Translate

Tuesday 31 October 2017

Two questions an antisemitic and Islamophobic British nationalist refused to answer

Which ideology most harms British nationalists?

a)  Islam
b)  Judaism
c) Feminism



Am I right in thinking that even if you knew for a fact that feminism is to blame for all the social problems of uncontrolled immigration and crime, you would still continue to blame Jews/Muslims/other races because it is easier to get the alt-right to hate Jews/Muslims/other races than it is to get them to give up feminism?

Antisemitic video recommended to me by an antisemitic Catholic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h2iT3gmqA&bpctr=1509440521


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_the_actress_to_the_bishop




Saturday 28 October 2017

Judaism’s wisdom, according to Rabbi Sacks, can be vital in planting the seeds that will lead to a renewal of the West

https://tikvahfund.org/library/podcast-jonathan-sacks-creative-minorities/


Why the Pilgrim Fathers left England


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes


Huge Republic of Ireland vote for gay marriage


African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby

Homophobia must not be tolerated in schools, Church of England says

Justin Welby to Worried Christian Couple: Transgender Children at School 'Not a Problem'


Most female voters in the UK are fornicatresses. This is evidenced at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html


Sir Paul Coleridge: how to let a lesbian feminist walk all over you when you are trying to promote marriage






White Man's Burden The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical




http://www.aei.org/publication/2017-irving-kristol-award-recipient-rabbi-lord-jonathan-sacks-remarks/


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Those truths are anything but self-evident. They would have been unintelligible to Plato, to Aristotle, or to every hierarchical society the world has ever known. They are self-evident only to people, to Jews and Christians, who have internalized the Hebrew Bible. And that is what made G. K. Chesterton call America “a nation with the soul of a church.”



Don't Muslims think that God has given them inalienable legal rights as contained in the Koran?



http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/my-questions-for-rabbi-sacks-which-i.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton


http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-ACohen.cfm



Thursday 26 October 2017

The moral and philosophical problem of the West

The problem with the West is moral and philosophical. America is behaving like Britain and Austria in the last days of their empire: brutish belligerence bordering on dementia and hysteria.
Once you understand that no one rational or moral is in charge of the West, you will finally understand the problem. Everything America does is a reaction to its hallucinations and the lies Westerners tell themselves. Their enemy is internal, between their ears and between their legs.

Fat Shaming & Slut Shaming are GOOD

Monday 23 October 2017

As a Muslim I want to Apologize to David Irving

Claire Khaw on Nancy Fraser on The Problem of Feminism

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal?CMP=share_btn_tw



TRANSLATION AND SUMMARY OF NANCY FRASER ON FEMINSM

Feminism is the worship of Mammon.


In a cruel twist of fate, I fear that the movement for women's liberation has become entangled in a dangerous liaison with neoliberal efforts to build a free-market society. That would explain how it came to pass that feminist ideas that once formed part of a radical worldview are increasingly expressed in individualist terms. Where feminists once criticised a society that promoted careerism, they now advise women to "lean in". A movement that once prioritised social solidarity now celebrates female entrepreneurs. A perspective that once valorised "care" and interdependence now encourages individual advancement and meritocracy.

As I was saying, feminism is the worship of Mammon. 

What lies behind this shift is a sea-change in the character of capitalism. The state-managed capitalism of the postwar era has given way to a new form of capitalism – "disorganised", globalising, neoliberal. Second-wave feminism emerged as a critique of the first but has become the handmaiden of the second.

Gender equality and sexual liberation has caused gender confusion.


With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that the movement for women's liberation pointed simultaneously to two different possible futures. In a first scenario, it prefigured a world in which gender emancipation went hand in hand with participatory democracy and social solidarity; in a second, it promised a new form of liberalism, able to grant women as well as men the goods of individual autonomy, increased choice, and meritocratic advancement. Second-wave feminism was in this sense ambivalent. Compatible with either of two different visions of society, it was susceptible to two different historical elaborations.

Feminist principles - if you can call them that - are so ambiguous and confusing even feminist intellectuals - if you can call them that - get confused and get it very very wrong.

As I see it, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in recent years in favour of the second, liberal-individualist scenario – but not because we were passive victims of neoliberal seductions. On the contrary, we ourselves contributed three important ideas to this development. 

Most mothers hate their jobs and would rather not have two jobs. Even the most dedicated of career women lose interest in their career after they have sprogged. Most men and women hate their jobs. Previously, most men hated their jobs. Now most women also hate their jobs. This is how feminism makes men and women miserable and causes your society to suffer from degeneracy, disorder and dementia caused by marital and family breakdown. Feminism is a disease of the mind that rots your morals and ability to reason.

One contribution was our critique of the "family wage": the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family that was central to state-organised capitalism. Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate "flexible capitalism". After all, this form of capitalism relies heavily on women's waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities. As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism's ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family.

Feminism has caused a marked decrease in the productivity and competitiveness of the West as well as the wholesale demoralisation of the male workforce.

Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Neoliberalism turns a sow's ear into a silk purse by elaborating a narrative of female empowerment. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, it harnesses the dream of women's emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.

I have no idea what the fucking fuck Nancy Fraser is trying to say in this paragraph, I'm afraid. 

Feminism has also made a second contribution to the neoliberal ethos. In the era of state-organised capitalism, we rightly criticised a constricted political vision that was so intently focused on class inequality that it could not see such "non-economic" injustices as domestic violence, sexual assault and reproductive oppression. Rejecting "economism" and politicising "the personal", feminists broadened the political agenda to challenge status hierarchies premised on cultural constructions of gender difference. The result should have been to expand the struggle for justice to encompass both culture and economics. But the actual result was a one-sided focus on "gender identity" at the expense of bread and butter issues. Worse still, the feminist turn to identity politics dovetailed all too neatly with a rising neoliberalism that wanted nothing more than to repress all memory of social equality. In effect, we absolutised the critique of cultural sexism at precisely the moment when circumstances required redoubled attention to the critique of political economy. 

The welfare state is now the daddy and hubby of the parasitic fornicating slut with illegitimate offspring.

Finally, feminism contributed a third idea to neoliberalism: the critique of welfare-state paternalism. Undeniably progressive in the era of state-organised capitalism, that critique has since converged with neoliberalism's war on "the nanny state" and its more recent cynical embrace of NGOs. A telling example is "microcredit", the programme of small bank loans to poor women in the global south. Cast as an empowering, bottom-up alternative to the top-down, bureaucratic red tape of state projects, microcredit is touted as the feminist antidote for women's poverty and subjection. What has been missed, however, is a disturbing coincidence: microcredit has burgeoned just as states have abandoned macro-structural efforts to fight poverty, efforts that small-scale lending cannot possibly replace. In this case too, then, a feminist idea has been recuperated by neoliberalism. A perspective aimed originally at democratising state power in order to empower citizens is now used to legitimise marketisation and state retrenchment. 

Feminism caused neoliberalism but feminists and their running dogs want to keep it going because they can't see that it is against the National Interest and wouldn't care even if they did. Degenerates cannot grasp and do not care about abstract ideas such as Truth, Reason, Morality, Posterity, Honour etc. (Indeed, feminists even want to abolish the term "honour crime".)

In all these cases, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in favour of (neo)liberal individualism. But the other, solidaristic scenario may still be alive. The current crisis affords the chance to pick up its thread once more, reconnecting the dream of women's liberation with the vision of a solidary society. To that end, feminists need to break off our dangerous liaison with neoliberalism and reclaim our three "contributions" for our own ends. 

And this is why we need more feminism, yay!

First, we might break the spurious link between our critique of the family wage and flexible capitalism by militating for a form of life that de-centres waged work and valorises unwaged activities, including – but not only – carework. Second, we might disrupt the passage from our critique of economism to identity politics by integrating the struggle to transform a status order premised on masculinist cultural values with the struggle for economic justice. Finally, we might sever the bogus bond between our critique of bureaucracy and free-market fundamentalism by reclaiming the mantle of participatory democracy as a means of strengthening the public powers needed to constrain capital for the sake of justice. 

