If asked whether your race or religion is more important to you, how would you answer? Only if you are an observant Jew could you honestly answer that both are logically and necessarily equally important.— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) February 28, 2018
What bemuses me about white supremacists about their racial superiority is their inability to go with the logic of racial superiority. The following questions should occur to the thinking racist:
1) If racial superiority exists, does it really only rest on the colour of one's skin?
2) If racial superiority is not just about the colour of one's skin, does it rest on military, social, economic, political and moral superiority?
3) If racial superiority rests on military superiority, then racial superiority rests on science and technology upon which perceived social, economic and political and moral superiority rests.
4) The question of how military superiority is gained must be asked. It seems to me that this was kick-started by the Industrial Revolution which was all about selling stuff everyone round the world wanted to buy, and how to make them most profitably and cheaply, which was what science and technology was all about. Obviously, with all the SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) and variously fathered and badly parented illegitimate offspring that state schools have to take, you cannot expect this tradition to be kept up, particularly when one of the two parties of government refuse to countenance selective education, and this hurts the working classes by depriving them of the opportunity to better themselves.
5) It is your culture that enables you to maintain your military superiority. The Pyrrhic victories of WW1 and WW2 over Germany only sent the British into a tailspin of social unrest. After WW1 there was the General Strike of 1925, when the working classes felt they had died like flies in the Great War for nothing very much. Mosley's attempt to correct the situation failed, because what he wanted to do was correct the political system itself, proposing to abolish the Upper House and replacing it with Fascist Corporatism and a pruned Lower House. Instead of being more careful about whom they went to war with, the British thought they would finish the job with Germany in WW2. Again, they failed, but this time decided to let their hair down and everything hang out with their welfare state and their swinging. This accelerated their degeneracy and explains how they have got to the pretty pass of white men now being helpless against a Muslim invasion and their women totally out of control and hating them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists#Character
The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups—a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy.
Am I alone in thinking that on the whole Mosley's proposals for reform seem sensible enough?
6) Culture is really the practices that the law allows, and the law is a reflection of whatever the current political orthodoxy - a mixture of religion and political tradition - permits. So now we approach again my pet theory, which is that Christianity has failed. Christianity has obviously failed because it has not protected the foolish British from their avoidable folly of following their ridiculous liberalism and the brain-numbing stupidity of their idolatrous Christianity. All the things they could have done to avoid the folly of declaring two World Wars on Germany would have been prevented by Islam as well as the post-war self-indulgence of not parenting their children properly and sinking into a culture of wine, women and song leading to the progressive (pun intended) enfeeblement of mind, body and spirit.
Returning to the subject of racial superiority, it does appear that racial superiority is only military superiority and military superiority is obtained by the happenstance of history eg the Industrial Revolution, an unplanned population explosion, and geopolitics. It is obvious that racial superiority is not permanent and relies on the rules one practices in one's racial group. Even Hitler did not assume that the Germans were so superior and perfect that they need do nothing more other than to marinate in their racial superiority. Indeed, he could be said to be urging Germans to strive and fight in order to become superior or perhaps just as good as the British. He was probably content with being just as good with what everyone thought were the masters of the universe of the time, the British.
Assuming that you are a racist who believes in the concept of racial superiority, the next question is to ask yourself must be "Who is the most racially superior race of all?" The Romans were once racially superior because they were militarily superior, but when they declined they eventually lost their culture of producing soldiers to conquer other lands, and lost the taste for conquest, sinking into decadence, wine, women and song. Why, a Roman emperor even changed his religion in an attempt to arrest decline. In the end, Rome was sacked, and the Roman Empire is no more. You cannot be racially superior to anyone if you no longer even exist.
Who, then, is racially superior? Not the Europeans in the great scheme of things, I'm afraid, simply because military superiority does not last forever, as I have easily demonstrated with the Romans, if you do not inculcate a culture, political system or maintain a religion that perpetuates it. You may technically be at the top of the tree, but you may just fall off if you suffer a dizzy spell it even if no one pulls you off.
To be racially superior one has to satisfy the condition of being in existence and of at the very least holding territory. Racial superiority does not necessarily rest on numbers, but numbers help if you are in the business of acquiring more territory. Israeli Zionist Jews are insisting that they have no imperial ambitions and simply want to live in Israel in peace. The Chinese already have enough on their plate and have for centuries been sucking their pencils on the question of their proper relationship with the rest of the world.
