Translate

Showing posts with label Amalekites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amalekites. Show all posts

Friday, 23 March 2018

How Jews could solve the problem of antisemitism

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 22 January 2018

On the Amaleks and their values

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 8 December 2017

Are Western governments Amalekites flouting the Seven Noahide Laws? Will Rabbi Sacks answer my question?


at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, 13 October 2017

How to nudge Jews in the direction of Secular Koranism

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

Jews can be divided into Observant Conservative Jews and Assimilated Feminist/Liberal Sabbath-breaking unobservant Jews.

Liberal Jews are not even supposed to exist and for this reason Conservative Jews should dissociate themselves from Liberal Jews. According to Mosaic Law, to desecrate shabbat intentionally, despite warning, is a capital offense. http://biblehub.com/exodus/31-14.htm

Liberal Jews are of course feminist Jews and feminist Jews are Amalekites which observant Jews are obliged to exterminate.

This is because the Amalekites are matriarchal and believed to have been the Neanderthals who did not practice marriage. This meant that they were exterminated by homo sapiens who did practice marriage and who were therefore patriarchal.

It can easily be seen that patriarchies easily and inevitably exterminate matriarchies because patriarchies are more efficiently and rationally organised.

Obviously, a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers would be more moral, rational, better governed in the long term national interest and fairer than a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers and their illegitimate offspring.

The Amalekites are of course people who don't observe the Noahide laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah Jews have a religious duty to exterminate Amalekites and Jews who deny they have this duty would understandably be suspected of being Amalekites themselves or of being their agents of subversion. Deut. 25:19

It cannot be denied that the very basis of Western civilisation has been subverted by feminism, can it?

While Islam imposes a duty of jihad on Muslims, there is nothing in the Koran that says anything as nasty as exterminating any group as a religious duty.

The best way to put it to these Liberal/Feminist Jews is that if they support Secular Koranism, they will no longer be considered Amalekites.

Since Secular Koranism guarantees freedom of belief with 2:256, they can still call themselves Liberal and Reform Jews and worship in any way they please, provided they say they support Secular Koranism and promise not to break the laws of a state governed by the principles of Secular Koranism.

That's the JQ sorted. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

http://www.melaniephillips.com/sea-change-american-jewry/

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 15 September 2017

My questions for Rabbi Sacks which I hope he will answer


Is there a lecture on The Relevance of the Koran for Law and Ethics in Society Today? If not, is there one to come?

Has Rabbi Sacks read the Koran?

Why did China decline? The way all civilisations decline, when they stopped being outward looking, started breaking their own rules and no longer allowed free speech. The advisers of the emperor were traditionally were allowed to speak their mind, but later they were tortured for doing so.
The Mandate of Heaven was in fact a theocracy, was it not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

The Abrahamic God is the most powerful idea conceivable, and this was what the West worshipped. But so too is the Islamic God the Abrahamic God. What went wrong for them?
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3114/muslims-ijtihad
 
"During the twelfth century, nevertheless, there were still attempts to use rational and deductive reasoning. In Muslim Spain, for instance, Averroes (aka Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198 CE), one of the founders of secular reasoning in Europe, refused to accept the closing of the Gates of Ijtihad. He continued to use Arabic translations of classical Greek sources, and preferred strictly rational methods to decide matters in contention. As in the Muslim world the Gates of Ijtihad had been closed, however, his rulings proved unacceptable."

Western hegemony is based on Western military supremacy, the idea of full-spectrum global dominance - a US military doctrine. Niall Ferguson, mentioned by Rabbi Sacks, "now distances himself from the neocons". https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/20/niall-ferguson-interview-civilization

Western military supremacy was of course achieved through warfare amongst European nations. The more you fight, the better you get at it. Scientific advance is always accompanied through warfare because necessity is the mother of invention. Not only did Christians conduct the Crusades against Muslims, they massacred each other too in the European Wars of Religion. After having started two World Wars, military supremacy inevitably followed.

"The place in the world where Christianity is growing fastest today is China" - Communism is materialist which means it is an ideology that does not take into account abstracts us as spirituality and contentment. Things and resources being finite and our desires infinite, demand will always outstrip supply and cause greed, envy, anger, conflict, division and perhaps eventually the disintegration of the group. Perhaps it will not be long before the Chinese establish their very own Church of China?

