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.
47:00 "If only we had a decent Conservative movement," says Gottfried. But Conservatism was only ever a defensive ideology to protect European nations against the ideas of the French Revolution. Conservatism was only intended to be "Theocracy Lite". However, since it became OK to deny the Trinity without being charged with blasphemy and since the Americans quarantined the church from their state in the early 1800s, Christianity began to die. It has taken Christianity 200 years to die. It is now finally dead. Its death certificate needs to be signed by Jews and Muslims and the significance of its death discussed by those who might wish to become married parents in order to parent their legitimate offspring properly. Since no one is interested in marriage, family values and good parenting any more, no government trusts itself to raise these matters with an electorate who have for generations regarded the right to have extramarital sex as a human right. To address these issues, indiscriminate universal suffrage and representative democracy would have to be abolished amongst other things, but no one in the alt-right quite dares discuss this either.
1:03:00 The Conservatives are like the deserving poor falling over themselves to dissociate themselves from the undeserving poor whom they probably call "the criminal classes". The alt-right are perceived to be the dregs of society being seen as unmarriageable and unemployable low status social retards considered physically repulsive by white upper middle class college educated women who instinctively despise marginalised men in the classes below them. Women are after all hypergamous. Unfortunately for these men who are in fact unemployable and unmarriageable, they have no longer have a societal purpose and have no one in the political establishment who will defend their interests. Being atomised men incapable of ever co-operating with each other to achieve anything because they do not even want a leader, nothing can be done for them. It is well known that no beta male will submit to the leadership of another beta male, and any male with alpha male leadership qualities would disdain to risk anything for them since these degenerates are known only for their stupidity, social retardation, mental illness, drink and drug-dependence as well as their disloyalty. Also, to be associated with the alt-right or even to make noises sympathetic to these men now means social death, loss of income, employment and reputation.
1:19:00 "Fractured America no longer has a macro-culture that is accepted from sea to shining sea".
Even tribes need a moral system and the only moral system that would keep a group in existence and apart from others is religion. Religions worth their salt would be political ideologies and narratives promoting patriarchal moral values because only under a patriarchy would there be enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.
1:25:00 I define nationalism as government in the national interest. Is there any Western moral or political philosopher capable of discussing this?
0:27
Bunty McCunty
Why the entrenched class system has lost every political argument since 1945? That makes no sense whatsoever.
2:27
Kit
The Left embrace 'by any means necessary' and 'the ends justify the means'. The Conservatives are very naive in comparision. The idea of 'moral victory' as they lose explains a lot.
2:36
888rogermoore
Just look at the Catholic Church
4:30
Elizabeth Blackwell
Not sure I agree. Conservatism is the dominant politics of the modern world. Even when conservatives are not in power, conservative ideas and policies set the shape of society and the economy.
4:37
Elizabeth Blackwell
Even left wing governments uphold the fusion of disruptive capitalism and social traditionalism ergo conservative.
6:54
William H
I think when you're a 30+ conservative you don't argue with young lefties. because, we used to be them and we know there's no point arguing with them
9:53
British LA
I wonder how much art and creativity will be permitted under sharia law. by hyper moralizing western life and politics the left may destroy western civilisation.
10:38
Claire Khaw
Conservatism was always Theocracy Lite and was created as a defence against the ideas of the French Revolution. A merely defensive ideology will not protect your society.
12:10
Claire Khaw
@ Michele P Nigel Farage still class himself a Classical Liberal, doesn't he?
13:07
Claire Khaw
@Bunty McCunty Conservatism is not up to the job of fighting feminism and Cultural Marxism.
13:47
Jean de Valette
@William H The Reformation is only conveniently retrofitted as 'conservative' by conservative evangelicals in AmericaIn truth Catholics were the conservatives in the Reformation. See: St. Thomas More
14:06
Claire Khaw
@Kit Conservatism is just not up to the job because it was always a defensive ideology against the ideas of the French Revolution. Conservatism was really Theocracy Lite.
14:33
Claire Khaw
Conservatism = being middle class and having gone to a good school. Such people will always be in the minority.
14:52
Claire Khaw
@888rogermoore Christianity is kaput.
14:54
Bunty McCunty
@Claire Khaw -- I don't think it needs to be. I think those things are fetishised by a tiny minority of loudmouths, while people are inherently conservative. See the last election results.
14:56
Jean de Valette
Oh ffs Clare. Spare us your Marxist University bollocks, please
15:00
M. Allan
i miss Roger Scruton
15:07
British LA
conservativism is founded on faith, family and the nation state. pure and simple.
15:26
Claire Khaw
@Elizabeth Blackwell What are the Conservative ideas you can think of? It was a Conservative Prime Minister who legalised gay marriage.
15:57
Claire Khaw
@Elizabeth Blackwell "Even left wing governments uphold the fusion of disruptive capitalism and social traditionalism ergo conservative." No idea what you are trying to say.
16:12
Jean de Valette
Ed West talking bollocks on tidy desks meaning conservatism.
16:13
William H
jean, I'll look at that. I thought the issue was the church had become corrupt and Luther tried to re ignite some truth
16:25
Claire Khaw
@William H Who do you argue with?
17:27
Claire Khaw
@British LA Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia that has no intention of not permitting art and creativity. By the way, I have met Ed West.
17:45
British LA
conservatism is dependent on a deep knowledge of history and cultural heritage. the modern, liberal, reactionary conservatives have effectively become the new Whigs.
17:48
Claire Khaw
@Nick Garrott Kindly explain the difference.
18:15
WELLBRAN
we need a whole new system left right thing does not work anymore westminster is disfunctional
18:21
Claire Khaw
@Jean de Valette Yes, he is talking bollocks. I should be invited on New Culture Forum, but you can check out both my channels.
19:38
Claire Khaw
Conservatism and Christianity are both kaput.
19:46
Curtis Loftis
A huge difference between the left and right: the left hires its people-for every job. The right does little of this. It creates a massive Left presence in every entity of influence.
