Wednesday, 28 October 2020

Liberalism was a French Revolutionary reaction against the Catholic Church promoting totalitarian Christianity

Why the liberal West is a Christian creation by John Gray  

But of course. Our identity is created by what happened to us and what we did about it.  

In Pontius Pilate (1961), a Borges-like fiction by the French literary theorist and former surrealist Roger Caillois, the Roman governor of Judea who ordered the death by crucifixion of Jesus instead releases him under the protection of imperial legionaries. The charismatic Jewish prophet carries on preaching and dies at a great age. He leaves a reputation for holiness, and pilgrimages are made to his grave. But because of Pilate’s decision, made after a night of sleepless wavering, there is no Christianity.

No sacrifice of his life by Jesus, no being worshipped for 2000 years as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God by idolatrous and blasphemous Christians who obviously don't fear God's wrath because they are only pretending to be Christian and are more invested in their idolatry and blasphemy. If they did believe in the Abrahamic God, they would want to obey His laws and fear the consequences of not so doing. After all, the Ten Commandments do forbid idolatry and blasphemy, and Christians must be aware of this. 

If Tom Holland is right, there would be no modern secular civilisation either. The liberal West is a creation of the Christian religion, and continues to assert that its values are universal even though it has rejected the faith that inspired them:

Liberalism originates from the French Revolution and the French Revolution represented a rejection of the monarchy and its right of divine rule and the religion associated with it - Christianity. 

Christianity, it seemed, had no need of actual Christians for its assumptions still to flourish… The trace elements of Christianity continued to infuse people’s morals and presumptions so utterly that many failed even to detect their presence. Like dust particles so fine as to be invisible to the naked eye, they were breathed in equally by everyone: believers, atheists and those who never paused to think about religion.

The Noahide laws are the universal minimum standard of morality for righteous gentiles and therefore expect advanced civilisations to adhere to all or some of the Noahide laws. It is absurdly chauvinistic to assume that morality is unique to Christianity when Christianity itself was derived from Judaism. We already know Christianity is a created religion created by a heretical Jew to worship another as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe, making Christianity not only idolatrous but guilty of Supreme Blasphemy. After all, if you wanted to blaspheme against the Abrahamic God, you can't go any further than to worship a man convicted of blasphemy against the Abrahamic God as the co-equal of the Abrahamic God, can you? 

Secular liberals dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale, but their values and their view of history remain essentially Christian. The Christian story tells of the son of God being put to death on a cross. In the Roman world, this was the fate of criminals and those who challenged imperial power. Christianity brought with it a moral revolution. The powerless came to be seen as God’s children, and therefore deserving of respect as much as the highest in society. History was a drama of sin and redemption in which God – acting through his son – was on the side of the weak.

We can only wonder at why Constantine decided to run the Roman Empire under Christianity. Perhaps he saw the Abrahamic God as more simpatico to more imperial subjects than Jupiter Optimus Maximus. 

Modern progressive movements have renewed this sacred history, though it is no longer God but “humanity” – or its self-appointed representatives – that speaks for the powerless. In many ways, the West today is more fiercely self-righteous than it was when it was professedly Christian. The social justice warriors who denounce Western civilisation and demand that its sins be confessed and repented would not exist without the moral inheritance of Christianity. As Tom Holland writes, “Had it been otherwise, then no one would ever have got woke.”

It is interesting that Holland is assuming that being "woke" is a good thing rather than yet another sign of the galloping degeneracy of the Western matriarchy.

He tells us his view of Christianity changed as a result of his study of the ancient world. As a teenager, he was like many others in seeing the biblical God as “the po-faced enemy of liberty and fun”. When he read Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), he was happy to accept that the triumph of Christianity meant “an ‘age of superstition and credulity’”. Unlike many, Holland did not stay stuck in a posture of adolescent scorn for the religion in which he had been reared. Twenty years of reading and writing about classical antiquity wore away his youthful admiration for pagan culture.

