THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Critical mass for any idea can in theory only be reached when it is taken up by at least a second person capable of persuading others - unlikely in a nation of senescent degenerate atheist men cowed by feminism, crippled by lust, anger, pride, envy, sloth, gluttony and greed.
Feminised senescent men will not be taking leaps of faith. They don't believe in God, let alone have faith things will turn out well if they stand up for any principle or take any risk. Yet these men think themselves better than Jews and Muslims they are always complaining about.
Because they have no principles and don't think they need them, they will not be capable of feeling shame or acting honourably or even discussing ideas rationally and honestly without telling lies and breaking promises. Such men will be moved only by bribes and threats.
But why a theocracy if you are an atheist or agnostic? The more thoughtful atheist who cares about posterity and has an investment in the next generation would not want to bequeath a hostile environment for marriage and a high crime rate to his descendants,, would he?
If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.
If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.
If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.
Why shouldn't we aspire to live in a nation that is proud of its identity? What exactly is so wrong and evil about this? It is only like every child aspiring to live an independent life, to do what being an adult requires. Why can't we have this without being called fascists?
The US Deep State does not want a world of independent nations having their own foreign policy and so requires us all to be liberal democracies so that it can easily bribe or blackmail key politicians into submitting to it, rig our elections and destabilise our governments.
Interestingly, Russia is technically a liberal democracy, but that is not enough for the American imperialists because, despite being crippled by having to govern under such a system, Putin acts in the Russian national interest and refuses to submit to the neocons.
How much less anxious would you feel if you genuinely felt your government was looking after your national interest, instead of harbouring a distinct suspicion that your robotic childless female puppet leader would not hesitate a moment to sell you for meat if it suited her?
The benefit of having a supreme authority - even if the Abrahamic God does not in fact exist - to appeal to is real indeed. Even if He does not exist, what are said to be laws can easily be found in scripture. And therefore the solution to all the ills of feminism is at hand.
To whom would my solution appeal to? Why, all the previously successful men - from Rolf Harris to Taria Ramadan - who are now being accused of historic sexual offences already knowing that an accusation is now as good as a conviction in the Kangaroo Courts of our Matriarchy.
And so there is a bargain indeed to be struck between Islam and the growing numbers of terrified men with something to lose if an immoral woman falsely and maliciously accuses them of a historic sexual offence. Ya better all start thinking about the deal before you end up in jail
Not only will you end up in jail because some immoral woman falsely and maliciously accused you of a historic sexual offence, your property will be confiscated preventing its transmission to your offspring. The revolution eventually devours its children, you know.
So no, I am not appealing just to the lower classes who are despised and marginalised, illegitimate and under-educated with substance abuse problems, because they have lost their ability to become of part of the labour force. These people have been warehoused for extinction.
One small step to take is to submit to truth, logic and morality, if you know the purpose of morality, and it ain't about getting you to heaven. For me, immortality is a mention in the history books, an occasional nod from posterity, an acknowledgement of achievement, if any.
The benefits of a having a supreme authority would be obvious to any lawyer who has heard of the Supreme Court - the final court of appeal in your legal system. If you were to say God is your final authority, you would have to obey His laws and we know He won't be adding to them.
If you're a libertarian, you'd want your society to have the minimum number of laws and the lowest possible taxes. Feminism in its dementia keeps changing and adding to its laws to disguise its failure and to intimidate opponents. If you want a smaller state, choose theocracy.
A theocracy must logically appeal to those who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring with their spouse. Therefore those who refuse to give up extramarital sex would predictably object to the restoration of the patriarchy which would treat them as sex offenders.
Does any species enjoy sexual liberation? Do their females let them? If they did they too would be extinct, if these females let any passing male impregnate just for the fun of recreational sex without choosing carefully the father of their offspring. Marriage is eugenic.
It is morally obscene, intellectually repugnant to call yourself truthful, rational and moral if you seek dismiss the issues I have raised without discussing them properly. We live in an age of moral obscenity, of intellectual abeyance. There are no rational courageous moral men.
