THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
— Confucius
Constants are the terms in the algebraic expression that contain only numbers. That is, they're the terms without variables. We call them constants because their value never changes, since there are no variables in the term that can change its value. In the expression 7x2 + 3xy + 8 the constant term is "8."
We just have to make sure we know which words are constants and which are variables.
If the Democrats prevent Judge Kavanaugh's appointment from taking place in this round of Trump-bashing, it will be even more blurred and uncertain afterwards.
Men in particular should note this inevitability. Hey, how long is Bill Crosby going to be in prison? How long will you be in prison if a malicious and false accusation is believed by the judge and jury?
"We believe survivors!"
What is wrong with this sentence?
These women accusing Judge Kavanaugh are called "survivors". Once you call these possibly false and malicious accusers "survivors", you are assuming the guilt of Judge Kavanaugh.
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
— Confucius
Too bad with so many Jewish lawyers in America, not a single one of them has yet come forward to mention Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Perhaps all the Jews and gentiles of America have collectively lost their so-called Judeo-Christian heritage all at the same time. If so, they shouldn't be complaining about acquiring an Islamic one because they sure as hell need a religion that promotes patriarchal moral values to stop immoral women from taking over the ship of state and crashing Western civilisation on to the rocks, where all the men are lower than immoral women who can silence any man by accusing him of a historic sexual offence.
1. One Party Theocracy
2. Everyone works/contributes.
3. Anti liberal agenda.
4. Health, food, exercise, well being nationally regulated.
5. Slavery for criminals
6. No medication for depression.
7. No drugs. Ban alcohol, porn , gambling.
8. Any woman having child out of wedlock forced abortion.
9. Ban immigration unless extraordinary.
10. Any colour or creed fine but the national identity trumps religion.
11. Would encourage those here from other countries to go back.
12. Make feminism a crime.
14:30 On having principles, especially moral and relgious principles and rules. People who don't believe in God don't really get principles. When you have a religion, you really get religious principles and understand why they must be followed, if you want to be accepted and identified as a member of your religious group. Islamophobes are militant atheists united by their hatred of the Abrahamic faiths exhibiting antisemitism and Islamophobia which educated people find repulsive and frightening.
23:00 Rules and the Rule of Law.
24:00 The constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that it makes a principle of having no principles. A theocracy based on the scripture containing the divine laws of an eternal and supreme Abrahamic God based would stop this kind of shit dead in its tracks.
27:00 The purpose of having moral laws is to govern our behaviour towards each other so we remain in existence as a group and maintain social cohesion to avoid the situation of invaders coming into our society and taking over. Jews were warned against disobeying the laws of God at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28&version=NIV They ignored them and got kicked out of their own country by the Romans.
For Confucius, zhengming does not seem to refer to the ‘rectification of names’ (this is the way the term is most often translated by scholars of the Analects), but instead to rectifying the behavior of people and the social reality so that they correspond to the language with which people identify themselves and describe their roles in society. Confucius believed that this sort of rectification had to begin at the very top of the government, because it was at the top that the discrepancy between names and actualities had originated. If the ruler's behavior is rectified then the people beneath him will follow suit. In a conversation with Ji Kangzi (who had usurped power in Lu), Confucius advised: “If your desire is for good, the people will be good. The moral character of the ruler is the wind; the moral character of those beneath him is the grass. When the wind blows, the grass bends” (Lunyu 12.19).
For Confucius, what characterized superior rulership was the possession of de or ‘virtue.’ Conceived of as a kind of moral power that allows one to win a following without recourse to physical force, such ‘virtue’ also enabled the ruler to maintain good order in his state without troubling himself and by relying on loyal and effective deputies. Confucius claimed that, “He who governs by means of his virtue is, to use an analogy, like the pole-star: it remains in its place while all the lesser stars do homage to it” (Lunyu 2.1). The way to maintain and cultivate such royal ‘virtue’ was through the practice and enactment of li or ‘rituals’—the ceremonies that defined and punctuated the lives of the ancient Chinese aristocracy. These ceremonies encompassed: the sacrificial rites performed at ancestral temples to express humility and thankfulness; the ceremonies of enfeoffment, toasting, and gift exchange that bound together the aristocracy into a complex web of obligation and indebtedness; and the acts of politeness and decorum—such things as bowing and yielding—that identified their performers as gentlemen. In an influential study, Herbert Fingarette argues that the performance of these various ceremonies, when done correctly and sincerely, involves a ‘magical’ quality that underlies the efficacy of royal ‘virtue’ in accomplishing the aims of the ruler.
