Friday, 31 March 2017

Are White People the problem?

What is the problem exactly?


The problem is of course immigration, but they white people did it to themselves. If white people did not allow other races into their countries, then they would not be having problems with them now, would they?

If immigration is such a problem for white people, then why don't they just stop it with their democracy if most people have a problem with it? But they can't.

Why not?

Because white people cannot agree amongst themselves what they should do about immigration.

Some white people - the liberal elite - don't have a problem with immigration, but most do. It is the liberal elite who control the media and the media can make most people believe whatever the media want them to believe.

Obviously, if white people want to keep their culture and things the way they are, they have to control immigration.

If they have a problem controlling immigration, they should ask themselves why. Opinion appears to be evenly divided about immigration, but we should bear in mind that is men who are more racist than women because their interests are more directly threatened.

Have you noticed that the lionesses in the lion's harem never help the lion fight when there is a male intruder hoping to usurp him to have access to his harem?

They don't care because they want to have the cubs of the winner even as they know that the usurper if he wins will kill the cubs of the previous incumbent. It is all the same to them.

Are white men like that lion, but forced to be friendly and welcoming to potential usurpers because the lionesses prefer it and he believes in democracy in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage?

Then more fool him.

The video only complains about Muslims and Islam, but never mentions the role of democracy, feminism and liberalism in breaking down white men's willingness to protect their interests and culture.

Feminism has utterly emasculated the white man rendering him unable even to defend a principle, let alone his nation. It is doubtful if he any longer understands what a principle is. He probably thinks having principles cramps his style, preventing him from acting on impulse, caprice and expediency. Muslims however have principles because they have religious principles which they are obliged to follow.

What principles ought we to have if we want to have principles just for the sake of having them, like a moral status symbol, to show that we are better than non-human animals who cannot be expected to know what principles are for, let alone have them?

Mine are simply to submit to truth, logic and morality. It seems there are plenty of white men who think they are too good to do that, because they are so white and clever and superior and have no need to obey any rules and can do what they like, whenever and wherever.

You may have noticed that white culture - drug culture, pub culture, the culture of entitlement and the culture of excuses - is not about supporting the institutions of marriage and the family. It is therefore inevitable that it will be replaced by Islam which has a culture of supporting marriage and family values instead of sex and drugs and rock and roll.

So what is the real problem with white people and why can't they fix their problems?

Because they are in denial about the nature of their problems and keep complaining about the symptoms of terrorism and immigration rather than curing the disease of feminism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism, which they cannot do unless they accept the truth, the operation of reason and the nature and purpose of morality.

Because they won't accept the truth, or the conclusions logic leads them towards, or the dictates of morality, they are in denial. Because if they were not in denial, I would have a job in the media or be famous by now, but it is the purpose of the corrupt liberal media to deny my existence however newsworthy I and my ideas are.

When the media of White People finally becomes fit for purpose and reports news rather than suppressing it, there might just be hope for them.

God and the demographic winter to come for the post-industrial societies of the East and West 

A post-matriarchy and post-Brexit Islamic Britain

An exchange about a post-Brexit and post-matriarchy Britain at

Notice how the PM now says immigration levels might not decrease after Brexit, treating the issue as if it is beyond her control. Yet it is precisely she who can do something about it - e.g by implementing an upper limit on numbers. Politicians treat immigration as a self-regulating phenomenon.

They are probably aware that the need for labour remains and the indigenous labour force remains unfit for purpose. We should just close our borders, declare martial law under a state of emergency after we dismantle the welfare state and sort our shit out.

Isn't that a bit radical?

How else are we going to sort our shit out once and for all? I know our great unwashed will start rioting the moment we take away their precious welfare state.

What will you do deal with the rioters after you have taken away their welfare state?

I will have organised local citizens' militias consisting of non-criminal elements of society to deal with the rioters who will be the criminal elements of society. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Will people be dying and starving in the streets after you have dismantled the welfare state and declared a state of emergency under martial law?

No, they can die comfortably in their own homes. Citizens' militias will arrest beggars and rough sleepers and put the able-bodied to work.

What if no one wants to buy the slaves who are slaves because they refuse all paid employment?

Such people will be taken to a remote island to join the others of their ilk.

What will happen to the Spinster Single Mothers who are a Burden on the State?

They will be housed in an all female commune where they will be encouraged to pair up so one of them can go to work while the other stays at home to look after the children.

Would you be in favor of a revival of the workhouse for petty criminals and the unwanted?

Slavery is a better way of making a criminal repay his debt to society.

Then you should know that all social unrest and revolutions end badly. You can tinker with the welfare state without abolishing it. I would certainly encourage generous unemployment insurance to cover periods of joblessness, which will mean more work for lawyers.

Good government requires that government tackle longstanding social problems of the working classes of Britain no longer being fit for the purpose of working.

Charity is enjoined by the Koran and voting citizens shall have the constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20%.

Within these constraints, I think we can see to it that people do not starve and die on the streets.

"Australia and North America are full of immigrants and they can't blame the EU not being part of it." - I oppose Australian-style points system as it can mean increasing immigration. 1/4 of Oz is foreign-born. Easier to have zero-net imm - peg no of incomers to outgoers. Industry must then adjust.