Caesar killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. Across the Roman world, wailing infants could be found on the roadside, on rubbish heaps or in drains, left there to perish. Female infants who were rescued would be raised as slaves or sold to brothels. It wasn’t simply Roman callousness that Holland was repelled by. It was “the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value”. His values were not those of classical civilisation, he realised, still less of “human nature”. They were the values of the modern West’s Christian past.

Holland does not seem aware that more than a millennium before the codification of the Geneva Conventions, most of the fundamental categories of protection could be found in Islamic teachings. Or, he was aware of this, but chose to ignore it. 

As Holland shows, the triumph of Christianity was a rupture in Western civilisation. There is nothing at all self-evident about the equal intrinsic worth of all human beings or the inherent preciousness of individual persons. These values – which secular thinkers nowadays take for granted – were placed at the heart of the Western world by Christianity. (Holland says comparatively little about how they developed within Judaism.) In the final analysis, liberal humanism is a footnote to the Bible.

Western imperialism culturally appropriates whatever it wants from Jews and Muslims and then takes credit for them, and those who are not victors and do not write history must suffer as they must.  

Holland focuses on the story of Jesus’s crucifixion, which by showing God in the form of a broken and tormented human being upended the pagan worship of vitality and beauty. But if anything, this may understate the moral revolution that Christianity accomplished. The nature of morality itself changed. There is nothing in Aristotle about humility or brotherly love. In the Ethics he celebrates the “great-souled man” contemplating the universe and admiring his own magnificence. Altruism – nowadays commonly viewed as the heart of morality – was not much prized in the ancient world. Followers of Stoicism were encouraged to perform public duties, and Epicureans instructed others in how to be happy. But helping suffering human beings through acts of self-sacrifice was not required by morality, or especially admired. The fact that Christians were ready to be martyred for their faith marked them out to the Roman authorities as practitioners of a strange and sinister cult.

Martyrdom was not first practised by Christians, but by Jews.

Holland comes into his own when he shows how Christianity created the values of the modern Western world. Not all Christians accepted the idea of original sin. Pelagius (AD 360-418) believed the only reason human beings act badly is that they have been accustomed to doing wrong from childhood – a view repeated in modern times by generations of liberals who have never heard of the early British theologian. Holland goes on to tell how the medieval French scholastic Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was accused of heresy for his assertion that God’s world was rational and governed by laws that humans could understand, only for this belief to inspire the founding of universities all over Christendom. As much as any Enlightenment thinker, it was Abelard who infused the European mind with the spirit of progress.

I really don't think universities are an exclusively Christian invention.

In later sections of the book, Holland tells of the horror of the conquistadores when they realised the scale of the Mexican practice of human sacrifice, and of a 16th-century experiment in theocratic communism in the German city of Münster. He examines the remorseless exploration of the predatory moral consequences of mechanistic materialism by the Marquis de Sade – an Enlightenment thinker who really did reject Christian values. He examines the anti-Christianity of Lenin and Hitler and the anti-Nazi Christianity of JRR Tolkien, the Christian character of John Lennon’s atheism and the role of Christianity in shaping the moral culture that gave birth to the #MeToo movement. There are many, many more brilliant insights and vignettes.

Because Christianity was not enough of an opium of the masses, they fell prey to Nazism and Communism. As for #MeToo, that was more a manifestation of promiscuous female victimhood after decades of sexually liberated feminism than Christian virtue, surely?

Dominion presents a rich and compelling history of Christendom. What makes the book riveting, though, is the devastating demolition job it does on the sacred history of secular humanism. Holland summarises this intellectual folk tale:

The triumph of the Church had been an abortion of everything that made for a humane and civilised society. Darkness had descended on Europe. For a millennium and more, popes and inquisitors had laboured to snuff out any spark of curiosity, or inquiry, or reason… That nothing in this narrative was true did not prevent it from becoming wildly popular.

It is a tediously familiar mythology that no amount of historical evidence is likely to dislodge. It was Christian bishops and theologians, as Holland points out, who opposed the enslavement of indigenous peoples in Latin America, and Aristotle who was invoked to defend it. Secular liberals will immediately point out that slavery was practised throughout Christendom during much of its history. Of course this is so, but the fact does not alter Holland’s central point. Even if Christianity in power sanctioned all manner of evils, it set a standard of goodness that simply did not exist in the pagan world.