41:00 Our laws should be in harmony with our chosen moral system. Religions are xamples of a moral system are Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. Political ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism etc also come under this category, but political ideologies do not last as long as religions so we might as well choose the most practical and durable ideology available, and I recommend Secular Koranism. Judaism is the most successful of all the Abrahamic faiths because it enabled the Jews to get back their homeland after 2000 years of being without it. Judaism enabled Jews to remain a distinct group even after 2000 years of exile. If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism. Jews in Israel would be more likely to have peaceful enjoyment of Israel if Israel became a theocracy because, obviously, God if He exists always intended Israel to be a theocracy, not be a mere colonial outpost of an evil and declining empire.
45:00 Jay submits to Truth, Logic, Morality and perhaps Islam when he says under his dictatorship there would be "No drugs" and he would "ban alcohol, porn , gambling."
55:00 Jay understandably refuses to discuss his mysterious agreement with me on the issue of a one party theocracy contained in his political manifesto because he is still in the course of putting flesh to the skeleton of his idea. But I consider this progress and movement! Yay!
59:00 Jay explains his love-hate relationship with Iceland.
1:06:00 My dream as a keen amateur portrait photographer to one day visit a male prison and take flattering photos of them.
1:12:00 I think I would be quite a cheering bedside presence for the sick and dying.
1:24:00 quran.com/24/2 is better for shaming sluts than forced abortions imposed on unmarried but pregnant women.
1:37:00 The inclusivity of white nationalists is their strength
The inclusivity of nationalists would be their strength because, potentially, men of all ages, races and religions who wish to restore the patriarchy, would outnumber, outrank and defeat the men who obviously have no intention or prospect of becoming the fathers of legitimate children and who have never been married. Only men wishing to and capable of fathering the next generation of legitimate children deserve to have their preferences prioritised. White men going on about the colour of their skin as if it were a religion when it cannot possibly be is just embarrassing.
1:38:00 Uncontrolled immigration is resented by citizens of all races.
1:39:00 People will bond as Jews did with each other when they are attacked and oppressed.
1:40:00 We are all members of different groups and often our membership of these different groups causes conflict.
1:42:00 Identity politics and how we are statistically more likely to be murdered by someone we have had sex with eg our spouse than with than an illegal immigrant.
1:45:00 We are tired of being lied to by the political establishment. Why do they lie all the time?
1:46:00 The West is suffering from a double whammy of a failed religion and political system.
1:48:00 Slut shaming
1:49:00 I remind Jay of my proposal to go to Aceh, Indonesia to demonstrate the efficacy of slut-shaming. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/01/qanun-jinayat-in-bandar-aceh.html
2:04:00 The fact that you have misbehaving minorities means your rules are not clear.
2:08:00 The rule of law no longer operates in the West.
2:09:00 Underage sex
2:10:00 Gillick Competence
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on the 1985 decision of the House of Lords in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been adopted to varying extents in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similar provision is made in Scotland by the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. In Northern Ireland, although separate legislation applies, the then Department of Health and Social Services stated that there was no reason to suppose that the House of Lords' decision would not be followed by the Northern Ireland Courts.
The Gillick case involved a health departmental circular advising doctors on the contraception of minors (for this purpose, under sixteens). The circular stated that the prescription of contraception was a matter for the doctor's discretion and that they could be prescribed to under sixteens without parental consent. This matter was litigated because an activist, Victoria Gillick (née Gudgeon), ran an active campaign against the policy. Gillick sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent.
The issue before the House of Lords was only whether the minor involved could give consent. "Consent" here was considered in the broad sense of consent to battery or assault: in the absence of patient consent to treatment, a doctor, even if well-intentioned, might be sued/charged.
The House of Lords focused on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights' or parental powers. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.
Lord Scarman and Lord Fraser proposed slightly different tests (Lord Bridge agreed with both). Lord Scarman's test is generally considered to be the test of 'Gillick competency'. He required that a child could consent if he or she fully understood the medical treatment that is proposed:
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.