As you wish. I am not going to be prescriptive about how much immigration any country ought to have, but am saying that before we can sort our shit out we need to close the door, just as you would decently close the toilet door if you feel the need to urinate, defecate or vomit.

My understanding of the Koran is that the taxes levied have to go in part to the poor and needy, which means a welfare state. I have read Muslim scholars previously arguing that the Islamic welfare state predates Western social democracy.

You really must not confuse a welfare state with charity. You have the option of not giving to charity but not the option of refusing to pay your taxes.

 "am saying that before we can sort our shit out we need to close the door, just as you would decently close the toilet door if you feel the need to defecate or vomit." - Do you mean a temporary ban on all immigration while a sensible immigration policy is devised? That used to be UKIP policy.

I mean that to really sort our shit out we are going to have to upset a lot of people and things could turn ugly. We owe it to non-nationals to warn them of the probable civic unrest that will be caused by dismantling the welfare state. Just as you will not invite guests to stay with you while you are spring cleaning, you should let foreign nationals return to their countries of origin before you sort out your immigration policy.

Immigration policy is based on the need for foreign labour, and our need for foreign labour is based on the fitness for purpose of the indigenous labour force.

The fitness for purpose of the indigenous labour force can only be established after dismantling the welfare state and turning current welfare claimants into members of the local workforce. Most welfare claimants are unlikely to be desirable employees, but the extent of their unsuitability needs to be properly established. The presence of large numbers of foreign workers will obscure and distort the view.

I was surprised to learn that almshouses still exist and there are ever newer ones. I like this community-based, religiously-oriented solution to social housing and would encourage more of it:

Social housing can be slave quarters.

What is the prison policy of Secular Koranism?

Criminals will be publicly flogged and then sent on their way or enslaved to pay their debt to society.

What is the drug policy of Secular Koranism?

I am inclined to leave people alone until they commit crimes and then treat those committing crimes while intoxicated or addicted as an aggravated offence, executing them after three convictions.

Thursday, 30 March 2017

God and the demographic winter to come for the post-industrial societies of the East and West