Sunday 22 October 2017

Millennial predictions of race war and the triumph of the white race


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world1

The rest of the talk is about how this is to be achieved, and then it struck me that while the Jews and Muslims have their social organisations and places of worship as well as their schools to teach their children how to be Jewish and Muslim adults. The fatherless white prole will grow up into the angry white man because of his fornicating slut of an unmarried mother. He will have no safe space other than the pub that he can these days barely afford to visit, and even then he will be forced to endure unmarried mothers bringing their illegitimate children into his nearest branch of Wetherspoons getting sozzled while their mixed race children run riot.

Worst of all, he will probably not be able to find a woman either of his own race or another race to marry him because he is skint, scared and stupid and because even his own government has utterly abandoned him.

These days, most fatherless white proles go to sink schools where they have underage sex, deal drugs and bully each other, sometimes to suicide and homicide.

In the UK grammar schools are stuffed with the white middle class, but mostly the non-white children of ambitious non-white parents.

Basically, privileged white middle class women in positions of influence despise white men, especially if these white men are in the class below them.

Tory MPs think it is the job of Labour MPs to look after the proles, but the only proles that get looked after are the ones who are trade union members whose unions fund the Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn the leader of the Labour Party will be too clueless and pussywhipped to speak up for these men.

Millennial Woes did not mention that Keith Joseph who was Jewish and Tory Prime Minister in waiting said some pertinent and eugenic things in his Edgbaston speech in 1974 that "our human stock is threatened". However, he had his career destroyed for daring to criticise unmarried single mothers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron

Lord Glasman also Jewish tried to say propose BNP-esque policies as the ideas man for Blue Labour but also had his career destroyed in the process when feminazi Helen Goodman got wind of this.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/07/blue-labour-maurice-glasman

Compare these rather selfless Jewish men to the treacherous Peter Hitchens whose mother was an adulterous suicide who has already declared that he will never criticise the unmarried mother. 

Peter Hitchens won't condemn the low sexual morals of British women because of how his mother died, I have concluded.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1319183/Stopping-new-unmarried-mothers-benefits-reform-make-richer.html

Peter Hitchens on single mothers:
They should not be condemned
Peter Hitchens is of course a Jew because his mother was a Jewess as well as an adulteress suicide.

Millennial Woes associates with Greg Johnson who has openly declared his intention of expelling Jews from America because Jews are a different race from the gentile.

This is of course unarguable since Jews have already been declared a different and distinctive race in law.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2009/12/faith-schools-jewish-jfs

The argument that Jews constitute an ethnic group under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986 was an important factor in a trial in Leeds this year, in which two men were convicted of inciting racial hatred against Jews. 
https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/reframing-the-jewish-question/

Greg Johnson:
Some White Nationalists don’t want to hear it. But even so, as I have argued here, they still have to face up to the Jewish question. Because if Jews are nothing more than a distinct people, then ethnonationalists must conclude that Jews belong in their own homeland, not in ours. It is as simple as that.

The sad thing about the alt-right they are not very well-educated and those who are reasonably well-educated who lead them are unwise and dishonourable.

Note how Millennial Woes behaves as if he is a dictator issuing decrees or at any rate a stern headmaster telling what he expects of his pupils.

Disappointingly, he did not mention religion at all, a subject that I was most anxious to discuss with him or any other nationalist. I am not so away with the fairies that I do not know that most nationalists are in fear of Islam and that the last thing they want to do is to be made to embrace Islam, though I know some nationalists who have converted. 

He does say that he will deal with religion in a future talk and I must just be patient as to how he will address the point of Christianity being kaput and how the only logical religion left must be Islam because Judaism is for Jews only, whether we like it or not because it cannot be Buddhism or Hinduism, can it? That really would be too ridiculous for words.

