Except, no. If he'd gone after the people responsible or even attacked their town in return it would be justified or understandable respectively, but what he did was wrong.
He didn't go around murdering plantation owners and freeing slaves, he attacked people who hadn't provoked anything.
John Brown attacked people that weren't responsible for the actions he was claiming to be punishing.
Is there some elevated reference I'm missing here or are you actually referring to the guy who, after one town was attacked by a mob from another competing town, decided to kill 5 people in a third, unrelated town, as a saint?
Are you autistic? I am very blatantly from the US. I don't think you are, though.
Your statement was that the US is more pacified than britain. The implication that people are cowed by the political prosecutions and an "insurrection " by the most armed citizenry in the world would have the results portrayed both imply that americans are incapable of real violence. That is one of the meta narratives around jan 6th - that the right took a shot and failed. Which is incredibly retarded, or more accuratly, attempted psychological manipulation.
You sure as fuck don't seem like you're an american to me. Or if you are, you never leave some shithole blue bubble and actually believe what the media tells you about the real america that you clearly aren't familiar with.
I strongly doubt you've ever had a real conversation with anyone who was at jan 6th. If you think that was some kind of capstone on political violence you can't tell piss from rainwater.
Lmao. Have you ever been to the US for any significant period of time? You're definitely a euro with this take. Your image of the respective populations of the US and the UK is backwards.
The capacity for violence on the scale required is not present within the people of the cuckistanian islands. It was once, but centuries of emigration and war have drained their culture and genetic pool of the necessary elements. They are an indolent and servile people who can't even picture a world without a boot on their neck.
The United States would see civil war long before reaching the conditions the brits are currently in.
You won't have a civil war in the UK, the brits are generations from the days they had the balls to even consider that.
If only all freemium slop would suffer the same fate.
The best part of making meatballs is knowing that aliens don't know how to. And it's important to make meatballs, to remind extraterrestrials that they aren't allowed to have anything good in life.
Protestantism doesn't permit females to preach. Catholicism also theoretically forbids pedophilia and doesn't allow pre-forgiveness sin tickets as a fundraising measure.
The VAST difference is that this single issue that you cite while ignoring other corruption is small groups acting out powerlessly and being ignored or mocked by the vast majority of normal protestant churches. While with your catholic church there is one massive single point of failure all the way at the top, that corrupts the entire institution.
You keep harping on female priests as if it's a standard and not an outlier. Those churches that preach false doctrine are statistically irrelevant, while the organization that has preached false doctrine and manipulation for centuries dominates catholicism. You are allowed to criticize him but at the end of the day the pope owns the catholic church. And there are fewer "female priest" protestant false churches than sexual degenerates that the catholics have covered up and moved around.
Are you an american? The US was founded by protestants, and it's ideological structure is protestant. If you're european your catholicism is a lot more understandable, there the protestant church is a lot more minor, and attractive to cultural rejects because of it, so your misunderstanding of protestant denominations would make more sense.
If you want to talk about which is real christianity however, between all the denominations that cite exclusively the bible as written, vs the extranational globalist state that has no defense for it's existence in the bible and attempts to usurp the authority of god, you would be fighting a very uphill battle.
Lmao. Indulgences predate female pastors by centuries. The catholic globalist organization perverting the church into a tool for leftist governance predates the existance of protestantism by longer than the lifespan of nations.
You misunderstand entirely. One corrupted protestant church is not the same scale of trouble as one corrupted vatican. One retarded chruch doing something does not mean the rest are doing it or accepting it. They are loud retards shouting about their subversion but ultimately affecting nothing beyond their individual congregations. They have no power and can be repelled with ease. Your communist pope carrying water for faggotry and pedophilia has international power and influence.
You are blind if you do not see this. Protestantism, like right wing government, is FAR more effective at gatekeeping by way of decentralization. One corrupted church doesn't even get a foot in the door at the next down the road. One corrupted pope commands your entire organization.
Except it isn't. What has your heretical pope saved the catholic church from? Nothing. It is a globalist governing body that actively protects degeneracy.