Western Christianity is spiritually confused and misguided by multiculturalism

  1. God was conscripted by Wise Men to maintain the practice of traditional marriage.
  2. The practice of traditional marriage implicitly forbade extramarital sex so young men and young women would be hurried sooner into having legitimate children and more of them. 
  3. A society in which most of its members practised traditional marriage is said to be socially conservative.  
  4. A moral environment of social conservatism is necessarily a theocracy. 
  5. All advanced civilisations are patriarchies and all patriarchies have a religion forbidding extramarital sex to maintain the practice of marriage.
  6. The practice of taking marriage seriously is directly linked to the quality of parenting, and the quality of parenting linked to the quality of the next generation which of course has implications for the continuation of your civilisation. 
  7. The purpose of marriage is to have legitimate children. 
  8. The purpose of having legitimate children is to prevent single parenthood, bad parenting and child abuse. 
  9. Marriage is the best child protection scheme created by God. 
  10. The point of primogeniture and having an heir and a spare is to have enough fighting men at any time to repel invaders. 
  11. The average age of risk-averse Britain is now 40.
  12. Old people think they know everything, are slow to adapt and probably want to die with their false beliefs intact because they don't want to think the beliefs they have had all their lives - especially their Christianity if they happen to be Europeans - are wrong and that they were so easily duped.
  13. Old people also suffer from sclerosis and are unwilling to change their ways because they either don't want to or think it's too late to make any difference. 
  14. Old people can be infuriatingly fatalistic especially when they only look back on their supposedly glorious past and take no interest in the future because they don't think they are going to be a part of it.
  15. A senescent populace is even less likely to acknowledge that the religion their ancestors believed in - Christianity - is in fact inferior to the new one the hated immigrants bring - Islam, when it is already so obvious.
  16. The problem with Christianity is that it is no longer fit for the purpose of maintaining morality and this is evidenced by the fact that those who call themselves Christian neither believe that Christ is also God nor do they any longer have a patriarchy. 
  17. While Muslims believe in an omnipotent and perfectly moral God, Islamophobes worship the slut and regard fornication as their sacrament. 
  18. When Islamophobes talk about the Western way of life, they mean their practice of widespread and indiscriminate fornication. 
  19.  When Islamophobes talk about protecting their way of life, they really mean protecting the slut from criticism, because they know Islam means to shame them publicly with
  20. The West is a degenerate and demented matriarchy because it simultaneously invites Muslims to settle in the West while busily continuing to invade Muslim countries and are even now threatening Turkey and Iran - the world's two most powerful Muslim countries who still have  an independent foreign policy.
  21. This insane policy should be evidence enough of the insanity of the Western political classes, but in reality most voters are unreasoning imbeciles, prepared to believe anything they read in mainstream media. 
  22. There are no longer enough sane and principled people to point out this insanity with enough conviction because the media is controlled by the Deep State who refuse to give up its twin ideologies of neoconservatism and neoliberalism which require the West to invade Muslim countries while simultaneously allowing them to immigrate to the West.
  23. President Trump himself is prevented from preventing Muslims from coming to America even when the danger of Muslim terrorism is clear and present since America is the biggest bomber and mass murderer of Muslims all over the world and should expect Muslims to wish to do Americans harm.
  24.  Everything good and sensible that President Trump wishes to do for the American people is obstructed by the liberal judiciary and the Deep State, because they see him as a threat to their very existence in the way lunatics who have taken over the asylum are instinctively afraid of the sight of men in flapping white coats waiting to bring them under control again. 
  25. While this is not officially accepted, the religion of the West is not Christianity but a combination of Feminism, Democracy and Liberalism.
  26. What is Feminism but the elevation of the fornicatress in status over and above the beta male who does most of the work?
  27. What is Democracy but the practice of allowing the sheeple - who will believe in any lie however absurd - to vote by pandering to their stupidity and venality?
  28. What is Democracy but the pandering of fools by knaves?
  29. What is Liberalism but policies that promote sexual liberation in order to elevate the fornicatress in status over and above the beta male who does most of the work? 
  30. What is Liberalism but Neoliberalism, which is but allowing foreigners to come to your country to take over just because you have a labour shortage caused by Feminism?
  31. What is Feminism but the encouragement of women to become fornicatresses to distract both men and women from having enough legitimate children while they are young enough and from bringing them up properly?
  32. All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
  33. All declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.  
  34. What should replace Christianity which failed to protect the West from Democracy, Feminism and Liberalism, the failed and degenerate ideologies of the West? 
  35. If monotheism were a car, Islam would be the latest model. 
  36. Islam is Monotheism III. 
  37. Judaism is obviously too hard and high-maintenance for the already degenerate gentiles of the West. 
  38. Christianity is irreparably broken and has in any case been infested and rotten with liberals and feminists for decades.  
  39. Hinduism is too alien to Western culture.
  40. Buddhism is too vague an ideology for you to base your legal system on it. 
  41. When you have eliminated the impossible, then what remains, however improbable, must be the answer.  
  42. The answer must be Islam because its rules are more capable of giving justice to all than some ad hoc ideology conceived of by nationalists who have a tendency to be anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and racist.
  43. If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".
  44. By using the Koran as a basis for our laws, belief in God is assumed, but not enforced.
  45. By infusing our laws with Koranic principles, the patriarchy can be re-established and the matriarchy defenestrated. 
  46. Even if governments, nations and empires fall, the assumption will be that God's laws still prevail, or else we will be swinging backwards and forth forever on the pendulum of moral restraint and sexual licence, refusing to learn the lessons of history the most important of which is that the rules of traditional marriage will always be useful as a means of continuing your civilisation because it maintains and improves the quality of the next generation as long as men and women have offspring through sexual reproduction.
  47. God, if He exists, is Darwinian. His purpose is to divide us into nations so that we may compete against each other, rewarding the best of nations with His blessings and punishing the worst of nations with His curses.
  48. The best of His nations will have empire and wealth, for they will interpret and apply His laws most correctly.
  49. The worst of His nations will suffer poverty and be enslaved, for they will not just flout His laws, but deny His very existence as well as the existence of His prophets.  
  50. Islam is the most practical of all the Abrahamic faiths because it assumes that our laws should be in harmony with morality, with punishment for breaking God's laws to be suffered in this lifetime rather than the next, for the betterment of human civilisation through keeping the matriarchy at bay, while guaranteeing freedom of belief.
I probably do need to belabour the point that it is only the Koran that guarantees freedom of belief and only the Koran that absolutely forbids usury.

But stubborn sclerotic old people suffering from dementia and denial would rather go to their graves believing that Christianity is better than Islam and liberal democracy the only kind of government to have.  

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Western Man's cultural practice of mass murdering Muslims abroad and complaining about Muslim immigration and terrorism at home

This video only complains about Muslims and their propensity to terrorism, without once considering the role of UK foreign policy in provoking Muslim terrorism. So much easier to point to Muslims who are visibly different than to trouble one's pretty head about bad UK foreign policy, is it not? Demanding the mass expulsion of Muslims and the banning of Islam in the West is a much more attractive option than wondering where UK foreign policy might have gone wrong over the past century.

What year was the Brighton bomb?

What year was the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Do you think Muslim terrorists are better at putting two and two together than shit for brains MPs sitting in Parliament as representatives of the idiocracy?

It would appear Islamophobic Western Man considers the neocon policy of bombing and invading Muslim countries as an expression of Western masculinity.

The Military Industrial Complex of the Western Man has the perfect modus operandi: keep invading Muslim countries and keep allowing Muslim immigration.

Allowing Muslim immigration while preventing people from complaining about immigration and giving Muslims special status causes Muslims to be hated, creating the desire in beta male cannon fodder to bomb and invade Muslim countries, which is brilliantly self-perpetuating.

Creating a fear of Muslims in the West also allows the state to pass ever more repressive laws to justify spying on everyone, another beneficial side effect for the intelligence community who are part of the deep state.

It cannot be healthy or decent to express your masculinity in enabling, facilitating and committing mass homicide, can it? This is after all what serial killers do.

Part of the white man's cultural identity is the belief he has the right to mass murder Muslims globally with impunity from retaliation.