The top dogs of racial superiority are Jews and Chinese, simply because they have been around so long. I would award the top prize to the Jews, because they at least have bothered to write things down properly in their scripture and had a head start. Unlike the Chinese, Jews also had the perspicacity to attribute their survival to their God, to stop themselves from becoming too big-headed.
According to the Chinese calendar it is the year 4715. According to the Hebrew calendar it is the year 5778.
Now that we know that Jews are racially superior, we have to ask ourselves why they are racially superior. Clearly, it is their religion. Clearly, their religion is so obviously superior that two of the most famous attempts to adapt Judaism for gentiles are universally acknowledged to be Christianity and Islam. Christianity is now kaput, so the next religion of the West has to be Islam. It is really as a simple as an arithmetical problem. You have 3. You take 2 away and have 1 left. The one left is Islam, and the answer is the answer even if you don't like it.
My hypothesis can even be mathematically proven if we can agree that what made Britain great was the fact that it was the first nation in the world to have a world empire.
How did they lose their empire? The most proximate cause was WW2. It has been said by A J P Taylor that WW2 was a continuation of WW1. Why did the British declare war on Germany in WW1? Because the Liberal PM Asquith thought a short successful war would make him more likely to win the General Election of 1915. Imagine, losing your world empire because the Liberal Party wanted to win an election that was subsequently cancelled! You would have thought that the British by now would have realised their error or could have accepted Mosley's attempt to correct it, but what their political leaders lacked in wisdom was equalled and exceeded by their stubborn pride and chauvinism.
It is easily provable that the great upheavals suffered by the British would have been easily avoided if they had been Muslim and followed the Koran. The Koran only allows defensive wars and neither WW1 nor WW2 could by any stretch of the imagination be called defensive. British foreign policy was impelled primarily by a dog in the manger attitude towards Germany because it saw Germany as a rival and a threat. It is the equivalent of a foolish Monopoly player buying up properties he didn't want just to prevent his opponent from completing his set and bankrupting himself in the process and not being able to make the most of any opportunities he landed on, because he was mortgaged to the hilt.
Now they are the poodle of Uncle Sam and remain a vassal state of the EU, with approximately half its citizens begging to retain this status and its male MPs too terrified to question the parasitic nature of feminism for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence. How are the mighty fallen.
www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-permissible-fight-islam-383824313
What is the sex of the Prime Minister?
What is the sex of the Home Secretary?
What is the sex of the Commissioner of Police?
What is the sex of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
What is the sex of the Chairman of the Bar Council?
What is the sex of the Director General of the CBI?
Is the Archbishop of Canterbury a bastard?
Has Peter Hitchens called himself a feminist?
Is Roger Scruton, the Conservative Philosopher, too afraid of his wife to challenge feminism?
Is Philip Davies MP, who used to challenge feminism too afraid to continuing doing so now because the feminazis have got him by the goolies?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-no-western-man-will-fight-feminism.html
Why does the Mail pay Peter Hitchens to sneer at British Conservatism?
Why Feminist Peter Hitchens is all talk and no trousers
Roger Scruton fails to denounce feminism again
Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher evasive and prevaricating on feminism
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
What is the very least your religion should be doing?
Supporting marriage and the family.
This is what all the five world religions have in common.
Oh, and telling the truth, behaving honourably so men can co-operate with each other to defeat the internal and external enemies of their nation.
The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are sluts and socialists.
Patriarchy must therefore be regarded as the foundation of all civilisations. When your national religion no longer sanctifies marriage, it must be regarded as having failed.
How do you know when your religion no longer sanctifies marriage?
When your society is no longer a patriarchy.
How do you know when your society is no longer a patriarchy?
When your government no longer prioritises the preferences of married fathers and instead panders to the female voter which means it has become a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who are the bad parents of their illegitimate children who will not grow into productive citizens but become the adult criminals of the future.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/six-in-ten-northern-ireland-babies-are-now-born-outside-wedlock-31550726.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/births-outside-wedlock-at-new-high-28608539.html
https://www.facebook.com/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times-417696111659379/
http://old.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060416/focus/focus3.html
No other country has over 85 per cent of babies born to unmarried mothers and over 50 per cent without registered fathers. No other country routinely discusses parenthood in such relationship neutral terms as 'baby father' and 'baby mother'. No other country so readily accepts absent fatherhood or brings up children so carelessly. And no other country not at war has such a high murder rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment