On the treatment of men by our matriarchy

Since when do the police investigate the dead? What is the purpose of doing so? The CPS has long ago stated that it cannot make charging decisions in relation to deceased persons. The costs of the investigation into Sir Edward Heath amounted to the annual payroll of 50 new police officers. Where does the public interest lie? The outcome, which must have been obvious, can only be to create and circulate an unfair slur.

(Letter to The Times from Jonathan Caplan QC, 6/10/17)

Feminazis want to discredit men.

No one should be convicted of a crime without a trial.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm

The dead can already be libelled, but there are those who want to try and find the dead guilty after expecting them to answer charges, hire lawyers, go into the witness box and answer questions, it seems. Shall we disinter the bones of Heath and put them in prison, as a warning to other dead men?

Have you noticed that only dead white men are subject to this treatment by our matriarchy?

That is because white women despise white men. Know thine enemy. Many white women despise men of their own race viscerally and cannot bring themselves to be fair, if they ever had a sense of justice to begin with, which is doubtful. White women despise confirmed bachelors, probably more than men despise ugly women who are mentally defective. Men who are obviously unable to control their women are despised by men of other religions and races, and regarded as ripe for exploitation and invasion. Even with the best will in the world, it is almost impossible to be respectful of the physically and morally feeble. This is where sexual liberation leads to.

Only forgetful, stupid and incompetent women investigate the alleged crimes of dead men and expect justice. What sex is our Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecution, Chairman of the Bar Council and Police Commissioner?

It was Doctor Pangloss who thought we live in the best of all possible worlds. It is probably right that MSN who allow such things deserve all the punishment they get. Their civilisation should indeed decline and fall and become extinct as a warning to others. They certainly deserve more punishment if they know what is happening and remain too afraid to speak out.

I have a question for Jewish thinkers: have most Westerners now become the Amalekites Jews have a religious duty to exterminate? As I understand it, the Amalekites were Neanderthals and Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage because in their time it had yet been invented. If the West goes the way it is currently going, blurring the distinctions between the married and unmarried and giving both the same rights, won't this process mean the uninvention of marriage itself? And if marriage were uninvented, would humanity not regress into the savage primitive state it used to be in before marriage was invented as mankind forgets all it ever learned? If the answer is yes, should not good men try to prevent this?

Religion and the Nationalist Dilemma

People who say they need proof of God's existence are hedging their bets and being commitment-averse. You simply choose to believe, or not.

You work out the advantages of believing or disbelieving. If the thought of going to heaven if you are good and going to hell if you are bad sustains you, then you would choose to believe. You may find regular prayer also sustaining.

If you choose not to believe, it is because you don't want to do what is necessary to call yourself a believer eg give up pork, refrain from sex outside marriage etc.

You may wish to believe in God and identify as Christian and be part of what you think is the dominant culture because you were born in the West, male and white, but find having to say that you believe in the absurdity of the Trinity is a lie too far.

Or you may find yourself in the position of a certain senior nationalist who claims to be Christian while rejecting the Trinity and denying he is either a Unitarian or a mere Cultural Christian. The children's game of Twister comes to mind.

You may be white and a nationalist, which usually means you resent Jews and Muslims having a higher status than you in your own land, and certainly don't want to show acceptance of their superior status by embracing their religion and in the process alienating your intimates, family, friends and associates.

And that is why you continue to pretend that you haven't made up your mind or that you are atheist.

I call myself agnostic, which is midway between belief and disbelief, which I like to think is a clever compromise.

You should certainly have made up your mind one way or another by the time you are middle aged, and to say in your 50s and 60s that you are still waiting for proof of God's existence only signifies

1) your inability to think rationally
2) your phobia of commitment
3) a lifetime of procrastination

or one, or some, or all of these attributes.

Let me be clear: feminised and liberalised Christianity has nothing at all to offer the British nationalist or any white British man because it has been infested by feminists and LGBTs smearing their progressive agenda all over the church like a lunatic smearing his faeces over the walls of his padded cell. If Christianity were not kaput, you would not be suffering the indignities of uncontrolled immigration and be disabled from complaining about it in your own land.

Let us assume you need to choose a religion and are a British nationalist who accepts that your nation needs a religion but that Christianity has failed.

There are five world religions:

1) Judaism
2) Christianity
3) Islam
4) Hinduism
5) Buddhism

You already know Christianity is kaput.