If your proposition is that the West is most successful because it worshiped the most powerful God, what happened to the Muslims who also worshiped the same God? It seems that all adherents of Abrahamic faiths have at some time in their histories lost their way after breaking their own rules. When Jews broke their own rules they suffered invasion, conquest and exile. I am sure this applies to all the other Abrahamic faiths. Christians have now so utterly forgotten their Christian principles they no longer talk about sin or hell and indeed are no longer even Christian and should be more accurately described as Post-Christian. In 2014, it was discovered that the Archbishop of Canterbury is so theologically ignorant that he did not even know that he was supposed to believe in the Trinity, the indispensable ingredient of being Christian. This was when he confessed to sometimes doubting God existed, but was absolutely sure about the existence of Jesus, as if that were enough.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/archbishop-canterbury-justin-welby-questions-whether-god-exists-n206261
 
It seems from his utterly imbecilic comment that he was not even aware that neither Jews nor Muslims denied the existence of Jesus.

Rabbi Sacks mentioned morality and the law and discussed the problem of what we should do when the law entitles us to do that which we know to be immoral.

QUESTIONS FOR RABBI SACKS

1) What should we do when we know our government is promoting policies that we know to be evil because they undermine the institutions of marriage and the family such as no fault divorce, the civil partnership, gay marriage as well as encouraging transgenderism in primary school children?

2) Is our government being actively evil, or just confused and misguided?

3) If our government is evil, then it must be overthrown. If it is merely confused and misguided, is decades of policies promoting sexual liberation in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage the cause of this confusion?

4) Is it possible for these policies to be corrected under the current political system?

5) If we come to the conclusion that it not possible for these policies to be corrected under the current political system, what should we do?

6) If our solution to the problems created by policies designed to promote sexual liberation and gender confusion as well as undermine the institutions of marriage and family is not allowed under the current political system, will we be accused of extremism?

7) If we are accused of extremism, bigotry, intolerance and hate speech, what should we do?

8) Are we governed by Amalekites if our government promotes policies that break all the principles of the Noahide laws?

9) Do Jews have a religious duty to exterminate Amalekites or at the very least denounce them?

10) If someone comes along claiming to have a solution to these problems, should this person be regarded as a potential Mashiach even if they are neither male nor Jewish, but possibly descended from King David who had 700 wives and 300 concubines?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, 20 May 2017

Egalitarianism is infantile and based on a polite fiction

Egalitarianism is infantile, but women tend to be sentimental and childish in many ways because it is nature's way of making them better equipped to look after children. Egalitarianism will always be found attractive by the majority of the people who would otherwise find themselves at the bottom of the heap. The twin pressure of the female and proletarian preference for egalitarianism would work to destroy your society if left unchecked, and their work is now almost complete.

The enemies of society are sluts and socialists, who walk hand in hand.

The stupid promiscuous woman and the hungry MCSF/SJW who are her running dogs will insist on her preference being prioritised with no thought for the long term national interest.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html

These are the gathering dark forces preparing to wreck Western civilisation, while senior politicians of the West remain in denial and heedless to these warnings.

There are not even elderly intellectuals prepared to discuss this. Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher refuses to discuss feminism because he fears his wife who will soon be his nurse. As for the media, they were taken over by the feminazis a long long time ago.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-scruton-conservative-philosopher.html

The obscenity of sex education at 4 will soon be compulsory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/28/ministers-set-announce-plans-compulsory-sex-education-lessons/

The purpose of this is to entrench the stinking matriarchy, which will continue to bribe and corrupt men until we and our descendants will be the co-equals of bonobo monkeys after becoming the Amalekites the Jews have a religious duty to exterminate.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267677/jewish/Wipe-Out-Amalek-Today.htm

Muslims would call the struggle by men against the promiscuous fornicating slut a form of Greater Jihad.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

We know that the hopelessly corrupt Western political establishment won't touch this subject with a barge pole, not even those who protest against the current incumbents. Even Paul Craig Roberts refuses to consider the role of feminism in the moral corruption and sheer moronic stupidity and the unbelievable insouciance of political life in America and the West.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

No one gets it and no one will discuss it.

E Michael Jones in Libido Dominandi says sexual freedom replaces political freedom.

Whoever controls sexual behaviour controls the state. And he who controls the mores of women controls sexual behaviour. That is the first lesson of sexual politics. He who understands that law understands why pornography and sex education and abortion and the government funding of contraceptives are all non-negotiable conditions for the current regime. Without them, they could not rule.

Feminism rode into town on the coat-tails of egalitarianism. If they are not already extinct or too elderly, perhaps men of the West capable of defending patriarchal moral values will have the sense and courage to have Feminism metaphorically tarred and feathered before running her out of town.

The Bostonians Paying the Excise-Man, 1774 British propaganda print that depicts the tarring and feathering of Boston Commissioner of Customs John Malcolm. This was the second time that Malcolm had been tarred and feathered.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 10 April 2017

Religion and Nationalism

It is a fact of history that the stronger religion of the invader takes over the weaker religion of the vanquished.