In protestant churches you can reject degenerates and heretics because you don't have pedophiles, communists and sociopaths claiming authority over your church. There is nothing protecting degenerates in protestantism.
every protestant allows
You can find one example of a denominational church that will allow it, and walk a mile and find another that thinks that's retarded. The difference is there's no higher governing body to force the second church to tolerate the heresy of the first.
You pretend the organization is necessary to force evil people to tolerate good when the organization is more likely to force good people to tolerate evil. That's why Luther rebelled to begin with - the sale of indulgences.
The catholic church is an organization of man that tries to claim the authority of god, and has been heretical for hundreds of years at minimum. The faith exists in spite of it, not because of it.
I'm not saying protestant churches are free of heresy, but I would say that protestantism and catholicism are very strong parallels for right and left wing political ideology as well, with all the benefits and downsides those entail.
Protestant church systems are decentralized, much easier to fix when corrupted and limited in power. Once an institution like the catholic church is captured, like it is by the jesuit communist now, it takes monumental action to unfuck it.
The real dangerous class is the sociopath - political power attracts manipulators and the best manipulators are nearly always sociopaths.
This goblin is displaying sociopathic traits - a lack of basic human empathy or morality and stating that any action that can be used to control is acceptable to it
The pope himself is a fake christian. I wouldn't call them fake catholics when they act in the interest of the globalist, because their pope is one. Fake christians, yes.
The catholic organization is an extranational globalist pseudo government built atop a church.
And it would still be gay, because it's needless mechanical systems that only add to the likelihood that something breaks and renders the car nonfunctional.
Or you could just recognize that deranged racial idpol leftism is low IQ degenerate behavior like everything else that faggot and his retarded goblinoid horde engage in.
Google has always been an arm of the cabal. It's parent company name even thumbs their nose at people who recognize this - they called it Alphabet.
Fuck the CIA.
Faggot Brigade Instigators.
It's not a false dichotomy. It's the only accurate scale to measure political ideology on. Monarchies by nature concentrate power in a central figure. A corrupt king damns a nation, and hereditary rule is retarded. Monarchy is authoritarian centralized government, which is leftist. The world is complex, so yes competing power has existed in monarchies, but acknowledging complex reality isn't justification for claiming that monarchism as an ideology isn't left wing. Some have been more or less leftist, but the ideological structure of that type of government is leftist.
The pattern you are calling tradition vs progress you are identifying by relative cultural measures. It's not accurate. Plenty of "traditionalist" groups have wreaked hell upon nations in the past - it is more accurate to identify them by their leftist power structures. It would also be more accurate to identify who typically manipulates leftist power structures - sociopaths. There are other psychological types that are attracted to leftism and they are poisonous to functioning societies. It is the leftism that is the problem because it is simpler to deny them the structure to gain supreme power than it is to try to root out and destroy the sociopaths.
A number of traditional cultural features survived as long as they did because they also worked against degenerates and sociopaths, which was beneficial to society. There is wisdom in many traditions, but labeling politics on relative cultural aspects isn't an objective measure. "Tradition" is far too broad and varied. There are leftist traditions as well as right wing traditions. The catholic church is "traditionalist" in some places, but objectively it is a globalist, extranational power structure. It is leftist by nature.
Stop using the reddit political compass. That thing is a product of "horseshoe theory" propaganda and ascribes modern cultural values to the left and right. Left vs right is a political measuring scale, not a cultural one
The modern american leftist is typically anti-tradition. But that is a relative cultural value, neither inherently left or right wing. Same with nationalism - you can find examples of it on both ends.
You have been confused by the deliberate well poisoning around political discourse, but left vs right is an OBJECTIVE scale whose axes are defined as something like statism vs anarchism, or collectivism vs individualism. Not "tradition" which is vague and subjective at best and would mean wildly different things in different places.
Fundamental principles of human behavior and government didn't begin a couple hundred years ago you twit. Identifications of the pattern did not create the pattern. Isaac newton defining the laws of physics did not bring gravity into existence.
Women and deranged, dehumanizing levels of racial fetishism. It's funny how that's an accusation frequently thrown at men, but far more common in women.