Tuesday, 29 December 2009
1. I exist (Axiom).
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)
is mere sophistry.
The fact is that an imperfect being can easily imagine and has imagined a perfect being who is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, being capable of doing things we cannot do and knowing things we cannot know.
It is very easy indeed. We have been doing so since Abrahamic times.
My theory more easily explains the world.
God was created by Man for his political purposes. God is indeed the most powerful being imaginable by Man and Man has found Him very useful indeed. In a way, because of Man's imagination, Man is in some ways God-like, since he conjured God into existence by the simple exercise of his imagination and by the exercise of his will through man-made laws, myths and governments to maintain this fiction.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Conservative Party not fit for purpose as either a party of opposition or promoter of Conservative principles
Most of these Tories do not even know what Conservative principles are. They think it is all about being good to be gay, being compassionate (ie liberal), being progressive (ie liberal), being pro-NHS, being nice to single mums, having all-women shortlists, not having a referendum on the EU and the usual claptrap. They would even govern as New Labour but claim they would pursue New Labour policies more competently than New Labour itself.
Remain loyal to such an organisation if you must, out of habit, but, for others, when something is not fit for purpose they dump it. The Conservative Party deserves to be dumped. It is a ship of fools that cares more about being in office than in good government. Those who are stay silent or remain loyal acquiesce in its vacuity and purposelessness as well as the destruction of their nation.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Up to 1813, it was a crime to deny the trinity in public.
While we are appalled by the Muslims and their penchant for beheading as a form of execution, Christians got up to much worse when they were in charge: hanging, drawing and quartering as well as burning at the stake.
Beheading, being swiftly over, was comparatively humane. However, in England this form of humanity was reserved only for its aristocracy. Commoners would be hanged to die of slow strangulation to prolong the crowd's pleasure. The last beheading in England was in 1747.
The need for blasphemy laws in Christianity was simply because that while people were happy enough to believe in God, they really could not bring themselves to believe that Jesus is a 3-in-1 deity.
But if one believed in a unitarian God, the Church authorities thought, then one is not much different to being a Jew or a Muslim, whom Christians loathe and fear.
Unitarian Christians - those who thought like Jews and Muslims that Christ was a man and not divine - were persecuted as badly as Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition.
Arabs and Jews are a Semitic people and anti-Semitism is peculiar to European Christians. It is not so much a race thing as an ideological thing. "We must be different to the people we oppress and despise" was always the "Christian" position.
It continues to this day: but under a different guise: one hates the people whom one has wronged. There were the Crusades of course, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and, most recently, the robbing of Peter to pay Paul that occurred when the State of Israel was established.
Monday, 14 December 2009
"The law is like the wind and the people the grass. When the wind blows, the grass will bend."
The most evil are those who suffer it to be done in the name of liberal ideology, which permits only inaction or flabby gestures in the name of tolerance and compassion. In short, it is our government and our political establishment which is evil in permitting evil, not discouraging it or pretending that it is not in fact an evil.
Evil is committed when educated middle class campaigners of for traditional education dare not state the obvious for fear of ostracisation and denunciation.
The obvious is of course that society and family values are vulnerable to the depredations of female promiscuity, illegitimacy and ever lower standards of behaviour and education.
But female promiscuity sanctioned by feminism is the Sacred Cow that the British worship. To blaspheme against the slag and slapper and the unmarried single mum will result in social death or a life worse than death, apparently.
That is why emasculated men in fear of the feminazis remain silent. Nothing will change if the silence is not broken, but still the fearful silent men remain fearful and silent.
Our convictions must surely be in accordance with Truth, Reason and Reality or they will not withstand the wear and tear of Truth, Reason and Reality.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unique, then He must surely also incorporate Truth, Reason and Reality.
On this point perhaps atheists and monotheists can agree: that whether we believe in God or not, we must inevitably submit to Truth, Reason and Reality.
Which might conceivably make us all Muslim originally, without realising it ...
A disturbing thought for some, no doubt.
Bishop Venner is a courageous man. Tony Blair is a madman, for thinking he could get away with telling us the truth: that he would would have found any reason to invade Iraq, and expect us to admire him for it. Who does he think he is? Sally Bercow?
Saturday, 12 December 2009
It should be noted that the Old Testament solution to unmarried ex-virgins was death by stoning. Just because we disapprove of the harshness of Old Testament solutions does not mean that the behaviour that harsh measure was intended to discourage has lost its power to destroy our civilisation, societies and lives.
Only stupid feckless women get knocked up by men who are not their husbands or get knocked up to trap stupid men into marrying them. And only cads and bounders knock up stupid women. The next generation are even more likely to breed bastards and so on until so many people are bastards that one cannot talk about doing anything about bastards any more. This means the problem remains unaddressed because one does not wish to offend the friends and family who are singly-parented or single parents.
