Translate

Showing posts with label WW1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WW1. Show all posts

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

Thirty Questions for Muslims

1.  Doesn't enjoining good and forbidding evil as the Koran requires of Muslims include telling Christians that Christianity is kaput to as many honourable and influential religious and political leaders as possible before America falls into its Thucydides Trap and declares war on China, when Christians start yet another World War?

2.  Was Britain falling into its Thucydides Trap when it declared war on Germany in WW1?

3.  Was Britain falling into its Thucydides Trap again when it declared war on Germany in WW2?

4.  Did Britain hand over its global empire to the Americans on a platter when it lost its empire after "winning" WW2?

5.  Are the Americans grown up enough to run their global empire as effectively as China is currently governing itself?

6.  Are the Americans like a foolish young man who suddenly wins a large fortune and then proceeds to fritter it away on gambling?

7.  Was the real reason for Britain declaring war on Germany in WW1 the building of the Berlin to Baghdad Railway?

8.  Is the Belt and Road Drive causing America and its allies to fear China in the same way that the building of the Berlin and Baghdad Railway caused Britain to fear Germany and eventually declare war?

9.  Is there anything in the Koran to suggest that Britain declared war against Germany in WW1 and WW2 for good Islamic reasons?  

10.  Can any society function without a religion that at least maintains minimum standards of sexual morality ie ensuring that most parents in your society are married parents?

11.  What should Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab do if they live in a country that is marinating in the moral sewage of globohomo? 

12.  If Christianity is kaput, what is the unofficial religion of the West?

13.  If the unofficial religion of the West is liberalism, what are the principles of liberalism?

14.  If liberalism in the early 21st century West is no more than the globohomo, neoconservatism (a euphemism for dysfunctional and incompetent American imperialism) and the open borders of neo-liberalism which cause the hate and fear provoked by uncontrolled immigration, should Muslims join Putin in declaring liberalism "obsolete"? 

13.  Is liberalism the antithesis of Islamic values?

14.  Is masculinity a state of mind prepared to defend patriarchal moral values? 

15.  Do patriarchal moral values at least include treating unmarried parents as sex offenders - as quran.com/24/2 requires - to avoid the degeneracy, chaos and criminality of widespread bastardy that Western governments are now too frightened to address because they don't want to alienate their voters?

16.  The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. What is the illegitimacy rate of the UK and how many illegitimate offspring has the current British Prime Minister now sired?

17.  Isn't the quickest and most effective way of dawah telling Westerners they need the rule of law contained in the Koran to protect themselves against their increasingly repressive and irrational government rather than trying to convince them to adopt the religion of the people these Westerners have regard as low status immigrants they have always despised and resented whom they don't think should even be in their country?

18.  Are Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab aware that many Westerners are Islamophobes and antisemites who see large numbers of Muslims dressed as Muslims in their country whom they are no longer allowed to complain about as a humiliation brought on them by Liberal Jews whom they believe deliberately supported uncontrolled immigration to subvert their society and civilisation?

19.  Wouldn't it be easier to tell Post-Christian Western politicians that their rule of law is indeed breaking down instead of talking to Islamophobic peasants who cannot be reasoned with and who would rather die than admit that there is anything wrong with their religion and political system that they themselves already reject?

20.  Is the Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty obviously unIslamic? Instead of being governed by eternal and universal principles of the Abrahamic God, British politicians reserve for themselves the Woman's Prerogative to change her mind about anything for whatever reason and are now behaving like a neurotic and indecisive woman who cannot make up her mind about anything.  

21.  Aren't most Westerners militant atheists who think religion is stupid and evil as well as antisemites and Islamophobes too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge that the Jews and Muslims they hate, fear and envy have what they don't ie the protective wrapper of religion?

22.  Why don't Muslim activists ask Islamophobes if they know of any society that has existed for long without a religion that supports marriage and family values instead of wasting time and energy trying to prove God's existence to low status low education people who already hate them and cannot be reasoned with? 

23.  Islamophobes of the Tommy Robinson variety are mostly low education and low status people who lie to themselves, are obviously neurotic and cannot even define morality. Do Muslim activists like Mohammed Hijab really think these people can be reasoned with?

