And by the way @What Would Jack Conte Do? Britain and Europe removed their enemy of the country law's, because, of Europe. It is time to ask yourself whether or not they think treason law's are more effective, perhaps.

I don't think it stopped the IRA much but it reduced the other problems. Treason law's . Gave the country back it's fundamental right to make that decision.
By the way the new terrorist law's are an excuse for extra mistrust and extra insecurities because they can randomly pick on someone the government deems , as a terrorist. They may not necessarily be one. But then through the interrogation they may.

The definition of a terrorist is not necessary for law enforcement purposes

In recent years I've seen people citing Norway as an example of functioning democratic socialism. Well, I always doubted their claim, and my go-to response was that it's anecdotal evidence at best (selection bias). But perhaps pointing out Norway's natural resources makes for a stronger rebuttal:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/08/the-myth-of-democratic-socialism/

Plus, the lack of a connection between increasing socialism and wealth.

By the way it's the same with Austria. We're rich on natural resources.

I'd argue our high taxation is probably detrimental, but we don't notice the effects of that because we have all this natural wealth.

The more utopian your society already is, the larger amounts of socialism it can handle.

You're meant to cap it. Sorry, but, unless you have people working. Then they can't have the money. Simple as that. They have given away load's to refugees. But , then they kick them out the country. <:sargonfingerguns:568463117856669696> <:sargonmagaicon2:538676372726349824>

when will sargon leave UK forever? to what level will the tyranny increase before he does

never

he'll lead the revolution

Sargon will become the next Oliver Cromwell

If my memory of history is correct, things didn’t exactly end well for Cromwell, so I hope not.

Indeed. Fuck cromwell.

Question for everyone. If AOC is the horsewoman of famine, who would deserve the remaining titles from the rest of "The Squad"?

talib maybe war, idk the others though

Found a comment on the video that gives a good breakdown.
Omar is death for her stance towards terrorists and martyrs
Talib is war for her stance on Palestine and Hamas
Ayanna is famine because of black farmers (I'll admit I dont know enough about her to understand this reason)
And AOC is pestilence because shes and socialism is just cancer

whoreswoman**

@What Would Jack Conte Do?, I think he is one of many whom probably should seek political asylum.

Especially, since the media are making people subscribe to them , in order for us to read an informative piece of news. (Example below).

I think my biggest concern are those whom are silent. The silent majority whom are voting. Will perhaps be in danger, don't you think?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-attacks-uk-plot-farhad-salah-syria-prevent-threat-a9005886.html

The weird thing about that article if that the Independent is 1 step away from saying: Therefore the only solution is to let them fight abroad or kill them here now - but they haven't quite realized it.

@Comando I am actually relieved, I am not the only one whom, see's this all; bubble wrap ingestion of information; unfolding into another; ethical battle of tireless efforts vs logical reasoning, critical debate. All to which, most people , have been ingesting another, frequency. Some of which, they are too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

They have to put an intellectual spin on the failure's of their "open border's", theory. They have to admit there is evil in the world. Before they reach their consolidated conflicting conclusion.

Do people, feel, the looks that normal immigrants are recieving is uncomfortable ?

Is there a difference in the actions of these people?

I mean, these questions are now at the height of people's discussions in private . Which should have been public , to raise awareness and protect people.

Now what are your thoughts on this being: more vulnerable lives are going to be lost as a result of their benevolence?

I mean if you can call it benevolence. I like to address it that way because they've put the whole NGO'S into the picture. Then they dressed it up as such. What are your thoughts and theories?

Did they ever find Cromwell's head?

And tbh it went well for him for a while

When everyone starts killing each other in some kind of civil war to end the days.... at least it'll feel more real than the situation than we currently have

@Eccles I don't think you will have civil war. This is me rationalising the way things have transpired. You already have people murdering people, without, uprising . I mean, the weird thing about the last uprising was the riots of 2011.

A man got shot by the police, colour of the skin, mattered; as it wasn't really necessarily representing - a section of society . And they all joined in. Like a virtual signalling crazed weapon. Even though the dude was a drug dealer. The people whom joined in with those riots, didn't like the Olympics being held in London. So, they went and join in with people.

You fast forward to 2019, white man gets shot down by the cops. Everyone just shrugs their shoulder's. Even the flipping , far right. <:salt:501105964758466586>

So, I am saying it would take a MASSIVE CATALYST FOR PEOPLE to be motivated to rise up against things. So, I am not encouraging violence. I am saying, too many people, put up with a lot of garbage to get on in the UK. They have their WIFI, TV and they can catch the bus to work. Shits okay. They don't want change.

@Eccles and so the question is... Are people , whom are of a certain sub social class, capable of rioting on the scales we saw in 2011?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436499

Then we are doomed to survive in a country with ever decreasing levels of freedom and prosperity.