This is precisely the situation here in the UK. 46% of babies are now born out of wedlock. 70% of the prison population were singly parented.
It is not a race thing, it is a family values thing but there are certain values that certain groups practice.
The effortless superiority of the White African is very noticeable compared to the average Briton, white or non-white. This is because White Africans still regard illegitimacy as a stigma, while the average Briton's social and family circle is infested by illegitimacy, and they are the ones who, without realising it, have embraced black values.
Bush once remarked that The Simpsons behaved like a black family. Toxic liberal values therefore which have the power to turn white black.
Only stupid weak leaders in charge of a stupid weak people puts up with this sort of thing without doing anything about it. There probably is some genetic correlation in this, but only in the sense that we are trapped and influenced by our environment and the culture we live in.
Most of us will do what most other people are doing be it drinking, drug-taking, easy sex, tolerance of illegitimacy etc.
Personally, I believe it has always been 50% nature and 50% nurture, with all of us in theory capable of changing the balance simply by the exercise of the will.
Sadly, not many people nominally in charge of the ship of state are up to even the thought-processes required to come to such a conclusion, let alone the courage to do anything about it.
It will not therefore be long before Britons shall be slaves.
Friday, 11 December 2009
It was nothing like Question Time. The audience were politely invited to to take their seats. Many knew each other, and chatted before the debate started, 15 minutes late. CNN, Channel 4 and BBC Arabic were there, apparently. The Moderator Paul Williams stressed the importance of free speech and civility as well as that of not rambling on off topic.
The first to speak was Jeffrey Marshall of the BNP who sat between Alan Craig of the Christian Alliance Party and Robin Tillbrook of the English Democrats. Polite applause.
Jeffrey Marshall began by saying that it was a privilege to be invited and a honour to be there. He spoke of the undeniable Islamification of parts of London and other parts of the country that are clearly Muslim-majority and of brown on white violence, with particular reference to the assault of a priest in the East End, whom Muslims called "a fucking priest". Though apparently inflammatory, he ended up by saying that perhaps the Muslims and the BNP do have a number of things in common:
1. their opposition to the invasion of Muslim lands
2. disapproval of homosexuality and
3. support of family values
"Finally, I would like to re-emphasise what Nick Griffin referred to recently on Question Time as a truce with Muslims. I would remind you that the Labour government has colluded in the murder of some 800,000 Muslims in its wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. The Conservatives also support the war. Why Muslims would vote for either of these parties I simply cannot understand.
The BNP has always been against the war and we intend to withdraw our troops immediately from Afghanistan.
The BNP and Muslims were right all along about not invading Muslim lands.
We have other things in common too. The BNP and Muslims both support family values.
According to a survey carried out this year, 63% of British Muslims thought that the death penalty was morally acceptable. 77% said they strongly identify with the UK and numbers of Muslims who thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable was 0%."
It seems to me that Muslims could do a lot worse than vote BNP."
It would seem that the BNP is now soliciting the ethnic vote.
This was in direct contrast to the studio audience at White City during the filming of Question Time were on the hand whipped up to a frenzy of anti-rightism that they booed at a black man for daring to express socially conservative views, I was told by someone who was there.
Alan Craig, an eloquent speaker, craggy and distinguished, was the Christian Liberal who wanted to ban the niqab, because he felt it was "anti-social". When he complained that if he felt he "could not have a relationship with woman in niqab" when an outraged woman in a niqab took him to task for saying he would ban it, we all fell about laughing at the unintentional suggestiveness of his remark.
Most surprising of all was the question and statement of a Nationalist (a euphemism for BNP), who made an eloquent speech to the effect that it was the "LibLabContrick" who were dividing and ruling those it sought to control, who criminalised both Muslims and Nationalists from saying what they regard as the truth. He at any rate knew that the enemy was not Islam, but the "LibLabContrick" who started wars and then used paranoid thoughtcrime legislation to silence dissent. "We know Muslims are not our enemy," he declared. The Muslim holding the mike for him smiled with the surprise of this declaration of non-hostility from a party whose Chairman once called Islam "an evil and vicious faith".
An angry large man seethed with rage when Abdullah Al Andalusi (representing Islam on the panel) - an attractive, bearded and engaging young man of Portuguese extraction who is an ex-Christian - appeared to have all the answers. The gist of it was:
"How dare these foreigners come to our country and just sweep our traditions and our religion away, telling us they know what is better for us? How dare they think they know better? Worse, how dare they appear to know our religion better than we do by quoting the Bible at us? Especially that bit in Timothy which proves that Christians also oppress their women, like all other religions? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12&version=NIV Grrrrr!"
