Degenerates cannot grasp principles, much less follow them

Degenerates break their own rules and forget their own tradition in the way the Americans flout their own constitution while pretending they have free speech and in the way Christians practise idolatry while claiming to despise idolaters.

To prevent degeneracy, protect the patriarchy.

When the patriarchy has been undermined, restore it. If you cannot restore it, you are degenerate and your civilisation deserves to fall the way a condemned building deserves to be demolished.

In Britain, the judiciary of the matriarchy are now saying an unmarried woman can be a widow.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unmarried-benefits-widow-allowance-supreme-court-bereavement-result-parent-children-a8514236.html

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect. 

— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4–7, translated by James Legge

You are mad if you are fundamentally mistaken on an important fact and cannot be persuaded by reason.

Western civilisation is mostly mad because all the important institutions of state of Western nations have already been rotted by the sewage that is feminism.*

* Feminism is enabled by fornication. You will not be able to find a single feminist prepared to acknowledge that women who fornicate are sluts or that sluts should be shamed. The religious prohibition against fornication explicitly stated in quran.com/24/2 has the purpose of preventing unmarried parents from becoming the majority in your society because when they do, it will be the end of your civilisation.

Calling a spade a spade and things by their proper names

The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, the corruption of thought is the corruption of morality, the corruption of morality means the decline and fall of your tribe, nation and civilisation.

The Rectification of Names (Chinese: 正名; pinyin: Zhèngmíng; Wade–Giles: Cheng-ming) largely known as a doctrine of feudal Confucian designations and relationships, behaving accordingly to ensure social harmony.[1] Without such accordance society would essentially crumble and "undertakings would not be completed." Mencius extended the doctrine to include questions of political legitimacy.

The Analects of Confucius states that social disorder often stems from failure to call things by their proper names, that is, to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. His solution to this was the "rectification of names". He gave an explanation to one of his disciples:

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7, translated by James Legge

East London Philosophy Meetup on the Meaning of Words 22 October 2014

http://www.meetup.com/Philosophy-Off-Brick-Lane/events/213674282

The Meaning of Words

• 
  

  Wednesday, October 22, 2014

  7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
• 16 Padbury Court

  Shoreditch, London E2 7EH (map)
• "We are small finite creatures, but meaning enables us with the help of sounds or marks on paper to grasp the whole world and many things in it, and even to invert things that do not exist and perhaps never will. The problem is to explain how this is possible: How does anything we say or write mean anything – including all the words in this book?" 

  – Thomas Nagel, What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, p. 46 

  
  

  Materials for the session 

  This session is based on a chapter of Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, which you can download along with a reading activity from the Philosophy Off Brick Lane website. You can also find some relevant podcasts there. Visit the Key Themes in Modern Philosophy page to access these and other materials. 

  How many people will there be and what will the classes be like?

  There is maximum class-size of 12 people (or 13 including the teacher). Although the emphasis is on structured discussion, there are different ways of taking part in a conversation. You can come to this session talk about the chapter from Nagel's What Does It All Mean? and the other material for the session. Or if you're not sure what you want to say about it, you can come just to listen. 

  How much do classes cost? 

  For the first few meetups, attendees can pay what they think the class is worth (or nothing at all). In the future, the cost of the class will be £10 for two hours.

I helpfully suggested the Confucian concept of Rectification of Names at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names but this was deleted, probably because it is is not within the established curriculum for academic philosophy whose intention seems to be the opposite of promoting practical wisdom or phronesis.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis

Such a shame that the organiser has taken such a sudden dislike to me!

The reasons why may be divined at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/claire-khaw-asked-to-leave-philosophy.html

Human rights are a conceptual nonsense

Complaining Canadian Facebook friend:

Human rights are incompatable with freedoms. When you start favoring human rights you start curtailing freedoms. Thought crime is the inevitable result of human rights. Just see Canada and its marxist Human Rights Commission. Thought crime is alive and well in Canada.

It is a nonsense anyway. All rights are human rights. All the rights humans can conceive of are human rights. Do non-humans even know what rights are?

Its very premise is NONSENSICAL.

While there are such concepts as mineral rights and animal rights, these rights can only be asserted through human agency.

"Human rights" are really legal rights which can only be asserted through the law, and the law changes from time to time, according to fashions of thinking. Only what is supposed to be God's laws remain the same, as any attentive reading of the Bible and Koran would reveal that they both promote the same moral values. Even feminists do not deny that all the Abrahamic faiths promote marriage and forbid extramarital sex whose purpose is to maintain the patriarchy. It is of course the patriarchy that it is their intention to destroy, because they hate men and want to trash all male achievements out of sheer malice and ignorance and then substitute our advanced civilisation with their matriarchal shit of a pornocracy.

Who is a feminist?

1. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to repeal the Equality Act 2010
2. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to abolish no fault divorce
3. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to acknowledge that the practice of respecting the institution of marriage must necessarily and logically mean forbidding extramarital sex
4. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to even discuss the moral imperative of forbidding extramarital sex
5. Anyone - male or female - who does not wish the law to support marriage through making it advantageous for people to be married
6. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to contemplate slut-shaming as a means of bringing irresponsible and immoral women to order
7. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to condemn SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts
8. Anyone - male or female - who cannot agree with http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-score-womans-morals-from-perfect.html 

"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

In other words, the superior man (and woman) must be capable of rational thought and not be fearful of challenging current orthodoxy by arguing his case.

