A new anthem for the English to be called MECCA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green and pleasant Land.

John Forster, a well-known Church historian once said:  "Yes, a wonderful tune; but the words ask four questions and the answer to them all is NO."

I would like to change the words of the poem while keeping its metre and theme it on a time when the English were unconsciously Islamic and happy and glorious compared to now.

These days, you can beg and plead with Islamophobes again and again to tell you what they find so objectionable about the Koran and they will still be too lazy, illiterate or proud to read it.   If they have they will be unable to point to any particular verse that offends against morality or common sense.

The English could be Islamic again, and properly so, and it would be no bad thing, if the Koran is interpreted for them in the way that I would interpret it for them.   [Secular Koranism for the judiciary (who do not have to convert - only pass an examination that I myself shall set), Anglican Islam for the masses (incorporating Anglican forms of worship where they do not contradict the Koran) and Agnostic Indifference for the political classes in my proposed one party state that will come into being the moment Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill is passed.   http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/khaw-consultancy-advisory-service-to.html]

England is stuffed with Muslims the English hate and fear precisely because they have been so disgracefully unIslamic.

How have they been unIslamic?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/disobey-koran-at-your-peril.html explains.

Mecca

The form of Anglican Islam will be reassuringly Christian

http://islaminchina.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/islam-in-china-pictures-the-great-mosque-of-guangzhou/

I will tell you my idea of Anglican Islam. It is basically everything in the Book of Common Prayer that does not contradict the Koran. People would still go to church, sing hymns, celebrate Xmas, but what they will no longer do is affirm or refer to the doctrine of the Trinity or practice the ritual of pretending to drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh. Bells will continue to be rung in churches all over England. The Nicene creed will no longer be recited. Sermons will be proper sermons based the exhortations and prohibitions of God using current affairs and news stories to drive the point home.

SIN - especially Slut Single Mums - WILL BE CONDEMNED, NOT TOLERATED.

Any reference to the Trinity and the divinity of Christ in hymns and carols will be removed and replaced with other suitable words.

Priests will continue to wear their cassocks, vicars their dog collars, but the Lefties, feminists, Commies and the openly gay will be slung out.

Now tell me what is wrong with this idea?

Abdal Hakim Murad will be my Ayatollah of Cambridge.  I will let him appoint the Ayatollahs of York and Canterbury, I think.

Proposed Ayatollah of Cambridge

If he is really really really good he might be able to take up residence in Hampton Court, if I have anything to do with anything, and live a Cardinal Wolsey sort of life, without the unhappy ending, because he deserves it and is worth it.   

Judaism is about TRIBALISM, the Koran is about a WORLD COMMUNITY OF ENLIGHTENED NATIONS

Judaism is about TRIBALISM, the Koran is about, first, NATIONALISM, then INTERNATIONALISM or a WORLD COMMUNITY of enlightened nations.

Oh, and Christianity is about proclaiming a lie as if it were the truth and then burning heretics who disagree with you when you used to take your religion seriously, or tolerating every single fucking degenerate and destructive idea and practice when you don't.

According to Christians, Christ was more than a prophet of God, he was God Himself.

So, God seduced Mary (in the way that Zeus had a habit of doing to mortal women listed at http://devdutt.com/the-infidelities-of-zeus/), gave birth to Himself, and then sacrificed Himself to save us from our sins.

You have to believe all that, or you go to hell or suffer the Inquisition.

Go that?

Do you think the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury or your vicar believes in this CRAP?

That was why the Christians were horrid to Jews and Muslims. They suspected that their beliefs aroused incredulity, and then contempt and mockery.

What do you think the Inquisition was all about? To shut up those who would mock and question, and of course as a means for Catholics to intimidate the Protestants, who did not accept the authority of the Pope.

This is the SHIT that Christianity was built on, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why is the doctrine of the Trinity so necessary for Christians? Because without it they would be no different from - shock horror - the Jews (whom they hate and fear for being cleverer than they) or worse the Muslims, whom they slaughtered by the thousand during the Crusades.  

The people whom you hate most are those whom you have most wronged.

They also needed to put a spin on the fact that Christ ended up being crucified by the Romans, which is pitiful and not befitting of a prophet of God.

Muhammad, who lived to a ripe old age, was a leader of men, a successful revolutionary and had wives and children.

