No. Don’t burn down our history and our best architecture because some people are demonic.
Be better than Nepal.
Ford knew his businesses weren’t made up of the buildings, but of people. Burning a nice building just destroys a nice building. The people managing the tyranny are likely elsewhere. The organizations and implementers are elsewhere.
This only gives them an excuse to start shouting “AHHH REICHSTAG!!” “AHHH TONKIN!!!” and try to seize more power.
England has been rebuilt repeatedly. It can be rebuilt again. If it takes losing a landmark to get rid of demons, IMO it might be worth it, especially given the crime, and real future which will happen if not stopped.
What does burning a building do to stop people housed in buildings scattered all across the country?
The French Revolution did not have a good outcome. America was blessed to have one, and we tried to keep ours peaceful. They forced it, not us. A Parliament House doesn’t get burned out of desperation but out of impudence and chest-thumping.
The meek shall inherit the earth. The vandals sacked Rome. How’s their name recorded? Sack the buildings and leave the people, and they will rebuild. Go at the people unlawfully, and they will infiltrate and go into hiding and remain in control.
Use righteous law and righteous judgments against them and they lose.
Does mighty England have no lawful respite from these criminals but a match?
Take Control. Arson is the tool of the weakling coward. Be strong.
Go raise up more Martin Geddeses and Christine Grabs. They can’t beat all of us.
If this was true you would be without issue. So would Napal.
You are attempting to muddle (corrupt?) Good advice with missapropriated platitudes.
.
Is good architecture worth preserving? Of course, always if possible. However, a building is still just a building. Buildings can be rebuilt (Notre-Dame, for example) and they are all the time. Repairs can be done. The US white house and Capitol building have both been rebuilt.
My point is, for the love of a building, the acceptance of evil or corruption should be unacceptable, and a singed building is a small price too pay for freedom.
Those who revolt against tyranny could be seen as impudent to the bystander, but are the heroes of history who stood up to the dictator, the tyrant, and who helped reshape their country.
.
From what I've heard on the news, England and her laws have been ravaged by globalists and the lackeys of evil. Foreigners roam your halls of parliment, and have a stranglehold on your citizens.
The citizens themselves are being arrested just for speaking up, or calling for government action against injustice.
It was the same for Nepal. I would not begrudge either of you to take up and defend your freedoms and very lives. Even if it meant losing a building or two. People are much more important!
If you think England can be saved yet by her own laws, I BEG you to get out from in front of your computer and DO IT.
I would hazard to say better people than both of us have already tried, and failed to do so.
If a match is the only recourse to save the island I'd rather see that than it to be finally and utterly conquered with nary a fight. Are the people so complacent and brow beaten they won't stand for God, king and country?
I had a response, then I fat fingered, and I’m not writing it again.
In short, burning down your own history is not the way to save a nation, and it won’t stop the criminals from continuing to do criminal stuff. Ask Guy Fawkes about it and for both yourself and everyone else, please stop being intensely stupid.
Here’s a silly idea for you - how about lawfully putting the criminals in prison, lawfully taking possession of the parliament, creating a warning to future generations against what they’ve done, and then proceeding to rule rightly?
Wouldn’t that be a better outcome?
If you can’t put them in prisonwithoutburning buildings, you aren’t going to do itwithburning buildings, either.
For crying out loud man, go drink some ginseng and think for a second.
Rooks 38 minutes ago +1 / -0
If this was true you would be without issue. So would Napal.
You are attempting to muddle (corrupt?) Good advice with missapropriated platitudes.
.
Is good architecture worth preserving? Of course, always if possible. However, a building is still just a building. Buildings can be rebuilt (Notre-Dame, for example) and they are all the time. Repairs can be done. The US white house and Capitol building have both been rebuilt.
My point is, for the love of a building, the acceptance of evil or corruption should be unacceptable, and a singed building is a small price too pay for freedom.
Those who revolt against tyranny could be seen as impudent to the bystander, but are the heroes of history who stood up to the dictator, the tyrant, and who helped reshape their country.
.
From what I've heard on the news, England and her laws have been ravaged by globalists and the lackeys of evil. Foreigners roam your halls of parliment, and have a stranglehold on your citizens.
The citizens themselves are being arrested just for speaking up, or calling for government action against injustice.
It was the same for Nepal. I would not begrudge either of you to take up and defend your freedoms and very lives. Even if it meant losing a building or two. People are much more important!