The angry large man said he was a Christian with a small "c". This to my mind meant not really Christian, but from a Christian background - a Cultural Christian who does not really believe that Christ is Son of God, who finds hymns and churches reassuring and only goes at Christmas or Easter, who might attend more regularly if this meant the difference between his children going to a decent church school rather than a sink comp or going private. But such a person will have formed no view on the Holy Trinity and is agnostic about the divinity of Christ, or prefers not to discuss it because that would be opening a can of worms.
Angry large man was mocked by Alan Craig who said he did not know what "Christian with a small c" meant, though it was clear to me that he wanted spires and churches to be in his landscape, rather than mosques and minarets. Alan Craig himself campaigned vigorously against the Olympics mega mosque but said he didn't mind smaller ones more befitting the religion of a minority faith. (Personally, I wanted it to go ahead because it looked nothing like a traditional mosque and looked like one of those impossibly curvy ultra modern buildings the Chinese were madly building in Beijing in the run-up to the Olympics. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1853589.ece)
Even if there were no Muslims beetling around in black to annoy, alienate and alarm Christians committed or merely cultural, no mosques and minarets to clutter up the British landscape, we would all be faced with changes we find unwelcome.
"O tempora! O mores!" was surely a complaint as old as the hills even when the Romans themselves uttered it.
Another in the audience, was outraged by the Reverend Frank Gelli's story about the ladybirds. (It is spring. Here they come. What can you do? Moral of the story: You bring yourself to love ladybirds and all will be well. But I wondered: "What if they are not ladybirds but cockcroaches? Or fleas carrying the bubonic plague?") "It means," an distinguished-looking elderly man hissed to me later after the debate, in horror and disgust, "that we have no choice but to get used to this, this ... infestation!"
At one point the meeting was disrupted by the BNP's most persistent "followers". A UAF man upstairs shouted something about "Nazi scum on the panel". There was a collective groan of exasperation. Did someone say "Oh, get a life"? At any rate, he was swiftly removed.
The leader of the English Democrats, Robin Tillbrook, received the least attention, simply because he did not address the question on Islamification but merely took the opportunity of setting out his stall and proclaiming the virtues of his party, with a membership of just over 3200. (The BNP have over 10,000 last time I heard and may have considerably more now.) They too had impeccable Islamophobic credentials but weren't racists like the BNP. And they are English and did not visit Libya in the hope of getting a bit of money from Colonel Gadaffi like Nick Griffin did in 1986. Vote for the English Democrats who are just as Islamophobic but English and not racist. Er, that's it (as Private Eye would put it).
When Jeffrey Marshall declared that the BNP would ban the niqab and not allow any old foreign to just come here and do as they pleased, because the niqab was simply an affront to the English, in opposition to our cultural traditions and frankly just annoying, the woman in front of me sitting with the English Democrat contingent spontaneously burst into applause, which others joined in, accompanied by protests of indignation from some Muslims.
The pleasure of that evening for me was that I found myself applauding in turn everyone on the panel for making really quite good points, with the exception of Robin Tillbrook, who didn't really get a chance to speak after his opening speech because no one had any question to ask him about the English Democrats, or sought his opinion about Islamification since he used the time allocated to him to talk exclusively about his party.
The views expressed were diverse, at times strident, and the emotions and intellect were engaged. Good speeches were made from the panel and the floor and the evening was entertaining, informative and civil.
I believe the position on the niqab was this: Alan Craig, Jeffrey Marshall in favour of banning it and Abdullah, Reverend Frank Gelli and Andrew Copson of the Humanist Associaton against banning it. I cannot remember Robin Tillbrook's view or indeed whether he was asked.
It seems clear to me that Islam - because it is holistic, coherent and "faith-lite", because it does not require Muslims to believe in the impossible, ie the divinity of their prophet, because their religion is framed in legalistic principles and drafted like a contract between God and Man - will now trump Christianity, especially now when the West is out of money, out of ideas and the Catholic Church with its celibate priests tragically associated with paedophilia, the Anglican Church with openly gay priests and female bishops but worst of all, the fundamentalist Christians insisting that believing in Creationism is a badge of Christianity. (The Koran's theory on the Creation would have no quarrel with current scientific theory. http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/science_01.html)
What is however most attractive about Islam, for those who do not wish to persecute homosexuals but want to show disapproval, is that it is abundantly clear that the Koran would tolerate them, while judiciously denying their relationships from ever acquiring equality with marriage.
Islam does not confer a special privilege on those who do not have sex, ie a corrupt priesthood, and that is what lies at the heart of its appeal: it is for normal people who want to get married and have children, who run businesses and engage in commerce, and who even wage war with each other from time to time.
There was a brief moment of mass bemusement when a woman in the audience asked Abdullah about Martin Luther King, but he misheard and was just stopped by the Moderator from launching into a lecture about Lutheranism, Calvinism and the Reformation. This was probably what the large angry man found so infuriating: that Abdullah had trashed his impression that Muslims are mostly a backward race with a backward religion with not much knowledge about Christianity or much else.