If Western civilisation is failing now, it is because of their religion that encourages cowardice, hypocrisy, prevarication, irrationality, denial and then blind violent rage.

Because Christianity makes you stupid, the Christians always felt that the Jews had one up on them.  Because they were in the majority, the Christians would kick them around and have the occasional pogrom to move them on, just to show them who was boss.

Very hypocritically, Christians and liberals like to pretend that they saved the Jews from Hitler, when, the truth was that if the Allied soldiers believed for one moment that they were risking life and limb for the sake of the Jews, they would have downed tools and mutinied.

After the war, the Christians felt very sorry for the Jews and guilty for being nasty to them for so many centuries, so they decided to give Israel to the Jews.  That was the classic example of robbing Peter (Arab Muslim) to pay Paul (Jew).  Christian Europe also had the greatest contempt for the Muslims they slaughtered during the Crusades and the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, who represent Islam to them.

It is not surprising that the Jews should now wish to exploit the Christians for their hypocrisy and their guilt and it is no surprise that the Christians are reluctant to admit their hypocrisy and their guilt.  That is really the secret of the success of the Israel Lobby in all Western nations.

But all this is being done at the expense of the Muslims both in the West and in their own lands, who are understandably getting a bit restive.

Illiterate "village" Muslims who are heartily despised in the West are not perhaps the best salesmen for Islam, but even the supposedly backward religion of a backward people have helped Asians to quickly colonise Britain, and it is the white British who are now turning into backward sluts and bastards with low standards of education and behaviour, for their religion  - Christianity and/or Liberalism - is not fit for the purpose of making them respect the institutions of Marriage and Family.

The desecration of the institutions of Marriage and Family through Feminism is of course the real cause of the decline and fall of Western civilisation.

Most white people are now hopeless addicted to cheap sex, easy women and their welfare state that makes this possible.   Such is the pathetic degraded state of depraved modern white man that even the BNP - a political party that is supposed to promote the interests of the white race - have admitted that they are afraid of the slut single mums who breed disabled and illegitimate children at taxpayers' expense, who are eating what is good that is left Britain out of house and home.  Indeed, they expelled a member (me) precisely for pointing this out and refusing to shut up about it, even as the prospect of being the 2012 BNP London Mayoral Candidate was being dangled before her eyes.

The truth is I do not mind not being the soon to be fucked and forgotten unsuccessful BNP London Mayoral Candidate than to be for one moment be intimidated into silence because I wanted some gaudy but ultimately worthless bauble of office, and wish Ken Livingstone the best of British luck next year, for I know he has been, like me, against the last three wars in Afraqbya.  

As an atheist and an analyst of the creation and development of religions, it is quite clear to me that Christianity was an unsuccessful attempt to improve upon Judaism.  The final draft is of course Islam. (Don't let the Bahais tell you otherwise either. These people are TERRIFIED of discussing politics and shut up whenever anything controversial is being discussed, so they are pretty much useless unless all you want to do is pray, feel good about yourself for being a virtuous person and not get into trouble with the authorities for saying what you believe to be the Truth.)

There is nothing wrong with the Koran, only the people who read and interpret it with insufficient understanding and then refuse it to discuss it rationally, who call themselves Muslim - the ignorant, illiterate, backward village Muslims who cannot even read their own Holy Book or do not understand it even if they claim to have done so.

The Koran, by claiming to be the literal Word of God encourages literacy and the development of legal principles.

The New Testament is vagueness and ambiguity.

The Old Testament is undeniably harsh with its long list of infractions that would attract the death penalty.  http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Bible.html

Sharia law is just law based on Koranic principles. Any country can have its own version of Sharia law.  Sharia law in the UK would be subject to UK legal traditions infused by Koranic principles.

All you have to do to have Sharia law is make it compulsory for UK law students to pass an exam on the Koran.  There is no need to convert anyone at all.

Sorted.

I would be happy to set the exam questions on the subject of Koranic Knowledge.

The Prophets of God could have been atheists like me

God is a creation of Man for the purpose of serving as an instrument of government to assist him in his politics, morality and spirituality.

It is quite possible to argue that none of the Prophets of God in fact believed in the actual existence of a living God, and only had the same motivation as parents who make their children believe in Santa.  That motivation is to incentivize better behaviour than might otherwise be shown without a belief in Santa or God.

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington  

The purpose of Judaism is to demonstrate the superiority of a people who created God and who do what their God commands, even if that God does not promise a heaven or threaten a hell in the afterlife.   (If that is the case then I am at heart a Jew.)

