Is that shining city on the hill in fact Muslim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

A discussion with some Americans about Catholicism, Protestantism, feminism and Islam

Hannity talks about America being that shining city upon a hill. Is any public intellectual in the West prepared to discuss whether most of the Founding Fathers were in fact proto-Muslim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views

He blamed institutional Christianity for causing much suffering but continued to be an active Christian while maintaining that religion was necessary for society. He became a Unitarian, rejecting the divinity of Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue,_religion,_and_personal_beliefs

As a young man he rejected Christian dogma in a 1725 pamphlet A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, which he later saw as an embarrassment, while simultaneously asserting that God is "all wise, all good, all powerful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the traditional Christianity of his era. Throughout his life, Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, religious studies, and morality.  Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion, Theistic rationalism, and Unitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#Religion

Although baptized as an Anglican and educated by Presbyterian clergymen, young Madison was an avid reader of English deist tracts. As an adult, Madison paid little attention to religious matters. Though most historians have found little indication of his religious leanings after he left college, some scholars indicate he leaned toward deism. Others maintain that Madison accepted Christian tenets and formed his outlook on life with a Christian world view.

Regardless of his own religious beliefs, Madison believed in religious liberty, and he advocated for Virginia's disestablishment of the Anglican Church throughout the late 1770s and 1780s. He also opposed the appointments of chaplains for Congress and the armed forces, arguing that the appointments produce religious exclusion as well as political disharmony. In 1819, Madison said, "The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_George_Washington#Deism_and_scholarly_views

Even during his lifetime, people were unsure of the degree to which Washington believed in Christianity. As noted above, some of his contemporaries called him a deist. Debate continues to this day regarding whether he is best categorized as a deist or as a Christian, and some writers have introduced other terms to describe a blending of the two.

Inside the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court, perched above the press seating area is the North Wall frieze dedicated to the “great lawgivers of law” to portray the development of law throughout history – and one of the figures immortalised is the prophet Muhammad. A frieze built between 1931 and 1932 in time for the buildings grand opening in 1935.

After all, Muhammad is already on the frieze of the American Supreme Court and the White House Koran was in fact Thomas Jefferson's.

Prophet Muhammad Honored By the U.S. Supreme Court As One Of The Greatest Lawgivers Of The World In 1935

The First Amendment was based on quran.com/2/256

The First Amendment was derived from the Koran

Think and Grow Rich author Napoleon Hill promoted Islam!

My advice to white people

Even if the (((Juice))) are regularly offering cups of poison to the gentile, why does the gentile feel obliged to drink it?

Because Christianity is kaput, of course. Because white gentiles no longer have a religion promoting social conservatism to maintain their morals, they will be easily tempted and tricked.

As G K Chesterton said, "When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

Feminism is parasitical on feminism, and feminism is parasitical on sexual liberation. The entire West is hooked on the idea sexual liberation and voting in general elections. Sexual liberation has distracted these benighted people from noticing that every time they vote, their government gets worse and makes them more stupid with their degenerate policies. This has resulted in a burgeoning idiocracy that cannot be reasoned with and which can only be subdued by threats and bribes.

Whether they like it or not, I consider white people my people because I have lived amongst them so long. They have been so kind and welcoming - yes, even white nationalists with only a few exceptions have been lovely to me! - that I do feel like one of them and for this reason feel a genuine sense alarm and concern for them in the difficult times ahead.

I will try to nurse them back to health and if this is not possible, stay with them to the very end, holding their hand while saying soothing things as they ramble incoherently in the throes of their dementia.

Because I care about white people, I will again warn them. My dear late grandmother was always criticising me and said when I looked displeased that she only criticised me because she cared about me. She said that if she didn't care about me, she would let me do exactly what I liked and then laugh at me behind my back. It is on this basis that I criticise white people: out of affection and concern for them, to the extent of forgiving even the nastier ones, especially the ones who tell me to sling my hook and go back to where I came from.

What I want to say to them is this: their pale skin is not enough to unite them. Something more is required: a religion that is not a return to the worship of Nordic gods.

We all know that white people hate each other and fight and kill each other, don't we?

Let us not forget that however badly white people have behaved towards other races, they have been spectacularly nasty to each other eg burning each other as heretics over the nature of the Trinity, for translating the Bible into English, beheading each over whether their church should Brexit from Globalist Catholicism etc.

Let us not forget it was white people - Christians no less! - who waged to the European Wars of Religion and two fratricidal World Wars against each other.

We know how Athens destroyed itself in war against Sparta, and all because Athens didn't like the way the Spartans governed themselves!

I am reminded of a story of a Spartan taunting an Athenian by daring him to run his own family as a democracy. The Athenian was silenced.

How long has democracy lasted the last time we had it? Not very long was it? Athens was a democracy for under 100 years. Imperial Rome existed for a much longer time than Republican Rome.

Let me say again that I am not a democrat. If I am a democrat at all, I would want a taxpayer only democracy in a one party theocracy.

I now come to my pet idea: a one party theocracy governed on the principles of Secular Koranism. Jews, Christians, atheists and agnostics who see the point of social conservatism should all support this.

Secular Koranism is for social conservatives of all religions and races and guarantees freedom of belief for all with 2:256. The beauty of it is that it will allow Jews and Christian to be better Jews and Christians because they will be living a culture of social conservatism that won't treat them like freaks and objects of scorn for adhering to Biblical concepts that promote sexual continence.

Currently, Jews and Christians who publicly adhere to Biblical principles are mocked, bullied and hounded from office like poor little Tim Farron.

The penny will soon drop that the only way men can get their country back is to reject the current political system of indiscriminate universal franchise.

The penny has dropped that it is the women who prefer security over liberty, and in liberal democracies the female preference is always prioritised. We know what they say about people who choose security over liberty, don't we, boys and girls? It is said that they deserve neither.

We live in a matriarchy. The status quo is therefore a matriarchy. Women will want to cling to the privileges they have acquired over so many decades of men being distracted by accepting so many bribes of sex from so many different fornicating sluts until marriage as an institution has now been utterly desecrated.

Without marriage there can be no patriarchy.

Without patriarchy there can be no men in sufficient numbers capable of defending the national interest.

Now that men have come to their senses, they can finally do something about it and establish an Iranian-style one party theocracy as they shoo over-promoted female mediocrities such as Theresa May out of public life and overthrow the degenerate matriarchy.

  From 5th minute about why UK leaders are such fucking crap.

That is why the British must ask the Chinese and Iranians for advice and assistance on how to help them establish their one party theocracy. They would be flattered, gratified and delighted to help, I am sure.

13:11

Everyone is guarded and protected on all sides by the order of God. God does not change the condition of a nation unless it changes what is in its heart. When God wants to punish a people, there is no way to escape from it and no one besides God will protect them from it.

What is in the hearts of Western men? The desire to fornicate freely that they have now come to regard as their human right. The Koran will give them an alternative non-libtard set of human rights.

How feminism has turned Western men into bleating sheep

Feminism has turned men into sheep.

It is all to do with the price of sex. Marriage is obviously the most expensive form of sex, but men will only marry if they acquire obvious advantages after marriage, eg status and sex.

If they see unmarried men also getting sex without the bother and cost of having a wife and family, they will soon elect not to marry when they see most men getting bad settlements in divorce, eg losing their homes and losing contact with their children.

Feminism, because it says that women have the right to be as promiscuous as men on the grounds of gender equality, bribes men with cheap sex.

If sex is a drug then the male is the user and the female the supplier. It is the addiction to the idea of having a right to have sex with women they are not married to that turns men into sheep.

It was chasing the female vote under the system we call representative democracy that led to this state of affairs.

And it is of course the fact that half the voters are women that makes this situation difficult to correct without proposing measures that they would predictably resist, eg

a. repealing the Equality Act 2010

b. abolishing no fault divorce

c. narrowing the franchise

Indeed, to solve the problem we have to breach TWO taboos:

1. forbidding extramarital sex (which is logically the only way of respecting marriage, which no one cares to do anyway)

2. acknowledging that indiscriminate universal suffrage was a grave error and should be corrected by the rule of no representation without taxation

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html

Because the people who are most likely to agree with me are despised beta-omega males in despised fringe parties who are social and political pariahs, it does not appear that this warning will be heeded.  As for the so-called alpha males of British society, these men would be men in the liberal political establishment who will be paralysed by their inability beyond to think beyond the next general election and will be too frightened and stupid to make out a strong enough case to move anyone sufficiently to change their view or behaviour.

"A taboo is a vehement prohibition of an action based on the belief that such behavior is either too sacred or too accursed for ordinary individuals to undertake, under threat of supernatural punishment. Such prohibitions are present in virtually all societies.The word has been somewhat expanded in the social sciences to strong prohibitions relating to any area of human activity or custom that is sacred or forbidden based on moral judgment and religious beliefs. "Breaking a taboo" is usually considered objectionable by society in general, not merely a subset of a culture."

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

While I shall continue to say what I can about SSMs and MCSFs, these beta-omega males will continue to withhold their support from me, because, on the one hand they will perceive me as a female and a foreigner proposing to breach two major taboos and whom they have already denounced as mad, and on the other hand feel that even if they wanted to do what I do they will not be up to the job.  They will therefore just pretend there is nothing can do while also denouncing anyone who hopes to do something as mad and deluded.

The men most likely to agree with me would be male members of UKP and the BNP, but they are almost without exception despised social pariahs ie beta-omega males who are low in courage, resources and charisma or just elderly men who are not going to be around for much longer.

So you see, boys and girls, why other nations hate and fear sluts and homos and anyone who indulges in extramarital sex with such a visceral contempt. It is precisely to avoid the fate of the Western man, who is now lower than sluts and too much in denial to even discuss it, let alone do anything about, while his institutions are all now hopelessly infested with those who would condone bastardy and sluttery, all the way up to the Pope himself.

Western civilisation really is a car crash in slow motion.

Repudiating the Lisbon Treaty and all previous treaties leading to it

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/elmar-brok-bid-to-repatriate-powers-is-a-tory-pipe-dream-1814780.html

After the next British Revolution, we can always repudiate the Lisbon Treaty in its entirety, and all the others leading to it. Tear them up, throw the pieces in their faces, walk out the door and slam it, hard.

And if they fight us we will fight them, won't we?

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo [EU] and all the odious apparatus of Nazi [Brussels] rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France [Folkestone?],
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender"

But perhaps not, because we are now but a weak and feeble-minded people, unprincipled and cravenly. We prefer security to liberty and therefore deserve neither.