— Lord Scarman
The ruling holds particularly significant implications for the legal rights of minor children in England in that it is broader in scope than merely medical consent. It lays down that the authority of parents to make decisions for their minor children is not absolute, but diminishes with the child's evolving maturity. The result of Gillick is that in England today, except in situations that are regulated otherwise by law, the legal right to make a decision on any particular matter concerning the child shifts from the parent to the child when the child reaches sufficient maturity to be capable of making up his or her own mind on the matter requiring decision.
2:15:00 Instead of answering my question on whether he approves of the concept of Gillick Competence, Jay compares me to a pitbull.
2:17:00 Complaining about Muslims is complaining about the symptoms rather than curing the disease.
2:22:00 Feminism would be eradicated by nationalism.
2:23:00 The supreme authority and referring to a higher power
2:24:00 Jay finally discusses the PSYCHOLOGY OF VICTIMHOOD
2:26:00 The masculinity of Viktor Orban
2:27:00 Hungary's patriarchy came from its Catholicism
2:28:00 Judaism, theocracy and a permanent solution to the perennial problems of human nature.
2:30:00 Jay accuses me of debating in bad faith about Muslims.
2:34:00 Multiculturalism
2:35:00 I sing about immigration
2:36:00 The Islamophobia conference we attended. They recorded the proceedings, I asked a number of questions, but they that video has never been uploaded. http://finsburyparkmosque.org/new/2017/11/30/fpm-launches-seminar-series-as-part-of-islamophobia-awareness-month/
2:40:00 Why doesn't the government of white men care about them?
2:41:00 Christianity and liberal democracy are kaput - there is a big leak in the leaky ship of state that is the West, but white men can't get it together to even think of fixing it.
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
Degenerates break their own rules and forget their own tradition in the way the Americans flout their own constitution while pretending they have free speech and in the way Christians practise idolatry while claiming to despise idolaters.
To prevent degeneracy, protect the patriarchy.
When the patriarchy has been undermined, restore it. If you cannot restore it, you are degenerate and your civilisation deserves to fall the way a condemned building deserves to be demolished.
In Britain, the judiciary of the matriarchy are now saying an unmarried woman can be a widow.
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4–7, translated by James Legge
You are mad if you are fundamentally mistaken on an important fact and cannot be persuaded by reason.
Western civilisation is mostly mad because all the important institutions of state of Western nations have already been rotted by the sewage that is feminism.*
* Feminism is enabled by fornication. You will not be able to find a single feminist prepared to acknowledge that women who fornicate are sluts or that sluts should be shamed. The religious prohibition against fornication explicitly stated in quran.com/24/2 has the purpose of preventing unmarried parents from becoming the majority in your society because when they do, it will be the end of your civilisation.
The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, the corruption of thought is the corruption of morality, the corruption of morality means the decline and fall of your tribe, nation and civilisation.
The Rectification of Names (Chinese: 正名; pinyin: Zhèngmíng; Wade–Giles: Cheng-ming) largely known as a doctrine of feudal Confucian designations and relationships, behaving accordingly to ensure social harmony.[1] Without such accordance society would essentially crumble and "undertakings would not be completed." Mencius extended the doctrine to include questions of political legitimacy.
The Analects of Confucius states that social disorder often stems from failure to call things by their proper names, that is, to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. His solution to this was the "rectification of names". He gave an explanation to one of his disciples:
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7, translated by James Legge
1. Women do the cooking but do not conduct the ceremony exclusively the province of the male, but this rule is now more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
2. Confucius was very particular about observing the correct rituals and he must have included this one too, because the Ching Ming Festival - also known as the Tomb Sweeping Festival - is the most important family festival of all, the equivalent of Easter for Christians.
3. The eldest son would be expected to conduct these ceremonies, with his dutiful wife in a subservient role of cooking and assisting. No woman must actually conduct the ceremony herself.
"They have long needle-thin necks because they have not been fed by their family, or as a punishment [for not having dutiful descendants or any descendants at all] so that they are unable to swallow."
Hungry Ghost
3. What if you don't have children? You become a Hungry Ghost and there will be a festival just for you and others like you on the seventh month of the lunar year.