It was the purpose of Christianity to spread the benefits of a unique and omnipotent God to those who are not born Jews and would not wish to convert.  Unfortunately, they did this by means of insisting on their totalitarian doctrine that one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian, or else go to hell.  (If that is the case then I am at heart a Christian who wishes non-Jews to enjoy the benefits of believing in an omnipotent perfect God that the Jews created for the benefit of Jews.)

The purpose of Islam is to synthesise the previous two religions by making it easier to practice and easier to understand through the means of one book said to be the direct revealed Word of God, which its adherents are meant to consult as often as they can.  To be a Muslim, all one need do is to declare that one submits to  God and affirm that Muhammad was His prophet.

If you understand the concept of a unique and omnipotent God, then you would have to accept the inexorable logic that there cannot be other gods but God, because, being omnipotent, He would not suffer them to exist to be His rivals.

God, if He exists, would embody Truth, Reason and Reality, all of which I am perfectly happy to submit to.

I have no difficulty agreeing with Muslims that Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah

There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

If Britain had been an Islamic state operating a system of direct democracy before WW2 Britain would not have lost its empire

Direct democracy is the only form of democracy worth discussing. That was the purest form of democracy as practised by the Ancient Greeks, and it is this version that the Koran recommends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura#cite_note-1

The Ancient Greeks voted on what laws to pass and what laws to repeal and whether to go to war.

Governments who consult the governed fare better than the rest because they can at least have a proper debate, take responsibility for whatever was decided and move on, while we cannot, because we feel abused, marginalised, ignored and betrayed.

Imagine, if the British had been asked about WW2, would Britain have lost its empire that was acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears by their ancestors?

But Churchill threw it all away because he wanted to be a war leader.

It was he who frittered away the inheritance of the British people.

When people like John Tyndall (who founded the BNP) complained with words to the effect after the war that Britain lost her empire for ignoble reasons and only gained the ignoble rewards of liberal decadence ie feminism, sexual licence, the emasculation and the disgusting feminisation of the white man and the uncontrolled immigration that would change the character of this nation forever, he was branded a Nazi and discredited by the liberal media.

After WW2 and after the loss of its empire, Britain could only comfort itself with the welfare state and the soft sweet luxuries of sexual liberation and easy divorce. But what did the welfare state that supported feminism and sexual licence do to the British ultimately?

The welfare state led to family breakdown, single parenthood, widespread illegitimacy, fatherlessness, ever lowering standards of education and morality, the worship of Mammon in the form of our sex and shopping society.

In short, the welfare state fueled by rampant consumerism created a culture of irresponsible borrowing and lending by government and individuals, the boom-bust cycle, all of which eventually led to the credit crunch affecting the entire Western world, who are now economically, morally bankrupt and heartily despised.

Perhaps it was ordained for the British to suffer the presence of Muslims, and to watch the people they regarded as a brown inferior race with a primitive religion surpass them in numbers, wealth and achievement in such a short space of time.

In the recent riots of England, whites joined in with the blacks to loot the shops of the browns, who are mostly the people these days who do any real business and who have property to protect.

It just shows you the strength and superiority of those who practise family values supported by marriage, compared to those once racially superior white affluent liberal atheists who thought they were above that sort of thing, but who are now effeminate reptiles and dogs, without honour and without shame, degraded and utterly contemptible in their cowardice and hypocrisy both in their domestic and foreign policy.

Imagine the kind of people who think the rest of the world is stupid enough to believe that they are invading another country for the good that country!   Their own people may be stupid enough to believe that, but it is sheer ignorance and arrogance to think others not subject to the British education system would be quite so susceptible to this sort of liberal claptrap.

Staggering, they will soon fall down on the pavement dead drunk, but not after vomiting and involuntarily defecating in the manner of drunks who really have had too much to drink, after all the partying they have had.  The rest of the world waits patiently, ready to kick their head in when this happens.

The lower the morals of women, the lower the morals of men.  And the morals of white working class slut, slag and slapper is very low indeed as they necessarily must be to have so many variously-fathered illegitimate children at the expense of the taxpayer in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.

