Well said. Very well said. @Frosty - best TellPoal.
e: best post?
Well said.
Very well said.
@Frosty - best TellPoal.
e: best post?
What is happening in Britain and Ireland is being disparaged as a “civil war” by those saying the target should only be the jews.
Leaving aside the question of the outcomes of these events, and focusing instead on meanings, there is a mistake in thinking about it this way.
In a “civil war” you have factions of the same body embattled for control of the system. The key word, civil, implies a group whose identities are largely similar, and together have built something by means of commonality and shared intention or other factors. The desire for control of the system is due to a belief that, when finished, everyone would reunite again beneath the same banner.
A “revolution” is about overthrowing the power structure itself, with a body of the “under” working against the “other” who happen to be “over.” While the “over” may bear some common traits or historical identity with the “under,” their “otherness” indicates there is a current of irreconcilable difference that revokes the “civil” nature of the conflict. When finished, the “other” will be unwelcome, whether in victory or defeat, and, if possible, subject to isolation, exile or even extermination.
Each type of conflict has its purpose. Both have potential benefits, depending on how they’re executed and for whose purposes. Both also should be entered with trepidation, only after a tipping point, one of no return, is reached. The jews have used both throughout history to divide a nation and acquire wealth and power.
With all of this said, if we assess the conflicts in Britain and Ireland, and observe the agitators on both sides, the picture comes clear:
The Whites come from a common ancestry, history, ethnicity and other deep identities (sadly, having forsaken the common Faith thanks to jewish interference in the Church for centuries). They intend, however disorganized their attempts, to overthrow the “other,” the invaders and oppressors who have taken over their land. They share no common identity with their enemy, because, in truth, there is none. The “other” is an obvious interloper, a contemporary contagion, who did not build, did not strive in concert, did not spill blood together, and did not endure centuries and millennia of refinement in the crucible of time.
Whatever might occur, for good or ill, do not make the mistake of calling this a “civil war;” there is nothing “civil” about it. This is a body agitating for liberation, a people increasingly unified to expel the “other” from their midst. Let us pray that they do not stop short as they seek out the offenders, both among the infantries of their opponents, and just as vital the jewish generals who strategically deployed those armies over the recent decades.
What is happening in Britain and Ireland is being disparaged as a “civil war” by those saying the target should only be the jews.
Leaving aside the question of the outcomes of these events, and focusing instead on meanings, there is a mistake in thinking about it this way.
In a “civil war” you have factions of the same body embattled for control of the system. The key word, civil, implies a group whose identities are largely similar, and together have built something by means of commonality and shared intention or other factors. The desire for control of the system is due to a belief that, when finished, everyone would reunite again beneath the same banner.
A “revolution” is about overthrowing the power structure itself, with a body of the “under” working against the “other” who happen to be “over.” While the “over” may bear some common traits or historical identity with the “under,” their “otherness” indicates there is a current of irreconcilable difference that revokes the “civil” nature of the conflict. When finished, the “other” will be unwelcome, whether in victory or defeat, and, if possible, subject to isolation, exile or even extermination.
Each type of conflict has its purpose. Both have potential benefits, depending on how they’re executed and for whose purposes. Both also should be entered with trepidation, only after a tipping point, one of no return, is reached. The jews have used both throughout history to divide a nation and acquire wealth and power.
With all of this said, if we assess the conflicts in Britain and Ireland, and observe the agitators on both sides, the picture comes clear:
The Whites come from a common ancestry, history, ethnicity and other deep identities (sadly, having forsaken the common Faith thanks to jewish interference in the Church for centuries). They intend, however disorganized their attempts, to overthrow the “other,” the invaders and oppressors who have taken over their land. They share no common identity with their enemy, because, in truth, there is none. The “other” is an obvious interloper, a contemporary contagion, who did not build, did not strive in concert, did not spill blood together, and did not endure centuries and millennia of refinement in the crucible of time.
Whatever might occur, for good or ill, do not make the mistake of calling this a “civil war;” there is nothing “civil” about it. This is a body agitating for liberation, a people increasingly unified to expel the “other” from their midst. Let us pray that they do not stop short as they seek out the offenders, both among the infantries of their opponents, and just as vital the jewish generals who strategically deployed those armies over the recent decades.
(post is archived)