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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Story_Ever_Told
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."
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2012/two-cheers-for-the-whig-interpretation-of-history
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
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.
83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this say about feminism?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/04/25/2003669376
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
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/24/taiwans-top-court-rules-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage
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.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/former-israeli-chief-rabbis-grandson-is-having-a-same-sex-wedding/
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.
Anne McElvoy on British Conservaliberalism
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.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hate-crime-sentences-increased-harsher-influence-social-media-followers-a8341991.html
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.
Does God in fact approve of nationalism?
Verses that suggest He does:
http://biblehub.com/acts/17-26.htm
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-8.htm
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=49&verse=13
Religion and Nationalism
How Claire Khaw would have answered the Moral Maze questions David Conway was asked on Nationalism
If the British had been good Muslims they would still have their world empire
God (if He exists) is Darwinian
God and Nations
Christianity and liberalism have failed. Time for the West to get itself a new religion.
The logic of Islam is theocracy: your laws always conform to your chosen system of morality the way liquid takes on the shape of its container