Around half the children born in Britain are now born out of wedlock.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23427447-more-than-half-of-all-british-babies-are-born-out-of-marriage.do

Think of how low the morals of the male political establishment must be, if they are afraid to criticise these sluts, slags and slappers who have variously-fathered bastards at the expense of the taxpayer.  It is no surprise that they do the things they now do in the world.  One can only hope that China and Russia eventually work up the courage to stop these fools and knaves in their tracks, with one neatly planted sucker punch, for the sake of world peace and to put an end to the toxic ideology of liberalism, which has delighted us for quite long enough.

My answer to the question "Claire, do you admire the Oslo killer?"

It would appear that Breivik felt that there was no other way as all the anti-immigration parties in Europe are marginalised, despised and ignored. It would appear that he felt it was necessary to do what he did in order to get the attention, not just of the Norwegians, but the entire Western world and all the European peoples.

Being a former member of two anti-immigration parties, I am well aware of how hopelessly ineffective they are.

By the time BNP and UKIP get their acts together, there will be even more immigrants, more single mothers, and more useless jobless welfare-dependent bastards with a crap state education that no one wants to hire.

It may well be that Breivic felt that there was a certain urgency in being both dramatic and unignorable that could not wait till the next election.

You see, if something is agreed to be necessary, then it follows that it is moral.

Necessary for what, you ask.

Necessary to stop Europe becoming a part of an Islamic empire after it is finished being part of the EU liberal feminist empire.


I am glad he had the moral discernment not to take it out on the Muslims but instead targeted the people who are members of the party that led them in and won't stop letting them in no matter how much the locals complain. If you are going to kill people, you might as well kill the people who are most to blame for your troubles, and Breivik thought this was the liberal political establishment who have been pooh-poohing the concerns of ordinary people for decades now. Indeed, anyone expressing concern to them is automatically labelled a bigot and a racist, until people are afraid to discuss the subject or unless they don't mind being called evil, extremist, Nazi, Fascist bigots.

This means that while people, especially politicians, are afraid to discuss this subject properly, the problem gets worse and more intractable until the people are presented with a fait accompli.


Breivic only wanted Norway to operate an immigration policy similar to the South Koreans and Japanese, apparently, which sounds pretty moderate to me, unless we are to call the Japanese and South Koreans 'extremist'. 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657473/Norway-killings-Breivik-posted-hate-filled-video-on-YouTube-hours-before-attacks.html

Brievik says he wants to see a Europe modelled on the nations of Japan and South Korea, which he says represent a system “not far from cultural conservatism and nationalism at its best”.

Breivic only wanted Norway to operate an immigration policy similar to the South Koreans and Japanese, apparently. Perhaps these days that is considered 'extremist' by our demented liberal political classes?

'Admire' is perhaps a dangerous word to use in view of the violence used and the numbers killed, but if Breivic has by his actions made the liberal governments of Europe re-examine their policy of tolerating if not actively encouraging uncontrolled immigration while suppressing any criticism of this policy, and if it was the only way to make the governments of Europe re-examine this policy of encouraging social unrest, then perhaps his ruthlessness was necessary.   If this was indeed necessary, then perhaps it could be said that it is admirable.  Perhaps, then, the intransigence and arrogance of the liberal establishment in refusing to discuss topic properly and of vilifying those who dare to complain about immigration as evil and racist should take some of the blame for the violence Breivic felt was necessary to use in order to achieve his aim of having a full and frank debate about immigration.  It may be that the hypocritical and cowardly liberal establishment will even now continue to refuse to debate this matter and continue to demonise and suppress those who complain about immigration, but with even more illiberal ruthlessness than before.  


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084895,00.html#ixzz1T8KYj9PE

Around 2000, I realized that the democratic struggle against the Islamization of Europe, and European multiculturalism, was lost. It is simply not possible to compete with democratic regimes that import millions of voters. 40 years of dialogue with the cultural Marxists / multiculturalists had ended up as a disaster. It would now only take 50-70 years before we, Europeans, were the minority. So I decided to explore alternative forms of opposition. But the biggest problem then was that there were no options for me at all.  

The Templeton Prize for Claire Khaw in 2012?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize

... it is awarded to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". 

Until 2001, the name of the prize was "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion", and from 2002 to 2008 it was called the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities".

The monetary value of the prize is adjusted so that it exceeds that of the Nobel Prizes, as Templeton felt "spirituality was ignored" in the Nobel prizes. At £1,000,000, as of 2009, it is the largest single annual financial prize award given to an individual by a philanthropic organisation. The prize is awarded "based on the decision of a panel of distinguished judges from various academic disciplines and religious traditions".   Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients of the prize.

