from the Early Church of the time of the Apostles (that we see in Acts and Epistles), becoming a worldly geopolitical power. Just think about it - a few centuries back Rome was fighting crusades against the muslim and today the Pope prays in a mosque towards Mecca and issues documents stating the jews, muslims and hindus worship the same God as Christians and all are on the path to salvation. Rome forbids the conversion of jews. They bless same sex couples. Should I even go on? This is absolutely ridiculous and it invalidates the whole RC Church.
Bribes don't work on monarchs when they control the economy and finances of the country. A good Christian monarch is a servant of the people and takes care of his flock because he aspires to be like Christ Himself, who is the King of kings. But they are still human and susceptible to bad influence, moral degradation, decadence, etc. The good thing about it is that they still can be replaced because there's always someone waiting to inherit the throne. Sure you get weak monarchs from time to time but you also get great ones. In the freemasonic dual party system (or in any democracy for that matter) you only get pawns of the Deep State because everyone who is preselected and groomed to be a leader is compromised and kept on a leash. The ultimate power never lies in the official leaders - it's all a facade built on marketing schemes.
The Hapsburgian of the Old World Order empire had the dual eagled monarchy as it's symbol and monarchy as its way.
I spoke with an individual who wrote books for academia and was considered the premiere authority on the Balkans. He considered Germany/Austria his true homeland. He confided to me that he was a dyed in the wool monarchist an opinion shared secretly by many of his colleagues. A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history. Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion. The founding fathers had an array of beliefs, many considered 'deist', rather than given a specific denomination for reasons that need to be investigated to understand. Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight. Interesting that the Christian hero, Jesus, was accused of breaking both religious and political laws. The fleur-dis-leurs of the monarchy adds the military as a three-pronged weapon (spearhead)....against whom exactly? An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely. Look at the churches divide and fight today. If free speech isn't allowed for free minds to find they the people's solution to their problems, then you didn't learn from history, nor understand the solution posited by the founding fathers, and are doomed to repeat.
Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.
In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.
Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.
Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.
That's a cliche that has aged like milk. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator. Case in point - the NWO after WWII.
I'll save time and wasted effort and refer you to the writings of America's most patriotic writer, Thomas Paine, as well as nearly every founding father to this country, who established the legacy and constitution for a democratic republic of, for, and by the people, contrary to inbred tyrants with no check or balance outside of violent removal which history has proven time and again, speaking of aging like milk.
How about Nancy Pelosi as your king? How about King Biden, drooling on the throne? What a joke.
Had Prince Albert become king, England would have been dominated and ruined by a serial killing psycho. But you'd be okay with that. Tell us who is to remove the despotic monarch. We the people that you don't believe in, or someone else?
The cabal are monarchists. You're obviously simp-pathetic to their cause and are a glow-worm who doesn't belong here.
Both idealism (ideal) and symbolism (type) represent tools by others to govern ones mind. Letting go of ideals/idols prevents others from governing ones mind.
Read the part where the founding fathers says if shit goes sideways, abolish and make whatever we want that works for us.
Great. Now we have to get clear who decides what works and who is "us"?
THEY implies ones singular vote for a plurality of others. Holding onto the plurality implies the supposition.
Viewing freemasonry as a plurality/group/brotherhood of man etc. tempts one to ignore that each of the 33 steps is about setting oneself free from others.
Masonry implies building walls (ignorance) by joining (consent) bricks (suggested information) together, which one can only do by "free" will of choice.
Because suggestion contradicts perception.
Constitute implies "standing together"...aka the choice to restrict self.
Being implies "force-en" aka forced into being...others suggest en-force-ment to manipulate ones mind.
What if sound implies law and any word shaped within a crime against it?
...but can and will be said by free will of choice, unless self restricting.
COM (together) UNI (apart from one another)...consenting to any suggestion makes one part of a COM-UNI-ty. That's how few centralize power by tricking many together.
Articulating the word "fire" implies by free will of choice...aiming it at another implies an offense upon the free will of choice of another.
Shaping words within sound implies freely shaping within dominance (free-dom)...sharing words binds free will of choice to one another.
Any word implies a letter aka ones free will of choice LETTING another shape words....that's what stokes the fire by friction through bondage.
a) Money implies a net negative for anyone consenting to it...only the chosen ones suggesting it make profit + interest.
b) A solution reveals...suing implies a suit to conceal.