24.  Are Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab aware that traumatised atheist Islamophobes and antisemites who were mostly deprived of their fathers by their unmarried mother hate themselves because their ancestors  have been tricked or forced into worshipping a Jew on a stick as the co-equal of God? They also hate their ancestors which is why they topple the statues of their own ancestors. These people have nothing other than their hatred of Muslims and Jews as a way of defining themselves and identifying each other as their substitute for religion. 

25.  Do Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab think these Islamophobes will give up their identity and their associates in any significant numbers in their lifetime just to join Muslims in their mosque?

26.  Are you not aware that educated Islamophobes like Charles Moore and Douglas Murray think Islam is low status culture for low status immigrants from places Trump and his supporters would call "shithole countries"? 

27.  Wouldn't dawah be more effective as a political movement offering Islamophobes the bargain of better government under a theocracy in this life rather than making promises to them about their afterlife?

28.  Are Muslim YouTubers afraid of being identified as extremist and having their YouTube channels deactivated if they do what I suggest?

29.  If Muslims activists are afraid of doing what I suggest, wouldn't discussing Secular Koranism amongst themselves on their channels  be a safer way of making dawah to the Western political establishment at one remove? 

30:  If men who call themselves Muslim activists are too afraid to discuss Secular Koranism or challenge me about it, are they in fact wilfully blind cowards who have adopted the tactic of ignoring me? I know I cannot wake men who pretend to be asleep. 


The smugness and dullness of this self-congratulatory stream which was mostly about diet and exercise incensed me.

Saturday, 13 June 2020

Christianity

Christianity is a terribly warlike religion. Forget what Christians did to non-Christians in their crusading wars of imperialism. Just look at what they did to each other!

1) The European Wars of Religion which included the Thirty Years War amongst many others

2) The American Civil War when they were all English-speaking, Christian and Protestant too!

3) WW1

4) WW2

It is not surprising that they would feel a little guilty and uneasy about their white privilege AKA imperial privilege which they don't like to talk about, which they no longer even learn about as schoolchildren. Presumably, it is because a largely atheist population will not suffer to learn about the immensely complex doctrinal and political reasons which caused the Wars of the Reformation and the break up of the Holy Roman Empire, which was a kind of Christian Caliphate.

If Europe had been Muslim, there would have been no need for the Wars of the Reformation. If Europe had already been Muslim and following Islamic rules of warfare, there would have been no WW1, let alone its continuation which was WW2, both framed as the Second Thirty Years War.

Monday, 19 November 2018

Nationalism is not necessarily warlike, liberal democracy is not necessarily peaceable

All politics is about balancing our interests as an individual against the moral rules we are supposed to follow about promoting the greater good.

Competing political tribes try to claim us, but the independent thinker chooses his or her own.

I chose nationalism because I am a universalist. I believe anyone who lives in a nation would wish to be well-governed by a government that promotes the national interest. My ambition is to make nationalism motherhood and apple pie.

As for the insane belief that nationalism is about racism and war, we should be remind ourselves that in both World Wars it was Britain - a liberal democracy - that declared war on Germany.

Britain already had a world empire, and Germany felt it deserved to acquire a bit of living space at the expense of the Russians, since Britain and France had more or less carved up Africa between themselves. Germany was late in the race that was the scramble for colonies.

But we know that it is the victor who writes history, and so it is that the Axis powers were written as evil by the victor for wanting what Britain had already acquired.

What did WW2 demonstrate? That non-combatant Japanese could be nuked in two Japanese cities so that the point could be made it is not for non-whites to dare to acquire empire at the expense of the White Man.

Sadly, just as we do not know what is in our own best interests, governments often do not know what is in their national interest either, and politicians and leaders often do not address their minds to posterity which only promoting the long term national interest would serve.

If the nation is a macrocosm of the individual and it serves the individual to adhere to a set of moral principles, then so too would it benefit a nation to choose the best possible set of moral principles.

It is this that I wish to discuss with an apparently heedless world, full of unemployed and unemployable philosophy graduates quite unable to engage on the matter.

Monday, 5 November 2018

An Islamic view of Britain's role in WW1


Dr Wahid points out that Germany posed no existential threat to Britain by violating Belgian neutrality. It was an imperial war about colonial interests. The Eastern Question was finally resolved when Britain bounced the Ottoman Empire to choose a side.

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall fought on the British side on the basis of false promises made to them by the British.

The legacy of WW1 is that of treachery. The British promised the same piece of land - Palestine - to three different parties ie the American Zionists, the French and the Ottoman Empire.

