Translate

Showing posts with label PC liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PC liberalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes

They are:

1) patriarchal moral values advocating moral restraint supporting marriage and the family; and

2) matriarchy based on the polite fiction of egalitarianism which produced feminism and socialism.

This culture has resulted in widespread fornication, bastardy, paedophilia, gay marriage and the decline and fall of Western civilisation.

Always choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is patriarchy because all advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.

Why would you choose to live in a primitive and declining society when you can choose to continue to live in an advanced civilisation?

You are more likely to choose the "morality" of the matriarchy ie PC Liberalism if you are:

a) a baby boomer who doesn't want to admit that you and your government have mortgaged the futures of future generations with the irresponsible government policies you initiated, promoted and supported;

b) a feminist who doesn't give a damn about Western civilisation because you want to destroy the patriarchy;

c) an SJW leftist who wants to undermine marriage because you cannot afford a wife and are prepared to do what feminists want in order to have sex with these women without having to marry them;

d) an atheist who doesn't care what happens after he or she is dead and thinks the status quo will last till you die;

e) a childless degenerate with no biological investment in the next generation;

f) a baby boomer who brought up your children so badly you hate them and want them and their descendants to suffer, or don't care if they do;

g) a degenerate who denies that degeneracy is a problem because you don't mind being degenerate;

h) a morally corrupted and intellectually dishonest denier that one or some or all of the above applies to you even when it does.


Saturday, 8 August 2015

(1) PC Liberalism/Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism [ONE EXTREME] (2) Secular Koranism [THE MIDDLE WAY] - (3) Anjem Choudary's sharia law [THE OTHER EXTREME]



Friday, 5 June 2015

Catholic clergy can only negotiate terms of surrender with libtard governments, only Islam capable of challenging their policies


missing word: "that the priesthood should be abolished"


missing word: "act on it"



Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Is the concept of human rights a nonsense?

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/26/senior-judge-human-rights-moses

Oh dear.  What does this all mean?  You pays your money and takes your chances? You bribes your judge and you gets the judgment you paid for?  Let us do away with legal precedent and deal with each case on an ad hoc basis?  I hardly think Lord Justice Moses is going to bring the law or the legal profession into repute with this bright idea.

As for human rights, is this not in some way tautological or nonsensical, rather like the people who call themselves animal rightists?  Animals cannot claim their animals rights except through a human, and they cannot actually speak, can they?

As for human rights, well, aren't all rights human?  Humans conceived of having laws.  Laws are conceived of by humans, passed by humans, broken by humans, enforced by humans, litigated by humans and interpreted and applied by humans.

The only thing we need to worry about, logically, is what should be made illegal, and this is a matter of politics.

Politics is of course the art of imposing on others your ideas of right and wrong, and this must always be changing, because people and societies do change their minds about things and are often made to change their minds either by others, or force of circumstance.

What is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad?  What is moral and what immoral? Have we quite worked that out yet?  Is our liberal political establishment well on top of this and the running of the government?  Judging by the hatred, ridicule and contempt the politicians are held in by the average voter, I would suggest not.

Soon, same-sex couples will soon have a right to call their relationships "marriage".  Indeed, they already have a right to acquire rights that are in every way identical to that between husband and wife with the same package of tax breaks if they enter into a civil partnership with each other. They also already have the right to adopt children and compel people who do not want to do business with them to do business with them.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

Perhaps it is now time to revisit the age old debate between Natural Law and Legal Positivism.

I could never get the point of this debate.  I held this rather simplistic view that comes from an ancient Chinese saying:

"The people are the grass and the law the wind.  When the wind blows, the grass will bend."

As far as I was concerned, those who said the law ought to be moral and enforce morality had a point. Even if what it enforced was in fact immoral, the government would want us to think that the law was right and good to make us more likely to obey it.

Then there were the Legal Positivists, who said that the law did not have to moral to be "legitimate". What did this mean?  As long as we knew unpleasant consequences would be visited on us if we were caught doing what we wanted to do, thought we had a right to do and should in fact do for the greater good, eg hang corrupt and immoral politicians http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html by his or her neck until dead in the gallows to be erected  on Parliament Square, we would refrain from doing such a thing.

The average citizen would have no time for such nuanced discussions about what constitutes "legitimacy" or "morality", and would focus mainly on the likelihood of getting caught and being punished.

Of course, this does not mean to say PC Liberals think they are evil people bent on doing evil, since they are the most self-righteous and sanctimonious people around.  I am sure they are hell-bent on building their idea of a Liberal Paradise on Earth and paving the road to hell with their good intentions.

The ones who oppose them are social conservatives, and social conservatives tend to be adherents of the Abrahamic faiths who respect marriage and are diametrically opposed to the proponents of Free Love that are Liberals.