When he suffers retaliation in the form terrorism in his own country, the degenerate Western matriarchy calls for the observation of pointless rituals of a minute's silence and candlelit vigils, clearly designed to generate emotion and to suppress thought so its victims never think to question Western foreign policy or their government's immigration policy, both designed to prop up the stinking degenerate matriarchy of parasitical female voters and their spawn, who are voracious clients of the welfare state.

Why does the white man feel he has to mass murder Muslims abroad as a cultural practice? Because at home he is a pussywhipped mangina whose social status is below that of a fornicating slut or Slut Single Mother with variously fathered feral bastards who live off his labour and his taxes whom he doesn't even get to fuck. 

Simon Sheppard on How Feminism Caused Two World Wars
"We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916."

"It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second."

"A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere."

"The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest."

"A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars."

'... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.” '

Why doesn't Western Man stop waging war on Muslims abroad?

Why does he continue to allow Muslim immigration into his country while he wages war against Muslims abroad? It makes no sense, but then it makes no sense for men to let irresponsible and promiscuous women have the vote and most women in the West are irresponsible and promiscuous, do not have legitimate children, are not good wives and badly parent what children they manage to have leading to a shortage of employably literate and numerate citizens, leading to a labour shortage, leading to an insatiable demand for cheaper and more willing immigrant labour.

Why does this deep-seated and long-standing problem remain addressed? Because politicians are not capable of planning beyond the next election.

How should it be addressed? My proposals to abolish multi-party democracy, abolish the welfare state, repeal pro-feminist legislation and impose a one-party Secular Koranist theocracy capable of promoting social conservatism and the long term national interest will be unlikely to get any publicity from the corrupt liberal media more in the business of suppressing news than reporting it.

It is impossible to get an answer from a patient who is in a catatonic state.

Is this patient's response analogous to that of the media - being able to hold an unnatural position for a surprisingly long time? 1:36 Watch out in particular for waxy flexibility, sustained abnormal position, opposition, resistance to movement, negativism including aversion

This is what the male politician secretly thinks about himself, his career and the entire political process that he wastes his life engaging in, because he won't say what needs to be said about feminism and Western foreign policy.

New President, same old neocon US foreign policy being pursued by NATO members/US vassal states

Western Man is simply in a state of neurotic suspension, on the one hand compelled to do the same thing again and again because that is what he has been doing ever he can remember, and on the other fearing the consequences when he wakes up to admit that he has been in error for God knows how long and for how many generations for allowing indiscriminate universal suffrage, tolerating widespread bastardy and allowing his addiction to extramarital sex and cheap foreign labour to go unaddressed.

How Claire Khaw would have answered the Moral Maze questions David Conway was asked on Nationalism


How I would have answered the questions David Conway was asked

Is nationalism, justified, desirable because we simply cannot identify with shared mutual responsibilities which make sacrifices for the world at large?

Charity begins at home. The nation is the most powerful group we can join that is small enough to care but big enough to matter. God if He exists divided us into nations the way schools divide pupils into houses, to promote competition for the advancement of civilisation.

Economic integration, democracy, national self-determination. Out of this we can have two, but we can't have three. Do you think that's true? 

What do you mean by economic integration? If you are nationalist, you would of course choose national self-determination.Why would I choose this? I refer you to my previous answer. The only antidote to globalisation is nationalism, obviously. Globalisation is about running the world as if it were under one government. This means running the world under the principles of transnational progressivism which means uncontrolled and unlimited immigration under the principles of neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

Do you think there is a fundamental tension between nationalism and multiculturalism?

Not really, if there is a morally defensible dominant culture. Nationalists accept the necessity of a dominant culture, which understandably makes minorities nervous. They must however remember that they are a minority and if they don't like it under the dominant culture, they will have to find alternative arrangements. The question that falls to be asked is what our dominant culture is and whether it is morally defensible. Then the next question to be asked is what is morally defensible. Obviously, any dominant culture that does not protect the marriage and the family is not morally defensible.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the patriarchy.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies. 

It is the Abrahamic faiths which promote patriarchal moral values and therefore the only values that are morally defensible are in fact patriarchal moral values.

What is the purpose of morality?

The promotion of group solidarity to promote the strength and cohesion of the group.

How do you know when there is group solidarity and social cohesion?

When the laws of God are obeyed, in particular the laws contained in the Ten Commandments, thereby creating greater co-operation to facilitate imperial expansion.  

How can you tell if the laws of God are being obeyed?

When you have a low crime rate in a society where most of its members are not bastards, divorced, Slut Single Mothers or Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of uncompromisingly supporting marriage. 

How can you make your society more socially cohesive?

By imposing a one-party theocracy, obviously.

New President, same old neocon US foreign policy being pursued by NATO members/US vassal states

How Feminism Led to Two World Wars

We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916.

It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second.
A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere.
The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest. 
 A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars.
... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.”