I rather fancy the Prize to be honest, and could do with the dosh and the glory.

Questions:

1. Would the creation of a new religion count?
2. Would initiating debate on the creation of a new religion count?
3. Would creating a new religion that would unite atheists, agnostics and monotheists count?
   

https://templetonfoundation.wufoo.com/forms/2012-templeton-prize-nomination-form/


A new British state religion is my gift to the British people (let us call it a thought present) and my contribution to Western civilisation.  Its Holy Trinity consists of

1. Anglican Islam (for the masses)
2. Secular Koranism (for the judiciary)
3. Agnostic Indifference [to the existence of God] (for anyone who wishes to participate in politics)

What would make it unprecedented (were I to be awarded the Prize) would be the fact that I will have been able to successfully claim to be simultaneously Agnostic, Atheist and Monotheist and present a Unified Theory of God, Reason and Morality that will be acceptable to all three schools of thought, without any attempt to convert anyone to Islam at all.  

Orwell Prize debate on the monarchy: ‘is it time to make monarchy history?’ OR Joan Smith is a fat arrogant old trollop and she is NOT better than the Queen

described as "babyish" by Peter Hitchens

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-shortlist-2011-announcement-and-debate/

This was a debate of particular interest to me as I had been in a few spats with a number of Facebook friends recently.  It seemed outrageous that so many of the Liberal Left such as Martin Amis actually think they are better than the Queen.  Amis gratuitously insults her and the Royal Family for not having read any of his books and no one really thinks much about this curious phenomenon of Liberal Left writers who think themselves as several degrees above the monarch even as their own family morals are mired in filth and degradation.  In Martin Amis's case I am of course referring to the tragic life of Sally Amis described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Amis


Before it started I chatted briefly to David Cohen of the Evening Standard, who was on the longlist for the journalism prize.  He has very dark intense eyes which I found rather alarming, and his wife I found perfectly charming.  It was the first time he had entered for the journalism prize he told me.  He is not related to Nick Cohen, who was once my Facebook friend.

The debate was kick-started by the audience being asked to raise their hands by Jodie Ginsberg the Chair if they agreed with the proposition.  She observed that roughly a third put their hand up.  No attempt was made to ask the views of those who disagreed, or even the don't knows, or whether anyone had changed their minds after the debate.

Typical left-wing bias, I thought to myself.

The first speaker was Gerry Stoker who appeared to be neutral about the monarchy, drawing our attention to the third verse of God Save the Queen, and making the point that she reigns rather than rules.

The second speaker was Ian McLean pointed out that that in our tri-cameral system (Monarch, Lords and Commons) only one was elected and that was undemocratic and an injustice crying to the heavens to be avenged, apparently.

Joan Smith was wearing a very short dress and reminded me of a character in the the Kenny Everett Television Show.

"the pneumatic American starlet Cupid Stunt, for whom Everett coined the catchphrase "all in the best pahssible taste!", as "she" crossed her legs with an extravagant lack of discretion"

Nothing wrong with her legs, but any woman over a certain age who flaunts them in this distastefully distracting way must be single and looking, I imagine.  She even remarked perhaps with an attempt at flirtatiousness that Peter Hitchens would have been her ideal man were it not for the fact that he is wrong about everything.  Peter Hitchens is married, and has better sense than to be aroused by an arrogant fat trollop like her, I like to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Smith suggests that no sensible man would touch her with a bargepole, not even the stupidest warmongering cunt of a  Labour politician who supports the war in Afraqbya, not even if he is called Dennis McShane ...

Smith attended the Queen's Garden Party, smiled and said hello to the Queen without observing the protocols curtsying first, so the Queen cut her dead.  That must have punctured her ego - about the size of a football stadium, probably - and from that moment on she thought the monarchy must be abolished.  One of her sillier comments was that our monarch should be elected and then, after seven years, another elected.  It doesn't have to be me necessarily, I think she also said, with a mockery of modesty.  If we did have a Queen Joan, I think the monarchy would be abolished pronto, so perhaps this is something the Republicans ought to consider.  It is possible that a Queen Joan would arouse the populace into such a fury that they will behead her, but perhaps the Republicans will consider it a sacrifice well worth making for such a noble cause.

Peter Hitchens said that he was making a point of smiling back at Joan Smith every time she smiles at him, to avoid the possibility of Joan Smith calling for the abolition of Peter Hitchens.

Said Peter Hitchens:

"You wouldn't know anyone who would approve of the monarchy, would you? And even if they did they wouldn't dare tell you."

This particular FemiNazi protocol.of Tory men making obeisance to Joan Smith by men was rather interesting and helps me warm to my theme that this country is having its face sat on and can no longer breathe, let alone complain intelligibly.   The men can only weakly gesticulate underneath her skirts and I can just make out their pathetically muffled cries.

Fear not O Men of Britain, Auntie Claire is coming to your rescue! Only Auntie Claire dares to say the things that need to be said about feminism that even the BNP are afraid to say!  

Sunder Katwala made the most surprising and heart-warming speech of all.  Being a Lefty he is a Republican but, being a democrat, sees that the abolition of the monarchy must be done only by majority consent which the Republican movement has signally failed to harness.  (I really do think if we want to abolish the monarchy all we have to do is substitute for just one month Elizabeth Windsor with Joan Smith and then sit back to see Britain arouse itself into a foaming ocean of Regicidal Republican Wrath ...

Non-whites Britons are more pro-monarchy than the white British citizens, he pointed out.  If we want to have a Republic, we would have to persuade the public.

Even with the help of four Republican newspapers: The Observer, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, the Republicans still cannot win the argument, it was pointed out.

What is so wonderful about elections, Peter Hitchens asked, and a very good question it was too.  Someone else other than the Prime Minister should be able to recall Parliament, but he did not say whom.

I forget whom it was who said that "The monarchy is like the king on a chessboard - it doesn't do much but it means the difference between losing and winning."

Peter Hitchens said he is a monarchist and not a royalist, and therefore couldn't care less about the royal wedding.  Apparently, Charles was advised not to meet Peter Hitchens by one of his advisers.  I wonder why and by whom.  I do hope Charles will meet me one day and perhaps think of making me a dame, because I have so many lovely ideas for the monarchy, chief of which is to disestablish the unfit for purpose Church of England and to establish a new state religion called Anglican Islam which is based on Secular Koranism. They should hear me out, they really really should.

Once this is done I could step into be the High Priestess of Anglican Islam and basically just sort everything out for the benighted British and make them see light again.

Martin Bright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bright said Charles should not be made King because he is too political.

Someone rather spitefully suggested that the Royal Family's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act be revoked.

Ian McLean (in answer to Peter Hitchens' question "What has the monarchy ever stopped us from doing that we should wish to abolish it?") said that monarchy was an obstacle to freedom of religion and equality. Although I had a word with Ian McLean later, I never got to the bottom of it.  McLean (who is a Quaker) said it was an outrage that bishops in the House of Lords could forbid liberal Jews and Quakers from blessing civil partnerships in their liberal synagogues and their liberal friends' houses. Since it does say that in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination, I cannot quite see why even liberal Jews and Christians should wish to bless people who are committing abominations in the eyes of those who are Jews and Christians.

In any case, how is this the fault of the Queen?

Liberal feminist atheists have really gone mad with arrogance, I fear.   The awful frightening thing is that people like them are now in charge of the ship of state and would wish to destroy everything that normal sensible people hold dear just because they can and it amuses them to do so.  It is really really time they are stopped.  

Secular Koranism

I would like it said that Secular Koranism is a novel and coherent fusion of atheism, agnosticism, monotheism, non-racist civic nationalism, libertarianism, direct democracy, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I would also it said that I am the High Priestess of Secular Koranism.   

My email of today to the Baroness Warsi saying gissa job

Dear Lady Warsi

I hope to interest you in the idea of a PR campaign for Muslims. 

I am, like you, legally-trained. 

Perhaps the most important thing you should know about me is that I am one of the few non-white members of the BNP who is known for my concept of Anglican Islam AKA Khavian Koranism AKA Secular Koranism and my playfully rational  and practical interpretations of the Koran. 

My appointment would certainly be in itself controversial and I would use this publicity to the best of my ability to explain the social, political and economic causes of Islamophobia and recommend ways of dealing with it. 

I am also known to the Association of British Muslims whose Amir - David Rosser Owen - is sympathetic to some of my ideas. 