The wording of the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne can be found in the British Foreign Office website.

The British booby-trapped the Middle East and left a poison pill when they left.

Arab Nationalism making the Turk hate the Arab is denounced.

WW1 was bloodier than the Crusades.

Compared to the peace and stability in the Middle East before WW1, the collapse was swift and sudden.

Thursday, 9 August 2018

The Yin and Yang of two World Wars and the decline and fall of the West



7:45  Sayeeda Warsi https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bd8ffl

9:00  White people in the West already hate their own white liberals. All the more do they hate Jews and non-whites who come here and become liberal.  Jews find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. If they assimilate into liberalism, they are perceived as turbo-charged liberals with added but undeserved Jewish privilege. Sarah Jeong may have been aping white feminist women who hate white men and want to destroy the achievements of their ancestors. The fact that she is being protected by the New York Times will fuel even more anger and resentment. Orthodox Jews who join the alt-right thinking they are white are also confused, but if they have got anything wrong, at least their feelings are normal and understandable.  It is natural for even immigrants to become possessive and protective about their adopted countries.

11:00  Reform Jews in Weimar Germany obviously annoyed the Germans when they participated in the politics of a liberal democracy imposed on them after WW1. Hitler complained just as much about the operation of democracy in Weimar Germany as he did about Jews.

13:00  Scapegoat  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
14:00  James O'Brien of LBC
20:00  https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/1026462366559559680
20:30  Jay's guitar interlude
25:00  Jay praises me for http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-white-mans-burden.html
26:00  Kevin Grace praised.
29:00  We have to embolden our politicians to not apologise.
30:00  Alex Jones
31:00  Ron Paul https://www.rt.com/usa/435372-ron-paul-twitter-censorship/
35:00  Trump the Messiah?  https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/trump-s-jerusalem-syndrome-whose-end-of-days-messiah-does-he-think-he-is-1.5628063
37:00  Liberal democracies have the same problem of feminsm and gay marriage
39:00  Marriage sanctifies as a child
40:00  Feminists trash marriage and trash the ability of men and women to be good parents or to be parents at all.
41:00  Every action has a reaction.  The Culture War is about Yin and Yang.  An over-assertion of masculinity leads to a backlash of effeminacy. An excess of effeminacy will have its consequence of invasion, war and revolution resulting in the reassertion of masculinity.
45:00  WW1 and WW2
46:00  Pyrrhic victory  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."
47:00  Dog in the manger foreign policy of the British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger
https://carlcymrushistoryblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/the-berlin-baghdad-railway-and-the-outbreak-of-world-war-one/
48:00  Monopoly
49:00  Attempted assassination of Colonel Maduro https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/05/washington-attempts-to-assassinate-the-president-of-venezuela/
50:00  Hasmonean Civil War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_Civil_War
51:00  The "defence" lobby want war to increase sales
52:00  The Deep State of Pakistan
53:00   British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html
54:00  Multiculturalism
55:00  American isolationism  https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
57:00  Muslims in the West are sicced on Muslim states whose regimes America wants to change
58:00  US version of Bin Laden raid is 'full of lies'  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32698016
59:00  Religion, morality, group solidarity, sole cohesion
1:00:00   Slut shaming
1:02:00   Have we been good little boys and girls worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven?
1:07:00  Trump is a catalyst
1:12:00  Wolf whistle
1:16:00  Jay's views on museums
1:17:00  Relationships
1:25:00  Bewitched  and the geisha house
1:33:00  Finland entry for the Eurovision 2018  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEeIeQ-j2zk
1:43:00  90% of men cannot say no to sex
1:45:00  Breasts
1:46:00  Slutocrat  http://www.verbalremedy.co.uk/slavery-and-sluttery-an-interview-with-claire-khaw/
1:48:00  Emotional tampon   https://licensedmentalhealthcounselor.org/2012/05/01/are-you-an-emotional-tampon/
1:52:00  Secular Koranism
1:54:00  Jay and I imagine being married to each other
1:54:30  Sacha Baron Cohen in Who Is America? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk
1:56:00  Elizabeth Young  https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1324877/incredible-photos-show-the-50-year-old-who-could-pass-for-a-woman-in-her-20s-and-she-puts-it-all-down-to-being-single/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/We-Exist-Why-Elizabeth-Young/dp/0953737810
1:58:00  Chinese restaurants and Secular Koranism
Mechanical hare  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooxQGA3rjuo
2:03:00  Interpretation is a function of power https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/friedrich_nietzsche_109379
https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/statutory-interpretation.php
2:04:00  Cadbury's mini rolls
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/295848830

Wednesday, 7 March 2018

Hizb ut Tahrir equate nationalism with evil and then refuse to answer my questions - because I am neither a man nor a Muslim?


