Translate

Monday 30 April 2018

Have a smaller state, have a theocracy that will eradicate feminism


Friday 27 April 2018

Religion, nationalism and patriarchy


Wednesday 25 April 2018

Will Simon Franks change the name of his company from "Project One Movement for UK" to "Project One Party Theocracy Movement for UK"?



Tuesday 24 April 2018

The White Man and the Seven Deadly Sins


The brain drain of the white race





I have been saying for years that sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society and the only protection against this is the practice of slut-shaming that is required by any religion that promotes patriarchal moral values. These would be the five world religions, but as you know, all religions can be subverted once they ignore their own rules and people either don't notice or don't care.

The sexually-liberated atheist is more prone to doing this than a Jew or a Muslim because Jews and Muslims are more likely to know about the prohibition against premarital sex than the atheist, even if they do not agree with it.

The trouble with nationalists is that they are atheist antisemites and Islamophobes who would rather die than even be seen to be investigating the religion of those they hate and fear with any show of objective impartiality.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage. Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage. Without the patriarchy, not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest. If Western men were mostly Christian husbands and fathers of legitimate offspring, they wouldn't and needn't put up with the matriarchy for even a minute.

Without the family and a functioning religion, men are atomised and competing against each other for the sexual favours of immoral women, incapable of co-operating with each other to deal with their internal enemies: sluts and socialists.

Without patriarchy there is no hierarchy and therefore no accountability.

A matriarchy is basically buck-passing politicians who will blame other buck-passing politicians where the apparent leader is really not in control of anything and cannot rely on the loyalty of beta males to support him. This makes him cowardly, hesitant and cautious and also means nothing much will be done in Trump's term of office.

Without patriarchy, no one in a senior political position will stick his neck out to defend the beta males below. Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph tried to point out the obvious, but had their careers destroyed.

Because courage and truth is not rewarded, no more politicians will speak it on your behalves.

Not only is pointing out the obvious unrewarded, it will get you ignored even by the people who are supposed to be on your side who cannot bear to accept the truth either.

The problem with atheism is that the atheist can only think in terms of his own life and does not care what happens after he is dead, especially if he has no biological investment in the next generation.

Most white nationalists are atheist unmarriageable bachelors which means they are easily intimidated and bribed.

Without religion, there is no possibility of enjoying the inter-generational co-operation that Jews and Muslims enjoy which means each generation of nationalists has to more or less reinvent the wheel.

Often, I feel that nationalists of the previous generation would actually hate to see the younger generation succeed where they have failed.

As far as the younger generation are concerned, they are now so atomised that they cannot form a political party or even discuss anything other than what they imagine their YouTube subscribers want to hear.

And this is why none of them will talk to me. It is abuse of power really, but they don't see anything wrong with that either.

If you really are a political activist, you owe it to your cause to seek the truth and operate on logic, guided by your principles. This is the very least that is required.

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.

Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.

Intellectual corruption leads to the inability to form logical conclusions based on indisputable facts and solve political problems guided by moral principles. Only those from a religious background practising family values would have internalised the categorical imperative to have principles and follow them. The illegitimate, singly parented and the badly schooled will find this almost impossible to do, however patient you are with him. Believe me, I have tried.

The degenerate who has difficulty understanding the nature and purpose of principles will have greater difficulty applying them if they their morality is non-existent. Most of them will have difficulty even recognising a situation when the exercise of principle is required, because they are accustomed to responding instinctively and thoughtlessly to the promptings of their baser appetites. If sex is offered, they will take it, even if they have already said they are not looking for a relationship and would even agree with you that immoral women who are also bad parents of illegitimate offspring cause the social problems of immigration they are always complaining about.

Such degenerates are only left with denial, apathy and the stated intention to leave the country if it all gets too much to bear.  

The Vortex—A Wicked Plot

Friday 20 April 2018

Singapore's next Prime Minister (probably) gives remoaners a dressing down on the Today Programme and also some well-meant advice


Could this very impressive Singaporean politician be the next Prime Minister of Singapore?



From 2:31

Justin Webb:

The 200th anniversary of the founding of Singapore is next year and to mark it there is going to be a new and substantive partnership between Singapore and the UK - that is what we are told. What might that mean though in a post-Brexit world, in particular of course what's going to happen to trade. The Singapore-EU Trade Agreement is going to come into force next year. Will we be part of that? The Minister for Foreign Affairs in the government of Singapore is going to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and he is here in the studio. What is status of that trade deal with the EU because it took a long time to arrange. Is it now definitely now coming into action?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Ah well, there's still one more step: it needs to be ratified. We hope that will be done some time later this year and then we can bring it into force next year.