"A standard of goodness that simply did not exist in the pagan world"? What about the Muslim world? And how are standards of goodness to be measured?

At the same time Christianity brought with it a new evil of its own. The very universality of the Christian message, its insistence that all human beings are equal in the sight of God, inspired a ferocious assault on other faiths. Christians made a claim to unique possession of the truth with no parallel in pagan religion, and the result was an unprecedented type of repression. As Holland writes: “A Church that proclaimed itself universal had, it seemed, no response to those who rejected it save persecution.” The rise of Christianity spelt the end for pagan toleration.

To be sure, the pagan world did not practise toleration in a modern sense. As the death of Socrates showed, there was no recognition of freedom of thought as any kind of human right. Yet Greco-Roman polytheism recognised that human beings need a variety of faiths, myths and illusions. Christianity destroyed this ancient tolerance, and in doing so inaugurated the modern world.

The Roman Empire had all the apparatus of state to enforce the totalitarianism of Christianity.  

“Christianity spreads in two ways: through conversion and through secularisation.” This incisive observation, cited by Holland as coming from an unnamed Indian historian, encapsulates much of the argument of Dominion. Secular modernity is not the negation of Christendom but its continuation in another form. Bien-pensant atheists who bang on about how much more civilised we would be if only Christianity had not existed have not asked where their conception of civilisation came from. Nietzsche was closer to the truth. If you regret the rise of Christianity, you must regret the rise of liberalism, human rights and belief in progress as well.

Liberalism/The French Revolution was an understandable reaction to Christianity/the Catholic Church/the divine rule of monarchs. 

Holland leaves the reader with a question. If the religion on which liberal values were based is dying out in the West, what future can these values have? He writes:

If secular humanism derives not from reason or from science, but from the distinctive course of Christianity’s evolution – a course that, in the opinion of growing numbers in Europe and America, has left God dead – then

Holland seems to be suggesting that liberal values cannot survive the collapse of their Christian foundations. This is not a view confined to Christian believers. The nihilistic French author Michel Houellebecq appears to be thinking along similar lines, as are some atheists and agnostics. Yet I think this misreads our situation.

Houellebecq is simply saying that Islam with its Book of Rules from God will move into the moral vacuum of Christianity that only relies on the hearsay evidence of mortal and fallible men about the sayings and doings of a revolutionary executed for blasphemy.

It may well be that liberal values as they were understood in the past are on the way out. But the source of their decline is more paradoxical than the mere loss of Christian belief. Beyond the West, Christianity is undergoing a revival. In post-communist Russia, for example, the Orthodox Church has re-emerged strongly. But the distinctive pattern of development through which Christianity generated liberal values in western Europe was not replicated in eastern Orthodoxy, and there is nothing liberal about resurgent Christianity in Russia. The same is true, for different reasons, in Africa. In the West, liberalism is not fading away with Christian belief but becoming more zealous and dogmatic. Ironically, today’s ultra-liberals have more than a little in common with the Christians who destroyed the pluralistic tolerance of the ancient world. Policing opinion, shutting down debate and bent on extirpating any beliefs and values other than their own, they are like the early Christians in seeing themselves as actors in an unfolding story of sin and redemption.

It is a puzzle why Holland equates the success of Christianity with its resemblance to Liberalism. It would be like Nazis rejoicing at the idea of their party becoming more Jewish.

Roger Caillois’s fiction suggests a truer view of history. The rise of Christianity was an accident, and the liberal West a spin-off. Of course the hand of God can be seen in the decision Pontius Pilate made to have Jesus crucified. In recognition of Pilate’s pivotal role in the Christian story, he is canonised as a saint in the Coptic and Ethiopian churches. But unless these and later events were providentially ordered, the triumph of Christianity was fortuitous. If any one of an uncountable number of contingencies had not occurred, Europe might still be shaped by a mix of polytheistic cults and classical philosophy and Christianity would never have spread across the globe.