9/11 was used by the US government to launch wars that have destroyed in whole or part seven countries, killing millions of peoples and producing millions of refugees. 9/11 was also used to create an American police state, which is a far greater threat to freedom and democracy than Muslim terrorism.

my condolences to you and the United Kingdom at this shocking time
They were bound to get round to us sooner or later. Interesting, isn't it, that neocon policies just carry on no matter which President is in power, no matter what the presidential candidate says about ending war? It is like US foreign policy is nothing to do with POTUS. Trump is just not saying anything about foreign policy like he is not saying anything about the weather in Timbuktu, because it is nothing to do with him. What a farce of a political system democracy is. No one's in charge, everyone's doing their own thing, no one has any idea where the buck has now been passed to, until it goes bang ... 

The deep state probably threatened to murder Trump and his entire family if he didn't toe the neocon line.

What is the point of a "democracy" like this?

"Democracy" just means public ignorance and indifference to Western foreign policy and hatred of Muslims and immigrants while refusing to challenge feminism.

The CIA-controlled European media ... 

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

David Goodhart traduced by The Guardian's Jonathan Shainin who disapproves of Road to Somewhere

It shocked me to read of David Goodhart apparently confused with me. While I am generally known to be a horror known for upsetting libtards through the use of truth and logic, David Goodhart is politeness and charm personified. I also look nothing like heartthrob Colin Firth.

Is this Colin Firth?

Is this David Goodhart?

Apparently, Jonathan Shainin and others of his ilk do not believe that white people have the right to national self-determination, though for some reason other races do, which is a bit racist, don't you think?

Why would the dominant race of any nation passively accede to allowing so many other races into their country in the name of being non-racist until they are no longer the dominant race, just because middle class feminazis in the Labour Party insist they must do so?

Why would any group voluntarily agree to lose status and be overwhelmed by other groups when they can easily prevent it by eradicating feminism and socialism? It is truly a mystery.

As I keep saying to anyone who will listen, the slut and socialist are the eternal enemies of society and civilisation.

Sunday, 19 March 2017

Why the Koran is such a clever book

The Koran is such a clever book that it doesn't forbid imperial wars that you win, only aggressive imperial wars that you lose.

Koranic principles of warfare only allow defensive wars which obviously would have prevented the two crazy World Wars that ended European hegemony. Why did Britain enter WW1? To protect Belgian neutrality. Britain's Liberal Prime Minister Asquith only entered it thinking it would be a short successful war after which the boys would be home for the Christmas of 1914 so he could win the subsequently cancelled election of 1915.

The priapic PM who wrote love letters to his mistress as he sent a generation off to die in the trenches

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years

Imagine! To lose your world empire over a stupid election because of a lecher of a Liberal Prime Minister, henpecked by his wife and writing love letters to this mistress after the war had started!

Oh yes, and multi-party democracy is obviously wrong because it warns us against dividing our national ideology into sects and rejoicing in our own doctrines such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism etc which are now indistinguishable from each other in terms of policy except in hating Donald Trump.

The Koran also says slave girls are part of war booty but you must marry them if you want to have sex with them and must have no more than four wives. While they are allowed to be prostitutes to earn their manumission, you must not compel enough, which is fair enough.

This does suggest that the Confederate South should have won the American Civil War because slavery is tolerated by the Koran. If that were so, America would not have entered WW2 because it would just not have been united or powerful enough to take over from the empires of the Europeans after the they destroyed themselves in two World Wars ignoring the Koranic rules of warfare.

This of course also means that the Yanks would not have nuked the Japanese twice, which is also against the Koranic principles of warfare, by the way.

God rewards those who obey His laws, and punishes those that do not, as we are now seeing from the imminent collapse of the West.

Would a quick collapse be better than a slow collapse? There would be less suffering and bloodshed, I imagine.

Anyone legally trained would know the superiority of the Koran compared to the Bible. God if He exists is the best legal draughtsman of all. A good legal draughtsman states the terms of the contract clearly and has the foresight to anticipate the situations when questions could arise over the validity of the terms.

Why the Koran does not forbid bestiality

The Koran does not explicitly forbid men from having sex with animals because God in His wisdom assumed women wouldn't want to marry men known for having sex with animals.

The Koran forbids sexual relations between father and daughter but the Bible does not

One of the most notable features of all the lists is that sexual activity between a man and his own daughter is not explicitly forbidden. Although the first relation mentioned after the Levitical prohibition of sex with "near kin" names that of "thy father",[10] it must be taken into account that the Hebrew original text only addresses male Jews with regard to their female relatives.[11] The talmud argues that the absence is because the prohibition was obvious, especially given the proscription against a relationship with a granddaughter,[12] although some biblical scholars have instead proposed that it was originally in the list, but was then accidentally left out from the copy on which modern versions of the text ultimately depend, due to a mistake by the scribe.[13] The second list in the Holiness code noticeably differs from the first by not including the closer relatives, and it might be assumed that obviousness is the explanation here as well.[1] One might argue that the explicit prohibition against engaging in sexual activity with a woman as well as with her daughter,[14] implicitly forbids sexual activity between a man and his daughter. However, the rationale might suggest otherwise (the original text is unclear here), since it mentions only that "they" (i.e., the woman and the daughter) are related.[15] John Calvin did not consider the father-daughter-relation to be explicitly forbidden by the bible, but regarded it as immoral nevertheless.[16]

The Bible does guarantee religious tolerance and freedom of worship and belief

By how many years did the Koran precede the First Amendment?