You also know that Hinduism and Buddhism are alien to your culture and history.

This leaves Judaism and Islam.

You already know Judaism has a higher entry threshold than Islam and is far far more high maintenance. Kosher is also dearer than halal.

Jews are a tribe and Judaism is for Jews only. Islam however is for everyone.

If Judaism is an exclusive club, then Islam is a political party in a one party state.

Islam has been said to be "Judaism Lite".

If this is so, Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". Indeed, it does not even require you to believe in God, only acknowledge the following:

1) A religion promoting social conservatism, marriage and patriarchy is necessary for national survival.

2) Law should conform to morality.

3) Morality should conform to religious principles.

4) We should choose the religion whose moral principles we find the least objectionable.

You know the problem is the fact that the matriarchy established itself in your country and that you didn't notice in the way a householder might not notice that he has rising damp or dry rot, until I pointed it out to you. If you don't deal with it, it will spread to all the walls of your home and eventually cause serious damage, perhaps resulting in it being condemned and eventually demolished.

When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever's left, however improbable, must be the answer.

Islam - in the form of Secular Koranism - must be the answer. Secular Koranism is not a belief system, but a legal system. It is a legal system in the way that EU law is a legal system that does not require you to agree with it to work within it as an EU lawyer, as long as you understand its rules and are legally qualified to practice in this field.

Let me remind you all again. It was Voltaire, not I, who said:

If God did not already exist, it would be necessary to invent Him. 

Why Islam would be more effective than Christianity in maintaining morality and social cohesion

@WhenIRunAust @ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda You'll find the Koran Borrows Liberally from Old Testament & Bastardizes It.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @WhenIRunAust @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Judaism/Thesis, Christianity/Antithesis, Islam/Synthesis.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @WhenIRunAust @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda I think you need mental help.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda What makes you say that?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @WhenIRunAust @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Koran improves on the Bible.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @WhenIRunAust @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Yeah, no. Nice try though.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda You Tell Me. You Seem Very Pro Koran. Why?
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda It is over for Christianity - Christianity is kaput.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Not Likely.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Most Xtians who don't believe in the Trinity would be angry if the Pope said he didn't.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Xtianity is the religion of the people who want to spread gay marriage around the world.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Factually Inaccurate. You are thinking of American Left.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda It is my view that Islam is the most advanced Abrahamic faith.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda 7th Century Thinking is not advanced.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda If Islam is the most advanced Abrahamic faith, then Christianity is less advanced.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Achilles heel of Christianity is the Doctrine of the Trinity which is an absurdity.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” 

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

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Kinda hard to be a hindrance when the trinity works.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Probably, even the Pope does not believe in the Trinity, but pretends he does.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Pope is a Lefty at Heart.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda If the Pope ever said he did not believe in the Trinity, he would be out of a job.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Most Xtians who don't believe in the Trinity would be angry if the Pope said he didn't.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@ntfem @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Nice Try. Thanks for playing. Have a Good Day.
— SirTweetsALot (@JDSon78) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda There is a reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy go hand in hand.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Second most powerful church in the world after Catholic Church is the Church of England.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't even know he is supposed to believe in the Trinity.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

What is the point of having an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even Christian?

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda If you don't believe Jesus is God you are not Christian and only Christians go to heaven
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Probably, having to believe in absurdities makes people stupid, hypocritical n cowardly.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Koran is conceptually stronger than the Bible cos it is believed 2b the Word of God.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Koran is the result of having taken dictation from God in Arabic. Literally.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda It has to be remembered that both Jews and Muslims deny the Trinity.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Many Xtians so theologically ignorant they don't know they have 2 believe in the Trinity
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda If you have trouble believing in God, the mountain of the Trinity would be beyond you.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Although the Koran denies the Trinity, it affirms the Virgin Birth, displaying wisdom.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda A virgin birth is in theory possible, apparently. http://t.co/YdE5gZI6Zb
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Unlike Christianity, Islam does not rely on a corruptible clergy to spread its message.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The reason why Christianity has failed is because its clergy is now utterly corrupted.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Some of u may have noticed how Christianity now is indistinguishable from PC Liberalism.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda The Church of England was created by Henry VIII to be a creature of the state.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda It used to be said that the Conservative Party was the Church of England at prayer.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda If the Conservative Party is now the party of gay marriage, what is the C of E like?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Archbishop of Canterbury knows African Muslims kill African Xtians cos of gay marriage.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Justin Welby made very clear he didn't care Africans Xtians were being killed by Muslims
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

New Archbishop of Canterbury has already gone native

Liberal-Feminist Theologian Linda Woodhead and her associates sneer at the idea of the Anglican Church promoting non-liberal morality

Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Nicholls displaying the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of modern Christianity

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury think the state religion of Britain is PC Libtardism?

