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.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Because there was a Creation, there must have been a Creator, and that Creator must have been God.
Some say God could have created us and then died, like a salmon that has spawned, but what is the evidence of God's death?
Just because there is evil in the world does not mean God's non-existence since God also created evil, because He created everything.
Because God created a logical universe, He had to create evil in order to that we may learn the difference between good and evil. The existence of evil is the price we must logically and necessarily pay for having good in the world and the ability to recognise and appreciate it.
Most Semites are not Jews and most Jews are not Semites. Many say the Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic.
What would you call antisemitism?
Simon Sheppard:
Why not just say "anti-Jew"?
Because it is a feature of Christianity to be antisemitic. This hatred was not racial just but also ideological.
Arabs
who were Muslims were also a Semitic people. Both Jews and Muslims deny
the Trinity. The Catholic Church forced Jews and Muslims to convert to
Christianity and the Inquisition tortured them to see if they genuinely
believed in Christ's divinity.
Simon Sheppard:
Jews invented the obfuscatory term "antisemitic" quite recently because they hate being identified as Jews. Part of their MO is to disguise themselves.
Surely when Jews accuse you of antisemitism, they break their cover? [Awaiting answer.]
* Described by Simon Sheppard as a "daft question".
TRANSCRIPT
This is Simon Sheppard. Claire Khaw has asked me to record the answers to her questions. She has raised some interesting topics. Her first question is:
(1) How would you like to be introduced?
I'd really like to be known as a scientist. This is certainly what I am at the moment. I discovered a while ago that I have 116 citations, most of those of a paper I published in 1994, so I'm certainly qualified as one. Even 20 or 25 citations is considered very respectable.
(2) What would you most like me to ask you about?
What I'd most like to talk about is my work. However, it's too early to go public with it, and the information could be commercially valuable. It's a stressful time for me, because though things look promising, everything is still in the air. Contributing to the stress, there's possible fame or fortune. Most times you get one or the other, if you're really lucky you get both, in the worst case you get neither. So I'm keeping things close to my chest as long as possible.
(3) Do you regret becoming involved in politics?
This is a deep question, because it actually amounts to an age-old philosophical issue. Given two choices, which would you rather have? Either you can be happy and deluded, and go through life in blissful ignorance. Or you can know the truth, which makes you unhappy. I decided long ago that it was better to know the truth, however unpleasant, because that allows the problems causing the unhappiness to be solved. The first step to solving problems is to see the problem clearly.
(4) What is wrong with the British?
This is a bit of a daft question I think. The short answer is that there is nothing much wrong with the British: we are being exploited for our virtues. British people are normally civilised, polite and trusting. The Australian Andrew Fraser discussed white people's trusting nature in some book or other. It evolved to enable cooperation between people who are not directly related to each other. IIRC, he quotes the example of a village needing a new church bell. Such a thing is bought rarely, so there is little prospect of future cooperation between the church elders and the foundry, which is many miles away. Yet the vast majority of such arrangements succeed. Other cultures only trust members of their own kin group, which is one reason they favour marriages between cousins. The truth is that our good nature is being exploited, particularly by organised Jewry.
(5) How could feminism have been prevented and patriarchy maintained?
That's easy. If our forebears had followed traditional wisdom and prevented Jewish infiltration. Feminism is a Jewish creation.
This is a good point to describe the standard Jewish M.O., their modus operandi. These aren't my original thoughts: this came up in a review of Solzhenitzin's book Two Hundred Years Together. The Jews did the same thing in Russia as they are doing here. Jews portray their own racial agenda as moral imperatives which Gentiles ought to follow. Thus the things the Jews want us to do are portrayed as virtuous, and things which they think will threaten them (such as white solidarity, or nationalism) are portrayed as sinful.
Follow up question:
Are you saying that but for Jews feminism would never have come into existence?
Simon Sheppard:
Yes, absolutely. The wacky ideas of American Jewish women were treated uncritically and promoted by Jews in the British media. The Jewish women were mostly complaining about their treatment by Jewish men, but they generalised it, as Jews do, as if Gentiles were treating their women the same way. Jewish men routinely pray "Thank God I was not born a woman.
Surely many gentiles were also Male Chauvinist Pigs? [Awaiting answer.]
(6) Was God invented by Man to protect himself from Woman?
Now this is another rather daft question, but one that touches on some interesting matters.
First of all, it would be extremely arrogant of me to say that God is an invention. I'm not omniscient and any opinion I might have on the matter is worthless. I'm certainly not qualified to make an assertion.
There is a theory that God is a projection by man, that God is like an idealized man, a sort of alter ego. My attitude to religion was covered in my article 'A Giddy Tour of Metapolitics' which is online on the Heretical site. From an evolutionary perspective, religion is like a sort of cultural carrier bag preserving and reinforcing socially advantageous traits. For example, two socially advantageous policies contained in Christianity are the subordination of women and forgiveness.
(7) Do you have a favourite philosopher?
Not really. I'm thinking of Revilo P. Oliver but I'm not sure he counts as a philosopher.
(8) Are you prepared to talk about your childhood?
I don't have a problem talking about my childhood, only wonder if it's really relevant. I suppose I should be flattered that people are interested. My father left when I was 3, likely driven out, and I was brought up to hate my father by a bitter and mentally unstable mother. Later she married a Chinaman who couldn't speak English, and I have four half-Chinese brothers and sisters. It was peculiar when I started noticing certain trends in Amsterdam, it felt like I had come full circle, seeing the same things I experienced in my childhood. My mother eventually killed herself. Obviously there's a lot more to tell. I've had quite a traumatic life.
(9) Are Jews white people?
I would say definitely not. They are Asiatic I think. A Jewish defence witness at my trial for the Tales of the Holohoax made an interesting observation: that, say, a Lebanese Jew looks much more like other Lebanese than he resembles a British Jew. I would say this is similar to the cuckoo. The cuckoo adapts the colouring of its eggs to particular bird species. Ultimately it all comes down to behaviour. I can often tell when a piece of music or a book has been written by a Jew. I'm sure others can too.
This is how it works with matters of race, and I think this is an important process to understand. Suppose you have one black, or Jew or whatever, among a dozen whites. This could be in the workplace, school or wherever. Then there'll be little or no perceivable difference between the behaviour of the non-white and the whites, because essentially they are imitating. Non-whites and women are imitators. Later on, and for various reasons it will always be the case, there will be a larger number of non-whites, a higher proportion of them. Then with their increased number they will revert to kind. If you want to see how their kind behaves you only have to look at their home countries.
(10) How would you feel if you discovered your mother was a Jewess, as Peter Hitchens did?
I didn't know about that, maybe it was a shock! I don't think it would affect me that much, although how I'd have rationalised it say 5 years down the line I don't know. It wouldn't change the truth of what I know. In any case, there are a few Jews who are scathing of Jewish behaviour themselves.
Follow up questions I have put to Simon:
How would you have rationalised it away five years ago? What is the significance of five years ago?
Simon Sheppard:
No, I mean that I don't know how I'd have rationalised it to myself five years down the line i.e. five years after the discovery.
What is this "Jewish behaviour" you say some Jews wish to escape from?
Simon Sheppard:
I'm only talking about Jews who are critical of Jewish behaviour e.g.Gerhardt Menhuin, that London jazz musician, Israel Shahak. The debate is more open in Israel.
(11) Is Christianity inherently antisemitic?
This is one way the church has betrayed us. The whole purpose of the church is to provide a bedrock of stable morality and cultural tradition. That cultural carrier bag again. If you look at John Chapter 8, Jesus himself tells the Jews "Ye are of your father the devil," there is no ambiguity or doubt that he's addressing the Jews. I suspect this is where the phrase "Spawn of Satan" came from. The churches all seem to be singing from the Jews' hymn sheet. It's very sad.
Simon Sheppard seems to be saying that the more feminised the male gentile becomes, the more susceptible he will be to his internal and external enemies because he will become more irrational and emotional thus intellectually crippling him from using truth and logic as his guide in order to protect himself. But I await Simon's comments about the accuracy of my description of what I think he said.
The book of Genesis opens with God making humans “in his image and likeness.”
The truth is more probably that Man in creating God thought of the most powerful attribute to give to Him and arrived at that of omnipotence.
He imagined an omnipotent deity to be unique because an omnipotent being would not tolerate other omnipotent beings and therefore this deity would also be supreme.
The next step up would be omniscience, for an omnipotent deity would naturally know everything and a being that knows everything with the capacity to do anything would surely desire to be morally perfect.
Being omnipotent, a rational God would also make Himself morally perfect, and of course an omnipotent God would be rational.
If God is just a concept conceived of by man, ie just an *idea*, then God is not supernatural. If God is a lie, even lies have utility. https://t.co/y6DeLDcHIh
God was conceived of by Man and then conscripted into supporting the institutions of marriage and the family, creating the patriarchy. https://t.co/RZZkNP7J9T
God will bless nationalists and nationalism only if they obey His laws: that is the bargain. Will atheist nationalists accept the bargain? https://t.co/GAJywBaW6z
Are women more likely to suffer from insanity than men? If so, what is the reason? Because women tend to be more subjective and tend to regard truth and logic as an obstacle to their wishes rather than as a tool for solving problems?
Subjectivity/Femininity/Insanity v Objectivity/Masculinity/Sanity
Who should win?
Who would God want to win if He exists?
Even if God does not in fact exist, He must be male, because it must have been a man who conceived of Him and then wielded God as an instrument of government.
It is impossible to imagine a woman as being the first person in the world to have thought up such an entity.
Sane people form theories based on their observations of the world around them while the insane, stubborn, stupid and arrogant fit the world into their theories, however ill-fitting, and never learn from their mistakes because they are too proud to admit having made them.
Is there a difference between being wrong and being mad? The consequences however are the same: disaster.
Insanity: being persistently, immovably and fundamentally in error about some important fact.
Is it possible that the entire West is mad?
Which is more frightening: to be insane or to discover that everyone around you is in fact insane?
God had to be conscripted to serve patriarchy and human civilisation, and He was.
Now, however, He is sitting in a dark corner, twiddling His thumbs, under-employed.
It is not like He has to be assembled from scratch all over again. He is already before us, fully conceived and assembled, with His accompanying instruction manual called the Koran, in its original packaging as well as the receipt.
God has a lifetime guarantee and this lasts for all eternity, or at least for as long as Man exists and needs Him to assist in government, politics and morality to protect him and his civilisation from the depredations of feminism and liberalism.
It is easily demonstrated that patriarchy is much harder than matriarchy, requiring the postponement of pleasure. Matriarchy, on the other hand, is about undeferred gratification with no thought for the future.
It is therefore easily demonstrated that matriarchy is easy and patriarchy is hard, and actually even harder on men. To motivate men into patriarchy, the status of the beta male must be raised above that of the fornicating slut. To demotivate men from aspiring to patriarchy, simply keep his status below that of the fornicating slut.
The operation of the rules of traditional marriage is almost as mysterious as the way God moves, but I now understand how they both work.
Beta males without the leadership of an alpha male are like women in denial, pretending things are not really as bad as I say. Because no beta male would accept the authority of another beta male, angry and gentile white men will just continuing blaming Jews and Muslims for their plight, rather than acknowledge that it is their lack of leadership skills, their effeminacy, degeneracy, irrationality, denial and their fear of being led by an alpha male leader that prevents them from ever organising effectively against the demented matriarchy which oppresses them.
In Donald Trump American men and women sense an alpha male who could lead them and the world out of the morass the neocons have brought them to. This frightens and dismays the matriarchy to such an extent that it will resort to any dirty trick - however laughable - to prevent him becoming President.
God (if He exists) would protect Trump (as long as he is does not propose anything that flouts God's laws) and confound the knavish tricks of the degenerate matriarchy.
Let us then pray that God if He exists will protect Trump. Indeed, why not pray that an omnipotent and perfectly moral God actually exists, so that Trump is more likely to be protected from a malign matriarchy bent on destroying all that is good about Western civilisation and indeed human civilisation itself?
I urge everyone - even atheists - to pray for Trump's success. It is the least you can do if you are not prepared to donate or argue in his favour because you are a beta male oppressed by the matriarchy scared of being ostracised by your female associates, friends and family or a husband and father afraid of his wife and children.
How would an atheist pray? First, form a wish that you earnestly desire. Then say these words in your head and then share this post with others:
God if He exists would protect Trump because he is an alpha male and offers us an alternative to the neocons, Hillary Clinton and the degenerate matriarchy. If God does not exist then I wish and earnestly desire that He come into being, in order to protect Trump because the entire Western establishment is against him. If Trump succeeds, then more men will follow his example. If he fails then the beta males will be even more demoralised, fearful and useless.
Trump is a nationalist and God wants us to organise ourselves into nations. In this way is healthy competition possible between nations whom God will reward for following His laws most faithfully.
As long as humans exist, wish to protect and prolong their civilisation and use sexual reproduction to produce the next generation, they will find it in their interests to obey the laws of God which promote and maintain the patriarchy and prevent a matriarchy from establishing itself. A general belief in God is therefore in the long term national interest. Only feminists, LGBTs and degenerates cannot understand this, or pretend not to, because being atheists their intention is to gratify themselves in this life which they believe is their only life, without regard for posterity or the long term survival of their nation or civilisation.
The Mandate of Heaven depends on whether an emperor is sufficiently virtuous to rule; if he does not fulfill his obligations as emperor, then he loses the Mandate and thus the right to be emperor. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. The fact that a ruler was overthrown was taken by itself as an indication that the ruler had lost the Mandate of Heaven. In addition, it was also common belief that natural disasters such as famine and flood were other signs of heaven’s displeasure with the current ruler, so there would often be revolts following major environmental events as citizens saw these as signs of heaven's displeasure.
The Mandate of Heaven does not require that a legitimate ruler be of noble birth, and dynasties were often founded by people of common birth (such as the Han dynasty and Ming dynasty). The Mandate of Heaven had no time limitations, depending instead on the just and able performance of the ruler and his heirs. Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.
Sahih International: And never would your Lord have destroyed
the cities until He had sent to their mother a messenger reciting to
them Our verses. And We would not destroy the cities except while their
people were wrongdoers. Pickthall: And never did thy Lord destroy the townships,
till He had raised up in their mother(-town) a messenger reciting unto
them Our revelations. And never did We destroy the townships unless the
folk thereof were evil-doers. Yusuf Ali: Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a
population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to
them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its
members practise iniquity. Shakir: And your Lord never destroyed the towns until He
raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our
communications, and We never destroyed the towns except when their
people were unjust. Muhammad Sarwar: Your Lord did not destroy the people of
the towns without first sending a Messenger to the mother town who would
recite His revelations to them. We did not want to destroy the towns if
the people therein were not unjust. Mohsin Khan: And never will your Lord destroy the towns
(populations) until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting
to them Our Verses. And never would We destroy the towns unless the
people thereof are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers in
the Oneness of Allah, oppressors and tyrants). Arberry: Yet thy Lord never destroyed the cities until He
sent in their mother-city a Messenger, to recite Our signs unto them;
and We never destroyed the cities, save that their inhabitants were
evildoers.
The Roman birth rate fell when the Roman Empire was declining and falling. A falling birth rate is a signifier of a decline in the ability and numbers of married men available to exercise good husbandry over their women.
Make no mistake, a lower birth rate is the consequence of degeneracy, and degeneracy is the consequence of prioritising the right to have recreational sex over the duty to have legitimate offspring as well as producing a heir and a spare. Degenerate societies are invariably senescent and effeminate.
Even if we all replaced ourselves and all married and had a son and a daughter, women would eventually predominate because women live longer than men, unless this is dealt with using sati - the Hindu tradition of widow burning.
Those who are concerned about immigration should note that in Calais there are hardly any young people and certainly more old women than old men. This explains the inability of Calais to repel invaders.
The purpose of marriage is to have legitimate offspring, so that the quality of the next generation is maintained and not worse than the current one, and therefore the best they possibly can be. This duty to have legitimate offspring is linked to the attempt by a nation's government to maintain its ability to fight a successful defensive war.
While there are some who blame the increasing feminisation of society to material causes such as oestrogen in the water, feminisation is caused by policies tolerating extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is of course forbidden in both the Bible and the Koran which treats it as a sexual offence attracting corporal and even capital punishment.
We can most easily understand God by knowing what His laws are, and we can most easily please Him by obeying them and divining their purpose. Even if we do not really believe in the literal existence of God, we should have no difficulty identifying the evils His laws were intended to discourage and prevent ie degeneracy. The problem of degeneracy will always remain as long as the next generation require sexual reproduction to come into being.
We are degenerate if we are morally, materially, intellectually and physically inferior to our parents. If we are legitimate but our offspring are illegitimate, we are degenerate. If we are gay and cannot bring ourselves to marry a spouse of the opposite sex with whom to have legitimate offspring, then we are also degenerate.
God if He exists intended for us to obey His laws and rewards those who most faithfully and rationally obey His laws with success in warfare. It is the Koran that states His laws most briefly and clearly compared to the Old and New Testament.
Only Christian and Western chauvinism prevents degenerate politicians who have been marinating in porn and morally corrupting feminism for decades. This degeneracy they already suffer from also prevents them from acknowledging that their society is degenerate. This means they cannot bring themselves to discuss, let alone implement policies that would bring about the moral regeneration of the West because democratic politicians already know that the overwhelming majority of their voters do not wish to give up what they regard as their inalienable human right to have extramarital sex and are too cowardly to persuade them otherwise.
The Abrahamic God is also the Roman God of War as well as the synthesis of the deities of the Greek and Roman pantheon. While Mars was the Roman God of War, Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of Wisdom and War. In the end both the Greeks and Romans broke their own rules. The Greeks who prided themselves on their reason lost their reason when they succumbed to ruinous wars and warmongering, and the Romans who prided themselves on their hatred of kings and autocrats in time began to worship their emperors.
Great civilisations breaking the rules that made them great are of course well advanced in their journey on the road to perdition. Liberalism is no longer about free speech and rational discourse but about gay marriage and labelling anyone opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage as extremists and potential terrorists. Gay marriage is really no more than sanctifying a sexual offence, and analogous to repealing criminal laws to "solve" the problem of rising crime.
The West has now strayed so far from the baseline of morality that it has redefined both the institutions of family and marriage for the purposes of making their perversions legitimate in the eyes of their law. It is laughable that a family is now defined as capable of existing in any form other than children and their biological parents. The right to marry has now been extended to couples patently incapable of sexual reproduction with each other.
Gay marriage is conclusive evidence of degeneracy because its existence proclaims the government's intention of conferring equality on couples obviously not capable of sexual reproduction with each other and only interested in recreational sex with those who have taken the trouble of getting married before having legitimate children staying together to bring them up. As Aristotle said, the greatest injustice is treating unequal things equally.
Those who don't respect the rules of traditional marriage are invariably degenerate and will eventually defeated by people who do see the benefits of marriage and family and the necessity of enforcing a system of laws that protects these institutions.
"Of course, there is no reconciliation between the theory of evolution by natural selection and the traditional religious view of the origin of the human mind."
I have reconciled the two by the following:
"God if He exists is Darwinian. He means to demonstrate to us that those who follow His laws most closely will triumph over those who flout His laws. For this reason it is not looking good for the West, even if ISIS do occasionally misinterpret the Koran."
Jews have been corrupted during many time in history, but each time those Jews that return to religion and virtue cause Judaism to survive for another round of productivity. No culture has been productive as long as Judaism for the simple reason that no culture has known God for as long as Judaism has. Is there a single counterexample? Is there a single case in history where a people from a decayed culture rose again without God? I can't think of one. So why is this? Those with faith may find this question silly. They will say that those who obey God's will are rewarded and no other explanation is needed. But as a skeptic, I want to show that God's will is explainable and that the theory of evolution explains it well. So I will argue that the evolutionary salvation of a people requires two critical elements, that they worship one god, and that this god is the correct god. So not only does the Old Testament give the correct rules to optimize human evolution, it also gives the correct warnings of what will result from not following these rules. In fact the broad story told in the Old Testament begins with God giving the Israelites the right rules. The Israelites follow these rules for a while and so they become successful and prosperous. Then success causes them to begin to sin. So their decay begins. The more they violate God's laws, the more they decay and the weaker they become. Finally their country falls to Babylon and they go into exile. But then they return to following God's law and find salvation which allows them to survive and eventually begin again in Jerusalem. This story makes the same point that I am making in this article, that salvation can be found by following God's law. The Old Testament is the only book that I know of that goes through the entire life-cycle of a culture along with a complete analysis of what happened and why.
I am perfectly ready to accept that what are said to be God's laws are merely the accumulated wisdom of Man attributed to God because saying these laws came from an omnipotent and perfectly moral God is the only way of making the stupid, venal and unprincipled - who would only do good if rewarded and refrain from evil only if punished, in this life and the next - obey these rules generation after generation. The strictures of Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc are only obeyed for as long as the government promoting Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc does not fall. There are some laws that are eternal and universal, and the rules of marriage comes to mind. For as long as there are men and women on earth, they will need to make bargains with each other based on the buying and selling of sexual services as well as services men are specially good at providing eg soldiering and labouring, and of course services that women are specially good at providing eg childcare, housekeeping and sexual services.
Sex and marriage is clearly pivotal to this bargain and traditional marriage is the pivot upon which true gender balance rests.
Feminists, in their spite and eagerness to destroy the patriarchy which runs on marriage, have been demolishing this institution. All patriarchies are established on the principle of marriage and all matriarchies are established in the absence of traditional marriage. All patriarchies are advanced societies and all matriarchies are declining and primitive societies. To discover that you live in a matriarchy is the equivalent of discovering that your society has cancer. Once you have accepted this diagnosis and prognosis, you will know what the cure must logically and necessarily be: to surgically remove feminism from every major organ of the state.
Alison Saunders the Directrix of Public Prosecutions who presides over the English court system presides over a major organ of the state purporting to dispense criminal justice for victims (genuine and alleged) and perpetrators (genuine and alleged). Her campaign to increase the number of convictions against men accused of rape suggests that she does not much care whether they are in fact guilty or not. In a patriarchy every woman is potentially a slut to be shamed if she has extramarital sex. In a matriarchy every man is a potential rapist if he has sex with a slut who regrets giving him the impression that she consented to sex. A woman is most likely to regret having had sex with a beta male.
All men are lower than sluts in a matriarchy. In a patriarchy, however, beta males choose an alpha male to protect their interests. An alpha male would not hesitate to denounce a slut in the same way that the lower orders these days happily denounce each other as racists and paedophiles. In a matriarchy all men including the putative alpha male such as the British Prime Minister and US President are afraid to offend sluts because they all have the vote.
Even if you were female, do you not finding it deeply shaming that all the men in your society are in fact lower than sluts and indeed the slaves of sluts?
Beta males are the ones whose interests are most damaged by feminism in a matriarchy. Why should we protect the beta male? Because they do all the work of labouring and soldiering, protecting and providing. What happens if they are so demoralised they withdraw their labour? Then your society will decline and fall, to be invaded and conquered by those who run their society along rational and patriarchal lines. When the enemy invades, men will be killed, captured, enslaved and sold together with the women. If you wish to avoid this, then you must support the patriarchy by supporting the principle of traditional marriage which implicitly excludes gay marriage. This would mean forbidding extramarital sex in all its heterosexual and homosexual varieties.
"Is all this really necessary?" I hear you all ask yourselves. Yes, it is. If the problem is not addressed it will only get worse, and if it is bad enough then the sluts and socialists - the internal enemies of every society - will eventually take over, and, when they have finally exhausted all the resources of society, our external enemies will invade.
Let us take the most pessimistic view of life and creation. Let us assume that God (if He exists) created different nations and peoples to fight each other rewarding the group that follows His laws most faithfully with victory and supremacy over all the others, who deny His existence and flout His laws, or even those who do follow His laws, but not as well as they could be. If God in His wisdom created us only to watch us fight each other, then it is already clear who is going to win in this clash of civilisations between the matriarchal West and ISIS, who appear to be the patriarchy reasserting itself. Let us assume that a rational and perfectly moral God (if He exists) would be Darwinian.
We should not fear over-population, because Nature will take care of that by inflicting on us war, famine and pestilence if and when our numbers becoming unsustainable.
From Outline of English History BC 55 - AD 1910 by Samuel R Gardiner
FIRST PERIOD
Chapter 1 The Britons and the Romans
page 11
The Religion of the English The English did not think it was at all wrong to kill a man. They were heathens, and their religion taught them that men were the better, not for being tender and merciful, but for being strong and bold. Their gods, they thought, showed favour to them if they were fierce and masterful, and would only give them happiness after death if they died fighting.
Zeus:
On Mount Ida I looked into the eternal void, and it asked me this: "Does Zeus own the world, or does the world own Zeus?"
Athene:
You're the Almighty! You own everything! The lot!
Zeus:
That was my first response. But what if there were no Trojans, no Greeks? What if they fought down to the last life? No one to praise or flatter us? Would we still exist?
Hera:
Of course we'd exist, and our lives might be a whole lot easier.
Zeus:
Doing what? Presiding over a world of lillies and kittens? The dandelion won't build temples in our honour, the elephant won't trumpet our names. What would we do? Take pride in the dung beetle while it pushes its ball of shit up and down the dunes? Assist in the spinning of a spider's web?
Athene:
Highly philosophical, I'm sure, but what's your point?
Zeus:
We need believers. People of faith. If we sympathise, rule with a bleeding heart, then we favour the weak, and the weak are fickle and disappointing, diseased. The weak are ... weak. Do we put our future in their shaking hands?
Hera:
Let the powerful survive? Those of the strongest arm? Is that what you're suggesting?
Zeus:
And the quickest hands and the deadliest aim and the sharpest mind. It might be tomorrow or take another ten years, but someone will triumph, either through muscle or brain.
Athene:
And they will be worthy of our praise.
Zeus:
And we of theirs.
The Last Days of Troy by Simon Armitage
Obeying God's laws makes it more likely for us to be closer to heaven on earth, even if God does not exist.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK West becoming more stupid cos it tolerates and even worships sluts and allows people with nut allergies to marry each other.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK Political ideologies have the effect of religion on its citizens. Islam therefore no different from Communism, Liberalism etc.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK Why are there more stupid people with nut allergies? Cos there is free healthcare and more stupid women. NHS dysgenic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
UK Muslim women joining ISIS cos they would rather marry warriors than fuck beta male wimps afraid of sluts. @MikeBuchanan11#antifeminism
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK Religion = a system of rules imposing morality through law
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK Morality = what is perceived by those governing to be good for the purpose of governance
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK The unofficial religion of the West is PC Liberalism and its sacrament extramarital sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK Patriarchy runs on marriage while slut and bastard LGBT matriarchy establishes itself in the absence of traditional marriage.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK UK government enacts and enforces PC Liberal legislation.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK The Church of England is a creature of the PC Liberal State and the Catholic Church is an internationalist version of this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
@Sundancer_UK If n ideology is powerful enough to pass laws/start wars requiring you to sacrifice life and limb, it is the same as religion.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 29, 2015
If God exists He is sure to make Stephen Fry's "gay marriage" fail and make his "wife" take him to the cleaners. http://t.co/mngVFsW6Fk
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 31, 2015
@beckykate_innes Think of God as an examiner who has set the questions and who will mark the papers when we have written them ...
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 31, 2015
Perhaps the more interesting question would be "What would you like to do to Stephen Fry if you were God?"
The stock answer to Fry's inane complaints about God (if He exists) and the world He created is that these things are sent to try us, to see if we are fit to be admitted into Heaven.
004.016
YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.
Leviticus 20:13
New International Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
My programme on Ivan's Challenge with A.S.Byatt and Canon Vernon White is tomorrow at 12.04 @BBCRadio4 A History of Ideas
— Angie Hobbs (@drangiehobbs) November 27, 2014
@drangiehobbs@BBCRadio4 What is necessary must also be moral, but whether something is necessary and to what end is a political question.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 28, 2014
@drangiehobbs@BBCRadio4 To the moral dilemma posed by Dostoevsky, I would say ALL humans on earth do NOT deserve to live in Paradise.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 28, 2014
@drangiehobbs@BBCRadio4 Which philosopher was it who said that it is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 28, 2014
@drangiehobbs@BBCRadio4 To do what is being proposed by this moral dilemma wd b 2 usurp God's role n perform it in a way He would not wish.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 28, 2014
@drangiehobbs Are not my answers irrefutably neat, moral and logical? Is it not now time for @BBCRadio4 to finally acknowledge my genius?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 28, 2014