4. What if you don't have a son? You become a Hungry Ghost.
5. What if you have an only son who is a confirmed bachelor? Then you become a Hungry Ghost.
6. What if your only son marries and dies without siring a son? Then you become a Hungry Ghost.
7. If all your offspring are daughters, you become a Hungry Ghost.
8. If all your sons are confirmed bachelors, you become a Hungry Ghost.
9. If your sons have no grandsons, you will become a Hungry Ghost after your last son dies.
10. If you have sons and grandsons galore but neglected to persuade them of the crucial Chinese duty of passing on this tradition to them, you also become a Hungry Ghost.
11. Eventually, everyone becomes a Hungry Ghost and ends up in hell, because, eventually, the Chinese - along with the human race - will die out with no one left to appease the dead. The Ancient Chinese had the idea of entropy and reversion to the mean long before the West thought it up. Maintaining your civilisation is therefore like being a swan - seeking to seem outwardly unruffled but in reality paddling furiously. Keeping women in their place in order to preserve and maintain human civilisation is therefore the most important undertaking of the male sex. In our degenerate times, men are overwhelmingly ignorant of the existence of this masculine imperative. While hell is inevitable for all, rational and moral Chinese men would not want it to be their generation that let the side down.
12. While some religions work using both carrot and stick by using both heaven as an inducement to good deeds and hell as a deterrent to evil deeds, it can be seen that Chinese ancestor worship is all stick and relies absolutely on fear and shame. This also neatly demonstrates that what doesn't kill you can indeed make you stronger and how obedience to these harsh rules have produced a people more resilient and more socially cohesive than most. If you thought being a Jew was high maintenance without much reward, you ain't heard of Chinese ancestor worship. Not even death brings you peace. Even after death life's oneupmanship does not end. You could be exclaiming in despair to the other denizens of the Underworld "O tempora! O mores!" dismayed at the neglect of your descendants if you had any, or boasting that your grave has just been done this year.
A grave of a wealthy family that has not been tended in years. Observe the height of the grass.
These very harsh rules are meant to put the frighteners on Chinese couples to get most of them who can to produce at least an heir and a spare.
Since this ritual is performed annually, it would concentrate the minds of those attending that they had better marry and have sons or else end up being a Hungry Ghost, a much inferior status to being a worshiped ancestor.
This idea is, I would suggest, a more sophisticated version of "Go forth and multiply."
Ancestor worship (in its Chinese form) puts a huge pressure on a man to have children - especially male children (females didn't really count for much when it came to worshipping ancestors, apparently). In the West, the destiny of one's immortal soul rested with oneself alone - on one's own behaviour, one's own standing with God, one's own salvation. For the Chinese, the quality of one's afterlife rested mostly with one's future family. Without male descendants to remember one, and tend one's grave, a person's immortal soul was in jeopardy. People, therefore, would have had to try and have at least two male children (the second one as an insurance policy in case the first one died). This implies, even with the widespread practice of female infanticide, that Chinese families would tend to be larger than Western ones.
Hungry Ghosts do get attention in their special month, but it is more a community ritual than a familial one, less personal and definitely second class. In Ching Ming your grave is tended personally by your respectful and dutiful descendants. In the month of the Hungry Ghost however, you are only appeased collectively with the other Hungry Ghosts since no one any longer knows who you are, because your descendants no longer perform the tomb sweeping ritual for you. Hungry Ghosts who have lost their individuality capable of inflicting malign mischief on the living are appeased namelessly en masse while worshipped ancestors retain their surname, history and location.
Nowadays with smaller families, daughters increasingly also get in on the act, which strictly speaking they are not supposed to do. It is rather like allowing gay couples to marry - a softening of the rules which must not be softened, because they are there for a purpose - the continuance of the Chinese race in the context of a patriarchy in sufficient strength and numbers. However, no filial daughter wants to think of her deceased parents becoming Hungry Ghosts because of a lack of a son, and so takes on these duties which she cannot quite see why she cannot perform for her parents since she is still around and able to perform them with equal ability. She therefore performs these rituals furtively and against the rules, out of loving memory for her parents, but this is not meant to be. To ignore these rules is to ignore their real purpose - to encourage couples to have sons and reinforce the perception of the apparently inferior status of the female.