An entire civilisation that does not have a single rational courageous moral man capable of discussing the issues I have raised deserves to become extinct, does it not?
Christianity not only persecuted Jews and Muslims, it persecuted Christians for wrongthink and gloried in obscene executions and tortures to compel people to repeat a lie. Deprived of its power to inflict death, violence and torture, it is now a shadow of its former self, dying.
The most rabid white nationalist seething with antisemitism and Islamophobia cannot bring himself to accept the doctrine of the Trinity even to protect himself, his race and nation against what he thinks is Jewish subversion and Muslim invasion. He finds it actually *repulsive*.
The more rational nationalists I have known convert to Islam, because they see it as protection against what they think is Jewish subversion and control. They are certainly right in thinking that the abolition of usury would curtail Jewish power over the gentile.
If the nationalist were to wander into a church seeking spiritual solace, he would find it infested with women and leftists and sodomite priests. The elderly there would depress him. The C of E actually prefers LGBT priests, cheaper to hire because they won't be having children.
The White Man's religion has failed him, but the only ones he is left with are the religions of his ancestral enemies. The gentile non-Muslim: leaderless, unleadable, fatherless, degenerate, effeminate, unprincipled, easily distracted, easily bribed and all too easily threatened.
The English call it eating humble pie, the Americans call it eating crow. Is the atheist degenerate capable of understanding the nature of his predicament and discussing it with a trusted friend? Does he even have a trusted friend with whom he dares confer, fatherless as he is?
Such a man might seek solace in a mosque, but might be disappointed and enraged when he is rejected and ignored by the brown men there after his conversion. He will not think of scaling the heights of Orthodox Judaism when he cannot even reach base camp.
So what is the White Nationalist to do after considering worshipping the most powerful deity conceivable? He will be left with the pagan deities of long extinct ancient Europeans: the Nordic or Celtic pantheon. At least no one will be competing with him or take them away from him
It bemuses me why the White Nationalist only thinks of worshipping Viking gods. At least the Greeks and Romans worshipped gods that represented abstract ideas: of wisdom, persuasion, love and war. Nationalists - lowly plebs mostly - are invariably not classically educated.
WHY NATIONALISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH RANCOROUS PLEBS Those with a little education are cowards knowing they must not make too many intellectual demands on the plebs because they will quickly turn nasty and possibly violent. So simple repeated hatred is used to reinforce solidarity.
It wouldn't do to bother childless unmarriageable plebs with selective education, marriage and family values because it would only bore and enrage them, so the only permissible activity is to reinforce their hatred of Jews and Muslims and then leaflet their way to victory ...
Those with a little education tend to be charisma-free zones and those with a modicum of both tend to have a problem with drink or drugs. If not, they steal each other's immoral women and then complain about being stabbed in the back by their erstwhile political associates.
The Roman Republic had a system of patricians in the Senate of Optimates and Populares. The former would only deal with the elite, the latter would be patricians representing the plebeians so that the delivery of their grievances would be made in persuasive educated tones.
Co-operation between men is only possible when the system is perceived to be fair and sacrifices acknowledged and rewarded. No man can predict what the latest matriarchal whim will be to take away their rights and liberties they are now too frightened to defend.
And so the sick dying man pretends he is perfectly well, too frightened to discuss his health. No one notices and no one cares because he is supposed to die and fade away as weak indecisive creatures of infirm mind and morals are all meant to do.
It is shameful for men to lose their capacity to feel anger and shame, because it is noticed by those who are still capable of these feelings on moral matters. It only means that you are no better than cattle and only capable of being persuaded by threats and bribes.
The purpose of religion is to instil morality and it is morality that makes us capable of feeling shame. This is the fine-tuning that lifts the human being above that of the beast, but it is often pointed out that dogs can also feel shame.
Without the capacity to feel shame, the ability to act honourably is also removed. Does Theresa May feel shame? Robots and puppets cannot, but it is believed puppeteers can feel shame if their puppetry is below standard and the audience boo and hiss. We boo and hiss at democracy.
