We live in the best of all possible worlds.
This is Leibniz’s argument for the doctrine of the best of all possible worlds, now commonly called Leibnizian optimism, which was devoted to defending the justness of God.
The argument thus constitutes Leibniz’s solution to the problem of evil, or the apparent contradiction between the assumption that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and the evident fact of evil (including sin and unmerited suffering) in the world. In rough outline, the argument proceeds as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;
2. God created the existing world;
3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);
4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;
5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.
What could this mean in our vale of tears?
Because evil and suffering occur, does it mean that God cannot possibly exist?
But where does it say in scripture that we are already in heaven where nothing bad ever happens?
Did we do anything to deserve to be in heaven already? Shall we complain to the Management, or would it be better to assume The Management does not exist and never did?
If it is true that we do live in the best of all possible worlds, then God if He exists evidently must be punishing us for our sins.
Being omnipotent, God would put things right to those unjustly murdered by a hate-filled Islamopobe and racist in their afterlife. If we believe in God, we would have to believe that that will in fact happen.
What sins did these murdered Muslims commit, you might well ask. Those who hate Muslims might well say they should not be where they were not welcome. Where was an Antipodean supposed to go to escape mosques and Muslims? The Australian gunman had arrived on South Island - the very edge of Western civilisation - in order to escape Muslims. But what did he find there? More mosques and Muslims. Where was he supposed to go next? The Falkland Islands? Antarctica itself? And so, with his back to the wall, he felt he had to fight back, to make his point, on the edge of the Western world.
Are Australasians inhospitable by nature? Are Western men this way? It is hard to tell, but perhaps they feel it is their right to be inhospitable. Perhaps they feel encroached upon and invaded and this explains the flight or fight response of the gunman.
What has roused the Australian gunman into such a rage of murderous violence? Why, immigration, of course, and uncontrolled immigration to boot. Protests and complaints are only met with accusations of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia. Western governments have shown themselves individually and collectively dismissive of the rising anger and fear of Western men who have seen their societies change swiftly within their lifetimes - the racial composition and laws changed beyond all recognition.
The female preference is dismissive of the complaints of Western men whom they regard as oppressors of the patriarchy. There are also no senior male politicians prepared to defend the interests of these working class men whom it appears are now surplus to government requirements. Such men men are now being replaced by immigrants, warehoused for extinction with such devices as the Universal Basic Income. If there is no manufacturing base, then there is no need for the worker and there is no manufacturing base to speak of in the West. Jobs requiring labour can be done by migrant labour which the formerly working classes now see as beneath their dignity if it does not pay them much more than what they already receive in welfare benefits.
The welfare state is of course a sacred cow whose slaying no politician will propose if he wishes to continue his career.
To propose the abolition of the welfare state to make the working classes work would only arouse fear and anger resulting in the loss of votes, resulting in the loss of elections.
The solution seems obvious, the abolition of elections or the narrowing of the franchise. If the working classes want to end immigration, a bargain could be struck with them: work harder and give up your employment protection and benefits, and we will stop immigration. No one ever contemplates such a bargain because its success would mean the abolition of representative democracy and the establishment of a one party state.
As far as I know, politicians do not discuss such fundamental and radical changes with each other because they are too busy acting out their charade over Brexit, the Great Wall of America and accusing each other of antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and historic sexual offences. I imagine things are much the same Down Under.
If you were a New Zealander, Muslim or non-Muslim, would you have felt reassured by the platitudinous speech of an uncharismatic unmarried mother of mediocre intellect who is now inexplicably the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
Why on earth is this unmarried mother who seems to understand nothing running anything more than running a primary school* in New Zealand?
Presumably this is why angry white men decide to take the law into their own hands.
If God created this as the best of all possible worlds, He would as a minimum have created a rational universe. This is not to say that all people everywhere would be always rational, merely that the option of using reason could solve and avoid problems.
The problem, as I see it, is that what I now call white man pain is not being acknowledged. Not only is it not being acknowledged, it has no prospect of being acknowledged if the mills of censorship churn inexorably on. There is no prospect of male politicians already in a senior position in politics speaking out, because they would be too afraid of upsetting their females in positions even more senior than theirs. And so nothing will be done and more violence, more censorship and more rage leading to a ever greater cycles of violence will be the consequence, because nothing will be done.
But this is not to say that God does not exist, I would argue. It is possible that even if He does exist, He has left the building. I like to think that God if He created the universe, created a logical universe whose laws, both physical and moral, have already been made known to mankind.
The Abrahamic God did take the trouble to leave us instructions on how to run our societies. The Western world still now talks about its Judeo-Christian heritage even as it spreads its satanic policies globally.
Whether you are Jew, Christian or Muslim, you must know that God has forbidden idolatry and insisted on the gold standard of sexual morality which is that of marriage. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is an unmarried mother and is quite shameless about this. The rest of the Western world has not seen fit to comment on this. This must be because the entire West is now a matriarchy and matriarchies are without exception primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct.
In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother.
In a patriarchy, an alpha male leader will be chosen to protect the interests of beta males. The role of women in such a society is to choose the best husband that they can possibly get for themselves and to properly parent their legitimate children. Only when this is done would married fathers have their preferences prioritised again, while currently it is the unmarried mother indifferent to the parenting of her illegitimate offspring who is having her preferences prioritised. Such women will always vote with minorities and for parties supporting more immigration against the interests of the men they are not married to.
Under such a system of government, men will always have their preferences marginalised because the female bloc vote is the biggest bloc vote of all and will always be courted by all the political parties at every election, unless the system is changed, the franchise narrowed or all the political parties officially merged into one political party with the stated policy of promoting the national interest.
We should think of the female voter as the lionesses of a harem. Have you noticed that these lionesses never join the fight when the father of their cubs is being challenged by a rival usurping lion? That is because it is all the same to them, even as they know that the rival lion would kill the cubs of the defeated lion. This is because they already know that they would be mother of the cub of the winning lion, whoever won, and that is all they care about.
Those on the alt-right who continue to blame Jews and Muslims are only complaining about the symptoms of their malaise.
The disease is of course between their ears and between their legs, since they cannot bring themselves to make the sacrifice of giving up fornication and restoring the patriarchy as I have been urging them to do for so many years.
In order to control their women, men must control themselves. In order to control themselves, men must give up their right to fornicate with women not their wives and only have sex with their wives. Only when most women are married mothers would women care about the preferences of their men again, and only when they abolish no fault divorce would they be showing any signs of taking marriage seriously.
And only when most women are married mothers concerned about the parenting of their legitimate offspring would men's preferences, such as the end of uncontrolled immigration, be prioritised again.
How is such a state of general conjugality to be achieved?
I would say this can only happen when Western governments create the economic and social conditions in which men and women will marrying each other as a matter of course in order to properly parent the next generation together.
The rules that would create such a social and cultural environment are to be found of all places in the Koran. God may have left the building, but He has a sense of irony.
* Actually, I don't think unmarried mothers should be in charge of schools. In fact, I think they should be treated as convicted sex offenders according to quran.com/24/2
No comments:
Post a Comment