Justin Webb:

And if it comes into force next year it comes at a ticklish time, doesn't it [provocative giggle], because Britain in theory at least probably in practice is going out of the European Union and involved then in a transition arrangement - a set of transition arrangements - in the EU. Is that going to be part of the ...

Vivian Balakrishnan:

[interrupting firmly] No, in fact that's all the more reason why it is important to get it done this year. If we can get it ratified and into force next year, then when Britain leaves or invokes the Brexit clause, we will make what we call continuity arrangements which will allow us to support the provisions of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement to Britain. 

Justin Webb:

[provocatively] Are you happy to do that?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Yes, we will be happy to do that.

Justin Webb:

Because the argument has been in the past that those supporting arrangements wouldn't always be so easy, for instance with South Korea where actually it is a different set of arrangements and there might be different things that you want to be included in those arrangements. You're saying not so?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, Britain and Singapore have a special relationship. We're both free traders. We believe in integration, we believe in economic interdependence and we are keen to help Britain get across this transition with minimal disruption. In due time we can subsequently look to upgrade, modify or improve the agreement, but it is very important in this transition period not to have a hard stop.

Justin Webb:

So all the benefits of the free trade arrangement that you will have between Singapore and the EU will continue to be felt by Britain after Britain has left the European Union. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

That's our hope. Now obviously it depends on the EU making that offer to allow for the continuity arrangements. It depends on the UK also agreeing to this, but I am indicating that Singapore is open for business and we want to maintain ... 

Justin Webb:

Just fill out why the EU is involved in that decision. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, Britain is still part of the EU.

Justin Webb:

No, but once it has left.  

Vivian Balakrishnan:

This offer for continuity at this point in time needs to be made by the EU to us so that's not  something which the United Kingdom needs to settle with the EU in order for this continuity arrangement to be made. But what we are signalling unequivocably is that we want our trade relations with the United Kingdom to continue, to continue without disruption and in fact to build upon it.

Justin Webb:

[persistently] One of the big things that people talk about is the difficulties of these arrangements and it's been mentioned with South Korea and other countries as well is this highly complex areas such as Rules of Origin where something that is made in a country but comes into that country from other places can or cannot be counted as an export form that country. Is that an issue in this?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Not really for us. You know, Singapore has got about 21 free trade arrangements and another three subject to rectification and we are also negotiating another half a dozen or more. These issues with Rules of Origin, I mean, that's a whole body of negotiations which we can rely on, so I don't expect this to be an issue.

Justin Webb:

[desperately] A high quality car, an expensive car exported at the moment from Britain to Singapore, made right around Europe, bits of it coming from all sorts of countries - when Britain has left the European Union - assuming it does - you're saying there won't be an issue about the fact of that car built in other places?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

During the continuity period, we will follow the same Rules of Origin that are currently agreed on in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. So I don't view that as a problem.  

Justin Webb:

People often talk about the choices Britain has to make now and one of the choices is to become a kind of Singapore and becoming a kind of Europe. You laugh. Why?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

I don't think the analogy is in any way appropriate. Singapore is a tiny city-state, a small low-lying island in the heart of South East Asia. The United Kingdom is on a completely different scale, and you're located in a completely different part of the world with different challenges and opportunities. [reprovingly] I think the question of Brexit is something for the UK voters and the UK voters have decided.  

Justin Webb:

[even more desperately] But don't you think this is an attitude of mind - because there is now a division in this country between those who say we should become a much freer trading country and a much more open country and a country perhaps with fewer safety nets etc and that is how people see Singapore whether or not that is actually the case and those who sort of want to go down the European route really and we're doing the complete opposite. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, if you don't mind, since this is a Commonwealth meeting. [Reminding the British of their own history] It is worth reflecting that the Commonwealth exists because the Industrial Revolution began in England three centuries ago, and, if you think about the Commonwealth, and if you recall the old system of Imperial Preferences - the Commonwealth was a trading bloc. The key ingredient for the future is mastering the technological revolution that's occurring now and then maintaining an open inclusive rules-based approach to trade, movement of people ideas - that's how you create future jobs. You're absolutely right: it is about a frame of mind. [He left unsaid "and your government is not in the right frame of mind to do this because you are degenerates and headless chickens without a hope in hell of promoting the national interest because this concept is not even on your political horizon."] So I'm not so much caught up with the details of Brexit but the mindset and attitude. To understand that there is another new technological revolution occurring now, and the most important thing is to make sure our people have the skills, the qualifications for tomorrow's jobs, not arguing about yesterday's technology and yesterday's arrangements. Now, in the same way, from Singapore, you need to understand that we have a very unique perspective. We're the fourth largest financial centre, the second busiest port in the world. For us, our trading volume is three times our GDP. No one else in the world has that kind of ratio. For us, when we say we believe in free trade, it's not a negotiating point, it's our lifeblood [not something we just pay lip service to, unlike you]. 