If the Abrahamic God exists and is in control of His Creation, then He may have allowed three global Christian empires to rise and flourish for His own reasons. 

Could it be that Judaism was ploughing, Christianity was sowing and Islam harvesting?


Such a world might be better, in some respects, than the one that actually exists; but it would lack the vision of human equality and moral progress that formed the modern West. If they read Dominion, as they certainly should, secular liberals might pause to reflect that they acquired their deepest values by chance from a religion they despise. 

Are the "deepest values" of secular liberals in fact some or most but not all of the Noahide laws?

Gandalf re-emerges and we discuss the politics of lockdown and natural law

5:00  FBI and CIA
6:00  Voting 
7:00  Abortion
9:00  Boris Johnson and the European matriarchy
10:00  Culture War
12:00  Masking, Wroe v Wade
15:00  Lindsey Graham
19:00  Mental health in lockdown
20:00  In person social interaction
23:00  Batman, the masked crusader
27:00  One-party state
Democracy makes politicians lie.
28:00  Doooovid and his Multiple Truth Hypothesis

29:00  Totalitarianism is evidence of a morally and intellectually indefensible ideology.

30:00  Across the Red Line

Why does the BBC ask really dumb questions and then refuse to answer them or allow them to be discussed properly?

34:00  "Amount of people" 
35:00  Identity politics
38:00  Feminism and religion
39:00  Lying to survive
40:00  The Fourth Estate is the propaganda machine of the matriarchy. 
41:00  The rule of law
42:00  Repealing obsolete laws
43:00  Bringing the law into contempt

44:00  Natural Law v Positive Law

Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism

45:00  Nihilism
46:00  Noahide laws
47:00  Moral laws
48:00  Laws that support patriarchal moral values
49:00  Sexual selection and sexual preferences

50:00  The man a woman would choose for a roll in the hay is different to the man she might choose for a long term relationship as her husband and the father of her legitimate children. 

51:00  Sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting

52:00  Feminism is now the political orthodoxy and feminism operates through bribing men with fornication to distract from restoring the patriarchy. 

53:00 Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.
54:00  My prediction of the results of the 2020 US Presidential elections 

57:00  The media could help facilitate discussion and the free exchange of ideas but they are so corrupt they suppress the news and pump out disinformation to keep its viewers and listeners uninformed and misinformed.

1:00:00  The message mainstream media are sending to us

Why does the BBC ask really dumb questions and then refuse to answer them or allow them to be discussed properly?

Does impartiality impede good journalism?

Across the Red Line Series 5

Anne McElvoy presents the debate programme which invites two public figures who disagree on an issue of principle to listen closely to each other's arguments - and then to find out what drives them.

In this edition, Anne is joined by James O'Brien, LBC presenter and author of 'How Not to Be Wrong', and Roger Mosey, former Head of BBC Television News, to debate whether impartiality impedes good journalism.

And Anne works with conflict resolution specialist Louisa Weinstein to foster a more exploratory conversation, to encourage both speakers to probe the values and experiences that underpin each other's beliefs.

Producer: Phil Tinline


OCT 21 2020

Claire Khaw  11:54 AM

I just heard you on Radio 4 with Anne McElvoy in Across the Red Line and hope to discuss this further with you.

Lousia Weinstein  11:54 AM

Happy to discuss Claire

Claire Khaw  11:54 AM

I am so glad to hear it!

Thanks for engaging, Louisa.

I have already posted on the subject so feel free to get your associates to post there too, especially if they disagree!

Claire Khaw  11:58 AM

I think it was Evelyn Waugh who said we never really know what we think and why we think it until and unless we are forced to defend our beliefs.

Louisa Weinstein 11:59 AM

And I agree but if we are defending them to closed ears then what?

Claire Khaw  11:59 AM

Unfortunately, these days people get trapped into a word game without even realising it. Quite often it is game over for them if they say a forbidden word which they thought nothing of. These would be the working classes, of course, who did not have the benefit of a university education giving them the ability to dance around with words and concepts backed by the full apparatus of the BBC.