However even undertaking these duties furtively against the rules but only as a quasi son reminds her that if she were a son she would be able to perform these rituals without being questioned, reinforcing the point that only had she been a son would her parents have the ritual properly performed.
I am sure even in Confucian times there were daughters taking it upon themselves to perform these ceremonies for their parents, which Confucius himself must have frowned on, insistent the correct performance of rituals meant that only those qualified by dint of their sex have the right to perform this ritual - in other words, men only - is key to the enduring patriarchal strength of Chinese civilisation.
You can well imagine more traditional Chinese parents bewailing their fate if they only have a son who happens to be a confirmed bachelor. It is possible that repeatedly asking him if he really wants them to become Hungry Ghosts after he is dead might induce him to eventually marry - however reluctantly - and sire male descendants capable of fulfilling this peculiarly Chinese duty.
The modern Chinese with their one child families should understand that they are now doomed to be plagued by increasing numbers of Hungry Ghosts with each passing generation, whose increasing disgust and anger will reach a disastrous peak at the current generation's neglectful and incorrect practice of ancestor worship as well as the Chinese government's one-child policy and appeasement of the increasingly vocal LGBT activists in China will eventually end their civilisation. If the Chinese continue to disregard this tradition, the numbers of Hungry Ghosts are bound to increase while the numbers of dutiful descendants capable of appeasing them decrease. China is already suffering from the problem of unmarried Slut Single Mothers, which can only be discouraged by the implementation of quran.com/24/2. It is actually rather degenerate of the Chinese government not to do what is necessary to discourage bastardy. Fining these never married mothers would be laughably ineffectual - the perfect example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, while jailing them would be too expensive and futile. Slut-shaming as 24:2 of the Koran prescribes is the only way to do it effectively, but do Chinese men dare?
There are far more Chinese men than there are women and they will be wanting to have sex with them. Chinese Men Outnumber Women by 33 Million After Decades of Gender Bias As any heterosexually active man would understand, criticising women who fornicate is probably not the best way of going about trying to have sex with a fornicatress. Chinese men, like men of other races, would find an offer of no-strings sex by a fornicating slut impossible to resist. That the Chinese government take strong action against fornicating Chinese sluts is about as likely as a junkie calling the cops on his dealer, I would suggest. Goodbye, Chinese civilisation, and eventually all the goodies that come with it, especially Chinese food, which is enjoyed globally. Only 24:2 of the Koran will have the necessary deterrent effect on sluts and their running dogs.
How likely are the Chinese to adopt Secular Koranism? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html When the Chinese revolutionaries adopted Marxism, they displayed a utilitarian cosmopolitan preparedness to do what was necessary to stop themselves from being the weak man of the East. Believing that the Marxist narrative of human progress and a workers' paradise was inevitable, Chinese leaders implemented Communism. Having tried it and seen it fail, perhaps an infusion of Islamic principles would paradoxically bring them closer to the tradition that really made their civilisation endure and kept their people together: that of being a patriarchy. After all, the ancient Chinese practice of kowtowing is indistinguishable from a Muslim doing his prostrations when at prayer.
That there will be more Hungry Ghosts than there are living Chinese to appease them is therefore inevitable under China's disastrous one-child policy. It is only a matter of time before the Whore of Babylon and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse pay the Chinese an unwanted and dreaded visit.
As for the British, it surely takes only a little imagination for the 21st century British to see how furiously enraged their Hungry Ghost Victorian ancestors would be with them by now. Not only do the British not have enough sons to fight the Muslims they so obviously hate and fear, their children are mostly illegitimate, atheist and ignorant of their Judeao-Christian heritage, the most important of which is the sanctity of traditional marriage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html Sadly for the British and the West in general, the only marriage Western degenerates support is gay marriage, which would only have the effect of accelerating their degeneracy, making them even riper for an inevitable Islamic conquest.
The dead do not cease their consumerism. These paper goods are for the dead. Burning them is the equivalent of paying for their postage and packaging to the Underworld.
Demographics is destiny and nothing illustrates this better than the application of rules of ancestor worship. You do not have to literally believe in the existence of Hungry Ghosts to see its cultural and eugenic utility of maintaining the patriarchy.
