Anytime British politicians say they are "protecting the children" by taking away native British people's rights , always remind them - Kotaku In Action 2

121

Anytime British politicians say they are "protecting the children" by taking away native British people's rights , always remind them

posted 12 days ago by Telia 12 days ago by Telia +126 / -5

That the UK politicians voted against a full national inquiry into the Pakistani rape gangs.

Brits need to just keep banging that over their heads anytime, anytime they pass or are trying to pass a stupid law using the "we are protecting the children" excuse, but is in reality just taking away the rights of the native Brits. Hell it doesn't even have to be the "we are protecting the children" excuse , it can also be "we are protecting women" excuse.

Uk politicians lost all credibility on ANYTHING after they voted against a full national inquiry in to the Pakistani grooming gangs

British MPs vote 364-111 against Grooming Gangs Inquisition. Never never let anyone forget this.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877082326275920149?t=3NuM5sNtrdxxKwoW2Q_wbw

16 comments

16 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (16)

sorted by:

▲ 1 ▼

– ChillBinging 1 point 11 days ago +1 / -0

tyranny and mass abuse of power is okay as long as the Jews are dealt with

Nah. Also, maybe you should read the shit you're posting.

This method of debate had the advantage of not raising antisemitic feelings too strongly; and it likewise enabled Charles II, on his Restoration in 1660, to avoid taking any action on the petition of the merchants of London asking him to revoke Cromwell's concession. He had been assisted during his exile by several Jews of royalist sympathies, such as Andrea Mendes da Costa (Chamberlain of Catherine of Braganza, wife of Charles II), Antonio Mendes (the physician brother of Andrea, who had cured Catherine of erysipelas while in Portugal) and Augustine Coronel-Chacon. In 1664 a further attempt was made by the Earl of Berkshire and Paul Ricaut to bring about the expulsion of the Jews, but the King-in-Council assured the latter of the continuance of former favour.

If Jews are your single issue, prepare to be disappointed.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– free-will-of-choice 1 point 11 days ago +1 / -0

tyranny and mass abuse of power is okay as long as the Jews are dealt with

Nature sets each one within free from one another...making deals binds one to one another, while willingly establishing a tyrannical sovereign above self.

This method of debate had the advantage of not raising...

Debate aka conflicts of reason implies two sides mutually destroying each other, with the one loosing less being declared the winner from outside the conflict.

Mutual debate/debase among gentiles permits a jew to...

define what the debate is about (idolatry)
redefine the definitions at will (revisionism)
contradict both sides to perpetuate the conflict (talmudic reasoning)

In short...debate only ever lowers those debating.

If jews are your single issue

A jew suggests pluralism (jews) to distract each singular gentile from the issue that joining together in plurality contradicts being set apart from one another naturally.

to be disappointed

Being implies DIS (divided) AP (towards) POINT (end of life sentence aka point of death)...it's a jew who suggests gentiles to seek delight in joining together, which only ever makes disappointment that much faster to experience.

Example...prostitution. One seeks delight in the "red light district", yet only ever finds disappointment. And guess who utilizes dupers delight aka chutzpah, while running the red light districts all over the world?

What's the biggest red light district? Internet prostitution...the red light of the camera tells the prostitutes when it's recording.

permalink parent save report block reply