Claire Khaw  12:02 PM

I know a man who used to drive a white man listening to James O'Brien on LBC. He would never listen to the BBC now and point blank refused to listen to it because it was James O'Brien.

Claire Khaw  12:03 PM

I am persona non grata at the BBC. The fact is that no one is prepared to engage with me. There is probably a news blackout on me. I did once appear on the Victoria Derbyshire Show which is still up, to my surprise.

Claire Khaw  12:05 PM

I mean to say that no one even listens to the BBC now. They have longed abandoned it. I only make myself listen to it because I have to keep myself informed of the current state of what they want what remains of the middle classes to believe in. It is practically unlistenable now.

Claire Khaw  12:07 PM

Perhaps I can face Anne McElvoy across the red line - that would be fun!

Louisa Weinstein  12:17 PM

Yes maybe and I wonder what you propose as a way forward

Claire Khaw  12:19 PM

The Culture War raging across the West is what must be discussed, in my view.

Of course this is tied up with the US elections and who wins will decide the new political environment.

As I see it, the participants of the Culture War are those who wish to identify as liberals and those who wish to identify with Trump ie nationalist.

Louisa Weinstein 12:22 PM

And I would suggest that it helps to open up the way we have the conversation

Claire Khaw  12:22 PM

The liberal assumption is that nationalism is fascism, Nazism, racism etc. I define it as government in the national interest.

It is about the meaning of words, really and how we use them as weapons.

If I call you racist before you call me racist, I win. It is childish.

But that is how this game is usually played.

Louisa Weinstein  12:23 PM

So thats why we changed it!

Claire Khaw  12:24 PM

But no one else outside the middle classes is listening!

I can't even make them listen.

Louisa Weinstein  12:25 PM

But thats a different issue and work to be done

Claire Khaw  12:26 PM

Well, you could put it to Anne McElvoy if you want, but she will say no.

Or, there is a recording, but it is never broadcast.

Louisa Weinstein 12:28 PM

Well Im not sure about that, its not really a programme about debating with AM but I agree that we need to extend the conversation

and have it better

Claire Khaw  12:28 PM

It is not about just going through the motions, Louisa.

Louisa Weinstein  12:29 PM

Absolutely agree

Claire Khaw  12:29 PM

A lot of these "debate" shows are just going through the motions of appearing to have a debate.

The format is controlled, the title narrows the debate so much that even if one "won" it, no one would care.

Claire Khaw  12:31 PM

I have a YouTube channel and just the two of us could talk.

And if we did, I hope you won't get cancelled by the BBC!

Louisa Weinstein  12:34 PM

Maybe, my role though is to set up circumstances for constructive communication

Claire Khaw  12:34 PM

If you can find anyone at all prepared to engage with me, that would be great!

Louisa Weinstein  12:35 PM

If I can I would be happy to.  What do you want them to discuss though?

Claire Khaw  12:35 PM

Feminism is a big topic, the viability of democracy, the failure of Christianity is another.

The Sacred Cows of the West

Louisa Weinstein  12:36 PM


Claire Khaw  12:36 PM

I can fit myself round most topics though.

Lockdown is a good one.

OCTOBER 28 2020

Claire Khaw  9:06 AM

These conflict resolution experts seem to female. This week's is also female.

Claire Khaw  9:14 AM

Risk aversion is a sign of a feminised and senescent society.

Tuesday, 27 October 2020

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarriageable degenerates

I adopt a sort of teleological approach to God and His laws.  Even if God is a lie, it is still a noble lie.

If God was created by Man, He was created for a purpose and that purpose remains operational.

Belief has always been a lifestyle choice.

Liberals have demonised social conservatives, but it is easy to demonise them too.

If belief in God and obedience to His laws are lifestyle choices, then it is easy to understand that those who believe do so because they want to become and remain married parents.