Why did Meriam Ishag sacrifice so much for Christianity - the religion of white people who despise Christians?

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Africans refusing to give up Christianity are dying for nothing. Soon more will know.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

@JDSon78 @ChristieC733 @RedNationRising @WayneBogda Islam replaces a corruptible clergy with the Koran we are supposed to turn into law.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 18, 2015

And then he blocked me.

UKIP too cowardly to defend free speech: that is why they will never amount to anything

It has come to my notice that Steve Moxon, who wrote The Woman Racket was to have stood as a candidate for UKIP but was removed because

"On his blog he said Norwegian killer Anders Breivik's thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131

What did Moxon say that was so contentious?

UKIP said that he

"made a number of remarks on subjects such as the Breivik manifesto and Islam that are at odds with UKIP policy and perspective."

What was it that Moxon actually said?

It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.



And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/anders-breivik-and-his-manifesto-great.html#links

I fail to read anything in it that is anything to do with UKIP policy.  Anyway, the long and short of it was that UKIP preferred to play it safe rather than allow themselves to be embroiled in a discussion about Muslims and Islamophobia, and suspended Moxon pronto.  

Moxon took it in good part, probably because he already knows, being a white man in an effeminate culture,  that the default position of the white man is that of expedient and repellent cowardice.   

At http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/on-happily-being-suspended-as-ukip.html#links you can read him taking it all so terribly well.

Sean Gabb the libertarian would also have been a feather in the cap of UKIP because he is something of an intellectual who appears in the media fairly regularly, but apparently, these days you are not allowed to suggest that people in possession of child porn should not necessarily be treated as criminals without being dropped as a UKIP candidate.

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/sean-gabb-banned-by-ukip/

How sad then that all those who have said nothing that is morally or intellectually indefensible and who could have defended themselves perfectly well against any hysterical accusations of racism, Islamophobia or whatever are always hung out to dry and then dropped like a hot potato by their party. 

If I were leader of a party and one of my members said something that he or she wished to defend publicly, I would make a point of letting them do so, to see how they acquit themselves.  It would be trial by media of course, but that is always so much fun to witness a baptism of fire even if it turns out later to be self-immolation.  

Something similar happened to me too when I thought I might have been the BNP London Mayoral Candidate in 2011 when I said or tried to say on Five Live that 

(a) I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby 

(b) no one should have to pay for another person's children whether able-bodied or disabled

(c) before the NHS came into existence, home births were the rule rather than the exception and any unviable disabled unwanted baby would be disposed of by the miswife

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html

For just saying this, it was suggested to me that I might like to resign, but I refused, since what I said I felt was morally and intellectually defensible, though undeniably offensive to the easily offended people of this morbidly feminised country.  

How sad it is that no one in our liberal democracy seems to understand what a principle is, let alone show any willingness at all to defend the  principle of free speech.   

A principle is perhaps rather too abstract for dumbed-down degenerate emasculated effeminate white men who have no sense of honour to grasp, let alone practise, I suppose.   This is because most Britons these days are illegitimate and singly parented in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html and you cannot expect much from people like that who have been marinating in their Culture of Entitlement and Excuses for generations now..   

What Voltaire said about free speech is now but completely forgotten in the matriarchal dementia the West is now collectively suffering.  In case you have forgotten what he was supposed to have said, here is it:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This leads me inexorably to one of my favourite quotes:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  The Bhagavad Gita

Claire Khaw, Atheist Theocrat

In my humble opinion, the Koran, interpreted correctly, would be the middle way between

1. tradition and innovation
2. the patriarchy and the matriarchy
3. communism and capitalism. 

That is why I, as an atheist, would be happy to be guided by it.

It is all in the interpretation.

I, being legally trained, am claiming that I know better than anyone else in the Western world how to interpret the Koran in accordance with the dictates of Reason, Justice and Humanity, which would be in keeping with the best of Western traditions.