There are other utopias fashioned by ancient empires or at least ideals of ancient utopias that continue to exert a profound influence to this day, and the most obvious one would be the state established by Muhammad supposedly in Medina which continues to inspire billions of people across the globe and to act as a geopolitical motor to this day. The question of whether Muhammad established a state in Medina is massively open to question, but what we can see when we trace the evolution, the process by which this state came to be enshrined, what we see is that there was an enormous amount of ideological programming going on by the empire of the Arabs that had been raised in the aftermath of Muhammad's career and which justified its imperial sway and justified its moral mission in terms of what the Caliphs and the lawyers and the scholars who lived in the Caliphate for two centuries after Muhammad existed looked back to this period and constructed a model of how Islam had come into being and how Muhammad had lived and functioned and the character of his prophetic inspiration that gave to the foundation of the Caliphate a literally God-given sense of identity. And Islam I think now that Marxism has essentially imploded as an ideology, Islam exists as the most potent illustration of how utopia can legitimise empires in the past but can continue to exert an influence to this day, so utopias, I think, and the re-writing of history, to illustrate that utopias actually did exist - it's an incredibly significant aspect of history.
This is rather a confusing use of words. Utopias by definition do not exist, so I interpret what Holland the raging seething Islamophobe to be saying is this: that the propaganda value of Islamic myths is powerful and. crucially, more powerful than everything else that has ever existed before, and is much much bigger than Judaism and Christianity, now that Marxism has imploded.
Liberal-Feminism has no comparable mythologies that engage our emotions, moral convictions or romantic destiny.
Holland has seen the writing on the wall, and is obviously very very afraid: the Whig Interpretation of History is not a patch on Islamic eschatology promising divine purpose and human destiny.
It is interesting that Holland's verbiage consists mostly of abstractions that only the educated few who take the trouble can understand, and will mean nothing at all to the man in the street.
Re-Writing History https://t.co/RMe25IlpaJ 24th min: Tom Holland talks about the *mythology* of WW2. Does he mean the Holocaust? #LSELitFest
ISIS are clearly the most utopianist organisation operating in geopolitics at the moment. I think we should take what they say about wanting to usher in the end of days literally. I think lots of them do want to do that and I think they are not talking in a Marxist sense about material culture or what would be the material basis for utopia. The are talking about utopia in a divine sense. They are attempting to usher in heaven on earth and to cast themselves as people who will inherit heaven when they die. Their vision of the future is absolutely grounded in a particular understanding of a particular moment in the past because for Islam probably more than any other religious or cultural ideology that existed, what Islam has succeeded in doing is kind of dropping a sheet anchor to a particular moment to a particular time and establishing that as a mirror into which humanity has to look to understand what the will of God is, what the nature of a utopia should be. So in essence the desire to recreate that moment is hardwired into Islamic Utopianism even more than it is in any analogous tradition within Christianity.
Under this verbiage we may deduce that Holland is saying that the story of Jesus as an executed revolutionary can in no way compare to the power and glory of Muhammad winning wars and establishing the world's first Islamic State.
The Council of Nicea tried to jazz up Christ's sacrifice by saying he was simultaneously God Himself and His son, but people in the 21st century tend not to be taken in by such absurdities. If most are already atheists, then all the more would they be in difficulty believing that a mere man is also God Himself and His son.
But what if Christians dumped the Trinity?
Then they would be no different to Jews and Muslims. It is the Trinity that makes Christians feel special and better than Jews and Muslims.
What would a rational Christian - if such a person exists - believe in if he could no longer even bring himself to pay lip service to the absurdity of the Trinity? He could be a Jew, but the Old Testament is so harsh with stoning for every little infraction and doesn't even allow divorce. The Koran on the other hand has a whole chapter on divorce and even its harshest punishment - crucifixion - gives the state the option of clemency. http://quran.com/5/33
Judaism is an exclusive golf club, Islam is an inclusive political party in a single party theocracy, like Iran, which seems to be doing OK these days, all things considering.
Margaret MacMillan:
I think there are two kinds of utopias: ones that exist in the imagination or exist out of time or in another alternative reality, but those who talk about utopias often talk about a Golden Age in the past and also something that will come again so they are locating them in human history. We may see their reasoning as absolutely wrong and the utopias they project into the past or claim to know from the past are not real at all, but they are nevertheless arguing that they are there in the past and saying we have proof. They were there. We know that there was that world that existed in time and we are going to have another such world that will exist in a future time. So I think they are very much woven into history.
Instead of utopia, why don't the panel talk about propaganda?
A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7
Tom Holland:
The prime difference of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity is apolitical. Jesus dies a political failure. He does not draw his sword, he does not establish a state. His kingdom is in heaven and that means there has always been this suspicion of political orders within Christianity that you do not have within Islam, that Muhammad supposedly establishes a state that serves as a model for how God wants humans to live. The fact that it is almost certainly a fiction doesn't alter the fact that lots and lots of Muslims throughout history and certainly in the current time believe in that and believe that what God wants is for the state that existed in early 7th century Medina to be established [contemptuous laughter] in whatever way it can be in the present.
What would be even more insulting to Muslims even more than bad scatological drawings of Muhammad than pretending that not only does their God not exist, neither did Muhammad?
Then Muslims would feel so stupid for believing in lies whose liar didn't even exist.
That would soon put those pesky Muslims in their place.
"We are small finite creatures, but meaning enables us with the help of sounds or marks on paper to grasp the whole world and many things in it, and even to invert things that do not exist and perhaps never will. The problem is to explain how this is possible: How does anything we say or write mean anything – including all the words in this book?"
– Thomas Nagel, What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, p. 46
Materials for the session
This session is based on a chapter of Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, which you can download along with a reading activity from the Philosophy Off Brick Lane website. You can also find some relevant podcasts there. Visit the Key Themes in Modern Philosophy page to access these and other materials.
How many people will there be and what will the classes be like?
There is maximum class-size of 12 people (or 13 including the teacher). Although the emphasis is on structured discussion, there are different ways of taking part in a conversation. You can come to this session talk about the chapter from Nagel's What Does It All Mean? and the other material for the session. Or if you're not sure what you want to say about it, you can come just to listen.
How much do classes cost?
For the first few meetups, attendees can pay what they think the class is worth (or nothing at all). In the future, the cost of the class will be £10 for two hours.
I helpfully suggested the Confucian concept of Rectification of Names at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names but this was deleted, probably because it is is not within the established curriculum for academic philosophy whose intention seems to be the opposite of promoting practical wisdom or phronesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
Such a shame that the organiser has taken such a sudden dislike to me!
Human rights are incompatable with freedoms. When you start favoring human rights you start curtailing freedoms. Thought crime is the inevitable result of human rights. Just see Canada and its marxist Human Rights Commission. Thought crime is alive and well in Canada.
It is a nonsense anyway. All rights are human rights. All the rights humans can conceive of are human rights. Do non-humans even know what rights are?
Its very premise is NONSENSICAL.
While there are such concepts as mineral rights and animal rights, these rights can only be asserted through human agency.
"Human rights" are really legal rights which can only be asserted through the law, and the law changes from time to time, according to fashions of thinking. Only what is supposed to be God's laws remain the same, as any attentive reading of the Bible and Koran would reveal that they both promote the same moral values. Even feminists do not deny that all the Abrahamic faiths promote marriage and forbid extramarital sex whose purpose is to maintain the patriarchy. It is of course the patriarchy that it is their intention to destroy, because they hate men and want to trash all male achievements out of sheer malice and ignorance and then substitute our advanced civilisation with their matriarchal shit of a pornocracy.
Who is a feminist?
Anyone - male or female - who refuses to repeal the Equality Act 2010
Anyone - male or female - who refuses to abolish no fault divorce
Anyone - male or female - who refuses to acknowledge that the practice of respecting the institution of marriage must necessarily and logically mean forbidding extramarital sex
Anyone - male or female - who refuses to even discuss the moral imperative of forbidding extramarital sex
Anyone - male or female - who does not wish the law to support marriage through making it advantageous for people to be married
Anyone - male or female - who refuses to contemplate slut-shaming as a means of bringing irresponsible and immoral women to order
"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
In other words, the superior man (and woman) must be capable of rational thought and not be fearful of challenging current orthodoxy by arguing his case.