Taji Mustafa says:

Can you guess the answer to this question?


Can you guess the answer to this question?


Can you guess the answer to this question?

But how will they spread the message of Islam by arrogantly refusing to engage in any discussion?

These unfortunate Muslims who want a Caliphate seem to be as lost as everyone else talking to each other in their own echo chambers disdaining to discuss anything with outsiders.

www.hizb.org.uk/media/press-releases/lost-khilafah-nationalism-must-reject-get-khilafah-back/

http://www.hizb.org.uk/viewpoint/disease-nationalism-continues-tear-world-apart/

From the 19th minute
Abdul Wahid talks about the degeneracy of the Ottoman Empire. He claims the success of the military invasion of Turkey would not have been successful but for "the evil of nationalism affecting the Arab world". He calls Mustafa Kemal "the ugly face of Turkish nationalism".

He mentions the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, but does not mention that Turkey supported the wrong losing side in WW1 ie Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne

He does not mention the Eastern Question.

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

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

Can Muslims Reopen the Gates of Ijtihad?

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-09-26/study-finds-saudi-government-still-tolerates-hate-speech

37:37
Abdul Wahid:

Bernard Lewis is the Islamic scholar beloved by neocons.

Taji Mustafa wants Assad destroyed and says an Islamic financial system would be fairer for the poor and poor nations. He has not heard of adverse possession in English law, clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

http://quillette.com/2018/02/19/one-state-delusion/ makes a lot of things on Western foreign policy and

Yahya Nisbet denounces nationalism and peppers his speech with so many Arabisms in an ostentatious Arabic accent that he must think his Arabisms will get him to Janah more quickly. It is just annoying for non-Muslims who want them to understand whatever they are saying quickly, but what the hell do they care as long as they can wear their piety ostentatiously on their sleeve?

QUESTIONS I HAVE EMAILED TO HIZB UT TAHRIR TODAY

1.  Does Hizb ut Tahrir believe it can just abolish the nation state and live in a global Muslim village without engaging in debate with non-Muslims?

2.  Is HT confusing nationalism with Western imperialism?

3.  Is it impossible in your minds to separate nationalism from Western imperialism?

4.  First, tribes must be able to form a city-state before it can form a nation. Do you disagree?

5.  Secondly, a city-state must control its surrounding territory before it can become a nation. Do you disagree?

6.  Thirdly, a nation must be able to successfully conquer territories outside its own borders to become an empire. Do you disagree?

7.  Jews were a tribe of wandering former slaves who through following Judaism conquered enough territory to become a kingdom. Do you disagree?

8.  Islam was what first united the Arab tribes which then enabled Islamic imperialism. Do you disagree?
   
9.  Ummah also means nation in Arabic. Would you agree? http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/what-is-the-muslim-understanding-of-%22ummah%22%3F
   
10.  Nationhood is a natural aspiration for all those who live in a defined piece of territory.  Would you agree?

11.  Apparently, HT are Muslims who want to abolish nation states and borders who cannot understand that uncontrolled immigration upsets the locals. Such denial and naivete is not a secure basis upon which to embark on a global Caliphate. Would you agree?

12.  HT seem to think nationalism is some wicked modern Western imperialist invention, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Jewish revolts against the Romans of the second century was also a form of nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History Would you confirm that this is indeed the position of HT on nationalism?

13.  We all have to start somewhere. Individuals exist in bodies, and countries as nation states. To call nationalism evil is to call the nation state evil, which makes about as much sense as denouncing individuals for necessarily existing as a physical being inhabiting a human body. Would you agree? https://www.facebook.com/claire.khaw.92/posts/1845229085551716?comment_id=1846060515468573&reply_comment_id=1846861275388497&notif_id=1520365865757713&notif_t=feed_comment&ref=notif
   
14.  The Ottoman Empire ended because it could not reform itself before it was dominated then divided by the European powers. Was this because the Gate of Interpretation was closed?  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3114/muslims-ijtihad

15.  God if He exists is a nationalist. http://Quran.com/3/104  is conclusive evidence that God approves of nations who promote their national interest by following His laws. Would you agree?