So there we have it: the debate is really between those who on one extreme believe that sex between consenting adults (even if it involves incest, bestiality, necrophilia and those who are under-aged but who also consent eg the Labour PaedoThree known as the MPs Dromey, Hewitt and Harman) is OK and those who say all forms of extramarital sex must be forbidden and who say that marriage can only mean the union of a man and a woman.  These would be social conservatives who tend to be the adherents of the Abrahamic faiths and take their moral precepts of their religion seriously enough to know what they are, unlike Anglican clergy.

Who is right?

There must be a reason that all advanced civilisations who practise marriage are patriarchal.

Primitive societies and animals do not practise marriage and indulge in Free Love any time any place, anywhere.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF1lUGpQO-o

It is just a question of our wanting to affirm our identity as the species that created God Himself, or preferring to be the species that lacks the intellectual sophistication to conceive of a unique, omnipotent and perfectly moral supreme being.  I know which I would rather choose, preferring to live in an advanced and necessarily patriarchal civilisation than a declining, demented and matriarchal one.

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/law_and_morality/01_legal_theory.htm


Saturday, 22 February 2014

Catholicism will now become as rotten the Anglican Church under a Liberal Pope. Islam now the only source of social conservatism in the West

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teach-Yourself-Catholicism-Peter-Stanford/dp/034096880X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393063621&sr=8-1&keywords=teach+yourself+catholicism


by Peter Stanford and with an introduction by Cherie Blair!

The history of Catholicism demonstrates perfectly why Islam is quite right to dispense with a corrupt priesthood.

The corrupt priesthood now are only interested in smelly bums on their rotten pews, not in in maintaining morality.  Catholic priests are terrified of being accused of being paedo priests, and so will avoid discussing sexual morality like the plague.  It is more than their job's worth to do more than perform their Catholic rituals when expected and required.

The history of Catholicism also demonstrates the fundamental error of denying that the truth of this proposition: that the difference between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

If religion is state ideology, then state ideology must be supported by legislation.

The religion of the West is not Christianity, as so many people mistakenly think. The religion of the West is PC Liberalism. This is so because government supports PC Liberalism and elevates this ideology as supreme over all other competing ideologies.

PC Liberalism is the opposite of patriarchal and the opposite of social conservatism.

It is obvious that to implement Islam we have to abide by its principles, and the only way to abide by its principles is to legislate according to Koranic principles.  Why else do you think the Muslims are so keen on their Sharia law?

Sadly, it is a truth not universally acknowledged that the the only way of bringing back the patriarchy is to respect marriage, and this means invoking God and practising social conservatism.

If you refuse to invoke God or impose a theocracy, you would be relying on UKIP or the BNP to bring it back, and believe me, they are too morally-compromised and afraid of women to do anything like that.

Only last week Nigel Farage was boasting on Woman's Hour that UKIP has been taken over by women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulhs7CghURw

As for the BNP, who is going to listen to a bunch of lower class CHAV bastards and sluts, even if they could bring themselves to support marriage? Nick Griffin will never raise the subject because he knows most BNP men are unmarriageable or do not want to get married and that most BNP mothers are SSMs. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379

No, the answer is a theocracy based on Koranic principles but without a priesthood ie Secular Koranism.  A properly trained judiciary who are not required to be Muslim is enough to interpret and apply such laws.

Secular Koranism is a legal system and not a religion, and is in fact no different to living under a government whose every law you do not agree with. Not that different to what we do now, except that it will be socially conservative instead of PC Liberal.

If you find yourself objecting to this idea, then kindly let me know which verse you find  most objectionable. At this point you will of course say that you cannot bring yourself to read that "filthy book" and that will be the end of this debate.

Understand this, right-wingers:

Your currently helplessness and impotence is directly related to indiscriminate suffrage in which women exercise a disproportionate influence.

Why are all the political parties chasing the female vote?  Because they are mad, stupid and immoral, of course.  The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, as Oscar Wilde would say.

Why do Muslims refuse to integrate?  Because they don't want their sisters, daughters, nieces and grand-daughters turning into White Dee. However much of an Islamophobe you are, can you really really really blame them?

Feminism causes immigration.  Feminism is so filthy, stupid and rotten that it will allow in the very people with the religion that will destroy Feminism.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565121/So-White-Dee-does-feel-poster-girl-thats-wrong-Britain.html


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html
83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this mean for feminism?

Thursday, 6 January 2011

Madness and what it means

Madness is but a state of being in profound error, though many people seem to think that to qualify for this, all you have to do is diverge from current political orthodoxies. 

Friday, 9 July 2010

Islam and Liberalism distorted into fascism, people too afraid to admit this.