If you think England can be saved yet by her own laws, I BEG you to get out from in front of your computer and DO IT.
I would hazard to say better people than both of us have already tried, and failed to do so.
If a match is the only recourse to save the island I'd rather see that than it to be finally and utterly conquered with nary a fight. > Are the people so complacent and brow beaten they won't stand for God, king and country?
If you read the article, there's more going on (if the article or 'news' is in any way accurate, which cannot be guaranteed) than just the burning of a building or two. Politicians are being beaten up, their houses burned, some people apparently burned alive in their home (wife of former PM), etc. And a lot more.
I tend to agree with Sunnywindows "Watch, England and learn"
Not the people, tho. Amateur has a point: be better than mob violence. But the British government and ruling class? Absolutely. Watch and learn, because tyrants who push a people too far will suffer pushback that often leads to violence.
When a people feel they have no other recourse, they will push to violence.
I think the argument rooks and amateur are having is essentially quibbling. Two perspectives with the same end goal in mind.
Whether England can avoid what <seems to be> happening in Nepal seems doubtful. But, it doesn't mean that this is the best or only alternative.
One important clarification - I was not asserting that you are that, but intended emphasis on “being”, as in, “in the immediate present”, and for a specific reason that I don’t want to detail. It was not intended as an insult, but as “be aware of the things you’re writing”, and I want to be clear on that. Apologies if I was not clear then, or here. I do not want to be too explicit here, but it was absolutely not meant as an insult.
People misunderstand the American Revolution. It was a war of defense. Burning down parliament is neither war nor defensive.. just gives the cabal reasons for police states
I’m getting ratio downdooted for saying “let’s not be like the mostly peaceful protestors in Kenosha.” Hey remember when they also tried to burn down that courthouse in Portland or whatever? Two years ago everyone would have agreed. I remember we thought those “protestors” at the courthouse were… didn’t we call them “terrorists”?
There’s no good argument for it. It’s not being manly, it’s being an unlawful mob.
What’s different? Oh we’re in power now, “but ‘It’s ok when we do it’ is ok when we do it”, right? “ Equal justice under the law means the law is applied to everyone equally, doesn’t it?
“Nah, it’s all just about what feels good!”
sigh.
TO BE THE PARTY OF LAW AND ORDER, WE HAVE TO BE LAWFUL.
I’m not gonna say that’s the right answer either, I don’t think it is, but it’s at least a much more rational suggestion.
This article may in fact be the only sort of tactical option left for Nepal. I don’t know a single thing about their situation. Britain definitely still has options, as do we.
I’m 100% positive that I’ve made some really stupid guesses here myself for which I probably deserved a few ratios, but after watching the Dummer of Love (nice accidental typo, not gonna fix it.), I’m not gonna back down that arson does not solve this problem. Nor does mob violence, which the founding fathers wrote about.
Everybody needs to throw their emotions out the door and be the autists they were born to be.
AE, I've given you some updoots because you are doing good work by trying to convince folks to go after the criminals and not the buildings. Unfortunately when a mob begins doing violence it is very difficult to stop their actions. Common sense goes out the window and a lit match wins the day. You have taken an immense amount of your time to write out why the efforts in Nepal needs to be focused against the deep state. I applaud you for trying to educate folks on GAW. Thanks!
Tactics: “Burn it down!” (nope) “Storm the Bastille and ready the guillotines! No trials!” (nope)
Less emotion, more thinking. I’ve mentioned a couple approaches that I suspect are good solutions, but fully admit that I don’t know how they’d work in Nepal. I’d like to think I can spot poor solutions though, and emotional gratification aside, it’s this.
I’ll happily wear this ratio as a badge of honor, but I do expect better out of us. It’s not like I haven’t surely posited plenty of poorly thought things here (and will continue to do so), of course.
There are also cultural factors at play here. Nepal <appears to have> a very polarized society, with median income something like $1400 a year, while the elite politicians live in luxury. A less developed society, only now trying to emerge from poverty.
Britain is the home of the magna carta. The 1689 Bill of Rights, etc.
Descending into mob violence doesn't seem to be the only way. Take a note from Tommy Robinson. Has he ever advocated mob violence? Not that I know of.
The whole Q operation was to spearhead a mass movement of minds. To rack open the group think. Expose the reality. Create a spearhead force that could eventually shift the entire mainstream narrative.