This means those who don't don't want to restore the patriarchy have no intention or prospect of becoming married parents and don't care about the degeneracy of a matriarchy which prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents who are the agents of chaos and criminality. They don't care because they are atheists and nihilists who have no investment in the next generation and don't care what happens to their society, nation or civilisation after they are dead as long as they have fun in this their only life. 

Why should your entire civilisation be destroyed by unmarriageable degenerates?

If you allow your own society to be dictated to by unmarriageable degenerates then you are even worse than they are.

John Gray's dead cat, the illness of Rabbi Sacks and the cowardice of Western atheists and nihilists

13:00  John Gray, the Dead Cat Philosopher talking about his new book on the Today Programme

17:00  My response

19:00  John Gray is a childless atheist.

22:00  John Gray: "Do not look for meaning in your suffering."

23:00  John Gray's philosophy of expediency

24:00  Roger Scruton

25:00  Cats are not capable of metaphysics or analytical philosophy.

26:00  Cat gossip

27:00  The rational suffering-avoiding cat would ask about the meaning of its suffering.  

29:00  The Gargantuan Error of Gray about his cat

30:00  Jay

The first presidential debate

31:00  Casual disloyalty

34:00  Atheists and nihilists who pretend to be Christians.

37:00  The Fourth Estate is run by feminists.

39:00  Tisha B'Av

43:00  Christians are the biggest hypocrites of all because they condemn idolatry and blasphemy while practising it themselves to a supreme degree.

45:00  If God exists, why did God allow Christians to prosper and acquire three global empires?

46:00  Noahide laws

47:00  Israel is not observing the Noahide laws. 

48:00  Israel is an American Protectorate. 

49:00   Amalek

50:00  The most influential rabbi in the world

51:00  Amalek are not righteous gentiles.

52:00  The Ideological Amalekite is the gentile with the most morally corrupted religion and political system. 

53:00  Noahide ranking of the four gentile religions

54:00  Jews are allowed to pray with Muslims in mosques but forbidden to enter churches which are places of abomination where idolatry and blasphemy is practised. 

55:00  Christianity is the least Noahide of all the gentile religions.

56:00  The Abrahamic God has been forbearing of the Supreme Blasphemy of Christians for 2000 years since He allowed three global Christian empires to rise and flourish before Christianity is replaced by sharia. Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia created for the West. 

57:00  Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin according to the Christian narrative, and Christians affirmed this idolatrous and blasphemous narrative by worshipping Jesus as God for 2000 years. 

58:00  The constitution of American Republic destroyed Christianity. 

59:00  The Pilgrim Fathers in Leiden

1:00:00  Christian on Christian religious persecution continued in the New World.

1:02:00  The Founding Fathers of America rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity with the First Amendment and the principle of cuius regio, eius religio with the American Republic. 

The First Amendment was based on

1:05:00  The Jefferson Bible

1:06:00  The White House Koran

1:07:00  Atheists wouldn't care about idolatry and blasphemy. 

1:09:00  Jews who think they can be good liberals and Jews. 

1:10:00  Has Rabbi Sacks gone native? 

1:11:00  Former UK chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks says he is being treated for cancer

1:13:00  Is Rabbi Sacks closer to performing Kiddush Hashem on behalf of Jews?

1:15:00  Noahide l aws

1:16:00  Rabbi Sacks didn't mention the Noahide laws at all in his book on Morality.

1:18:00  Rabbi Sacks, the neocon rabbi

1:19:00  50 questions to rabbis who want to end lockdown

1:21:00  The Mandate of Heaven

1:22:00  Solon

1:25:00  Free speech is an abstract idea.

1:27:00  Melanie Phillips dares to say that Christianity is kaput. 

1:28:00  The olam haba of Rabbi Sacks

1:31:00  Why saying "Jesus loves you" is blasphemy and idolatry.

1:36:00  ADHD and narcissism

1:39:00  Materialists who cannot address the spiritual needs of the people 

Fall of USSR? Caleb Maupin vs. Stefan Molyneux

A good thing for whom or what?

If we assume the existence of the Abrahamic God who is in control of everything, why did He allow it to fall? 