The invader must have been stronger and cleverer to have successfully invaded.

Once successfully vanquished, the vanquished accept surrender by adopting the religion of their invaders.

They do this because they assume that it was the religion of their invaders that made the invasion successful.

Primitive civilisations were polytheist and advanced by becoming monotheist. Europe was polytheist and advanced when it became monotheist after it emerged from the Fall of Rome.

It is rational to worship the most powerful God you know of because if you want to worship a deity, it would be rational to worship the most powerful and wisest.

No deity is more powerful than the Abrahamic God who, if He exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, unique, perfectly moral and perfectly wise.

There are three main branches of monotheism: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Christianity has clearly failed because nominally Christians nations have not been protected from the insane domestic and foreign policies of their liberal governments, but we gentiles cannot be expected to convert to high-maintenance Judaism and be forever fussing with our food and wondering if we should really stone our disobedient sons or each other to death for breaking the Sabbath. In any case, Jews would resent us for having ideas above our station just as any exclusive social club would look on with horror at the idea of the hoi polloi banging on their door demanding admission. If Judaism is an exclusive golf club, Islam is a political party.

If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". Islam gives gentiles the benefits of social conservatism if they believe in the Abrahamic God, without requiring them to believe in the absurdity of the Trinity.

When you have eliminated the impossible, then what remains, however improbable, must be the answer.

Islam, mutatis mutandis for the West, must be the answer.

The only way for the West to reform Islam is to itself adopt and adapt it.

There is no reason why nationalists should not also be pragmatists, is there?

Grown up nationalists understand that social conservatism is the indispensable ingredient of nationalism because they understand that without patriarchy there can be no nation. (This is because it is men on the whole who care about posterity, tradition, morality, national identity and the long term national interest who are expected to defend it with their lives. These concepts are in fact alien to materialistic women who are mostly feminists, who have all the power but none of the responsibilities.)

The reason why Trump cannot beat the deep state is simply because he chose to listen to his daughter rather than his former comrade in arms Steve Bannon. We must not forget that Trump is himself a product of the matriarchy and has now decided to pander to it instead of fighting it. Now that we know that he chose to please his daughter and his son-in-law instead of sticking to his nationalist principles, we must now regretfully accept that he has nailed his colours to the mast of the matriarchy.

Of this nationalists and the alt-right should take note as an indication of the direction the Trump Administration will now take from now on.

Like personal identity, national identity is fluid. It does not matter that our national identity now is not the same national identity as our ancestors, as long as we have a national identity that is rational and moral whose product is good government, and not irrational and immoral whose products are a high crime rate, economic instability, social disintegration and national fragmentation.

Feminist and neoliberal government policies that facilitate and enable sexual liberation damage the institutions of marriage and the family, which undermine the patriarchy. Neoconservative foreign policy is about spreading these ideas globally by force of arms to undermine the ability of individual nations to fight irrational and immoral ideas.

The West is a matriarchy, and therefore the antithesis of patriarchal moral values. Matriarchies are the modern day equivalent of the Amalekites Jews have a religious duty to exterminate whose oppression Muslims also have a duty to struggle against until this oppression is no more.

But what if you do not believe in God, or are, God forbid, an anti-Semite or an Islamophobe?

There is no requirement to believe in God at all to agree with me that all civilised and rational societies require their government to support marriage.

There is no requirement to believe in God to agree with me that most people want to believe in God in just the same way most children want to believe in Santa because it makes them feel good, happy and safe.

There is no requirement to believe in God to acknowledge that social cohesion is obtained by people accepting that their laws are in harmony with morality, and morality is in harmony with their religion.

Even if God does not in fact exist, His laws can easily be found in the Bible and the Koran whose existence even militant atheists cannot deny.

If you want your country back, then venturing to discuss what I have just said with your friends and family is the very least you can do.

If you have no friends and no family you feel confident of discussing this with without being betrayed or denounced, it is time to question your values and the way you have led your life.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The Neanderthals were the Amalekites God told the Israelites to exterminate

Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/why-neanderthals-died-out.html

Two anthropologists in Arizona appear to share my extinction hypothesis for Neanderthal man
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Two anthropologists in Arizona appear to share my extinction hypothesis for Neanderthal man




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypothesis#Division_of_labor

The reason why Neanderthal man died out was because Homo Sapiens discovered marriage before they did.   There, I have said it, and you have read it here FIRST.

I believe that for PC reasons that the division of labour hypothesis was ignored because it would inevitably lead to awkward questions being asked about feminism, which it would be HERESY to question.

