/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Where lolis are free speech and Hitler did nothing wrong

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

Please be aware of the Site Fallback Plan!
In case outages in Eastern Europe affect site availability, we will work to restore service as quickly as possible.

(Estamos planeando la actualización del sitio 2.8 para este fin de semana, del lunes 6 al 27 por la tarde o por la noche en CST. El tiempo de inactividad será breve y luego buscaremos errores.)

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Be sure to visit /polarchive/ for file libraries Remember to archive all links, and videos should be attached to posts or using a front end

(116.74 KB 980x551 6051211885f54019e2387f4f.JPG)

UK's new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Anonymous 03/18/2021 (Thu) 08:37:06 Id: e31eea No. 8401
A new bill has been passed through I'm sure you're all pleased to hear. In short among other things it greatly restricts protests in how they can act as it criminalizes “serious annoyance or inconvenience”, “serious disruption to the life of the community”, “serious disruption to the activities of an organization" which is all very vague and prone to abuse. It does have some positives ones being longer sentences for child killers. I'm interested in what your thoughts are on how this will effect protests or if there will really be any push back against it. I think protests are more going to be a show instead of an actual disruption removing the point of them really. I think the government wants to give the protesters a feeling of them being annoying without actually doing anything at all. Another step towards authoritarianism in UK.
>>8401 Let me know when you can vote the royal family out of office okay? Oh wait you can't. So how is the UK not always been a hereditary dictatorship?
>>8405 Believe it or not but the UK has changed since the 1800's. The royal family are more or less just a 40-60M hole in the budget and not a huge amount more. They sometimes say things about social issues but that's rare. They're only really around as there's not much point in removing them as it would piss off half the country for not much gain. If you had said that we live in a 2 party state where they both have the end goal of globalism I would've agreed. But its clear you didn't say that as that's the case for America too.
>>8401 Kill your authorities, and you win. Don't kill your authorities, and you lose. The right way to fix your nation's problems is to kill your authorities and overthrow the government. Put only your people in power, and kill anyone who opposes it. Do anything else, and you lose. And there is no way around it. Learn that once and for all.
They've been banning protest groups as terrorist organisations since at least 2016.
>>8405 >So how is the UK not always been a hereditary dictatorship? Because it's a Constitutional Monarchy.
>>8401 Parliament will know how we feel soon enough.
>>8421 A monarchy is a hereditary dictatorship. Unless you're arguing that having a constitution precludes a state from being a dictatorship.
>>8429 A monarchy is not a dictatorship because a monarch has duties as well as privileges, and is selected by god instead of some upstart. And that's not even mentioning that monarchies aren't necessarily absolutists. A feudal monarch is much more akin to the first among equals (among the peers of the realm, obviously), and a parliamentary monarch is just a cuck.
(806.23 KB 320x245 blackadder punch.gif)

>>8430 The English monarchy traces its direct lineage as far back as the roman empire when tribal Cynings of the Saxons first began to marshal their men for the migration across the north sea to great britain Anglo-saxon kings => Viking kings => Norman kings => Tudor kings => Stuart kings => Hannover kings => the sorry bunch of "royals" we have today. Edward VIII should not have abdicated but the fact that he did shows that the monarch is not absolute or capable of imposing his will with the power that he is lawfully entitled to. Somewhere along the line - in the 100 years between King James I and King George I - the monarch became a figurehead rather than a director of national endeavors. Upon her coronation, Queen Elizabeth II swore to uphold the laws and customs of the nation. This wuflu pandemic response is totally against the customs of the English and the monarch has not done the job that she swore to do, because too much power is delegated to government ministers aka cronies. England doesn't have a proper written constitution so I wouldn't even say we are a constitutional monarchy. For the time being we are a nominal monarchy but that could change in the future depending on how Prince Charles, his son Prince William, and his son Prince George take the monarchy in the next 100-150 years. >pic related - mfw yanks call the King a dictator
Antifa at it again, UK edition
(149.95 KB 681x489 1610815561481.jpg)

>>8442 Yes it's going to be good to see if they actually manage to get anything done. I hope they get it revised the laws against actual peaceful protests is a slippery slope. I think with these protests the message is correct its just a shame that it has to be done by leftists who've managed to ruin optics already. The right in the uk are painfully weak.
>>8430 >and is selected by god instead of some upstart. Many, if not most dictatorships claim they are selected by god, if not just claiming they are a god. And arguing that your monarchs are cucks that logistically cannot use the power they are legally entitled to is closer to being an argument that they aren't monarchs at all. If I start calling myself King of England but lack the authority the king is supposed to have, then I'm not king, even if a bunch of people pretend I am.
>>8445 >pic what the the medieval artist mean by painting everyone's faces as if they are having a relaxing soak in the bath when they are supposed to be burning for all eternity?
The right wing in the UK doesn't exist outside of christian nationalist groups with tiny online presence like the ones on PURGED.tv
>>8448 >but lack the authority its not a question of authority but of will. there is no will in the royal family to take control since they handed control over to prime ministers in the early 1700s
>>8452 >there is no will in the royal family to take control A dictator who chooses not to dictate very much is still a dictator. He's just dictated that other people take care of a lot of the work for him, until he decides to step in again.
believing that individuals with power in the State, aka the political class and oligarchies (today big corps) has the best interest of the nation in their heads and not their self interests, says a lot about you, living under the illusion of the altruistic state. once you realize that this is all an illusion to keep you under their leash, paying taxes to sustain their monopoly of violence and money, and that the entity of the State just exist to oppress trough this type of violence, you can start to realize that there is not collective good of the people or collective good of the nation, only the good of individuals and all altruistic bullshit is that, bullshit, they just want to rob your shit for them.
>>8401 They can 'ban' protests all they like it won't stop anyone who's motivated enough.

Quick Reply