Your IQ is likely to be higher if your parents are married and living together as they brought you up in a loving relationship. Observant Jews are known to make a point of marrying only other marriageable Jews and this practice is obviously eugenic. So, they are a superior race.
I find it bemusing that white nationalists whose backgrounds are likely to be singly parented illegitimacy feign surprise and disgust that Jews who invest properly in their children, family and traditions just can't help doing better than the illegitimate and atheist proletariat.
Do white supremacists imagine they are inherently superior because their government for the moment is militarily superior? Do they know not Jews have survived every ancient empire that used to persecute and attempt to exterminate them? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
To be in the running for racial supremacy you have to satisfy the condition of being in existence as a distinct racial grouping with the same religion, history and language even if you don't have your own homeland.
Imagine if Jews didn't practise marriage and screwed around having bastards to whom they never passed on their traditions and were all atheists who enjoyed only football culture, celebrity culture, porn culture as well as a culture of excuses and entitlement. They'd be extinct.
Antisemitism is quite simply rancorous envy analogous to the bad and lazy student for the good and studious student with the intention of exterminating the competition. If Jews didn't exist as gentile objects of hatred, anyone wealthier in the class above would do just as well.
Charity and generosity, kindness and compassion is really the only way of ameliorating the deadly sin of envy. Clear rules and trust in the government seen to be acting in the national interest would take the teeth out of the natural hatred of men for each other.
Men prefer the rules to be clear, but the feminine stratagem consists of making the most of ambiguity to secure maximum advantage. In a matriarchy, you would expect the feminine preference to be prioritised at the expense of the beta male who does all the work, demoralising him.
Women cannot be expected to be fair to men because few of them feel any duty of care to men they don't find attractive, and are in any case ill-equipped for abstract thinking. Entitled women find the beta male repulsive and mostly cannot disguise their contempt for him.
Demoralised disrespected beta male atheists if leaderless will simply withdraw their labour and fail to become fathers of legitimate children with an investment in the next generation. They will be nihilists not thinking in the long term after withdrawing their cooperation.
The demoralisation of the beta male is why Western governments keep importing foreign labour: because the locals are just not up to the job nor is the government up to the job of making the working classes work or its people properly parent the next generation.
A patriarchy is a society that priorities the preferences of unmarried mothers who badly parent their illegitimate offspring over the preferences of married fathers. No senior politician is proposing to disenfranchise social parasites by narrowing the franchise to taxpayers only.
No anti-establishment politician is proposing to disenfranchise non-taxpayers by abolishing indiscriminate universal suffrage, restoring patriarchy by criminalising extramarital sex or establishing the one party theocracy necessary for the return of good and rational government.
No Western academic philosopher is prepared to acknowledge the existence and reality of the fact that the West is now a matriarchy spreading its degenerate ideas globally or acknowledge that all matriarchies are declining, primitive, extinct or soon to be extinct societies.
If marriageable men are now incapable of organising themselves to overthrow the matriarchy, then the rate of illegitimacy will increase along with the crime rate. The illegitimacy rate of Jamaica is 85%. The West will then have the crime rate of Jamaica without its fine weather.
My tweets are not addressed to any Western politician whom I already know are puppets or any anti-establishment politician who will be too afraid to lay it on the line in fear of the reaction of an irrational and emotional populace. These tweets are addressed to the Deep State.
We already know that the media are only another arm of the government and the sheeple can be made to believe in anything. Once you control the media, you control the narrative, and the narrative can be changed. I believe I have the narrative capable of appeasing the most people.
It is assumed that once men have a leader whose followers have resolved to overthrow the matriarchy, the matriarchy is as good as dead. The movers and shakers of this movement will be marriageable men and those who aspire to be marriageable men co-operating to restore patriarchy.
https://t.co/nZZvQehPkH would be a suitable vehicle for this potential alpha male leader who will restore patriarchy in the West. Franks has set up a company, Project One Movement for the UK, which could change its name to the Project One Party Theocracy Movement for the UK ...
I look forward to being a part of this Movement and being its Political Consultant since I have a wealth of proposals that would thrill voters with their radicalism with just the right balance of appealing to the rich and poor, capable of intriguing and uniting the people.