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

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/british-values-and-what-i-would-like.html
British values are not an ideal, merely the status quo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSVYYiv_clU&list=UUqnbu3dpuqx7O3KRgZQarnA#t=80
Is Britain a Christian country?  

Why gay marriage is wrong whether or not you believe in God

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/69523/chief-rabbi-lord-sacks-attacked-over-gay-marriage-opposition

Extremist PC liberalism infects all faiths.  

Even the Muslims have been very quiet about gay marriage, apart from http://www.islam21c.com/campaigns/8346-muslims-a-the-proposed-gay-marriage-bill, which I am sure virtually no one has read.  Perhaps they don't think it is anything to do with them because their people would not be so silly as to go for gay marriage like the kuffar who is Cursed by God, but how do they know, once it is legal?

The JOYS OF GAY SEX

What is so great about gay sex?

It is purely recreational and non-procreative. Gay sex has all the fun and games without the inconvenience of giving birth to children nor the expense of rearing them and the trouble of trying to bring them up properly. 

If you have no children, they cannot disgrace and disappoint you, can they?

What do you think might happen if we all decided to go for this option?

Could this be the reason why gay sex was once considered immoral?

Some of you may have heard of Kant's unversalisability principle which states that a thing can only be moral if no harm occurs even if everyone in society does it.

The difference between recreational sex and procreative sex is the difference between a wank and a wedding, and it is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally.

Remember: marriage is eugenic and feminism dysgenic.  You will find on Tuesday that it is women and female MPs who are the ones most likely to vote for gay marriage.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/will-percentage-of-female-mps-who.html

Gay marriage is immoral because it is unnecessary.  It is unnecessary because gay people already have their civil partnership  (which gives them the same rights as a married couple against each other the most important of which is the ability to inherit each other's property free of inheritance tax which starts at 40%).  However, this is not enough for them, and they are now encroaching on the territory of heterosexuals for whom the institution of marriage was originally created.

Marriage was created for the purpose of rearing children and passing on your traditions, property and the knowledge your ancestors have accumulated on to the next generation and to maintain and augment what you already have.  

If you do not do this, you will lose your wealth and status in life and your offspring will be degenerate.  

If most of the offspring of most parents in a society are degenerate then they will be vulnerable to foreign invasion and exploitation.

It is a delicate mechanism that must not be tampered with by the ignorant and the immoral, the frivolous, the irresponsible and the venal, as you would expect someone to be who has become British Prime Minister without knowing what magna carta is.  

As for the evil that they cannot see, it is already apparent to me.  It is the equivalent of alcoholic asking for more drink after he is already drunk.  It is evidence of the alcoholism that will eventually kill him.  

The fact that a Conservative Prime Minister can propose such an immoral and insane piece of legislation and have so much support is indicative of the degeneracy and dementia of the British.  

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

Confucius believed that social disorder often stemmed from failure to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. Fundamentally, then, social disorder can stem from the failure to call things by their proper names, and his solution to this was the rectification of names. He gave an explanation to one of his disciples:

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7

We cannot and must not call what gay people do marriage, in other words.   

SHIT happens when you don't call things by their proper names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Rectification_of_names

If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.

When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.

When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

To be a racist is the worst thing to be, but what is a racist and what constitutes racism?

Is complaining about immigration racism and bigotry?

Is BASTARDY a good thing?

Slut Single Mums are mothers of bastards. What is wrong with this definition apart from the fact that this will cause offence to sluts and bastards? Why should we consider the feelings of sluts and bastards anyway?  Are they really better than married mothers or the legitimate?

A promiscuous woman is the worst sort of woman to be (and she is also the worst sort of employee), because she breeds bastards.

Why is "bastard" a derogatory term?

Because the stupidity and the low standards of the mother will be passed on to her offspring.  Not only that, the bastard will probably have had a deprived childhood and be deprived of the benign influence of a loving male parental figure and his family connections because of the stupidity and promiscuity of his or her mother.

Excuses and allowances will be made for him if one wishes to be compassionate, lowering standards of morality and education.

It is from Sluts and Bastards that the British developed their Culture of Excuses.

If no excuses and allowances are made then we will feel bad for being harsh and illiberal.

Now, we have got to the stage where even a party that is supposed to be promoting the interests of the white race dare not criticise these sluts, because most of their membership consists of sluts and bastards.

The BNP no longer dares to criticise these promiscuous women, who commit the foul sin that is the miscegenation of the unmarried, who are making the white race weaker, more stupid, more degenerate and more cowardly with every bastard born in Britain each minute of the day.

That is why British employers would rather gouge out their eyes than hire British employees, and that is why the government continues to let immigrant labour enter the country to replace the useless bastards of the sluts.

Damned if you are nice to sluts and bastards, and also damned if you are not.

Let us call a spade a spade, a slut a slut and a bastard a bastard, instead of calling them "one-parent families".  Then we will know exactly what to do with them.  

My exposition of the Confucian doctrine of Rectification of Names

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

I have a simpler exposition of this Confucian doctrine: We all have ROLES, as parent, spouse, or an employer or an employee, amongst other things. To make the world a better place, we fulfil the duty our roles require.

Er, that's it.  

Oh, and the child has a duty to obey its parent, and the parent has a duty to impose this duty on his or her child.    

I think that really is it.