The Koran is conceptually superior to the Bible

The Koran is conceptually superior to the Bible, because it is said to be the directly transcribed Word of God revealed over a period of 23 years by the same prophet while the Bible is only hearsay evidence from many sources over many many many centuries.

The Bible does not propose a flat rate income tax of 20%

The Bible does not propose a flat rate income tax of 20% nor does it give you the constitutional right not to be pay more than a flat rate income tax of 20%, does it?

While the Bible is silent on divorce, the Koran devotes an entire chapter to it.

Because Muslims treat marriage as a contract, the state supporting marriage in these terms allows it to implicitly abolish no fault divorce, because this means divorce will only be allowed if the terms and conditions of the marriage contract are breached by the party at fault.

Finally, sluts will be shamed by - the only way to curtail the power of sluts in the matriarchy.

Only a one-party theocracy governed under the principles of Secular Koranism can effectively overthrow the matriarchy and stop it from re-establishing itself again.

Thursday, 16 March 2017

CrossTalk: What's Left?

 John Laughland:

There is much too much talk about the Far Right and the Extreme Right and too much head-scratching the rise of parties like the National Front in France and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands. What has happened in fact is not that these parties have risen, it's instead that the centre of gravity across Western Europe has shifted inexorably to the left. When I say the left, I'm not referring to old style socialism which indeed has been abandoned. I am referring instead to the body of liberal left-wing opinion which believes in the end of the nation state, which believes in progress and progressivism and so on and which is daily fighting and winning new battles on completely unexpected things like transgender and gay marriage and all the rest of it. The centre of gravity having moved to the left and the political class having become increasingly dominated not by any relationship to reality, but increasingly by ideology, yes, voters feel alienated and they feel alienated precisely because of this ideology which dominates and which means that political decisions are taken not with respect to reality, not with any desire to influence reality or to react to it, but instead within the self-referential terms of the ideology of left liberalism. So, political decisions are taken to justify even on a symbolic level the ideology to which these people apply. I have increasingly said that politicians, including the famous Brussels bureaucrats, are not politicians or bureaucrats or technocrats, they are instead a kind of clergy engaged in a series of symbolic acts which have meaning for them but which don't have any meaning outside their point of reference and certainly not to an increasing number of voters.

Peter Lavelle:

What we have right now is a crisis of terminology, a crisis of lexicon because you can look at political parties that are hovering around power. They are more interested in power than representation. They are more interested in ideology than the will of the voters. And it is a crisis as to what Conservatism and Liberalism really mean. I really think we have a crisis of lexicon. 

Jeff Deist:

When John mentions clergy, I think that's correct, because I think what we're talking about here is a faith - a faith in neoliberalism that doesn't necessarily match the facts, and I do think that the old left/right paradigms are breaking down. He mentioned Margaret Thatcher stealing votes away from voters. Well, Donald Trump did the same thing in the United States by taking blue collar working class votes from Democrats and at some point we have to ask ourselves a question which is what does that blue collar union truck-driver in a state like New Jersey who likes American football aqnd beer - what does he really have in common with the left wing professor of feminism at Berkeley? What does he have in common with a non-profit ideologue at a place like the Sierra Club? The answer might be not much. So I think we are reaching a point where populism is a healthy thing. When elites become corrupt and when they become corrupt by virtue of their relationship with a state and finance nexus then anti-elitism or populism can be healthy and warranted. 

Peter Lavelle:

You have these elites and they have these party labels on them, but you can look at the elites in both parties particularly the Democratic ones obstructing Trump every step of the way. You have Republicans who are just as obstructionist in many ways as well. They're not representing their party, they're representing their own interests inside this clergy. They are a clergy of ideology and power. 

A lot of people are tired of identity politics, because identity politics doesn't get you a job, it doesn't give you prosperity, it doesn't give you security. It gives small groups of people a good feeling inside - nice and fluffy and warm - but it doesn't make a better society.

John Laughland:

I didn't say voters were moving to the left, I said the political class and the centre of gravity of political debate was moving to the left and voters have stayed where they are, so when we describe the rise of the extreme right, I am implying that the voters have stayed where they are but the politicians have moved to the left leaving the space open for what might wrongly be called the Far Right. 

It is true that the left have abandoned its traditional values and traditional electorate, but the right has as well, and I speaking as a Conservative, I believe very strongly that on balance the left has won battle after battle in the last 25 years since the collapse of state socialism in the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe. The left has not given up its basic ideology of progressivism, revolution, anti-authoritariaism, anti-traditionalism and so on. Instead it has simply transferred itself away from state socialism - so its completely abandoned that aspects of its policy - but it hasn't abandoned any of its underlying ideology of constant revolution and constant progress. Indeed, to the extent that it has adopted the free market and the ideology of globalisation, it has done so only because it sees in those things - as Marx himself incidentally did - an instrument for dismantling structures like the nation and the family. So I see in the last 25 years left and right converging around what is a left liberalism where Conservative values are basically absent or they come out in a mangled and somehow extreme way. A straightforward Conservative party does not exist in Western Europe.