I already have the support of a talented Muslim who has a scholarly knowledge of the Koran and Arabic who has said he would wish to set up a PR firm in partnership with me.  Obviously, this would only happen if I was given the job. 

I look forward to hearing from you so I can explain in detail to you the ideas I have for the poster campaign I have in mind.

You will note that I am a talented self-publicist and have already copied this email on my blog at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-email-of-today-to-baroness-warsi.html


Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

"Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better."

www.1party4all.co.uk - opinion-polling direct democracy
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com - gender-relations and sexuality
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com - politics explained
www.twitter.com/1party4all

"God is an instrument of good government, whether or not you believe in Him."

The problem with the teaching of history in the UK according to Abdal Hakim Murad

0744
Thought for the Day with Abdal Hakim Murad - Muslim Chaplain at the University of Cambridge - for whom I have a spot that is soft, yielding (and I like to think welcoming) ...

He would be my Archbishop of Canterbury if I were Tudor Monarch Henrietta VIII.  Abdal Hakim Murad complains about the disjointed teaching of history through which we derive our disjointed morality and our woeful lack of noble national traditions.  The standard fare of Hitler and Stalin is not enough, he says.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9366000/9366168.stm

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/

If I were absolute monarch Henrietta VIII, I would create a new religion of Indifferent Agnosticism AKA Anglican Islam.

I would also break off diplomatic relations with the US.

Would I take a number of husbands or civilly partner women (or a combination of both) and then cut off their heads?

Watch this space.

If you find the idea of white women in hijabs alien, ugly and dismaying you might like the idea of Anglican Islam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343954/100-000-Islam-converts-living-UK-White-women-keen-embrace-Muslim-faith.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/04/my-easter-message-new-state-religion.html

My Facebook friends outed as Nazis by Zionist Liberal Fascists at Harry's Place

My walls have ears, and Big Brother is watching me!

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/15/respect-asghar-bukhari-and-the-nazis/

A sea change in political thinking?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/11/islam-should-become-our-state-religion.html shows a certain willingness from someone in the Conservative Party to think the unthinkable, ie making Islam the British state religion.

It is now generally agreed, even in military circles that being the poodle of America (who is the poodle of Israel who will become the Sarajevo of the 21st century century) is not demonstrably in the British national interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11751888

If I were PM I would break off diplomatic relations with the US just to show how very sorry we are for being the poodle of a warmongering rogue nation and want nothing further to do with it.

The relationship is only "special" if the US is the world's strongest nation. Since it is clearly showing signs of poverty and dementia, the only specialness of this relationship would be in the "special needs" sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_needs

If the UK is to be a canine country of some sort, becoming a Pekingese would serve its interests better.

Secular Koranism a weapon to defeat the insanity of both religious fanatics and liberal extremists

It is pretty clear to me anyway that all the Abrahamic faiths were created to strengthen the patriarchy and to prevent a self-destructive, promiscuous and irrational matriarchy from returning society to the barbarism from which it once emerged.

When you are faced with two evils facing your society and civilisation, it would be rational to choose the lesser evil. Patriarchy v Matriarchy: which is the lesser evil?

Secular Koranism invites you to agree that the Koran is a good enough guide for mankind, even if one does not believe in the existence of a living God.

Unfortunately, sloth and pride as well as hate and fear prevent most intelligent and educated people from picking it up and reading it for themselves.

Old Testament/Judaism/Law = Thesis

New Testament/Christianity/Mercy = Antithesis

Koran/Islam/Law, Mercy and Reason = Synthesis

Why are the Muslims such basket cases? Because most of them don't read the Koran in the same way that people who claim to be Christians don't know their Bible either.

Secular Koranism would require that people *qualify* as Secular Koranists through passing an exam. This would actually mean Secular Koranists are in fact better guided than those who claim to be Muslim but have never read the Koran with any understanding or digested or practiced its principles.

International Marxism, National Socialism and The Third Way

National Socialism was an ideology to combat International Marxism, which has world ambitions.

National Socialism attempted to be a - ahem - Third Way, ie a middle way between capitalism and socialism.

Does any of this sound familiar?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/may/08/leaders.labour

Islam is another example of a third way ideology between the ethno-exclusiveness and high entry requirements of Judaism and the extremist ideology of the Christians which claimed that all one had to do to reach the Kingdom of God is believe that Christ is really God, amongst other odd and extremist doctrines.  

There are many examples in history of hybrid and evolving ideologies.