Justin Webb:

[Possibly a little ashamed of himself after being reproved for his obvious agenda to get the Singaporean Foreign Minister to make trouble over Brexit for his own country and for his arrant disloyalty by a former colonial subject] Dr Balakrishnan, thank you.  

Thursday 19 April 2018

Neoconservatism is just another name for American imperialism

Leo Strauss says Classical Liberalism is the religion of American imperialism, but where is its scripture and what are its principles?

Before Conservatism, the political parties were divided between Whig and Tory. The Tories were represented by the owners of land, and the Whigs came to represent the new rich of the Industrial Revolution in favour of free trade to better sell their wares in the British Empire.

The new rich got their way when the Corn Laws were repealed which allowed them cheap imported corn for the urban proletariat.

Classical Liberalism is really Conservatism, and Conservatism was created as a defence against the ideas of the French Revolution. What the French Revolutionaries were rebelling against was the Catholic clergy. It can be deduced therefore that Conservatism was really Theocracy Lite, "lite" because it was a synthesis of the old hierarchical and patriarchal ideas of the Bible and the revolutionary idea of egalitarianism.

It is probably time to consider whether we should just have the real thing and stop pretending we know better than scripture when we are only in the mess we're in because we have ignored what are said to be God's commandments. At least with established religions their scripture does not change while what we think is our political ideology is altered with as much frequency as the leader of a political party changes his mind about something or, sometimes more frequently.

God's laws were laid down long ago and, being omniscient and morally perfect, if He exists, He does not make mistakes. A theocracy would at least stop the laws from changing so frequently because our law-makers keep making mistakes and changing their minds.

When once the Church of England was considered to be the Tory Party at area, the Tory Party is now on record of having a Prime Minister that legalised gay marriage.

We need the rules to be clear and stay the same just as we need the day to be 24 hours long and the week to be 7 days long.

The moral chaos we now have is directly related to the frequency of how often our political leaders change their minds. Women, you may have noticed, change their minds more often than men, many Western world leaders are now clueless childless women, and many Western leaders are men afraid of women.

No good will come of this.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Leo_Strauss_Neoconservative

Sunday 15 April 2018

Millennial Woes and I define the alt-right



Millennial Woes attempts to answer the question "What do you define as the alt-right?"

Nonsensically, he says the alt-right are:

people on the right, broadly ... maybe not in the sense of being economically right-wing, but definitely in the sense of believing in hierarchy. We are not egalitarians, we do not believe in equality. We believe in Khaw Things like Khaw Nature and race and race is part of that. We don't believe that you can be ignore the conditions that you were born into and born with and we don't believe that you should because it is a Khaw Part of you and if you deny it, you are denying it.  You're deluding yourself and everyone else. In other words, identity is not wholly constructed. It would be difficult to come up with a percentage to which you can construct your identity. You do throughout your time and your life but you've always got the stuff that you were born into as well. 

Attempting to sum up, he says, the alt-right are:

people on the right in terms of things that used to characterise Conservatism a long time ago, like before the 20th century. Conservatives were people who believed in land, nation, kith and kin, community and hierarchy. So the alt-right is just a revival of an ancient form of Conservatism, an old form of Conservatism, but also it is not wholly right-wing [looking increasingly confused and nervous taking a sip from his empty mug which he uses as a prop when trying to hide his confusion and nervousness] definitely in terms of economics, but also in terms of lifestyle, technology. We're not just a bunch of nutters who want to erase this stuff in order to return to the land 100%, but again that is very difficult to characterise the movement as a whole. The movement is very difficult to characterise as  a whole. 