Rabbi Ahron Cohen on Zionism and Judaism



The Scofield Bible—The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians By Maidhc Ó Cathail

Had the Scofield Bible never been published, American presidents influenced by Christian Zionism such as Truman, Johnson, Reagan and George W. Bush might have been less sympathetic to Israeli demands, and consequently more attentive to U.S. interests. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._I._Scofield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible



1:51  Rabbi Mizrachi on Christian supersessionism:


Why do you think the Christians support Israel? "We love Israel!" They send tons of money to Netanyahu, why? For their own benefit. They believe JC will come to save the world and they know JC will have to come in Jerusalem - not in New York and not in Nevada. JC will have to come according to their belief in Jerusalem, and JC will speak Hebrew. Not English. Not Chinese. If the Jews are not in Israel strong and  protected against the Arabs who want to slaughter them every minute, then JC will never come. Where is he going to come? In Gaza? As soon as he comes, they'll kill him ... again! That's what they believe. "So we have to help Israel, because we want JC to come! Then JC will take care of the Jews and send them all to hell for not believing in him!" They are not doing it for the Jews, they are doing it for their own good because they want to be saved by JC. This is their dream. They don't understand that JC can never ever be the Messiah because he is not from the family of King David. Condition Number 1: the Messiah must be from the genealogy of King David.

Moral, political and religious disputes

1) A nation consists of tribes.


3) Following or not following your religion can cause or not cause wars.

4) The distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

5) Disagreements about religion and politics are disagreements about morality.

6) When we disagree about morality, we are disagreeing with our opponents about what is and should be.

7) When we disagree about morality/politics/religion, we are disagreeing about a state of affairs as well as what is necessary and fair.

8) In order to avoid violence, what parties to disputes on politics/religion must do is abide by the rules truth, logic and morality.

9) When one party is clearly incapable of being moved by truth, logic or morality, then violence is inevitable, especially if the party that does not want to be persuaded uses censorship to deny truth, logic and morality.

10) When you live in a matriarchy, the government becomes increasingly mendacious, irrational and censorious. (UK citizens should ask themselves the sex of their Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice Secretary and Chairman of the Bar Council.)

11) A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers.

12) A patriarchy is a society that priorities the preferences of married fathers.

13) All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.

14) All primitive and declining societies are matriarchies.

15) Patriarchies are capable of thinking in centuries, matriarchies can only think of gratifying their most immediate physical appetites, and that is why any matriarchy you can think of is already extinct, or about to become extinct. 

16) Belief in an afterlife is the ultimate in deferring gratification, and allowing atheism and feminism encourages short-term thinking and the desire for immediate gratification.

17) Belief in God teaches us that patience and perseverance are virtues, while atheist hedonists resemble vermin who only care about satisfying their most immediate physical appetites of food and sex at the expense of the future and those around them. Such people will not be thinking in centuries or the long term national interest. If they ever had any offspring, they would be illegitimate, and very likely to be estranged from them. 

18) The Culture War now raging is about who whose preferences should take precedence: the preferences of those who would support Patriarchy - a society of mostly married fathers - or the preferences of those who would support Matriarchy - a society of mostly unmarried mothers.You would think that good men who aspire to be married fathers should be able to take back control from those who have no intention of parenting legitimate children, but I think it is a bit touch and go. 

Saturday 21 October 2017

Why women who want to be mothers of legitimate children should be against feminism

Any woman who wants to become a wife and mother of legitimate children should be able to see the harm feminism does her and women like her because feminism makes men unfit for marriage and reluctant to marry.

MY PLAN OF ACTION

1) Say to people who already have legitimate children that Secular Koranism offers them a better society for their children, grandchildren and their descendants. 

2)  Say to people who aspire to have legitimate children that Secular Koranism offers them a better chance of getting married and finding a marriageable spouse.

3)  Say to LGBTs that they can still have the kind of sex that they want provided they don't flaunt their sexuality but that gay marriage and the civil partnership will be abolished, and also inheritance tax. 

4)  Get SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) on board who are at least prepared to admit that they would not have become SSMs if they knew they would suffer 100 lashes per bastard. 

5) Say to people who have no intention of ever becoming parents of legitimate children for whatever reason that they will be tolerated as long as they do not expect to be the equal of parents of legitimate children.

Wednesday 18 October 2017

How Jews, Christians and Muslims should deal with the challenges of secularism



Possession is nine points of the law from 1:34:00

1:34:00  I chime in. 1:37:00  The narrow and wide interpretation of racism 1:40:00  It is racist to say black people are good at sport and d...