36:00  Capitalism is impossible without usury, isn't it? Jews are not supposed to practise usury on each other. Islam would ban usury and allow individuals and governments to default on their debts. 

41:00  Fascism is the government enforcing laws you don't like, or is that Communism? Or is Fascism just a term of abuse when you are from the left complaining about your government?

The terms of debate have not been properly defined. Free trade/capitalism/crony capitalism etc.

45:00  Law, morality, libertarianism, Ayn Rand, traditional morality

Ultimately, we can only get our morality from a Higher Power, after we agree what morality means, of course.  I define morality as a system of rules designed to keep the group together and apart from others. To this end, Judaism is the most effective, because it is divine ethno-nationalism. If I am right in this assessment, then Islam is divine civic nationalism.  

47:00  Slavery is an institution, like marriage and prostitution. Slavery was not banned in either the Torah or the Koran.

50:00  "Marxism is dialectical."

52:00  Does China practise National Socialism without the antisemitism? 

1:15:00  Slavery is an institution and institutions should be regulated, not criminalised, to protect the parties.  

The problem was that Molly assumed that Communism meant totalitarian dictatorship and nothing Caleb said convinced him otherwise. I like to think that he and I would have a more productive discussion if the opportunity presents itself.

Sunday, 25 October 2020

The jihad of a tennis coach in Pakistan

1:00  Sport in Pakistan
4:00  Andy Murray winning Wimbledon
6:00  Cricket in Pakistan
7:00  Sarah Mahboob Khan
10:00  Racket sports

17:00  Asia Biby
20:00  Blasphemy
21:00  Deuteronomy 19:15
22:00  Pakistani Penal Code established by Britain
25:00  Muhammad visited a sick woman who regularly mocked him.
26:00  A soft word turneth away wrath.
27:00  Asia Biby in Canada
28:00  Ignorance and lies from the media
29:00  The boy who cried wolf and the role of the media
30:00  The media in Pakistan
31:00  Competition amongst different media outlets
32:00  Tennis
33:00  Mental conditioning
35:00  Game plan

38:00  Unforced error
40:00  Daughter's first tennis game
41:00  Different kinds of tennis courts
47:00  In or out?
49:00  Mahboob's coaching programme on sportsmanlike behaviour
50:00  Jewish attitudes towards sport
51:00  Mobile phones
52:00  Sport in Pakistan
54:00  Sports Minister of Pakistan and why everyone is called Khan in Pakistan
55:00  The Pashtuns

58:00  Tennis elbow
1:00:00  Pakistani sports channels
1:01:00  Tennis and Islam
Muhammad was a wrestler. 
1:02:00  Romans
1:03:00  Crusaders
1:04:00  Jerusalem was under a Christian ruler.
1:05:00  Christians fighting each other over a church. Key entrusted to a Muslim family. 
1:06:00  1949 and the Golden Era
1:07:00  Sharia is implicitly inclusive. 
1:09:00  Amalgamation into the Arabian Sea
1:10:00  Adam
1:11:00  Angels told God not to create Man.
1:12:00  Ego displaces knowledge and knowledge displaces ego.
1:13:00  Wisdom, djinn
1:16:00  Favourite New Testament verses
1;18:00  Abraham was Muslim, including Adam to Moses
1:22:00  God's revelation in the Torah and the Koran
1:23:00  Greater Israel
1:24:00  Day of Judgement
1:25:00  The Messiah
1:26:00  Dajjal
1:27:00  Only the Hadith mentions Dajjal.
1:29:00  The jihad of tennis in a cricket-obsessed country like Pakistan
1:30:00  Thanks
1:33:00  Covid-19
1:34:00  The correct moral system for humanity
1:35:00  Ishmael
1:36:00  The Talmud
1:37:00  God's revelation in the Torah and the Koran
1:38:00  What are the principles of liberalism with no official handbook?
1:41:00  The Classics
1:42:00  Arabic
1:45:00  Linguist

Liberalism was a French Revolutionary reaction against the Catholic Church promoting totalitarian Christianity

Why the liberal West is a Christian creation by John Gray  ...