He admits he is not having much luck with the question and says he will move on. Then, recognising that he of all people should be able to define the alt-right, he apologises for his poor performance, and tries again:

Obviously, it's a controversial movement because it takes as a given that race is real and that races are different intrinsically or they may as well be different intrinsically because the differences are reinforced culturally because people care about their identity so much that they might as well be genetically bound to those characteristics that are associated with that identity.
In other words, you'd struggle to beat the collectivism out of a Chinese person whether it's genetic or not because that is part of their identity, it is part of how they see themselves, how they have been raised, how they will honour their ancestors and so on. 

His use of the analogy of struggling to beat the "collectivism" out of the Chinese is curious. He may have a problem with Chinese people because of me, but he may be using the Chinese as a substitute for Jews or Muslims since he is also obviously antisemitic and Islamophobic as well as racist.

If Millennial Woes wants to penalise collectivist Chinese, Jewish or Muslim behaviour by beating the hell out of them - and it would not be too far-fetched to imagine him wishing to do so - then that would have the effect of discouraging the Chinese from worshipping their ancestors, the Jews from practising male circumcision and the Muslims from their prostrations.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10445-martyrdom-restriction-of

"All negative commandments of the Bible, except those with regard to idolatry, adultery, and murder, may be transgressed if there is danger of life" (Sanh. 74a; Yer. Sanh. iii. 6; Yer. Sheb. iv. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 55a).

https://quran.com/16/106

Muslims are allowed to renounce their faith under duress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya allows being economical with the truth, which British politicians have been known to joke about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economical_with_the_truth

In Islam, Taqiya or taqiyya, literally "prudence, fear") is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.
If Millennial Woes beats the hell out of the Chinese for worshipping their ancestors, it wouldn't affect the Chinese that much in the long term as long as married Chinese couples still tried to produce an heir and a spare.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-to-become-hungry-ghost.html

Millennial Woes is basically saying that if you ain't white, gentile and Islamophobic, you can't join the alt-right. I am saying it doesn't really matter what he says because he is not the Pope of the alt-right.

Alt-right just means nationalists without a party forced to go on YouTube to get their message across because it is easier than joining a political party and doing boring stuff that is nothing to do with getting likes and subscribes on your YouTube channel.

My definition of the alt-right:


"Do you see a relation between the alt-right and religion? Since the alt-right is so societally focused, do you see religion as having a role in organising that?"

"I don't really understand the second part of that question," says Millennial Woes.

Obviously, the question is about whether the alt-right could be more effective if it used religion. My answer is yes, of course, if it uses Secular Koranism - a legal system like EU law and not a political system - to unite social conservatives of all races and religions to overthrow the matriarchy and shoo the feminazis out of public life in the West and then impose a one party theocracy.

In answer to the first part, he says:

Not really. There are Catholics, there are Protestants, and there are pagans and there are atheists. There are multiple relationships so no one single relationship. I don't think by its nature it is an atheistic movement, but I don't think it is by its nature a religious movement necessarily. I think it is a  movement that believes in elevating men, Man, people, humans and in that sense you could perhaps call it religious, but that's reaching a bit. I think the alt-right as a movement is fairly indifferent to religion. There are people who obsess over the Middle Eastern origins of Christianity and see that as something that has to be purged and flushed out but then there are people who are hardcore Catholics and Orthodox.

If Millennial Woes were taking question from me instead of blocking me on https://ask.fm/oneparty4all, I would have asked him the following:


