Anglos Tippy-Top Liars

"A quarter of what is said in England at a public meeting, or even round a dinner-table, without anything being done or intended to be done, would in France announce violence, which would almost always be more furious than the language had been."

http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/13333/76.html#gsc.tab=0

"No people carry so far, especially when speaking in public, violence of language, outrageousness of theories, and extravagance in the inference drawn from those theories.  Thus your A.B. says that the Irish have not shot half enough landlords.  Yet no people act with more moderation."

Less tactfully, the Anglo norm is to lie your ass off. No Angle is foolish enough to suppose another Angle is speaking sincerely. "Hello, how are you?" means, "Hail Satan!" The response, "I'm fine," means, "Hail Satan!"

The minor problem: is it not merely announcing destruction that's taken unseriously, but also announcing creation. It's near-impossible to get an Angle to do anything worth doing, because he assumes your statements of intent are not statements of intent. You're only allowed to do anything if a public figure (real or imagined) orders you to. Indeed he'll look at you like an alien if what you're doing is something you previously said you were going to do. "What a fuckin' weirdo!" Don't you know speaking true is forbidden? Satan is gonna be mad at you~ 

(if he wasn't dead lol)

The medium problem: the Angle doesn't take even their own ideas seriously. They think, "X is definitely true," and then it doesn't even occur to them to behave as if X is true, because thought is speech. "I think dairy is industrially contaminated poison unfit for a dog." *buys two gallons of milk* An Angle is saying it, so it must be meaningless, see? 

Then, when something seriously needs to be said, nobody can say it. Kant was right: lies defeat the purpose of speaking. The norm of lying makes all speech pointless.
Is Trudea a tyrant? Yeah, duh, of course. Nobody will take it seriously, because you're calling her a tyrant using the English word [tyrant]. It's automatically assumed by all and sundry to be virtue-signalling, kto kogo, and political manoeuvring. Including the speaker themselves.

Consider, for just a moment, what a rational response to a tyrant looks like. "Hey, please don't honk your horns." "Okay." Does it look like that? Do you peacefully protest Stalin out of the general secretary?
To be honest, I don't know. What do non-alchemists think constitutes a rational, logical, and proportionate response to a tyrant?
Perhaps you surrender. "Okay, you got me. You're too tyrannical, I can't handle it." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's certainly how Russians handled it. Certainly how Chinamen handled it. 

A non-Satanist folk would at the very least be launching several class-action lawsuits, even given the optics constraints. Pushing further back, a genuinely non-Satanist people would never get to this point in the first place, or indeed anywhere near, because anyone aspiring to tyranny would be shot on sight. Assuming the shooter was in a good mood and willing to let them die quick.

P.S. This full-retard norm is juxtaposed with another norm where Angles speak and behave as if every public figure is completely aboveboard, sincere, and hasn't a single bone of intrigue in their bodies. Most puzzling. Public figures have de-facto angel status. Distant beings dwelling in a higher plane, incapable of deceit. (You can tell something's higher when it's a cripple compared to you, right?)

P.P.S. I like to think Saxons don't go nearly as far.