Why Neanderthal Man died out is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-neanderthals-died-out.html

Neanderthal man lived in a matriarchy (a society that condones female promiscuity eg feminism) while Homo Sapiens lived in a patriarchy (a society that condones male promiscuity and supports the institution of Marriage).

The feminist doctrine of gender equality inevitably makes it promote the idea that women have the right to be as promiscuous as men, ignoring the fact that it is women who get pregnant and are the ones left holding the baby and expected to look after their babies.  Now feminist orthodoxy (which is Communistic in nature and application) decrees that  taxpayers (who are mostly male) are to bail out these Slut Single Mums who have fucked up their lives.  Eventually, this will drag everyone else down to their slut and bastard level.

Indeed, Slut Single Women who have fucked up their lives are currently being glamorised.

Mary F Pols, who allowed a penniless and jobless loser to impregnate her in ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE wrote a book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Accidentally-Purpose-one-night-unplanned-pregnancy/dp/0141038403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328012408&sr=8-1 which is now a US sitcom http://www.cbs.com/primetime/accidentally_on_purpose/.  You gotta hand it to the Americans for having the knack of making depravity wholesome.  Another example is COUGAR TOWN.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Town

It would not be fair to call Neanderthal women "sluts" because a matriarchy - as the Neanderthal society must have been because they had not yet discovered the institution of marriage - would not be familiar with the concepts of sluttery AKA fornication AKA adultery precisely they operated a kind of sexual communism or a free for all fuck fest that we in the West would be all too familiar with.

Patriarchal Homo Sapiens who created the institution of Marriage had men who would take more of an interest in their offspring, stay with the women who bore their children thereby producing progressively better offspring that also retained the culture of their ancestors.   (This made them culturally more sophisticated as well as facilitating social cohesion.)  The patriarchs operated a kind of sexual meritocracy and efficient labour division between male and female roles, which would have been the beginning of Eugenics (an ideology that concerns itself with improving or at the very least maintaining the quality of the generation for that society), while Neanderthal man became progressively more degenerate.  In the end, they died out after the matriarchy (who were slut and bastard people) was easily defeated by the patriarchy (who respected the institution of marriage).

There are lessons to be learnt from this by the slut and bastard governments of the 21st century West, I would have thought, but they are probably too slut and bastard to listen to reason now.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Why Neanderthal Man died out



http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/who-killed-neanderthals0419

Because homo sapiens discovered marriage and supported family values while Neanderthal man did not.  (There is of course a moral in this somewhere.  Can someone tell me what this might be?)

Neanderthal man was matriarchal, homo sapiens patriarchal.  The latter defeated the former because the patriarchy is clearly better-organised, more cohesive and stronger as well as more likely to ensure that the male who is the best provider gets to reproduce, thus producing a better quality next generation, instead of the  free for all fuck-fest you get in a matriarchy in which the poor and depraved breed with the stupid and slutty, lowering moral and educational standards as well as the quality of the next generation, as we are seeing now in the 21st century Britain.   Currently, most babies born in Britain have mothers who are Slut Single Mums who couldn't find a husband or who didn't know or weren't told by their slut and bastard liberal parents not to have a child out of wedlock.

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TFTA600695RFVNVH1

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/most-british-babies-now-born-out-wedlock-some-migrants-its-tiny-minority

If a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, then the matriarchy is society that condones female promiscuity. It should be reasonably clear by now which is the lesser evil.

Of course, there is no evidence of this to support my contention and the few anthropologists I have approached are either too busy or too afraid to discuss this with me ie that Homo Sapiens, who institutionalised marriage, easily defeated the Neanderthals who had not.  In any case, I do not see how the institution of marriage can be inferred from archaeological evidence anyway. Even if archaeologists claimed they found wedding photographs, wedding rings, marriage contracts, decrees nisi and absolute belonging to long dead homo sapiens but none to Neanderthal man, those of us who remember the Hitler Diaries would treat it with healthy scepticism, I hope.  

My point is that they *cannot* prove my theory wrong. It is quite simply unassailable. 

It is so obviously, beautifully simple. Is there a prize for me to claim? No anthropologist can disprove this theory anyway.

My penetrating insight astonishes even me. It seems that I am after all a genius. It is really now time to stop being modest. If I don't blow my own trumpet, no one else will.

I have already contacted the Royal Anthropological Institute http://www.therai.org.uk/
and was advised to contact the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology.  http://www.babao.org.uk/index/index

It is to be hoped that a Claire Khaw Anthropology Prize will be created in my honour and awarded every year to prize-winning anthropologists.  I have in mind that Bruce Parry http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/bruce/index.shtml and fancy giving him one.  Actually, I wouldn't mind giving the delightful and delectable Dr Alice Roberts one too.
at 8 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...