Jeff Deist:

Conservatism Inc is on life support in America. Trump does not represent the resurrection of the GOP. On the contrary, the GOP is dead and buried when it comes to ideas and deservedly so. No one is going to die on a hill for Ryancare. Progressives have shown time and time again they will die on a hill for all kinds of things the American public cares very little about. This is a party that doesn't organise in union halls, it organises in the sociology department of some wretched university somewhere. This is the left in America that has suffered a black eye with Trump, perhaps, but this is a speed bump, not a roadblock. The left in the West controls academia, it controls the media, it controls mainstream religion, it controls corporate boardrooms ... 


Peter Lavelle:

Politics and politicians are supposed to resolve problems, that's what we elected them to do. I don't elect people to moralise and tell me what my values should be and this is the speed bump we've been hitting for decades now. We're not solving problems. We're just told how to think about them and usually not your own problems but some other person's problems.

 Kees Van Der Pijl:

Jacque Chirac was once asked about the power of  politics. Chirac said there was no power. We are the ones who see the trains go by and we make sure the barriers are down on time.Society was developing in a progressive way in the post war period. There was work for people, excellent education and healthcare and so on. From the late 70s that has been dismantled. In that situation, people who call themselves left have not replaced this and instead concentrated on such things as transgender rights. Society has moved right because it is in a state of profound stagnation and crisis.

Peter Lavelle:

Peter that call themselves Conservatives who are not, people who call themselves from the left who are not, they have just created on train wreck after another and this is why people are voting in an angry way. They want some new solutions and what we hear is retreads. 

John Laughland:

Jeff's speed bump metaphor was meant to imply that the election of Trump was a minor obstacle and will not prevent the onward march of the left and Jeff is absolutely right. I very strongly agree with this: to emphasise the degree to which the left dominates the world of the media and the world of culture and so on. We are a hundred years after the Russian Revolution and Lenin thought that the way to state socialism was by controlling the state, but there is far more powerful revolutionary figure whose influence goes way beyond that of Lenin and that is Antonio Gramsci who theorised this idea that indeed that the left to win had to colonise the great institutions: universities, schools and so on and as Andrew Breitbart used to say "Politics is downstream of culture." That's why Jacque Chirac said "Politicians just watch the trains go by or the caravans pass" whichever metaphor you prefer, because politics is downstream of culture. We have observed the Soviet system 25 years ago. What people perhaps forget in watching this spectacular historical event is that Marxism was alive and well in the West in Western universities throughout the entire Cold War period with strong Communist parties, plus there were strong pro-Soviet Communist parties, so you had a vast reserve of people in the West - never mind people in the East who believed in Marxism and left wing politics generally, whereas in the East no one really believed in Marxist ideology including senior Soviet leaders. They didn't believe it any more, they stopped believing in it a long time ago. That was not true of the West, so the Soviet system having collapsed we are now left with the inheritance of these generations of people who have been educated in a broadly Marxist system, and those people, educated as I say, in those universities, those people who were young in the 1960s and who were affected by the other great revolutionary - not Lenin but John Lennon - those people are of course in their 60s, and they have now been governing us for decades. 

Peter Lavelle:

I had the opportunity to live in Poland and Hungary before they joined the European Union and I've lived in Russian for almost 20 years but I told Poles and Hungarians "You think your culture is important and that's your right, but you want to join a club that doesn't care much about your culture and your values and - voila! - we have two countries in the European Union that are criticised severely by the "clergy" - but culture does matter! The political class don't want to respect culture and if you do you're backward, you're primitive, you're old fashioned, but they're wrong and we're right. 

Jeff Deist:

Poland will forever be a renegade for the simple fact that they are a religious country within the EU. This is not allowed or accepted any more and it's interesting when John mentioned this blathering about the Far Right and AfD and Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen being white noise and nonsense - it is white noise and nonsense because the real authoritarians are in every public school in America, they're in every university in America - the petty people on the left who would control us and gtovern us, who would restrict our speech. There's one thing they're right about and I don't want to call them liberals because I don't think that's a term that's earned, but I will say that the one thing the left is correct about is that Trump and Le Pen and Geert Wilders is that they are reactionaries. This is a reaction. The question is a reaction to what? The answer is a century of progressivism that has never been popular in a pure democratic sense in any Western country. This has always been imposed from the top down and has never arisen from the bottom up, and people don't like it. There's still a pulse, there's still a heartbeat that says I want transgender people to be treated well and to have happy lives but I don't think it is the momentous issue of the day where they go to the bathroom, for God's sake. We've reached a point where left and right doesn't matter and that heartbeat, that pulse does matter. 

Peter Lavelle:

I don't want to give the transgender point more time than it deserves, but that's the point, isn't it? This is what people are told to talk about and think about when the infrastructure of Europe is in decay, when the infrastructure of America is in decay, and we need more space for those issues and I will never stop talking about the need for people to have work and well paid work, because that's where you get dignity in our society and I don't see our political classes addressing those issues. 

Kees Van Der Pijl:

In 2012 Francois Hollande was elected on the promise that he would end austerity. One trip to Berlin was sufficient to forget about that promise and gay marriage was then the compensating factor. It cost him the Muslim vote in France which he had won because of his promises on the economic front. I am of the left and am in a university but in the 1960s our relevance was not because of our brilliant ideas because behind that was a powerful working class which was unionised. Behind that was the Soviet Union which is unrelated but it was there, and now we can have fantastic ideas but there is nothing behind us and that is why we are completely ignored.

Peter Lavelle:

One thing that seems to be prevalent in all of this in the US elections and now Europe is the lack of introspection on what has gone wrong and all you do is blame Russia for it. That is one of the most pathetic reactions to not knowing what to do and not owning up to your own mistakes.

John Laughland:

It just enters psychiatric territory, doesn't it, when every single conceivable evil is projected onto Russia with no evidence whatever. I think that this is a consequence of a more general trend. What I said just now quoting Andrew Breitbart that politics is downstream of culture, I was referring to what I believe to be a left wing political culture in universities, but there is a cultural problem in more general terms. As education has declined, as people have fewer cultural references and fewer external cultural references, as they have fewer religious references, they just don't have the fabric, the intellectual or moral or spiritual fabric to do anything other than what the herd -  the political herd or the political caste - tell them to do. So you have this narrowing of the cultural base and you have an ever increasing series of taboos ...

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

Jews are also victims of the matriarchy

Israeli women lie in divorce, 99% commit perjury

Keith Joseph and Maurice Glasman were Jews who sacrificed their careers and became victims of the matriarchy to speak what they believed to be the truth.

Do not blame Jews for the insanity of our matriarchy. Blame the matriarchy itself consisting mostly of white middle class feminazis in public life who despise men of their own class and in the class beneath them.
Howard Flight echoes Keith Joseph's 1974 warning that 'our human stock is threatened' 

Joseph's hopes of reaching the top were killed off by his 1974 speech.

Asked by the Daily Telegraph's Mary Riddell whether he would support a total ban on immigration, even if just for a temporary period, Lord Glasman replied, "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

In response to a further question on whether he supported Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith's call for British jobs for British workers, he responded, ""Completely. The people who live here are the highest priority. We've got to listen and be with them. They're in the right place -- it's us who are not."

Labour Justice spokeswoman Helen Goodman circulated a critique of Blue Labour to all members of the Parliamentary Labour Party in which she claimed, "[Glasman] characterises as female all the aspects of New Labour he dislikes, whereas all the characteristics he applauds he draws as male. It looks more like something suitable for the psychotherapists' couch than a political tract."

Feminism causes anti-Semitism (as well as degeneracy, dementia, immigration and paedophilia) 

The saving grace of a patriarchy

Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Blame their useless bloody mothers.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Interesting how there are some harsh female critics commenting. How sad. Until you have suffered the way some females do, it's probably best to not pass judgement.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew What the actual fuck? ↑
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw is a very effective way of shaming sluts, don't you think?
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Lol. Women hating is regressive and not the way forward. Some people always feel the need need to bring religion into issues. Yawn.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Your pertinence to this particular citation is?
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Bad parenting is caused mainly by unmarried mothers who are by definition fornicating sluts referred to in
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Oh my! I think our conversation is well and truly over my dear. I had hoped there would have been some intellectual depth or factual intonation to your ascertations, but sadly not. Bon nuit.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I have presented you with the incontrovertible fact that bad mothering comes mainly from unmarried mothers who give birth to bastards whom they parent badly.

This is undeniable.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw
Single Mothers are talked about in glowing terms for their hard-work, determination…
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Lol. As a psychotherapist I find you rather disturbing. Sleep well.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Have I said anything that is untrue, illogical or immoral? If so, please explain.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw This story is about unmarried mothers who are parasitic sluts too shameless to buy their daughters sanitary products because they have spent the money on alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.

The matriarchy is now asking male taxpayers to pay for the sanitary products of the misbegotten bastards of parasitic sluts.

Martin seems happy to cough up, however.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew Yes, it's bullshit. I work as a therapist with children and nothing of the hatred towards single Mothers's rings true. Go do some experiential fact finding rather than hate filled scaremongering. What kind of person refers to a child as a bastard.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Are you saying that the mothers of your clients are unmarried single mothers?

How then can they afford your fees?

Does the married male taxpayer pay for your psychiatric services to these children of unmarried mothers who have parented them so badly they are in need of your psychiatric services?

This is the perfect example of res ipsa loquitur.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If your parents were never married to each other, then you are bastard. That has always been the definition of a bastard.
Claire Matthew
Claire Matthew You are a deluded, angry and very disturbed person. I will not engage with you anymore. Waving bye bye.......
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If you want to criticise undesirable behaviour then it is necessary to condemn it no uncertain terms.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw You seem to have no respect for the institution of marriage at all. You must be a feminist.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Everything about feminism undermines marriage and without marriage the patriarchy cannot exist.

It must therefore be assumed that it is the *intention* of feminists to undermine marriage in order to undermine the patriarchy.

Once you undermine the patriarchy, you undermine the nation and its civilisation.

Feminists are never nationalists because they don't give a damn about the long term national interest.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw In a patriarchy the misbegotten bastards of parasitical sluts would be fewer, and male taxpayers would never be expected to pay for their sanitary products. That is one of the saving graces of the patriarchy.