  1. Is the rise of the alt-right linked to the failure of Christianity?
  2. Did you know that Conservatism has no declared principles that any Conservative politician can agree on or is prepared to implement? 
  3. Did you know that Conservatism was an ideology created in reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution after the Enlightenment made it impractical for Britain to return to the kind of Christianity Britain practised after the Americans quarantined the church from the state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States 
  4. Is Conservatism really "Theocracy Lite"?
  5. Is Conservatism about preserving patriarchy through marriage as an institution?
  6. Is marriage the only way to preserve patriarchy? 
  7. Is patriarchy the only kind of society capable of producing enough good strong men to defend the national interest?
  8. Is nationalism - the ideology of protecting the national interest - only possible under a patriarchy?
  9. Would you agree that a patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers?
  10. Would you agree that a matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who badly parent their variously fathered illegitimate offspring producing the next generation of unemployable criminals causing a demand for foreign labour from businesses which all governments of all mainstream political parties feels they must satisfy?
  11. Would you agree that feminism causes immigration?
  12. Would you agree that feminism bribes men with fornication to keep men quiescent under the matriarchy?
  13. If religion used to be the opium of the people, is extramarital sex now its replacement in our Age of Atheism?
  14. Is shaming sluts the only way of restoring the patriarchy?
  15. Are the alt-right afraid of challenging feminism because they fear the consequences of having sexual access to feminists withdrawn? 
  16. Are virtually all women in the West now feminists?
  17. Can you be a feminist without condoning fornication?
  18. Does everything about feminism undermine marriage and by extension patriarchy?
  19. Is patriarchy impossible without marriage?
  20. Is the sexual liberation promoted by feminism a mortal threat to patriarchy?
  21. If the West had men who are mostly Christian husbands and fathers, would they be putting up with Transnational Progressivism and uncontrolled immigration? 
  22. If Christianity has failed, must it be replaced?
  23. If Christianity must be replaced, should it be with Islam?
  24. If Christianity must be replaced, but not with Islam, what religion should be used?
  25. Can white people really do without a religion when their enemies as you see them - Jews and Muslims - have their own?  
  26. Could nationalism ever succeed without something more than the idea of expelling Jews, non-whites and Muslims from the West?
  27. Is the failure of Christianity evidenced by the triumph of feminism?
  28. Which is more likely: that the West is re-Christianised or that it is Islamified?
  29. Is your unwillingness to discuss the obvious solution to the failure of Christianity and the need to replace it with a functioning and effective religion capable of restoring the patriarchy by maintaining decent standards of sexual morality due to the fact that most alt-right YouTubers and their followers are unmarriageable men who do not want to think about marriage because they already know no decent woman will marry them?  
  30. If the white men can no longer contemplate making the sacrifices of marriage in order to properly parent  the next generation, how are they going to arrest the degeneracy of the white race?

Friday 13 April 2018

Assad Didn't Do It - Faked Syrian Gas Attack



https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/11/idiocy-bringing-end-world/

Paul Craig  Roberts:

If you were the president of France or the prime minister of the UK, would you permit criminally insane Washington to drag you into military conflict with Russia? 

I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t either. So what’s with Macron and May? What’s with the French and British governments? What’s with the French and British media? I read recently that former UK Labour prime minister Tony Blair is now worth $100 million, his payoff for lying to the UK government and people in order to support the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. Have Macron and May been promised the same?

It makes no sense for the UK and French governments to make themselves targets of a military power against which they have no possibility of defense. It makes no sense that their peoples and media sit silently while one French president and one British prime minister endanger not only France and the UK but the entirety of Europe. What’s with the European Union? There is only silence as Europe, and the world with it, are taken to the brink of annihiliation. This makes no sense. 

People in Ghouta, doctors in Ghouta, and Russian experts who have arrived on the scene report that there is no sign of any chemical attack. Not only did Syria not use chemical weapons against the civilians that it liberated, there was no chemical attack, not even a false flag one staged by the US supported mercenaries who have been driven out of Ghouta by the Syrian Army. In other words, the chemical attack is entirely a hoax.

To keep the hoax from being confirmed by independent investigation, Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to send in neutral experts to evaluate the claim of chemical attack. Why would Washington prevent an investigation that would prove Washington’s allegation? Clearly, Washington would only prevent an investigation that would disprove the false allegation. There is no doubt whatsoever that Washington’s allegation is false and is being used as an excuse to force Russia to fight or to accept Washington’s hegemony in the Middle East.

What if there was a chemical attack? Why does it matter to people who are killed whether it was by bullets, bombs, missiles, or chemicals? Why is it so bad to use chemicals instead of Hellfire missiles? Why is it OK for Washington and Israel to blow up schools, hospitals, weddings, funerals, market places, and homes full of women and children with missiles, but not OK to kill people with chemicals? Why is it worth starting World War 3 over a hoax chemical weapons attack or a real one?

Americans, for the most part a clueless people, have no awareness of the risk that the criminally insane government in Washington is taking with their lives. What if the Russians mean what they say and do not again turn the other cheek and back down? What happens if Russia replies to force with force?

Why is it that only a few Internet sites are asking this question?

Thursday 12 April 2018

The reality of blood and soil, race and empire

What the original people of an empire must understand is that once an empire has acquired enough land and peoples, the descendants of the people who did all the fighting will not get the credit if they suffer from degeneracy. It is the descendants of the peoples acquired who will end up receiving preferment because they are more anxious to please their imperial masters.

There must be parents who prefer their adopted children more than their own offspring if the former is industrious and deferential while the latter lazy and insolent.

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...