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.
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.
I've red Paine's Common Sense. He was a degenerate liberal living in a menage a trois in Paris (source: Fire in the Minds of Men: Origin of the revolutionary faith by J. Billington). But so were most of the founding daddies who were influenced by both the girondin and jacobin faction of the French revolutionaries. I'm not saying the US never had good people as leaders (I think Andrew Jackson is a great example), but it's wrong from the outset due to foundational philosophical problems of the project.
The joke is that those leaders are the logical consequence of the system you support. These types of globalist technocratic goblins aren't to be found in the monarchy I described. But either way, having a bad leader or a monarch doesn't invalidate the system. Sure there were weak and corrupted monarchs and still it's a better system than a secular freemasonic republic or a democracy.
The aristocracy and contenders to the throne. Still much easier done than removing a psychopathic and tyrannical technocratic Big Brother government that's been institutionalized and cemented in all spheres of society. We've been under the control of that system for centuries now (or at least since WWII). When was the last time a despotic monarch ruled for 80 years?
Lol sure. This is why they toppled the monarchies with their masonic talmudic revolutions and we're constantly force fed propaganda about how great democracy is and how bad absolute power is (your arguments are textbook examples of that propaganda). We surely live in an evil monarchist world and not in a "Liberty, equality, fraternity" freemasonic NWO. The very idea of it being called a new world order is to set it in opposition to the old world order which was based ruled by the Church and the monarchy.
But don't let common sense, countless books on the topic (at least read the Protocols maybe) and history get in the way of your narrative - we all just need to double down on the thing that got us in this clown world in the first place, which is revolutionary emancipation, liberalism and individualism, and we'll get there!
You should rename yourself 2EyesWideShut
Paine's royalist detractors took his staying at a couple's residence while in Paris as opportunity to slander him. You fall prey to their machinations. Have you read his personal letters to his wife? No you have not.
You were stumping for kings last post, and now you praise emancipation, a word that Paine popularized, you 'wide shut' oxymoron. Propaganda is a helluva drug.
The cabal toppled some royals and not others to usurp the power as their own. It was a cabalist who told me they were monarchists, not that I needed him to say it.
Napolean toppled the monarchy and yesterday's jewel theft was an attempt to steal his legacy, just to keep you up with current events and how they pertain to TRUE history you don't get from your propagandists.
I'm of the line of VonHaderschot, who were orignators of the so-called Bavarian Illuminatti (Home base for the cabal of the past) nd know its history well.
Blow it out your ass.
Either way, the fact he was very close to Bonneville is much worse than the supposed debauchery. Bonneville was a revolutionary proto-socialist, a freemason and an illuminist (his Cercle Social and Amis de la Verite).
Sure, there's black aristocracy left from the old world. Don't let me defend them - they have betrayed their people and serve Satan along with the transhumanist technocrats. They operate within the framework of the NWO and aren't monarchists at all. They are very happy as internationalists, globalists and socialists. In fact they're it's opposite and make a mockery of the monarchical institution just like modern skittles churches make a mockery of Christianity.
You have no idea of the history of the revolutionary ideas that have led to today's NWO (or you do and you are pleased with how things are going). I recommend you read Billington's book who's a librarian of congress and an Ivy league prof. - he's a supporter of the revolutionary new world order, so he's on your side and has no monarchist bias.
Makes sense. You espouse their ideas too. The irony of saying I have no place here when you're of illuminati lineage...