Religious Intolerance in England after the Break from Rome

Thanks be to the Pope who made me take an interest in these things while he was here!

The Toleration and Test Acts is an affront to all civilised values.  No wonder the Pilgrim Fathers fucked off to America.  

After Henry VIII's break from Rome and there was established the Church of England AKA a Creature of the State, there occurred schism within schism.  Within the Anglican Church, those who dissented from it were in turn discriminated against and persecuted.

Those who did not agree to the 39 Articles were treated as odd and inferior, and deprived of their entitlement to take certain learned and important positions in education and government.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles

If Henry had not broken from Rome, there would not have been such religious intolerance and mutual suspicion, and not quite so many people would have died over whether the Bible was translated into English, which prayer book was used, how much of it was used, and whether people had to be forced into using a particular prayer book and which bits of it etc etc.

If Henry had been Muslim, he would not have needed to ask the Pope's permission to take another wife.  There would have been no problem at all and two of his six wives would have died with their heads on their shoulders. 

The ordinary English folk would have been less prone to being burnt as a heretic or as a Catholic or discriminated against as a Dissenter.

BNP men fretting about the declining numbers and deteriorating quality of the white race would, if Muslim, rest easy in the comforting thought that their Islamic ability to take four wives and sire children with them will quickly replace the birth rate of legitimate white babies with two married parents whose numbers have been so hideously ravaged by extremist feminism.

Indeed, there would have been no extremist feminism at all to contend with.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Toleration_1689
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1698

Khavian Koranism Ideological Weapon against Radical Islam

I am sorry to appear egotistical, but it seems I have no choice but to put my name to a new ideology I have created to counter Radical Islam in order to avoid being accused of being a Radical Islamist myself. I am saying that while you hate Radical Islam, you will love Khavian Koranism because it is different. It is different because it does not require a belief in God for you to subscribe to it. In other words, it will not damage the integrity of your agnostic and atheistical beliefs.

I have had it said that I wish to create a new religion. I certainly wish to create a new ideology - that of Secular Khavian Anglican Islam (or whatever it ends up being called) whose principles would be judiciously balanced by the principles of libertarianism. 

It is an ideology that rationally and humanely combines Koranic principles with libertarianism which is agnostic as to the existence of God, which I propose to call Indifferent Agnosticism. 






It is indeed a hybrid ideology rather like, it has to be admitted, National Socialism. It must be pointed out that National Socialism and Fascism were created as a vaccination against International Marxism by those who feared and hated this radical ideology.





National Socialism's most distinguishing characteristics are:

1. a one-party state
2. a leadership and personality cult
3. a stated preoccupation with social justice and the people
4. a stated preoccupation with the national interest

National Socialism was in fact practised outside Germany, after Hitler's death.  While it is unarguable that  International Marxism became National Socialism the moment those who adopted it gave up their international ambitions, this is not generally accepted by political theorists.  

The explanation is simple: Hitler is one of the major villain's of recent history.  This being so no nation would wish to acknowledge that the ideology they are in fact practising has all the main elements of National Socialism.  It may even cause a major diplomatic incident if it were pointed that China is the most established and successful nation on earth that practises National Socialism.  (The People's Republic of China 60th birthday was celebrated in 2009.  The Russians once practised it, but gave up National Socialism when they gave up their one-party system under Gorbachev.) 


The spectre of Radical Islam hangs over the world just as the spectre of Communism hung over the world at the beginning of the last century. 

I therefore propose countering Radical Islamism with Secular Khavian Anglican Islam - an ideology that combines the elements of 

1. agnostic neutrality on the existence of God so that we make the most of our agreement
2. racial neutrality
3. libertarianism
4. family values AKA anti-feminism
5. social justice
6. nationalism (ie an ideology of national interest which is an abstract concept of balancing the competing interests of the different groups that make up a nation)
7. a one-party state under a constitution that protects the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies and no personality cult

Islam and Liberalism distorted into fascism, people too afraid to admit this.

The trouble with Islam is that Muslims have distorted Islam, rather in the same way that liberals have perverted liberalism into fascism

Another reason to convert to Islam?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

Another reason to be Muslim, according to Prince Charles.

Maybe the BNP should promise to disestablish the Church of England so he can convert to Islam?

Henry VIII would have been a happier husband and the English a happier reign if their king had been Muslim.

Islam allows divorce. Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism, hypocritically, does not.