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." - Nietzsche

"God is a paradox - an omnipotent entity of perfection conceived in the mind of mortal and flawed Man. Such a perfect instrument of government is misused, because Man does not know his own mind and often loses his reason." Me

"It is Wisdom that allows us to distinguish between Good and Evil, predict the future and accomplish what is apparently impossible."   Me

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Voltaire

"The average man is superior to the average woman, but the superior woman is superior to the superior man."  (I believe Confucius said this.  I am claiming to be this superior woman who can think like a man yet is not subject to the temptations of a man in his prime.  Indeed, I also claim to be the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman, and it is really high time I was given my own TV show.)

Anti-racist hysteria against foul-mouthed woman on London train just a little bit over the top?

Fear not, Free Speech in Britain!  Claire Khaw rides to your rescue!

Join the EMMA WEST (RIGHT TO BE MOUTHY) SUPPORT GROUP

http://www.facebook.com/groups/327869043894394/

Voltaire:

"While I disagree profoundly with what you say, I would defend to the death your right to say it."

I don't think anyone feared any violence from her. She really was only just mouthing off with her son on her lap.

But then there is s 5 of the Public Order Act that could in theory get you done for shouting at your wife in public ....

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Section 31[Racially or religiously aggravated] public order offences.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a)an offence under section 4 of the M1Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence);
(b)an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or
(c)an offence under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress),
which is [F2racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of this section.
(2)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above.
(3)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in conduct which a constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above;
(b)he is warned by that constable to stop; and
(c)he engages in further such conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
The conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) above and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(4)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
(5)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6)If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(7)For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above, section 28(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress were the victim of the offence.

If found guilty, Emma West would be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500.

I am pretty sure that in the countries of the people she is complaining about,  people can have a xenophobic rant about foreigners on public transport without being thrown in prison for a week without trial.

What is the BNP doing for this woman?  Nothing, it would appear from http://www.bnp.org.uk/ at the time of posting.

And then they complain when a foreigner does their work for them ...

Is Emma West A Victim Of A Twitter Hunt? Tweeters Want My Tram Experience Woman Raped, Shot And Knifed

http://www.anorak.co.uk/303424/news/is-emma-west-a-victim-of-twitter-hunt-tweeters-want-my-tram-experience-woman-raped-shot-and-knifed.html/

‎"Sort out your own countries. Don't come and do mine. Britain is nothing now. Britain is fuck all."

Emma West did not use any racially derogatory terms.  What she said is a indictment of liberal failure, with their shite schools and shite values, who have turned Emma West into what she is now: angry, bitter and marginalised..

She is being punished for being  a party pooper, for reminding liberals that liberalism has failed the white working classes, destroyed their communities and their dignity after so many decades of "progressive" "education" that have made them unemployable and illegitimate, because people like her won't shut up and die the way the liberal political establishment want them to do.  

Sunday Sermon: How to use God to your advantage even if you do not believe He exists

Voltaire:

"If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him"

Does this sentence mean it is finally official that God definitely exists?

If so, what should Man do with his perfect, omnipotent and eternal creation?

Is it not a delicious paradox that Man who is flawed, foolish and frightened should create God simply by wishing Him into existence? That is indeed Godlike.

If God exists because Man created Him, why was it necessary for Man to invent Him?

Man, being flawed, foolish, frightened and mortal created God to assist him in his government, morality and spirituality - in the obtaining of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.  

God was created by Man so that he may more judiciously tread the fine line between good and evil as well as tell the difference between his long and short term interests.

Who is to be assigned the task of treading the fine line between good and evil etc?

Why, leaders of course.  Leaders who have the attribute of Wisdom to discern what is Truth,  Reality and Reason in service of Justice.

Which religion shall we use?

The best one: the most advanced, the most improved, with the clearest instructions from one source.

No one can deny that the Old and New Testaments are not the direct Word of God.  They contain mere reported speech and hearsay.  The Koran claims to be the direct Word of God.

Let us therefore read and analyse what God tells us to do at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=310958681842 where the Koran Book Club is located.  You don't have to like Muslims or Islam to join, only be prepared to read and discuss what you have read.

But that's probably expecting too much of you, huh?  Read a book - the very idea!  You of course already know everything you need to know about Muslims and Islam, namely that you hate and fear them and want nothing to do with them.

But pride comes before a fall ...