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.
Great. You realize they were governed by a political elite in the face of the chieftains and everyday people didn't vote for those, right? It's like having a Party at the top but without a leader or a feudal system without a king (the Scottish clans). This model is weak and it logically led to the disillusionment of that state due to inability to agree to a unified policy when the war with Britain came. You can't have a body with multiple heads (at least by having a temporary appointed leader there's still a head of state present, even if his power is contingent on the system that installed him).
This is the Christian worldview as presented in Scripture you moron - how is that a scam claim? Sure, monarchs were corrupted by freemasonic bs during the enlightenment and caved in. Just like in the OT, they turned away from God and lost their mandate to rule. How is that a contradiction?
It doesn't work both ways because you can't point to a true democracy historically. I have demonstrated to you that your ideal democracy is a pipe dream. Even Plato knew democracy is the weakest form of government because it degenerates to chaos and rule of the passions (muh freedom and muh rights).
Lol, nice ChatGPT skills there, I totally believe you. You obviously know Quigley well because you red that he was Clinton's mentor which is literally printed on the cover of Tragedy and Hope. I'm amazed by your deep knowledge on the topic. I already told you I don't agree with neither of those guys. On the issue of monarchy vs democracy/republic they are on YOUR side, not mine. Still their writings are revelatory about how the system came to be, the ideas behind it and how it operates. And the funny thing is you support those same enlightenment ideas that have materialized as the status quo in today's system. The classic liberal and democratic ideas are everywhere at all times 24/7 - there's a giant ass masonic statue of the goddess of Liberty (Lucifer) at the gate of the US, a masonic cornerstone in front of Congress and a masonic all seeing eye on top of a pyramid on all your fake ass money and you have the nerve to bitch about royalist propaganda? Where do you get off, you illuminist weasel?
How is that relevant? You can call them monarchs if you like but what they rule over is not a monarchy or at least it's not a Christian monarchy but a freemasonic beast system ruled by a technocratic international elite cabal. Do you think I care that the UK has a king? Do you think I support the druid Queen or the fabian globalist Charles III just because they hold the title? If so, you don't even try to understand my position in good faith and you're just strawmanning me.
"This model is weak and it logically led to the disillusionment of that state due to inability to agree to a unified policy when the war with Britain came. You can't have a body with multiple heads (at least by having a temporary appointed leader there's still a head of state present, even if his power is contingent on the system that installed him).
And that's why we have a democratic republic with a president as head, with checks and balances. Little details that escaped your diatribe. You want me to defend pure democracy with no head, but I refuse to play your little game with stupid prizes.
Thanks for admitting that democracy existed without 'kingship' in the past. As for the Scots, the King of England crowing himself over the land of the Scots and attempting to take it was 'the problem', not a confederacy of lords with no king. Later, it went the other direction with my ancestor disappearing the twin dauphin contenders to the throne, in order to place Mary Queen of Scots upon it in retribution. But you know nothing about that until you wiki and snope like a dope.
Your argument slides with the particulars involved. We're a democratic republic, dumbass.
Freemason are a Waterbuffalo organization of watered down understanding and degrees co-opted by blackhats. You don't get that either.
The 'christian worldview' was always a hodgepodge of contention even before it was 'jewish' and later pasted onto 'Christianity'. Roman propaganda is a helluva drug. Paul was called 'The Liar' by the Essenic writings that came before him. But you don't get that, you swallow lies.
You sound like the commies, using a quote of yours, when you say a 'true democracy' can't be pointed out. This 'true democracy' never existed. We're a democratic republic, moron. Now defend despotic dictating Kings who can't be removed by the people except by violence or exposure.
I read Quigley, fuck you very much and knew what Clinton was doing in pretending to support the work like a team. Professors are the number one propagandists at the head. At their head is the Frankfurt School and Situationists International.
How is the fact that every fake election placed a descendant of one of two kings relevant? You'e really just that stupid, huh. It's called 'controlled opposition' or playing both sides. Do I need to school you on everything?
How about Tavistock? You seem to think you know it. Did you know that it became an orphanage that had to be closed due to unspecified issues? lol "Please sir, may I have another?"
Woke Charles Dickens liked to write about the children, same as Hillary liked to run her own "orphanages" as Queen of Voodoo in Haiti.
Tavistock was procurred under interesting circumstances. Then woke theater people joined to create a propaganda machine using plays. (See Situationism) A stage was built with aristocrats as audience to judge the effectiveness of the message. A playwright 'writes what he knows' and gives it a twist. Dickens was known to be enamoured with Queen Victoria, isn't that odd.....who's scion Albert was an insane drug-addled serial ritual killer for the CORRUPTED and CO-OPTED masonic/roisecrucian gang. Prince Albert was 'canned' by his own family, choosing to arrange a death by OD rather than risk his taking the crown. Moron.
Now you have King Charles III as Fabian which is fake communism as their coats of arms of a fucking wolf wearing sheep's clothing screams to idiots to understand but apparently even such hamfisted symbology is lost on some and I laugh along with them at those they fool openly.
Your point like you , is oxymoronic. And you're the one playing wiki history of the status quo written in deception. You can't dig hard truths by using spoonfed histories.
I haven't used Chat GPT in my life and never will. Garbage in (Chat GPT/wiki/snopes et al), Garbage out. (You).
Thanks for allowing me to take the garbage out with redpills for you. You have nothing but conflicting statements about lies you swallow.
Been doing this since before you were born.
The Scots, with their confederation of lords had no need for a King until the King of England got all heady with power and decided he ruled Scotland also. Then Robert the Bruce took a large lead in fighting them off. This eventually came to a head with an ancestor of mine eliminating the would-be contending dauphin twins and placing Mary Queen of Scots on the throne. Good ol' Bloody Mary as one-sided history likesto record. Murdered in turn by 'nobles'. Wonder why.
Put a crown on, King of false history, and Prince of Propaganda and I'll knock it off with facts that remain secrets to shallow divers.