The trouble with Islam is that Muslims have distorted Islam, rather in the same way that liberals have perverted liberalism into fascism

Sunday, 2 May 2010

Islam filling the moral vacuum of Christo-liberal claptrap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/02/sharia-law-islam-immigration

Hypocritical hand-wringing Christo-liberal claptrap, blaming Islam for their own weaknesses. Nature abhors a vacuum. Christo-liberal claptrap is a moral and political vacuum that will be replaced, sooner rather than later, since it condones female promiscuity which is societally destructive. When people talk about Christianity they mean church spires and familiar landscapes rather than family values. The Church most certainly does not support familiy values in its mania to be inclusive in order to get bums on pews. If it did we would not now be having this "problem" with Islam.

Since the Church of England has now seen fit to explicitly condemn the BNP and forbidden its clergymen to join that party, things are becoming increasingly clear that the Church is a creature of the state, as it always was.

It used to be the case that the Church of England was said to be the Tory Party at prayer.

It is of course now the Labour Party (who are mostly Lefties who despise and can barely hide their contempt for those who follow any religion) not at prayer and rejecting anything that could be considered family values.

Family values are of course what all organised religions were created to promote.

But family values are antithetical to the Single Mother Goddess of Free Love which the Liberals worship.

To blaspheme against her is to risk social death.

Anyone have any idea why this country is being governed by an ideology that actively promotes sexual incontinence and single motherhood while compelling taxpayers to pay for this lifestyle choice of the unproductive and parasitical?

No wonder Western civilisation is going down the f*cking plughole.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

An up-to-date analysis of the British class system: Champagne Socialism and British Nationalism

In every age and in every nation, there are groups which are privileged and those who are not.

In the old days poor people would be obvious by their under-nourished appearance and servile manner.

In an affluent and egalitarian age when no one starves and even the poor can afford DVD players to play their porn and eat themselves obese, there would necessarily be a realignment and reclassification.

The ones who do not mind being endlessly compassionate and tolerant of all things societally destructive (such as female promiscuity leading to family breakdown, single mummery bringing about rising crime and ever-lower standards of education and uncontrolled immigration) can afford to do so because they reside in leafy low-crime neighbourhoods and aren't really bothered about things that affect those living less gilded lives.

They think, perhaps, that the white urban proletariat deserve what they get for being born on the wrong side of the tracks, for being poor, for not knowing any better and for not having access to a decent education.

There is just a hint of the caste system here you see, for it is much easier to think that the poor deserve what they get. It is much easier to brand them as CHAVs, racists, fascists and of being guilty of especial evil and depravity, than to put oneself out through suggesting that things could be made better for them (and by extension all of us) by simply doing this and that.

The issue of immigration is very telling.

Businesses and employers cannot get enough of cheap foreign labour because they know that the white urban proletariat make poor employees.

They make poor employees because they have had a sham of an education and are more often than not illegitimate and unmarried parents, with all the attendant social and educational disadvantages this entails.

Therefore the white urban lower classes are dismissed as useless and their grievances ignored in favour of the more productive foreign worker who come here and do the jobs the white urban proletariat shun. The white urban proletariat are discouraged from seeking employment because are fobbed off with beggarly sums of benefit, just enough to keep them quiescent while unemployed. It is little surprise then that they spend most of their time drinking, taking drugs, procreating while viewing porn and snuff films on their DVD players in the presence of their illegitimate children.

It is well known that Liberals have a phobia of seeming uncompassionate and intolerant. Because of this, they have for generations ignored the problem of schools that do not teach because there is no discipline, and the criminal justice system that neither punishes nor deters.

Talking about spending cuts is now so beyond the pale that not even the Conservative leader dares talk about that, and this demonstrates how utterly cowed and crushed by liberal ideology our political classes have been.

Those who call for traditional teaching methods and condign punishment for criminals are invariably condemned as illiberal intolerant bigots, if not actually called Fascists and Nazis.

You see, the underclasses serve their purpose as the receptacles of liberal compassion and tolerance, which only liberals can afford. It pleases them to wear permissiveness as an ostentatious badge of moral superiority, along with the free trade, environmentally-friendly, free-range, organic products which they instinctively favour as a means of reinforcing the message that the rich are good charitable souls who care about other people in other lands and other species, but not their own poor in their own land.

It is perhaps now time to question the viability of our political classes if they continue to drag us down this dead end, who ignore the questions they cannot answer, while smearing and censoring those who dare question their insufferable cant of compassionate tolerance and free love.

Friday, 24 July 2009

Why PC Liberalism is as bad as Hitlerism, Communism, Feminism

Because it harms the very people it is supposed to benefit.

I thought I would write an essay about why this is is, but it would be better if readers can tell me what I mean, if indeed anyone is reading this ....

The meaning of suffering and the purpose of pain

30:34 @OOOTLAM ​​I wonder when YouTube will start selling Secular Koranism videos! 31:38 @OOOTLAM ​​The aspiration of humanity for theosis f...