19:51
William H
I don't know about America religious movements. I don't know how interesting that is
19:53
Jean de Valette
Ed West would "love not to be conservative"? Ed West is not conservative, so he needn't worry.
20:52
Claire Khaw
@Nick Garrott Why don't you appear on my channel to tell me how and why I am a moron?
21:33
Claire Khaw
@M. Allan What does my husband think about what and why should you care if I have a husband, let alone what he thinks?
22:18
M. Allan
Claire im just poking fun. relax
22:18
Claire Khaw
@Crystal J Watch both my channels on why Christianity is kaput. Ed West's mama is Irish Catholic.
23:05
Crystal J
@Claire Khaw catholicism and Christianity not necessarily the same thing!!! My RESURRECTED leader and king aint finished yet!!
23:16
Claire Khaw
@M. Allan Unlike the New Testament, there is nothing in the Koran saying women should be quiet either in mosque or anywhere else.
23:43
Curtis Loftis
In America, Christians gave their children to the Leftwing school/university system to be educated. They came out agnostic.
23:51
Claire Khaw
@Crystal J Christianity includes Catholicism and saying Christianity is kaput implicitly means Catholicism is also kaput.
24:23
Crystal J
@Claire Khaw they are 2 different things ....
25:00
Claire Khaw
@Curtis Loftis Christianity is kaput and democracy is dementia. I am the only political commentator prepared to say this again and again and again.
25:08
Curtis Loftis
The right just gave the institutions of cultural and political power...they did so as the leaders of the right were making lots of money. the right was sold out...
26:24
M. Allan
Diversity, disaster.
26:32
Claire Khaw
@Crystal J You don't appear to have noticed that Christ is deceased or are you an idolater who worships an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God?
26:57
Curtis Loftis
Christianity as a political force is kaput (sadly to me). Democracy follows culture so our brand is not helpful, but thankfully, there are not a lot of competitors in that arena
27:31
Curtis Loftis
But Christianity is alive in well in certain groups.
27:51
Claire Khaw
@New Culture Forum Channel How likely are you to invite me on your channel to explain my proposal for a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism?
2:00 Because of the decline of Christianity, the default religion of university educated women is leftism.
3:00 "Democracy is against Conservatism." Democracy is dementia.
5:00 Comedy is now university-educated comedians sneering at the lower middle class ie people who have not their opportunities.
10:00 Brexit, Nationalism and the Reformation
11:00 Catholic identity was stronger than national identity.
11:30 Political tribalism in America. It is really more fundamental: Patriarchy v Matriarchy. Yin v Yang. The eternal battle of the sexes is being played out in the Western political establishment. Only I know where the battlelines really are.
12:00 The distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.
13:00 Conservatism as a political philosophy as well as a state of mind
19:00 Ed West was too gutless to accept a very well paid job at Breitbart being offered by Steve Bannon. What a shame he won't offer me a job. Did his wife put her foot down then?
23:00 "Social proof" and cultural values
25:00 Diversity
26:00 Repurposing stories
28:00 Dominic Cummings
30:00 BBC licence fee
31:00 "Gentleness of Conservatism"
Is Ed West more or less depressing than Peter Hitchens, who it seems has been hired specially to demoralise Conservatives?
Does this mean there is a vacancy for Claire Khaw as a Philosopher of National Conservatism?
Conservatism is really about social conservatism.
Social conservatism is about supporting marriage and family values.
Marriage and family values are the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy.
Only a patriarchy would produce enough good strong men to defend the national interest.
Nationalism is government in the national interest - the only kind of government worth having.
I am a moral and political philosopher with a blueprint for a post-liberal and post-democratic West, prepared to take on all challengers as long as they are prepared to use Truth, Logic and Morality to decide the winner of this debate.
Will my challengers be prepared to discuss the indispensable ingredients of Truth, Logic and Morality?
This is absolutely necessary if we are to go back to basics about the fundamental meaning of important words and build up again the Pyramid of Patriarchy to replace the inverted pyramid of our intersectional matriarchy which is currently spinning on its apex and about to fall on its side, as spinning tops do.
Let us at least have a contingency plan if and when the worst happens. Let us hold Secular Koranism in reserve like a life vest and a lifeboat. In the meantime, let us do the safety drill.
Please bear in mind that a Torah theocracy would be much harsher and more restrictive than Secular Koranism. If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". https://t.co/NmH7a3u0iKhttps://t.co/KEgMMKzbM8
The Jewish Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) serves as a common religious reference for Judaism. Stoning is the method of execution mentioned most frequently in the Torah. (Murder is not mentioned as an offense punishable by stoning, but it seems that a member of the victim's family was allowed to kill the murderer; see avenger of blood.) The crimes punishable by stoning were the following:
Touching Mount Sinai while God was giving Moses the Ten Commandments, Exodus 19:13
An ox that gores someone to death should be stoned, Exodus 21:28
Having a "familiar spirit" (or being a necromancer) or being a "wizard", Leviticus 20:27
Enticing others to polytheism, Deuteronomy 13:7–11
Cursing God, Leviticus 24:10–16
Engaging in idolatry, Deuteronomy 17:2–7; or seducing others to do so, Deuteronomy 13:7–12
"Rebellion" against parents, after repeated warnings, Deuteronomy 21:18–21
Getting married as though a virgin, when not a virgin, Deuteronomy 22:13–21
Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman engaged to another man in a town, since she did not cry out, Deuteronomy 22:23–24; both parties should be stoned to death
Forced sexual intercourse between a man and a woman engaged to another man in a field, where no one could hear her cries and save her, Deuteronomy 22:25–27; the man should be stoned
Describing the stoning of those who entice others to apostates from Judaism, the Torah states:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
— Deuteronomy 13:6–10
Quran
"And those who accuse chaste women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors. Except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." — Qur'an, Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 4-5
The Qur'an does not mention the act of stoning (Rajm) for any crime.
Contrary to popular belief, the punishment for Adultery (Zina) in the Quran is not stoning to death but flogging with a 100 lashes (if the accuser can provide 4 witnesses to the act). If the accuser cannot produce 4 witnesses, he himself will be punished by flogging with 80 lashes.
"The woman and the man guilty of fornication/adultery,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment."
They complain about Cultural Marxism AKA Feminism AKA Intersectionality. Protect yourself from Cultural Marxism with Secular Koranism!
34:00 The antisemitic assumption of this Islamophobic Australian Hindu is that malign Jews would deliberately destroy a civilisation's national identity because that would lower the gentile and elevate the Jew, turning our global village into a globo homo gayplex and Sodom and Gomorrah, and then fleeing to Israel when the balloon goes up. If this is so, these Jews have forgotten about the stumbling block they are not supposed to be putting in the way of anyone at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stumbling_block
45:00 Secular Koranism is discussed. Jennifer, do you know any Hindus who have read the Koran? Do you know how much reading of Hindu scripture is required by Brahmin priests and do they have to pass written examinations in this? I suspect most of them are hardly scholars, perhaps barely literate, just masters of theatricality and ceremony. An Islamic scholar would be expected to know the Koran inside out.
46:00 After two or three generations after Secular Koranism has been introduced, the overwhelming majority will believe in the Abrahamic God. I can confidently predict this because parents who don't literally believe in Santa now willingly become the High Priests and High Priestesses of the Cult of Santa at Christmas. Doubtless they will do the same thing when, after Secular Koranism becomes the law of the land, couples marry and go on to bring up the legitimate children that they have living together as a couple. Introducing God to them from a young age will be the equivalent of introducing them to the policeman who will be in their heads for the rest of their lives.
1:01:00 Elliott was asking why I was publicising Halsey's stream on https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/01/halsey-english-discusses-secular.html. Obviously, I was doing that in the hope of getting invited on his show and to get the alt-right YouTubers he mentioned to notice the Creator of Secular Koranism. If they have already heard of me, then obviously, I wanted to remind them of Secular Koranism and to emphasise that it is being discussed widely in alt-right circles. They may not like it, but they cannot think of a better solution to all their problems or deny that my diagnosis of the cause of Western malaise is correct. If my diagnoses is accepted as correct, then my prescription for its cure should logically and necessarily be also accepted. I do realise however that society can stay irrational for longer than I can stay alive. Since my ideas are so easy to remember, it would not be the end of the world if I will be no longer be around to be consulted to advise and warn Western governments of the finer points of Secular Koranism to avoid the pitfalls of common or garden sharia as the Muslims interpret it and apply what they erroneously believe to be Islamic principles.
My Grand Plan is to get Jews to promote Secular Koranism out of self interest. Most diasporas Jews in the West like Halsey want to stay where they are. To prevent Western nations from becoming failed states in the turbulent years to come, they must use Secular Koranism to displace the malign matriarchy run by the preferences of immoral and irresponsible women and their ill-bred bastards. Only under a patriarchy would produce enough good strong men to defend the national interest thereby preventing societal collapse. Jews have a particular role in this because they have yet to accept that Israel should be a theocracy.
Once Israel becomes a theocracy, there will be peace with its Arab neighbours, particular when Israel adopts Secular Koranism. Israeli Jews should point to https://quran.com/17/104 as evidence that the Koran is also Zionist. God obviously intends for Jews to live in Israel but Israel must be an independent nation of priests, not the mere colonial outpost of a morally rotten empire promoting global gay marriage and global Sodom and Gomorrah.
No rational Israeli Jew - religious or not- would choose a Torah theocracy because its implementation would mean being stoned to death for every little thing, including breaking the Sabbath. As Prophetess of Secular Koranism, I contend that God if He exists would want Israel to be a theocracy, and will not insist on it being a Torah theocracy, because that would be too hard even on Jews.
Once Israel adopts Secular Koranism, Western nations would follow suit, encouraging China and Russia to do so by example.
In this way will the world be a better place under Global Sharia. (Secular Koranism is basically sharia interpreted by me, a non-Muslim, ex-liberal and ex-feminist agnostic.)
1:07:00 Jennifer: "That's exactly what Claire Khaw does!" Why are you comparing me with Hank Yoo, the Oriental who thinks he is a White Supremacist, whom you say has adopted American culture? Taking an interest in US politics and observing the alt-right as an ethnographer is hardly adopting American culture. What exactly has Yoo done that I have done? Is promoting Secular Koranism adopting Western culture? Perhaps it is, in the best intellectual traditions of Western thought! http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
1:10:00 Feminism rode into town on the coat-tails of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism comes from the French Revolution promoting the principles of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty. Feminism had established a matriarchy (ie a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who did not respect their children enough to prevent them from being born the bastards of people who would have been treated as sex offenders by https://quran.com/24/2) which displaced the patriarchy (ie a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring).
1:13:00 Fascism is one party-ism. The fasces symbol originated from Rome meant to represent national unity and the authority of the state. It can be found in Congress. https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/House-Chamber/Rostrum/ A Fascist is a Conservative who knows what it takes to promote Conservatism. But what is Conservatism? It is meaningless if it does not include social conservatism, and social conservatism means respecting the practice of marriage and upholding family values which the degenerates of the West are no longer capable of doing because the West is now a matriarchy.
Conservatism was really Theocracy Lite since it Conservatism was a defensive ideology created as a reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution which an anti-clerical revolt when they could no longer stomach the greed and corruption of the Catholic Church and their monarch associated with it. Because of the inferior scripture of the New Testament, no clear principles can be established. Because the Koran is clearly superior in concept and expression, anyone who has read it would be in no doubt as to its principles which easily translates into legislation.
All civilisations rise in patriarchy and decline in matriarchy.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies; all primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents
Why are Canadian men more cucked than American men? Because the illegitimacy rate is higher in Canada.
Patriarchy has a pyramid and military command structure that allows orders from above given by the alpha male to be carried out by those below by the beta males. Patriarchy brings about male solidarity and enables male co-operation, allowing a society to deal firmly and effectively with its internal and external enemies.
Sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society and civilisation.
Matriarchy is the sea, patriarchy is coastal defences.
In short, it creates a hierarchical society where there is a place for everyone and everyone knows his or her place. There is less conflict in these societies than those who believe in the polite fiction of equality.
Left untreated, the disease of feminism could turn your society back to the barbarism of human civilisation before marriage was invented and could even result in the most extreme matriarchy known to us: the bee colony. We already know that male chicks are destroyed after being hatched in chicken farms. We certainly know that the only thing about feminism that men like is how it lowers the price of sex. Feminism uses sexual liberation to bribe and distract men from the damage it is doing to the civilisation their male ancestors created.
If religion used to be the opium of the people when the West took its religion seriously, then extramarital sex is now the opium of atheist degenerates of the West and those who ape the worst of the West.
This is a good livestream because it is actually about something important ie Jews, Secular Koranism and me, of course. I am basically telling Jews that Secular Koranism could save them from having to all flee to Israel and they won't all fit in there nor will they be able to take their wealth with them since buildings in Manhattan take years to sell anyway. Jews like Halsey want to stay in America and he has expressed a fierce and honourable willingness to fight for it. I only hope that Halsey will be brave enough to one day invite me on his channel.
I take the view that Jews are not being malign by being liberal, just as stupid and clueless as the liberal gentile.
There are more liberals than nationalists everywhere in the West - both Jew and gentile - because there are more stupid people who believe what they are told and people who prefer to go with the flow, everywhere.
Hamza Yusuf reminds us that the oppression of the Savak in Iran by the Shah, a Western puppet, provoked a reaction that eventually became the Islamic Revolution. Would the West have an Islamic Revolution of its own when its matriarchy goes too far in its oppression?
Roger Scruton talks about the rule of law. Hamza Yusuf does not immediately interject with the benefits of the rule of sharia law. When is he going to sock it Scruton and say if he wants Conservatism he has to have patriarchy and if he wants patriarchy, he has to have theocracy?
Hamza Yusuf tries to say, as Montaigne did, that grammar is the logic of language. In the West's degenerate matriarchy, grammar is no longer taught and therefore most Westerners do not have ability to think logically. Most do not even know the meaning of words they argue about.
Roger Scruton does not mention Confucius and his Rectification of Names. https://t.co/cnkWQdQ8lD Uneducated, ignorant and immoral people insist that their incorrect definition of important words is correct eg religion, marriage, racist.
Roger Scruton talks about being a grammar school boy and the idea of education lifting poor people up in order to receive their inheritance, now gone. Our insane matriarchy hates the achievements of the patriarchy and its cultural inheritance. It actually wants to destroy it all.
Hamza Yusuf refers to Toynbee comment on Shaw's Pygmalion that the patricians of Britain were even then being vulgarised because they were speaking in profanities. A civilisation on its way out inverts the proprieties.
Scruton says he respects Islam as a moral foundation to confront this "gradual degeneration of things all around us to start building again to recapture those things which are jeopardised by the laxness of modern society".
Scruton says one only has to live in Berkeley to see how far things can decline. Living in the English countryside, the manners of horses thankfully remain constant from generation to generation. Berkekely is infamous for being the pioneer in degeneracy of whatever form.
Disappointingly, Yusuf the Sufi witters on about the Bacchanalian and Apollonian, inner ecstasy and outer propriety as well as joy, avoiding Scruton's pointed invitation to tell us how Islam might restore patriarchy and moral order. What a coward. He also defends Berkeley.
Scruton talks of Scottish dancing, Highland reels and formation dancing signifying good moral order to compare that against the kind of dancing that is about simulating sexual intercourse in our modern culture, which he finds joyless and narcissistic.
Scruton talks of the false idea of freedom which took over the Baby Boomers in the 1960s. Freedom means the absence of control rather than an order in the soul. His idea of freedom is Bach's Art of Fugue where very note is totally necessary but also totally free.
Dunno about you, but I prefer Bach's French Suites played by Angela Hewitt.
I would say that liberty is what we ought to have after all the necessary laws are in place. God if He exists would permit us liberty within a well-governed state. It now only remains for us to implement an Islamic theocracy governed by Secular Koranism. https://t.co/7kXcwYUj1N
Hamza Yusuf says it is an obligation in our [Muslim] tradition to be hopeful. Scruton says Faith, Hope and Charity are the fundamental Christian virtues.
Hamza Yusuf talks about the wheel of fortune and says our culture no longer acknowledges this. Scruton suggests that our culture of entitlement and excuses may have something to do with this attitude.
Scruton asks "What happened to Islamic civilisation in the Middle East? He calls for "Muslims to say that Islam is not about justifying these primitive emotions of not belonging that you have, it's about an inheritance."
Instead of answering Scruton's question about what he thinks of this, Hamza Yusuf witters on about being trained as a nurse and how wonderful and good Muslims are, rather than answering Scruton's question. What a fucking despicable cowardly piece of shit.
After showing off his Arabic, Hamza Yusuf talks about Eastern despotism. Scruton pursues this line of discussion by asking about universities created by Muslims. Yusuf claims if there were a Nobel Prize then, the winners would be all Muslim. Answer the bloody question.
When asked what Scruton wants to preserve, he says institutions and procedures that allow us to relate to each other in a humane and civilised way. He does not say patriarchy or the institution of marriage. What a cop-out. Scruton much better than the boring cowardly Yusuf though
Harari claims that all large-scale human cooperation systems – including religions, political structures, trade networks and legal institutions – owe their emergence to Sapiens' distinctive cognitive capacity for fiction.
It seems Harari is saying that all religions are based on a fiction. But what about political ideologies claiming to trump and replace religion? They too are based on a particular narrative. Marxism, for example, claims that all workers of the world will unite and live in a workers' paradise. Nazism believed that Aryans will triumph over the Jews who had exploited German gentiles. Fascism believed that Italians who were descendants of the fallen Roman empire were capable of becoming successful imperialists again. But what does liberalism believe? It believes that ever greater enjoyment of individual freedom - especially sexual freedom - would result in ever greater human advancement.
These national narratives reminded me of a film The Greatest Story Ever Told. I am not sure if I have ever seen it or not. If I have it was a long time ago, but its title was memorable and I remember puzzling at its presumption.
Of course it was a kind of Western chauvinism which assumed that because their empire has the widest expanse in human history, their religion - Christianity - must therefore be the greatest story ever told.
Since Christianity is also Judaism for Gentiles, it is based on the God of the Chosen People whose God is the most powerful God conceivable.
After Christianity came Islam, which was another attempt at Judaism for Gentiles. It can be seen therefore that the development of the Abrahamic faiths is a tale of ever greater acts of serial cultural appropriation.
All national myths are based on a noble lie to make us feel good about ourselves so that our fellow nationals feel social cohesion and group solidarity and co-operate with each other acting on this belief. The Whig Interpretation of History is the liberal version of this myth. But it is the erroneous belief that liberalism is inerrant that is obviously untrue, as Butterfield points out.
What was the Whig interpretation of history, and why did Butterfield find it so objectionable? As summarized in his preface, it was "the tendency in many historians to write on the side of Protestants and Whigs, to praise revolutions provided they have been successful, to emphasise certain principles of progress in the past and to produce a story which is the ratification if not the glorification of the present." His particular targets were historical grand narratives in which the expansion of personal liberty and of parliamentary authority relative to the Crown served as the organizing principles of English national history from the 17th century forward. Despite his reticence about naming them, Butterfield clearly had in mind such luminaries as Thomas Babington Macaulay, William Stubbs, and G. M. Trevelyan as exemplars of this tradition. Such scholars, he said, habitually narrated the English past as a perennial struggle between the friends and enemies of progress, "of which the Protestants and whigs have been the perennial allies while Catholics and tories have perpetually formed obstruction." By judging such struggles through the lens of their own politics, he argued, these whig historians behaved as if "the voice of posterity is the voice of God and the historian is the voice of posterity."
Instead of realising that the onward march of liberal progressivism is not necessarily inexorable and inevitable, Francis Fukuyama compounded on the error of the Whig interpretation of history with The End of History.
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
Jews at least believe they will be punished if they sin even if they are God's Chosen People, preventing them getting too uppity. In fact, they know God continues to punish them, sending them murderous Arab terrorists to plague them for flouting God's laws. God surely must have intended Israel to exist as a theocracy. As we all know, Israel is not only not a theocracy, it is but the colonial outpost of a corrupt and declining world empire that is promoting global gay marriage and turning our global village into Sodom Gomorrah. If your non-white country has gay marriage, it means you must now be a US vassal state. President Tsai Ing-wen who legalised gay marriage in Taiwan is a childless spinster and men who allow a childless woman to rule over them are by that very fact advertising their emasculation.
Majority dissatisfied with government
POLARIZED NATION:The DPP is facing a major crisis, as its disapproval rating has outpaced its approval rating even in its traditional strongholds, a former official said
It is quite simply unimaginable that God if He exists would approve of Israel's existence and government. If God exists and has a trigger finger, it must be getting very itchy indeed.
Rabbi Mizrachi says assimilated liberal Jews are like the Golden Calf. Not only are they no better than goyim, they are practically Amalek.
The State of Israel does not have a civil marriage option and all state-recognised wedding ceremonies must be conducted by a cleric. However, it does recognise partnerships between same-sex spouses who register as living together.
Rabbi Mizrachi also talks about being comfortably numb.
Ovadia Cohen, whose late grandfather Ovadia Yosef was the Shas party spiritual leader and Israel’s foremost Sephardic halachic authority, is set to marry Amichai Landsman next week.
The gay Israeli flag
Darwinism tells liberal atheists that they are more highly evolved than monotheists but it is people who take their religious principles seriously who mostly bother to have children after more carefully choosing their sex partners who must also be their spouse. They more carefully parent their children passing on their beliefs through marriage and family values.
There is a reason why patriarchies ie societies that practise marriage are in existence while matriarchies ie societies that openly flout the rule against extramarital sex are declining or extinct.
The stories we are told shape our beliefs and our actions are shaped by our beliefs. The success of our enterprises are of course dependent on our actions. We are more likely to succeed as people if we are are truthful, logical and moral.
The belief that God will punish us if we disobey His laws surely protects us more from the vicissitudes of life than the belief that our political beliefs are inerrant.
Feminism is the belief that men and women should be treated equally. Is this belief based on truth? Does it make our society function better as a result of implementing feminist policies? The consequence of this belief has increased social instability and caused rising crime with no prospect of correcting our errors under the current malfunctioning political system.
As for liberalism, its principles are really as indefinable as Conservatism. Liberalism and Conservatism would really be more accurately called "stuff Western governments have done after the founding of America". Western democracy is really the misunderstanding that justifying our existence by doubling down on the mistakes of the past and refusing to acknowledge its errors is in fact better than, say, Islam.
The advantage of Islam is that - love it or hate it - it at least has its declared principles and those principles are contained in the Koran, available for free worldwide.
While not everyone of us enjoys playing Monopoly the fact that it has a set of official rules makes the game possible and its objects clear.
Who would want to play a game of Liberal Democracy that has no apparent rules and those in charge keep changing them while the game is still in play? If you are a heterosexual White Man who wants to become a father of legitimate offspring and properly parent them, you are supposed to continue agreeing to having your status progressively (pun intended) lowered in favour of women, sodomites, lesbians and foreigners from now till the end of time in the name of Transnational Progressivism and globalism, apparently. It makes no sense at all.
While I am neither white nor male, I can't help feeling I would rather live in a country where the men are acting rationally instead of being neurotic and too frightened to challenge feminism because they are lower in status than immoral women and too afraid of being accused of historic sexual offence to risk antagonising any woman at all. It makes me uneasy indeed knowing that I live in a country where the men fear the women and the women who have taken over are unfair, irrational, abusing their power by refusing to answer questions and silencing those who dare to ask questions.
Offences such as inciting racial hatred through words, behaviour, broadcasting or publishing written material are punishable with a prison sentence of up to seven years and judges must decide what term to apply.
What does Islam promise though? It promises patriarchy and only in a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.
Nationalism is simply the belief that our government should be acting in the long-term national interest of our nation. In fact, what I am saying is that, ultimately, Nationalism (of the civic variety) should be considered to be no more controversial than apple pie and motherhood.
If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.
1) What does Nationalism have to do with Conservatism?
2) What does Conservatism have to do with Judaism?
3) What does Conservatism have to do with God?
4) What does Nationalism have to do with with God?https://t.co/q8XL2YU3hE
Yoram Hazony does not quite say Conservatism is Theocracy Lite, but I do. "God is not optional. God and public reverence for God is the cornerstone of the Conservative belief system and of Jewish Conservatism itself." He does not mention Muslim Conservatism.
If you think you have a universal theory of everything, you are just worshipping yourself like the pagan Roman emperors did and are guilty of idolatry, says Yoram Hazony.
"All of our freedoms depend on recognising and resisting the threat from the New Imperialism and the threat of a liberal empire that seeks to subordinate all the nations on earth to a single regime of law imposing liberal doctrines on everyone everywhere." The EU is a foretaste.
Yoram Hazony: "The king is fallible, Parliament is fallible and the people too are fallible. Strictly speaking, no institution or human being can be said to be inviolable, and strictly speaking sovereignty belongs only to God."
"We don't have to call the US constitution a liberal document." It is an academic myth of the left that the founding of the US is based on John Locke. 35% of the citations from polemical texts are to the Bible (mostly Deuteronomy), 8% Montesqui, 8% Blackstone, 3% Locke, 5% Hume.
Almost all the rights enumerated in 1 through 8 [Amendments] are taken from the English Bill of Rights or from the Petition of Rights by John Selden who took from The Talmud. But for these safeguards, America would have become like Revolutionary France, says Yoram Hazony.
'Our job is prepare an option that will be on the table when some big crisis hits and when political and religious leaders in circumstances we cannot imagine says "What do I do now?" [Spending time studying the Bible and the Talmud.] That's something we can do.'
"Let's drop this nonsense that Burke was the first Conservative. He stood and defended 1700 years of English tradition? What tradition was he defending if he was the first Conservative? It doesn't make any sense!"
"We can't control whether people will buy what we have, but we can control whether it will exist and be easily accessible." The Koran is very easily accessible, fortunately!
Iraq discussed by Yoram Hazony, who declares that there was virtually no one in Israeli Security and Intelligence establishment who believed it was possible to turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. He appeals to the Deep State and in particular the media to win hearts and minds,
Leo Strauss says Classical Liberalism is the religion of American imperialism, but where is its scripture and what are its principles?
Before Conservatism, the political parties were divided between Whig and Tory. The Tories were represented by the owners of land, and the Whigs came to represent the new rich of the Industrial Revolution in favour of free trade to better sell their wares in the British Empire.
The new rich got their way when the Corn Laws were repealed which allowed them cheap imported corn for the urban proletariat.
Classical Liberalism is really Conservatism, and Conservatism was created as a defence against the ideas of the French Revolution. What the French Revolutionaries were rebelling against was the Catholic clergy. It can be deduced therefore that Conservatism was really Theocracy Lite, "lite" because it was a synthesis of the old hierarchical and patriarchal ideas of the Bible and the revolutionary idea of egalitarianism.
It is probably time to consider whether we should just have the real thing and stop pretending we know better than scripture when we are only in the mess we're in because we have ignored what are said to be God's commandments. At least with established religions their scripture does not change while what we think is our political ideology is altered with as much frequency as the leader of a political party changes his mind about something or, sometimes more frequently.
God's laws were laid down long ago and, being omniscient and morally perfect, if He exists, He does not make mistakes. A theocracy would at least stop the laws from changing so frequently because our law-makers keep making mistakes and changing their minds.
When once the Church of England was considered to be the Tory Party at area, the Tory Party is now on record of having a Prime Minister that legalised gay marriage.
We need the rules to be clear and stay the same just as we need the day to be 24 hours long and the week to be 7 days long.
The moral chaos we now have is directly related to the frequency of how often our political leaders change their minds. Women, you may have noticed, change their minds more often than men, many Western world leaders are now clueless childless women, and many Western leaders are men afraid of women.
Sharia law is nothing like canon law. Canon law is the Church's internal laws governing its structure and functions. It is explicitly distinguished from civil law. Sharia law is Islamic theocratic law —a form of government, essentially— that is imposed on all of society. https://t.co/FUXGZ1Qahm
Ask the following question: Jewish halacha explicitly states that the law of each country is binding on the Jews living in it ("dina demalchuta dina"). What is the Islamic legal equivalent? (Real question: I don't know the answer.) https://t.co/3pzAbXpiru
The point of an Islamic theocracy is that its laws would be binding on all citizens and residents, but, if you read the Koran, it envisages a diversity of citizenry including Jews, Christians and even pagans and guarantees freedom of belief with https://t.co/R585jqogaE
You will see from https://t.co/yhPQYjP9Op that Ecclesiastical/canon law was basically designed to protect the corrupt clergy from the consequences of their actions. Thankfully, this has now been abolished.
The most notable feature about Islam is that it promotes the logic of theocracy in that it accepts the principle that your laws should conform to the morality of your chosen religion because this is what happens anyway just as water takes on the shape of the vessel containing it.
Diaspora Jews rely on rabbis to maintain the morality of Judaism and Islam relies on sharia AKA theocracy to maintain Islamic morality. One would expect Israel of all places to be a theocracy, but I think informed people already know it is really an American colonial outpost.
We know that Israel is but an American colonial outpost because the Jews in Israel behave as if they are still diaspora Jews, because it is rabbis who maintain the morality of these Israeli Jews rather than the laws of Israel. The laws of Israel are of course liberal.
https://t.co/43NP7P5l0C demonstrates there is more than a little confusion about what is Liberalism and what is Conservatism. You will see from https://t.co/PuultByaL1 that these terms are just a conflation of what should be called "Westernism" which has morphed over the ages.
If you agree that Conservatism was created to be "Theocracy Lite" in a defensive response to the ideas of the French Revolution, then we can see Liberalism as the desire for innovation and the desire to be free of the religious principles of the time.
The principles of Conservatism come from the Bible, and the principles of the Bible come from Judaism.
Jews are the most powerful tribe in the world and Judaism promotes social conservatism intended to sanctify the institutions of marriage and family, making the group strong, socially cohesive and enduring. Because of this, Jews are the most powerful tribe in the world, attracting the envy and hatred of those who do not wish to make the sacrifices required of this high-maintenance religion but who desire its worldly rewards of wealth, power and influence.
Christianity was the first inadequate attempt to adapt Judaism for gentiles and it has now failed. It failed because it depended on a corrupt clergy to maintain morality.
The reason Judaism failed the Israelites was because they too relied on a corrupt clergy. Had Judaism not failed the Jews they would not have been conquered and then eventually expelled by the Romans. It is not therefore unreasonable to conclude that corrupt Hebrew priests failed to promote the principles of Judaism the way corrupt Catholic clergy are failing to promote Christian principles which are in any case derived from Judaism.
Islam is a more advanced attempt to maintain morality by the rule of law and has been called "Judaism Lite". The closest thing to a clergy in Islam would be the judiciary and legal profession. This would be better than a clergy because legal judgements would at least be open to public scrutiny and subject to appeal.
If we are to have truly Conservative principles, we would have to go back to the fundamental basics of the Abrahamic faiths, but which one?
Judaism is for Jews only. The Jews wouldn't like it if we all tried to join their exclusive golf club. If we all became Jews, the Chosen People would no longer feel chosen and this would undermine their identity as a people. In an case, most of us are not up to maintaining proper standards of Jewish observance.
Christianity is no longer in the running as a religion capable of maintaining morality because it is now a creature of the liberal state, the only choice left to the West is Islam because the new religion of the West cannot be Hinduism or Buddhism.
Secular Koranism which I have crafted specially for the West is "Islam Lite" - a Chicken Tikka Masala kind of Islam. The only way to properly reform Islam is of course for the West to adopt and adapt it.
Jews should support my proposal because it will make the West a safer place for Jews. The only thing that protects Jews and minorities from persecution by the majority and the wealthy from being robbed is good government. Liberal democracy is no longer capable of delivering good government because it was liberal democracy that established our matriarchy, and matriarchies are either extinct or about to become extinct.
Liberalism is no longer about liberty and Conservatism no longer about social conservatism. Both ideologies are now hopelessly corrupted and distorted and in effect meaningless. If Liberalism means anything at all, it means sexual liberation. If Conservatism means anything, it means conserving the status quo, no matter how or what it is, in favour of the wealthy, unless the left make things too difficult.
In Britain, the Labour Party is the 21st century version of Populares, and the Conservative Party the 21st century version of Optimates.
It should be noted that the imperial period of Rome lasted approximately 1,500 years compared to the 500 years of the Republican era.
Time now for a new ideology that promotes the national interest: a nationalism which seeks to balance the conflicting interests of men and women, the old and young, the rich and poor while in government instead of waiting for the incumbent party to fail. Time to rationally govern the nation in the long term national interest for our descendants as yet unborn, who will not revile our memory for squandering what we could have passed on to them, if we had been less selfish, less sexually liberated, too busy waging a class war and heedless of posterity.
If you want want a one party state you will be accused of fascism, but the only countries who defy libtard US Deep State with an independent foreign policy are China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Time now to rethink our political system and about replacing our degenerate matriarchy with a rational patriarchy, if we are still allowed to do such things as form our own opinions and create our own platforms for a full and frank exchange of ideas.
The logical and necessary consequence of abolishing whipping in the Commons by disqualifying anyone who is a Whip from membership of the House of Commons - as Peter Bone proposed - would be the establishing of a one party state.
"If the #AltRight are nationalists, they must be social conservatives. If they want social conservatism they must have theocracy." Discuss.
K-selection breeds children to compete in a world of limited resources through a two-parent upbringing, defined by high sexual dimorphism, monogamy, late sexual maturation, and loyalty to the in-group (i.e. wolves). R-selection breeds children for a world of abundant resources through a single-mother upbringing, defined by low sexual dimorphism, promiscuity, early sexual maturation, and disloyalty to the tribe (i.e. rabbits).
The conflict between leftism (of which feminism is a subset) and conservatism is the conflict between r and K. K-selected individuals want a world that encourages competition and meritocracy, while r-selected individuals want a world of free resources: free food, free money, free shelter and free sex. In a K-selected world, men and girls have to compete to earn the right to mate with one another; in an r-selected world, men and girls have sex with no thought as to the consequences.
What does this have to do with feminism and rape? Simple: rape is the ultimate r-selected sexual strategy.
By its very definition, rape is an act of entitlement: forcing yourself on someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you, whom you haven’t earned the right to sleep with. Much in the same way leftists feel entitled to take other peoples’ money away through taxation and welfare, rapists feel entitled to stick their penises in girls’ vaginas. In fact, you could say that rape is an inherently leftist form of sex, which would explain why so many male feminists, such as Jian Ghomeshi and Hugo Schwyzer, enjoy assaulting and abusing girls.
Sexual assault is sexual socialism: redistributing nookie to the least privileged in society.
Feminists, being leftists, are r-strategists themselves. The purpose of feminism is to eliminate restrictions on female sexuality: allow girls to sleep around without getting pregnant, let them legally kill their unborn babies when they do get knocked up, and have it all funded by the taxpayer. From an r-strategist’s perspective, rape is a good thing, because it allows a female to have children without having to do anything, aside from breathe.
Liberalism meaningless: the rich think it means freedom from laws and taxes, the poor think it means freedom from poverty and oppression.
Either Liberalism is the same thing as Conservatism or it is not. Anne McElvoy seems to think they are the same.
Do you get the impression that Anne McElvoy uses Liberalism and Conservatism interchangeably? I do.
Is Anne McElvoy's series on British Liberalism just a rehash of her series on British Conservatism?
Listening to Anne McElvoy on British Conservatism/Liberalism, do you get the impression it is just "shit UK governments do"?
British Liberalism and British Conservatism seems to be nothing more than "shit the British government does and thinks".
Anne McElvoy's on Conservatism/Liberalism should be a programme called What Passes for British Political Thought since the French Revolution.
British Conservatism came from an Irishman as a belated response to the French Revolution.
Conservatism is an ideology no older than the American and French Revolutions, which failed to prevent Russian Revolution.
Ask a Western politician or journalist to tell you where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins, and he will start prevaricating and looking nervous and shifty. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Predictably, I received no answer from Anne McElvoy when I asked her this question.
@annemcelvoy Where does Conservatism end and Liberalism begin?
Liberalism and Conservatism means whatever Western politicians want it to mean.
Liberalism and Conservatism means motherhood and apple pie to the typical British voter. It therefore means precisely nothing.
In Australia the party closest to Conservatism is called the Liberal Party. Does this mean confusion, incoherence bordering on mania and dementia?
The West whose ideology is Conservatism and Liberalism do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their "religion".
Has Conservaliberalism stood the test of time - all 252 years of it so far?
ISIS have the Koran said to come from God, while the West do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their ideology. Perhaps it can only be found in The Unholy and Unwritten Conservaliberal Book of Making It Up As You Go Along?
There was a reason why the plebs demanded that The Twelve Tables of Romebe placed in a prominent part of the forum so that the operation of Rome's laws would be accessible and foreseeable.
What are Western values? It seems to mean Conservaliberalism which it cannot even agree on or officially define.
Would Edmund Burke be shocked and disgusted that a Conservative Prime Minister has legalised gay marriage?
Liberalism + Conservatism + Wolfowitz Doctrine + Full Spectrum Dominance + Neoconservatism + Neoliberalism = American Imperialism
Can even the most intelligent intellectual defend an ideology that does not have a commonly agreed source?
Is it wise to defend ideologies that are clearly incoherent and make no sense at all which no one can define?
It is clearly unwise to present a programme on these incoherent ideologies relying only on politicians' reminiscences of what was said and done when they were in government and politics without any attempt to define where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins. Let us call it Conservaliberalism then!
Is PC Liberalism the equivalent of Sexual Liberation and casual fornication leading to widespread bastardy and national degeneracy? Is this the "way of life" the West is so keen on defending?
ISIS hate gay marriage while Conservaliberals seem to be saying they are prepared to defend it to the death. What is the point of defending a practice that would result in racial and national degeneracy which God has already declared to be an abomination in both the Bible and Koran?
Another expression of Conservaliberalism is being in the EU and NATO, irrespective of whether or not it is in the national interest, because, let's face it, these pygmy politicians have no idea what to do outside it, because they have no imagination or principles, and have no idea what the national interest is. They only want to be in office without being in power and only think in terms of elections the way children think of playing musical chairs.
Why do Liberals and Conservatives pretend they can't understand why people hate immigration when they know being hospitable to even family members can be a pain?
Would Victorian Conservaliberals' views on sexual morality be closer that of ISIS than the gay and female advisers of Downing Street?
Did Anne McElvoy mention that the National Liberal Party merged with the Conservative Party in 1947? I don't think so.
The Liberal Nationals also changed their name to National Liberals at this stage. (Their reluctance to take this label originally is said to be a reaction to Lloyd George's use of the name for the earlier National Liberal Party in the 1920s.)
So, Conservaliberalism is a good thing then? Well, it has made the West what it is now ...
If I had been presenting the programme, I would have pointed out that Conservatism was no more than a response to the French Revolution.
Since both Conservatism and Liberalism are the same thing in the mind of Anne McElvoy, we can say that Conservaliberalism is no more than 252 years old. I choose 1763 because that was the beginning of the American Revolution, which the French had a part in. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/timeline.html
If the French had not fought the Seven Years War then they would not have found their coffers empty and having to replenish them through the imposition of objectionably high taxes.
If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head.
If Henry Tudor had been Muslim, it would have been no big deal for him to have up to four wives. Think of the number of heads that would have stayed on shoulders and the wars avoided if there had been no Catholic Church for Protestants to protest against and all the religious wars and persecution in Europe that would have been avoided. Forget all the non-Christians the Christians killed, ask yourself how many Christians the Christians killed. It is just possible that Christians killed even more Christians than they killed Muslims. Quite a thought, eh? It was the schismatic nature of Christianity that caused white people to endlessly fight, persecute and kill each other. It was Conservaliberalism that started two World Wars, after all, but Anne McElvoy doesn't mention that either. It is not surprising then that white people became so good at war and took over the world. Now that they only go around hypocritically pretending that they invade oil-rich Muslim countries to save Muslims from themselves and pay mercenaries to fight their wars, they will most probably go the way of the Roman empire.
Was the The Seven Years War fought for Koranically-approved reasons? No, because it only officially permits defensive wars. Sure, go acquire an empire if you want - the Koran allows Muslims conquerors to impose the jizya on their conquered after all, but if you don't win it or can't really afford it, then on your head be it.
Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence Nope. Should Russia have entered it? Nope. If the Russians had had a Caliph of Russia rather than silly Tsar with an equally silly Tsarina carrying on with Rasputin, there would have been no Russian Revolution either.
What do the French now think of their Revolution? Do you know they are now on their fifth Republic? Yep, every time they change their constitution, a new republic is formed, and they have changed their constitution five times already, cos they keep getting it wrong ...
As Zhou Enlai said, it is too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing. Since he is dead, perhaps we should ask the French people what they think of the French Revolution now. I did recently and the response was a Gallic shrug.
Does the picture below say anything you might want to say about Conservaliberalism?