I don't have to be white, male or racist to understand the mechanics of keeping your race as "pure", but even Jews come in four colours and Judaism is the most successful form of ethno-nationalism ever known to man.
The white man is suffering from denial and disbelief that he has fallen so low in his own country he is in fear of his immoral women who would not hesitate for a second to falsely and maliciously accuse him of a historic sexual offence. He also knows he will get no justice.
The atheist gentile is an Islamophobe because he has an idea that his women are more willing to give Muslim men with more resources than him sexual access. The base proletariat unashamedly hates and envies anyone with more and better than they do. It is their nature, after all.
Rancorous proles and peasants are everywhere - this is probably a law of nature in every nation of every race. Envy is not called one of the Deadly Sins for nothing, but that is not the only sin the white degenerate indulges in, for he indulges in all of them as much as he can.
Lust is another Deadly Sin that Western Man is hooked on. He regard his right to fornicate freely as his inalienable human right. Such an expectation presupposes that most of his women must already be fornicating sluts who become unmarried mothers and badly parent their bastards.
Gluttony. In the West, the poor are the people who cannot afford the membership fee of their local gym. Under-educated workless proles on welfare understandably get fat sitting around watching daytime TV wanking to porn and stuffing their faces. Anyone would.
Sloth. Why work when you can get by on welfare and only immigrants do the work? In any case, you learned nothing useful from your sink school comprehensive and you were bored senseless by your mediocre female teacher teaching her feminised curriculum full of feminist propaganda.
Anger at Jews that your stupid ideology of feminism-enriched liberal democracy has caused most of the white race to be unmarriageable so the good ones have to marry out to secure a future for their legitimate children. Laughably, the failure of Christianity is blamed on Jews.
Pity Western Man, now so terrified of being falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence and so trigger-happy that he will shoot anyone in front of him, even one who is attempting to defend him.
Those who are not afraid to challenge the matriarchy are intellectual mediocrities, low status under-educated men who condemn themselves the moment they open their mouths with their rabid racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia, bad grammar, regional accent and beta male persona.
Unmarriageable atheist bachelors AKA MGTOW are the other half of the problem of matriarchy. Unmarriageable men means increased bastardy which means more tolerance of bastardy and fornicating sluts meaning more and more of the same until an Islamic takeover, I suppose.
In a matriarchy, all men are beta males subject to the whims of the fornicating slut and unmarried mother. The instantly alpha male would be a man of requisite status and charisma prepared to challenge and defeat it. No one man with anything to lose at all will come forward.
The fact that no man with anything to lose will emerge to challenge the matriarchy is because such a man would already know he cannot rely on the loyalty of the beta males below, who are not only low status, but men of infamous for their disloyalty and inability to follow orders.
Proletarian white males complaining about immigration are mostly fatherless low-skilled socially retarded with some behavioural problem usually caused by drug/drink-dependency. No one in nationalism would even dare deny this. No marriage, no family values, no religion, no morals.
No morals, no male solidarity, no co-operation possible to deal with the eternal enemies of society and civilisation: sluts and socialists who have a symbiotic relationship. This means there is only a degenerate culture no sane and moral immigrant would want to integrate into.
And so this, in a nutshell, is why the white man's status in his own land has become progressively lower (pun intended) over the decades. The immigrant male knows white men are too afraid to challenge their own women and too divided to protest effectively.
Because their own women reject them, they turn gay to get cheap sex from each other. Soon they will grow old and die without issue and descendants and wonder what happened to their lives and their country, blaming Jews, Muslims and foreigners as they breathe their last.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone. Can you imagine such men restoring the patriarchy or restoring the patriarchy with such low status degenerate unmarriageable leaderless men whom no one wants to lead? They are indeed being warehoused for extinction.
In the meantime, what are white women to do? The marriageable of them will try to marry marriageable men, and they will not be men of their own race whom they already despise: feminised and impoverished.
What about marriageable white men already aware of the moral devastation wreaked by feminism? They'll reject white women. I recently heard of Asian Aryanism, a term used for white nationalists who reject white women and take up with Oriental women because of their sensible views.