I have already moved to the countryside and am doing my best to isolate myself from the world. It is desperately sad

No, they won't riot, and if they did it would be put down by force and nothing would be achieved

@PureEvilPie

Vicarious benevolence, would be a good way to put it. Get others to be benevolent on their behalf.

@Comando

It puts people in a precarious position. When they really read the fscts, which are highlighted in the article and I am going to go through the painful logical reasoning process. The painful procedure of ethics critique. This gureling for me because, I don't want to be the burden of people's free thinking, or, to establish the negatives that are highlighted, but, in the interests of people and because I care, I have to do this:
"Prosecutors said the 24-year-old Iraqi national had wanted to fight in Syria and became “frustrated” at being unable to leave the UK, because a decision had not been made on his asylum claim.

Salah had collected “disturbing” Isis propaganda videos showing torture and executions, as well as guides enabling him to build and test homemade explosives."

So this article already, highlights that he has been given "asylum seekers status" .
Because through the fact, (picture yourself applying) as you're already in the country - means, you admitted you're seeking asylum. You're awaiting the outcome.
The article Futher states:
“He was frustrated that he had not yet been able to travel out to the Middle East and there was no immediate prospect of him being able to, given his unsettled immigration status,” she told Sheffield Crown Court.

Two of the London Bridge attackers had wanted to travel to Syria before they started plotting the atrocity, withringleader Khuram Butt’s passport being seized by his family and Youssef Zaghba being stopped at an Italian airport. "

So, as I recall correctly, this act of good will or, kindness - (vicarious benevolence), comes with consequences . Now, when I play the ethical critique game. Anyone can do this - : it's easy. I do this all the time. I ask risky questions. First one springs to mind:

1 . When we went to war with Iraq, why did we take refugees and allow them to seek asylum?

2. When, we allowed this action of mistrust to settle in these people, was it because, we are too wrapped up in our own lives, thoughts, and distractions ? As I am ACUTELY, aware that the whole of the British public, were and still to this day - dead against the Afghan and Iraq war. So , who is to blame?

3. Someone is to be held accountable for their actions and it's not just these jihadis. It's the fact that a simple formula , which took America to perform - the travel ban. Why did the travel ban take so long and why are we not allowing them, to go back - to face the Iraqi government?

As far as I am concerned, the Iraqi government want justice. They would be happy to take their lives. Now, does that make me a bad person because, I see these people wanting to risk their lives for a false narrative; ending up with a death sentence anyway?

I am going to hate myself for saying this but, I would prefer for them to rot in jail. Because they will become martyrs for their cause. To which , I don't think the Iraqi government do the ethical critique game either.

On an aside from earlier, I don't think Sargon has the heart to leave the UK (and he's said as much). I respect this being willing to go down with the ship, even as foolish as it appears to be.

Regarding the travel ban, AFAIK it was blocked on a number of levels by the selfsame sort that appear to have the reigns in the UK and the majority of European nations for that matter. Why? Because suddenly the entire world's problem rests on the West, it seems.

Somehow we're responsible for all the woes of the human species.

@Laucivol But then, the Iraqis themselves, would want to punish these people, claiming asylum; it could be deemed as a false claim because he came from Iraq. Then, they could punish him to death because he wanted to become a martyr.

No, Carl is a fighter. He believes in the cause. I thought it was a bit late. Considering, the attitudes of the people in the country.

Though I do agree, preventing martyrdom is better than permitting it if I understand your thought.

@Laucivol Europeans, need to allow people to discuss amongst themselves. If the discussion is prevented , then, people will think in a stereotypical method. Stereotypes, are a way of helping people find the bad. Also, through discussion they can find the problems faster. But it's too late the lockdown in verbal communication has commenced. These people, have joined forces with Antifa and oppressed speech.

The lone voice in the wilderness is not a wasted voice. And the likes of Sargon are not alone even in the wilderness that side of the pond has become.

This isn't the easiest way of me to admit the failings of many. Especially, when , the parliamentary actions are usurped by crazy government's. We are playing a vicious cycle: one that resonates through , and unfortunately, those countries have shown - they can have people - look like citizens; but, mask themselves; proceed attacks because of dumb decisions. We are weak.

When you see a radical behaving in a certain way, it's not quashed. There have been reports that these people are on refugee camps. They threaten normal civilians. They do things to them and they pretend they aren't who they say they are - : because you can do that if you ditch, your identity.

This, influx of people, came from regions whom were not even facing war. Then, they threaten the lives of other people. So, the risk factors of refugees, increases as well as, 'we' civilians. But, yet - the Blairites love war.

I would prefer it, if the Iraqi government took ownership to the people it has. I don't know , if there's enough respect left for a country to do it's service on the world. To be honest with you.

Gone are the days when a country cares about its own portrayal. The hate continues and they attack civilians and civilization itself. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote%3famp#ampshare=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote