Why ecology is the religion of atheists

What do atheists like about their religion of ecology and environmentalism?

They like Nature, they like animals and they are atheists who believe in sexual liberation.

Sexual liberation means the widespread practice of recreational extramarital non-procreative sex.

Because environmentalists believe that the world would be a better place with fewer humans, it gives its adherents the perfect excuse not to marry and have children. Spouses are annoying, inconvenient and expensive and so are children, especially if you want to educate and bring them up properly.

Because Nature is indeed beautiful, Western environmentalists are predictably moved by its grandeur and beauty, more than they are moved by the almost incomprehensible Doctrine of the Trinity that their ancestors once paid lip service to. Environmentalists have Christian ancestors and therefore the religion they reject is Christianity, whose doctrinal requirement is to believe that Christ is also God Himself and His son, which is patently absurd.

Having rejected Christianity, they are unlikely to go for Judaism or Islam either. Christianity in practice only requires people who call themselves Christians to claim that they believe in the Trinity to be in good standing with their corruptible and corrupt clergy who mostly don't believe in it either, while adherents of Judaism and Islam actually have to do things good Jews and Muslims are supposed to do ie refrain from indulging in extramarital sex and celebrate their traditions over and above guzzling chocolate eggs at Easter and indulging in drunkenness and gluttony at Christmas.

Environmentalists also like animals. Many of them are spinsters with cats who indulged in sexual liberation on the cock carousel until they realised they had ruined themselves for marriage before settling down to a life of pets.

Environmentalism is the product of our Culture of Consumption, or, if you prefer, our Culture of Sex and Shopping. We know this because Environmentalism has no solutions other than recycling. It certainly dares not touch the vexed issue of usury which turbo-charges our consumerism. The worship of Mammon is about creating desire for a consumer good where none previously existed, impelling its victims to lend and borrow irresponsibly to satisfy a desire that will soon be replaced by another desire for another consumer good, reducing us to mere fungible units of consumption, without identity and without principle who become the disposable units of a disposable culture. As well as individuals, governments also lend and borrow irresponsibly and their victims are its citizens, at sea in a swamp of empty consumption, simultaneously indulging in all of the Seven Deadly Sins at an unprecedented rate.

Environmentalism is silent on usury, but Islam, which would ban usury, is not.

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

The Bible and the Koran condemn profligacy and waste, but what is waste if not throwing away perfectly useful things just because they are no longer new or fashionable, to buy something else we don't need with borrowed money we don't have?

Waste is of course supremely environmentally unfriendly when you think of all the factories producing things nobody really needs belching out pollution caused by its energy-consumption.

Have you noticed that Britain's only Green MP 's constituency is in Brighton, the gay capital of Britain? Gay sex is the cheapest form of sex you can get, cheaper even than hiring a prostitute. Gay sex is the cheapest form of sex because gay couples who have sex with each other are most likely to enjoy the sex act for the sake of the sex act, while heterosexual couplings require seduction, domination, submission or the exchange of money for sexual services. Marriage is the most expensive form of sex,while fornication is the second most expensive.

To perpetuate the matriarchy, feminists have to ensure that most of the sex that takes place in society is extramarital sex, and this is why they get so offended about my proposal to shame sluts, as quran.com/24/2 requires.

To become a patriarchy again, gay sex and fornication have to be criminalised while marriage is reconsecrated and prostitution tolerated once more.

You may have noticed that feminists want to in effect ban prostitution by criminalising the punter for buying sex, which is much more intolerant and restrictive than the Koran. The Koran at least tolerates prostitution provided you do not compel your slave girls.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=24&verse=33

So there we have it: patriarchy is about keeping the price of sex high which is eugenic and in the long term national interest, while matriarchy is about keeping the price of sex comfortably low for degenerates and atheists who refuse to make the sacrifices required for marriage and family values, who don't care about their children, descendants, society, nation or civilisation after they are dead. The political system that most favours the perpetuation of the matriarchy is of course liberal democracy, because it ensures that government can never think beyond the next election, which is always less than five years ahead of the present. This means they can never think of promoting the long term national interest, which explains why politicians are invariably stupid, corrupt, short-termist, unprincipled, cowardly and damnably irresponsible.

Worse, the Fourth Estate - the media who are supposed to call to account the government as well as analyse and report stories and opinion - have been co-opted into the exercise of defending this political system, probably because they are also mostly sexually corrupt and stuffed with feminists and LGBTs.

You pays your money and you makes your choice: are you a rational and decent person or a hedonistic degenerate bent on filling your boots before you die with no thought for posterity?

If you are the former, you would feel morally obliged to choose a one party theocracy. If you are a degenerate, you would of course be happy with things exactly the way they are. You would not be capable of telling the Noble Lie or wish to perpetuate it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

How feminism has rotted Western civilisation and why it must be eradicated and replaced

Nothing is forever.

All civilisations rise and fall, and all civilisations are empires consisting of different races.

To keep a multicultural and multiracial empire you need a dominant culture and race.

That dominant race will cease to be dominant if it adopts a toxic culture. Currently, Western culture is toxic because what they think is their culture is nothing to do with religion or tradition.

Tradition is what we do to please our fathers and currently, most Western children do not have a father who shares their home or their mother's bed whose word is the last word in the home.

Western culture such as it is, consists of consumption, sexual liberation and spectator sport.

As Jesus once said, man cannot live by bread and circuses alone, or words to that effect.

Judaism is the most high-maintenance religion of all the Abrahamic faiths. It would be impossible for Judaism to continue if Jewish men could not find Jewish wives prepared to do all the cooking and entertaining required to pass on their Jewish traditions to their Jewish children who will in turn marry Jewish spouses, have Jewish children and give their parents Jewish grandchildren.

I live in England and over the years have noticed that Englishmen have lost their tradition of the Sunday lunch. This is because most of them are now wifeless and deprived of their matrimonial home and children by the rules of no fault divorce. For those who are still married, it seems they cannot find a wife prepared to cook it on Sundays, and are afraid to insist on it for fear of being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce and being deprived of their matrimonial home and children.

Muslim men in Britain seem to have no trouble finding wives who are prepared to do the cooking, although increasingly they are finding themselves being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce too.

The problem is clear, as far as I am concerned, and it is feminism.

The measure of the effectiveness of any religion is how it protects its adherents against feminism.

That is why God has always been associated with patriarchy, and that is why feminists want to destroy it with atheism, sexual liberation and the worship of Mammon. There is even a genre of writing called "chick lit" and it is all about promoting a degenerate culture of sex and shopping, worse than porn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_lit

The eternal battle of the sexes have always centred around how the rules of marriage are observed.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.

The purest matriarchy is a society in which marriage is not practised whose members are all illegitimate.

The purest patriarchy is a society in which all members were born of two married parents living together.

You can't think of a matriarchy because they are, with a few rare exceptions, extinct. Rome became extinct because it became a matriarchy. Troy fell because King Priam decided to protect his son Paris who was an adulterer and then ignored the warning of Cassandra who was known for speaking the truth which no one ever believed ... 

What is feminism? A Libertarian Facebook friend demonstrates the link between Feminism, Consumerism and the Worship of Mammon

Rafal Pruszyn-ski

What is Feminism? It is a war on men, but then everyone knows this. But what is the mechanism by which feminism wages this war?

In short, the feminist movement is all about making the woman the greatest prize for men thereby getting at male resources. It’s nothing but a huge con to steal our money, time, and our independence; a wealth transfer machine.

A man's status in our modern world is measured by how attractive he is to women. Men are forced to compete to bed these women, buy them dinners and gifts just to have the hope of getting their vagina. Before this no one cared if a man was a virgin or if he had 2 dozen conquests; men stayed virgins (officially anyway) until marriage or simply abstained from women altogether.

People today actually use "virgin" as a sort of slur against guys; if you do not bed a couple dozen women in your twenties, you are seen as a loser; but lifelong virgins (or at least ascetics) may actually be the smartest guys around.

This is not how it used to be. Let’s think about the pre-feminist times and what society was based on: the traditional family. It used to be that men did not compete for women (arranged marriages and traditional ways of wooing a woman were not conducive to this) and women did not have the expectations drilled into them that they are the queen bee and men work for them. Additionally, going to a brothel to satisfy your urges wasn’t so looked down upon. It was a time when sex did not define anyone, and was treated simply as a normal biological activity, not something that defined one as a man. Additionally, castigating sex workers is also part of this feminist disease and meant to give control to women by shaming men into bedding "legitimate" women who are the beneficiaries of the wealth transfer.

The male is the engine and the gun. The State wants to harness him as the engine or a gun, and avoid him being an unharnessed gun (physically or intellectually); and actually where now we have professional armies, the aggressiveness and assertiveness of men is no longer useful and therefore a threat that must be wiped out. Women have two roles here: as the bait that hooks men so they can be harnessed and the one who pushes for more harnessing. Feminism needs a large state; it cannot survive in anarchy because women simply cannot compete with men. And a large state needs consumption which benefits women in the support of a huge coercive institution on the macro level, and benefits them on the individual/micro level as the ones who get the resources created by male labor. Once they have us hooked, we work to consume. We think of consuming, we pride ourselves on consuming and we pride ourselves on how much life and energy we bled out pursuing things and women.

But consumption for the immediate now is very different from the investment you make in children: one pays off the other is a total waste of your life. It also changes one's thinking, from the long-term to the immediate and hence to immediate consumption of trinkets instead of long term investments. Consumption is the focal point of Keynesian and neo-Keynesian economics that justify the State meddling in all spheres of our lives.

So the traditional family and its values had to be destroyed; sex had to become a wealth transfer mechanism, almost totally; and we are now in love with vaginal sneezing. But we don’t see that this pursuit of the vaginal sneeze makes us into oxen, not men.

I wrote about the inflationary debasement of the female through free sex. This is the unforeseen consequences that feminist unleashed. While they succeeded in driving consumption and transferring wealth to themselves, they did not see that their sexual liberation would make them little but objects for men; they got our money but they lost any shred of our respect and love. We see them now as cars, yachts, iPods or designer shoes (or more often as cheap consumer goods) and not partners for life. And no matter what the Gender warriors say, women are not like men; they need emotional engagement from men. The result has been tragic: sad women with more stuff, but with male partners who see them as objects. We are both slaves to sex, to mere physical pleasure and devoted to nothing more than transient, intermittent peaks of physical stimulation.

The feminist world is a shell.

If you enjoyed this, you will probably enjoy http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-economics-of-cheap-slut-sex-work.html also by Rafal, which relates to the velocity of the circulation of sluts in a way that is analogous to theory on the velocity of circulation of money.

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

Diane Abbott grows up and says feminism makes bad mothers

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/03/diane-abbott-fast-food-curb was what The Guardian thought Diane Abbott said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256850/How-feminism-blame-breakdown-family-Left-winger-Diane-Abbott.html is what the Mail thought she said.


What she really did say about feminism in her own words:

"As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families. In the 1980s, we used to say: 'A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.' The more academic version was: 'The family is the site of women's oppression.' So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home."

Subtext: "Feminists regard marriage and family as oppression and despise women who are housewives and stay-at-home mothers."

"The days of your mum living next door are over, due to lack of available housing, so young women cast around as a way of measuring themselves as mothers. Because they don't have a nan, or sisters, or aunties dropping in every day with a narrative of what being a mum is, they watch TV to try to find out. And the narrative from TV is about the brands that you can buy for your children.

Subtext: "Feminism has led to the normalisation of the working mother, which has led to the normalisation of the divorced mother which in turn has lead to the normalisation of single parenthood - an undeniably substandard form of parenting.  In pre-feminist days, female relations might have helped plug the holes in the substandard parenting of the single mother, but no longer since families no longer stay together and no one has time for each other any more, because these days most women, even mothers, are expected to work."

"There are these young mums that do not necessarily read to their children, they do not take them to the library, but they think they are good mums because their children are dressed in brand names from top to bottom, and that is because their narrative for being a good mum comes from the media. If your seven-year-old has Nike trainers and an Adidas jumper that makes you a good mum. It permeates people – you are defined by the brands you wear.

Subtext: "The working woman has fuelled consumerism and the culture of consumerism with its obsession with brand names - these are shallow values of empty consumerism.  These morally empty values have filtered through to the next generation, instead of moral values that would help bring about social cohesion and social stability that would secure the future of the nation."

"As a young leftwinger I never thought I would see the point of school uniform, but you get less of that pressure to have this designer brand or the other. There is something wrong when the average child knows 300 or 400 brand names before the age of 11. It is terrible the way children's lives are saturated by materialism."

Subtext: "I was a leftwing feminist but now I am an older and wiser as well as a mother who has a son whose future I care about.  I now see the destruction that feminism has wreaked on British society.  Duty now compels me to speak out.  At least I dare to speak on controversial matters, unlike the current leader of the Labour Party who has distinguished himself only by his lack of courage and imagination in the role.  It is after all my duty as a politician, to raise important issues that would otherwise not be discussed by cowardly politicians who prefer to avoid controversy."

My Easter Message: The Resurrection of God through the Agency of Man

1. We only believe in God because we want to.
2. We disbelieve in God when we don't think we need to believe in Him.
3. Wealth and power makes some of us dispense with the need for a belief in God.
4. "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington
5. God is the most powerful entity and idea conceivable by Man.   
6. Man, has God-like, through his powers of imagination and reasoning, created God.
7. The only way of understanding God is by teleology.  By examining the nature and purpose of God, we can de-construct God, and then put Him back together again, in perfect working order.
8. God was created to assist Man in his politics, morality and spirituality.
9. Western Man will once more return to God when things get bad enough to wipe that liberal feminist atheistical smirk off his smug degenerate features.   It will happen very soon.   
10. The God that Western man worships is Mammon and therefore the God of the Appetites of Western man.  This means Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll and the Gangsta Culture of the Slut Single Mum that the demented matriarchy that feminism has created.   This is the poison he has been ingesting for over half a century.   The face of Western man is the face of the painting of Dorian Gray.   It will not be long before he plunges that knife into his own portrait once he has tired of his hedonism and sensation-seeking.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDN9y2vTdUs