To secure their own reproductive rights within their own lifetimes, white men and women feel they have to mate with other races in order to have legitimate progeny and bring them up with a spouse who believes in family values. This is the deadly reality of racial degeneracy.
Are you surprised that "mainstream" alt-right YouTubers such as @MillennialWoes and @MarkACollett won't discuss any of this with me? I have the solution but it is what their subscribers cannot bear to hear, so they promulgate race war or urge some form of displacement activity.
I hope to demonstrate that the principles of nationalism are the same for every race and nation: patriarchy supported by marriage using a moral system whose laws support marriage. This can only mean Islam if you are a gentile in the West, because Christianity is kaput.
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.
British collectively told off by Singaporean for wallowing in the past and not planning for the future by keeping up with developments and training their people with the necessary skills as well as reminded of their imperial past. Excellent. #r4today#Brexit#Commonwealth2018
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
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:
What is the alt-right? I would say it is those who believe that mainstream Conservatism is not enough to solve the social problems created by half a century of feminism and immigration. https://t.co/bq4fsIEoza
Because of the lack of male solidarity in Western men the alt-right is leaderless and the government does not worry about them too much except to to get the media to portray them as under-educated racists, Islamophobes and antisemites no one would want to employ or marry.
Millennial Woes used to say you cannot be alt-right if you don't hate Jews and want an ethnostate, but I would say UKIP and Trump was alt-right in the sense that they did not represent mainstream Conservatism.
Millennial Woes says he cares about the morality and psychology of the alt-right but won't discuss religion or anything else with me. This is probably because he is an atheist and still in denial that Western Man needs a religion that promotes patriarchy and shames sluts ie Islam
Rather unnecessarily and smugly, Millennial Woes says the alt-right can't be a Chinese, Indian, African or Islamic movement because it is "implicitly white". The alt-right is a Western movement reacting to liberal Western social and economic policies IN THE WEST and rejecting it.
Millennial Woes complains that media portrayal of the alt-right has been a campaign of demonisation but admits that the alt-right are reticent in being interviewed fearing demonisation and ridicule. I could easily represent the alt-right if asked to do so since I do not fear this
"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:
Is the rise of the alt-right linked to the failure of Christianity?
Did you know that Conservatism has no declared principles that any Conservative politician can agree on or is prepared to implement?
Is Conservatism about preserving patriarchy through marriage as an institution?
Is marriage the only way to preserve patriarchy?
Is patriarchy the only kind of society capable of producing enough good strong men to defend the national interest?
Is nationalism - the ideology of protecting the national interest - only possible under a patriarchy?
Would you agree that a patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers?
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?
Would you agree that feminism causes immigration?
Would you agree that feminism bribes men with fornication to keep men quiescent under the matriarchy?
If religion used to be the opium of the people, is extramarital sex now its replacement in our Age of Atheism?
Is shaming sluts the only way of restoring the patriarchy?
Are the alt-right afraid of challenging feminism because they fear the consequences of having sexual access to feminists withdrawn?
Are virtually all women in the West now feminists?
Can you be a feminist without condoning fornication?
Does everything about feminism undermine marriage and by extension patriarchy?
Is patriarchy impossible without marriage?
Is the sexual liberation promoted by feminism a mortal threat to patriarchy?
If the West had men who are mostly Christian husbands and fathers, would they be putting up with Transnational Progressivism and uncontrolled immigration?
If Christianity has failed, must it be replaced?
If Christianity must be replaced, should it be with Islam?
If Christianity must be replaced, but not with Islam, what religion should be used?
Can white people really do without a religion when their enemies as you see them - Jews and Muslims - have their own?
Could nationalism ever succeed without something more than the idea of expelling Jews, non-whites and Muslims from the West?
Is the failure of Christianity evidenced by the triumph of feminism?
Which is more likely: that the West is re-Christianised or that it is Islamified?
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?
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?
Asian-Aryanism is just socially conservative Asians getting on with white nationalists better than white men get on with white women. From the 51st minute
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?
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.