Which it has. So many of our themes from 2018 are now mainstream thought in the USA.
People should learn the lessons of the two revolutions. American and French. One was lead by well-educated men leading people to stand up for their rights. "Don't treat on us." The other was lead by mobs, mobilized and exploited by instigators, to destroy the rulers. "J'Accuse! You are anti-revolutionary! Guillotine!"
I think we can make the case that frogs saying England should emulate what the Nepalese people are doing are actually advocating more in the vein of the French Revolution rather than the American one.
No. Don’t burn down our history and our best architecture because some people are demonic.
Be better than Nepal.
Ford knew his businesses weren’t made up of the buildings, but of people. Burning a nice building just destroys a nice building. The people managing the tyranny are likely elsewhere. The organizations and implementers are elsewhere.
This only gives them an excuse to start shouting “AHHH REICHSTAG!!” “AHHH TONKIN!!!” and try to seize more power.
Be smart.
England has been rebuilt repeatedly. It can be rebuilt again. If it takes losing a landmark to get rid of demons, IMO it might be worth it, especially given the crime, and real future which will happen if not stopped.
What does burning a building do to stop people housed in buildings scattered all across the country?
The French Revolution did not have a good outcome. America was blessed to have one, and we tried to keep ours peaceful. They forced it, not us. A Parliament House doesn’t get burned out of desperation but out of impudence and chest-thumping.
The meek shall inherit the earth. The vandals sacked Rome. How’s their name recorded? Sack the buildings and leave the people, and they will rebuild. Go at the people unlawfully, and they will infiltrate and go into hiding and remain in control.
Use righteous law and righteous judgments against them and they lose.
Does mighty England have no lawful respite from these criminals but a match?
Take Control. Arson is the tool of the weakling coward. Be strong.
Go raise up more Martin Geddeses and Christine Grabs. They can’t beat all of us.
If this was true you would be without issue. So would Napal.
You are attempting to muddle (corrupt?) Good advice with missapropriated platitudes.
.
Is good architecture worth preserving? Of course, always if possible. However, a building is still just a building. Buildings can be rebuilt (Notre-Dame, for example) and they are all the time. Repairs can be done. The US white house and Capitol building have both been rebuilt.
My point is, for the love of a building, the acceptance of evil or corruption should be unacceptable, and a singed building is a small price too pay for freedom.
Those who revolt against tyranny could be seen as impudent to the bystander, but are the heroes of history who stood up to the dictator, the tyrant, and who helped reshape their country.
.
From what I've heard on the news, England and her laws have been ravaged by globalists and the lackeys of evil. Foreigners roam your halls of parliment, and have a stranglehold on your citizens.
The citizens themselves are being arrested just for speaking up, or calling for government action against injustice.
It was the same for Nepal. I would not begrudge either of you to take up and defend your freedoms and very lives. Even if it meant losing a building or two. People are much more important!
If you think England can be saved yet by her own laws, I BEG you to get out from in front of your computer and DO IT.
I would hazard to say better people than both of us have already tried, and failed to do so.
If a match is the only recourse to save the island I'd rather see that than it to be finally and utterly conquered with nary a fight. Are the people so complacent and brow beaten they won't stand for God, king and country?
Well.
I had a response, then I fat fingered, and I’m not writing it again.
In short, burning down your own history is not the way to save a nation, and it won’t stop the criminals from continuing to do criminal stuff. Ask Guy Fawkes about it and for both yourself and everyone else, please stop being intensely stupid.
Here’s a silly idea for you - how about lawfully putting the criminals in prison, lawfully taking possession of the parliament, creating a warning to future generations against what they’ve done, and then proceeding to rule rightly?
Wouldn’t that be a better outcome?
If you can’t put them in prison without burning buildings, you aren’t going to do it with burning buildings, either.
For crying out loud man, go drink some ginseng and think for a second.
If you read the article, there's more going on (if the article or 'news' is in any way accurate, which cannot be guaranteed) than just the burning of a building or two. Politicians are being beaten up, their houses burned, some people apparently burned alive in their home (wife of former PM), etc. And a lot more.
I tend to agree with Sunnywindows "Watch, England and learn"
Not the people, tho. Amateur has a point: be better than mob violence. But the British government and ruling class? Absolutely. Watch and learn, because tyrants who push a people too far will suffer pushback that often leads to violence.
When a people feel they have no other recourse, they will push to violence.