Indeed, there were some in the party who warned against participating in the debate precisely because Muslims had all the answers and were capable of showing that. Abdullah repeated that Sharia law always takes into account human nature, implicitly suggesting that Christianity and other legal systems (eg liberal, Nazi, Communist, Socialist) do not, which is why they eventually fail.
Muslims are all fundamentalists, in the sense that the duties and prohibitions in the Koran are well-drafted enough to be safe to be taken literally, unlike Christianity, which requires judicious selection, excision and supplementation.
Christians repeat their mantra of the absolutely necessity for the separation of Church and State, because the flaws of their religion require this, or the Spanish Inquisition would begin all over again, when anyone who dared question the mysteries of the Trinity would find himself at risk of being tortured and burnt at the stake.
The Koran arguably contains no such flaws and is therefore safe to be taken literally. That has always been the contention of those who practice what they call the "perfect religion" whose God is the God of Politics, Government and Law, whose Koran contain the founding principles of running an economy that would discourage irresponsible borrowing and lending as well as that of consumer law and the Geneva Convention.
If only enough people would read it to argue for or against this contention. Perhaps that could be the subject of the next debate.http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/11/the-big-dawah-event/
Thursday, 10 December 2009
(1) what constitutes gentlemanly or ladylike behaviour;
(2) when one has fallen short.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
My solution would be to disestablish the Church of England and invite tenders from various religious organisations so that a new religion that is better for the long-term national interest of the British Nation can be established.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that people's mental health tend to improve when they think someone who is Omniscient, Eternal and Omnipotent is their Best Friend.
Perhaps even I could help by developing further the idea of Secular Koranism? It is a synthesis of philosophy and religion combined into a distinct and cohesive ideology. It asserts that the Koran is a good enough guide, even for those who do not believe in God.
The Cult of Reason and Supreme Being ("CORASB")
The practice of submitting to Truth, Reason and Reality (if that is what God is, if God exists) is capable of both being a philosophy and a religion.
To start a Cult of Reason and The Supreme Being that is mutually indivisible is therefore logically possible and politically desirable.
Imagine: a religion and philosophy capable of appealing to both atheists and monotheists ....
Thursday, 3 December 2009
But this would be the equivalent of a recession/depression, so the government would rather bail-out banks, make us borrow money we don't have to buy things we don't want, than get off the carousel of consumerism.
While we are doing as they want, they are going to tax us till the pips squeak in the name of the environment and make future generations pay for the folly of the banks and the uselessness of the government in failing to prevent this quite predictable folly.
Just as long as you understand:
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL OR MAN-MADE; WE SHOULD NOT BE PAYING TAX ON IT.
It would have been a good way of reintroducing slavery by necessity.
Sole women ex-home owners in negative equity unable to meet their payments could become prostitutes to work off their debt more quickly in the superbrothels that Lord Mandelson would establish, despite the objections of Harriet the Harridan.
The men could be asked to do useful work in the community or enter the trade of servicing women who desire the experience of their manhood.
Methinks a great opportunity was sadly missed.
What a shame I am not in charge!
"Mandelson said the Digital Britain bill would reform Ofcom by requiring it to take a "new forward role" in ensuring the media market has the "right mix of impartial and national and local news".
How can it be impartial when NUJ members are required by their union to always report the BNP unfavourably?
If that is not a duty to be biased, I don't know what is.
At last, an MP of courage and conviction who has said something controversial.
Non-retards (unfortunately a minority in our demented and declining civilisation) already know that governments love the concept of climate change because it gives us an excuse to tax us more, spy on us and penalise us in the name of saving us from ourselves.
Does anyone remember the story of Chicken Licken and how his friends who believed that the sky was falling in came to be eaten by Foxey Loxey?
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
and all this before Obama has even announced how many troops he is prepared to commit.
Why did Brown announce that Afghanistan is going to get 500 troops before Obama shows his hand? What if Obama suddenly said, "Nah, f*ck this for a laugh, we're pulling out tomorrow." Wouldn't that make the British look, not to put too fine a point on it, rather foolish?
If Obama decided not to commit any more troops, then Brown would have committed 500 British soldiers' lives to be sacrificed for nothing.
Is British diplomacy missing a trick or two in showing such unquestioning eagerness?
Personally, I find it embarrassing that the British have a prime minister that shows such dog like devotion, such unthinking support. Did Obama say "walkies" to the Brown Dog? Or did he just say "Let us get more of our soldiers killed in the name of the stupid people who thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea?
For Blair and for Bush! Into the valley of death! For the land which values the career and hurt feelings of a single possibly lesbian Yeowoman to be worth more than the careers of two Yeomen with dependents. That is what British soldiers are dying for.
When are they going to say "F*ck that for a laugh"?