I think the argument rooks and amateur are having is essentially quibbling. Two perspectives with the same end goal in mind.
Whether England can avoid what <seems to be> happening in Nepal seems doubtful. But, it doesn't mean that this is the best or only alternative.
One important clarification - I was not asserting that you are that, but intended emphasis on “being”, as in, “in the immediate present”, and for a specific reason that I don’t want to detail. It was not intended as an insult, but as “be aware of the things you’re writing”, and I want to be clear on that. Apologies if I was not clear then, or here. I do not want to be too explicit here, but it was absolutely not meant as an insult.
People misunderstand the American Revolution. It was a war of defense. Burning down parliament is neither war nor defensive.. just gives the cabal reasons for police states
I’m getting ratio downdooted for saying “let’s not be like the mostly peaceful protestors in Kenosha.” Hey remember when they also tried to burn down that courthouse in Portland or whatever? Two years ago everyone would have agreed. I remember we thought those “protestors” at the courthouse were… didn’t we call them “terrorists”?
There’s no good argument for it. It’s not being manly, it’s being an unlawful mob.
What’s different? Oh we’re in power now, “but ‘It’s ok when we do it’ is ok when we do it”, right? “ Equal justice under the law means the law is applied to everyone equally, doesn’t it?
“Nah, it’s all just about what feels good!”
sigh.
TO BE THE PARTY OF LAW AND ORDER, WE HAVE TO BE LAWFUL.
Need to find the ones pulling their leaders strings and mob THEIR houses, castles, lairs,etc.
I’m not gonna say that’s the right answer either, I don’t think it is, but it’s at least a much more rational suggestion.
This article may in fact be the only sort of tactical option left for Nepal. I don’t know a single thing about their situation. Britain definitely still has options, as do we.
I’m 100% positive that I’ve made some really stupid guesses here myself for which I probably deserved a few ratios, but after watching the Dummer of Love (nice accidental typo, not gonna fix it.), I’m not gonna back down that arson does not solve this problem. Nor does mob violence, which the founding fathers wrote about.
Everybody needs to throw their emotions out the door and be the autists they were born to be.
We are the Party of Law and Order.
— Donald J. Trump
AE, I've given you some updoots because you are doing good work by trying to convince folks to go after the criminals and not the buildings. Unfortunately when a mob begins doing violence it is very difficult to stop their actions. Common sense goes out the window and a lit match wins the day. You have taken an immense amount of your time to write out why the efforts in Nepal needs to be focused against the deep state. I applaud you for trying to educate folks on GAW. Thanks!
Thanks!
By the time things get to us, we better have better tactics thought up.
Less emotion, more thinking. I’ve mentioned a couple approaches that I suspect are good solutions, but fully admit that I don’t know how they’d work in Nepal. I’d like to think I can spot poor solutions though, and emotional gratification aside, it’s this.
I’ll happily wear this ratio as a badge of honor, but I do expect better out of us. It’s not like I haven’t surely posited plenty of poorly thought things here (and will continue to do so), of course.
This is the same as tearing down Conference statues in the US. This isn't protest it's vandalism.
I’m pretty surprised more people didn’t pick up on that.
There are also cultural factors at play here. Nepal <appears to have> a very polarized society, with median income something like $1400 a year, while the elite politicians live in luxury. A less developed society, only now trying to emerge from poverty.
Britain is the home of the magna carta. The 1689 Bill of Rights, etc.
Descending into mob violence doesn't seem to be the only way. Take a note from Tommy Robinson. Has he ever advocated mob violence? Not that I know of.
The whole Q operation was to spearhead a mass movement of minds. To rack open the group think. Expose the reality. Create a spearhead force that could eventually shift the entire mainstream narrative.
Which it has. So many of our themes from 2018 are now mainstream thought in the USA.
People should learn the lessons of the two revolutions. American and French. One was lead by well-educated men leading people to stand up for their rights. "Don't treat on us." The other was lead by mobs, mobilized and exploited by instigators, to destroy the rulers. "J'Accuse! You are anti-revolutionary! Guillotine!"
I think we can make the case that frogs saying England should emulate what the Nepalese people are doing are actually advocating more in the vein of the French Revolution rather than the American one.
u/winn u/rooks
A true faggots answer…. shit can be rebuilt, your future will not.
You can't rebuild your past either. Once it's gone, it's gone with everything good and bad that went into it.