16.  It is surely possible to defend the national interest without descending to xenophobia. Why do Muslims, like liberals and the left, assume nationalism is synonymous with evil? We all live in nation states, so why should we as loyal citizens not defend the national interest or expect our political leaders to do so?
   
17.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names is a philosophy of calling things by their proper names or things will go awry. If you mean the policies of divide and rule used by Western imperialism, call it that and don't confuse it with nationalism. Is this a subject you are prepared to discuss?
   
19.  Do you really think a transnational Caliphate can spontaneously come into being without first establishing an imperialistic Islamic State? If so, please explain your reasoning.

20.  Will you be ignoring my questions because I am neither male nor Muslim?

Saturday, 9 September 2017

If the British had been good Muslims they would still have their world empire


Tuesday, 11 April 2017

The lessons and questions of history

Those who fought in the war started in 1914 did not know it would be subsequently called the Great War or that it would eventually be called WW1.

If Asquith had known what he thought was a little skirmish would have become WW1, would he have declared it?

This is the question that should be asked in history lessons.

Wednesday, 5 April 2017

It ain't what happens to you, it's how you deal with it that matters

If it was the intention of Gavrilo Princip to make the Austrian Empire destroy itself, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand brilliantly achieved this purpose.

“It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”

― Epictetus

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

How nationalism should be defined

Nationalism should be defined as a political and philosophical ideology of promoting the long term national interest.

It has only been demonised because WW1 and WW2 was blamed on nationalism and is now associated with racism and xenophobia in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Actually, nationalism was a reaction against imperialism.

WW1 occurred because the Austrian Empire was weakening and breaking up. Understandably, when this was happening, peoples that used to be under the Austrian Empire aspired to become independent, and that was why the Serbian terrorist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points after WW1 articulated and affirmed the principles of national self-determination, which described the principles of nationhood.

WW2 occurred because Britain and France - both empires - wanted to contain Germany's imperial ambitions.

America is an empire, the EU is an empire, Islamic State wants to become a nation state and then an empire with global domination in mind, but Western nations just want their country back again from whoever is pulling the strings of their leaders who keep foisting more and more immigration on a weary and increasingly anxious populace.

Nationalism does not have to mean war, any more than looking after your own interests must mean you will always be fighting and killing other people, if you are not a gangster.

In reality, well-led nations use a mixture of war and diplomacy as an instrument of policy. We just want wise leaders leading our respective nations, and for this to be done, we have to reform our political process.

Nationhood is indispensable because there seems no other way of organising human society. A nation is a piece of territory with borders with its own government. It is the only group we can join that is small enough to care, but big enough to matter.

The real controversy is not that nation states should exist, but how they should be run, who should participate in their decision-making processes and what rules they should follow. The real controversy is therefore between patriarchy and matriarchy ie whether we return to social conservatism and the practice of marriage as a means of reviving the patriarchy run on the clear rules of healthy competition and low taxes, or carry on as we are, being a degenerate matriarchy in which the preferences of immoral women are always prioritised in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage, where men are lower in status to women.

It is precisely because the West is a matriarchy that makes us a post-truth society operating post-truth politics. Because we are no longer moved by facts and logic, we will be moved by something worse: threats, intimidation and violence.

It is a shame no one will discuss this.


Wednesday, 20 April 2016

How Britain lost its world empire and why sexual morality matters


'Britain is an old and declining empire embarrassed by its weakness'

Parliament did not vote on war on 3rd August 1914

The two ruinous world wars Britain inexplicably fought

Paul Craig Roberts:

America became a superpower because of the self-destruction of other countries.

That's right, folks. Americans didn't actually fight for their overseas empire, the dumb ass British handed theirs to them on a platter.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/18/how-the-american-neoconservatives-destroyed-mankinds-hopes-for-peace-paul-craig-roberts-2/

7 August 2015
rttimes.co.uk



Descendants of cannon fodder complain about British foreign policy and the genetic and moral damage it caused to the British race. Gentiles being cruel to Jews should not surprise anyone who has seen Fiddler on the Roof or read The Merchant of Venice. Anti-Semitism has always been endemic in Christian Europe and the Catholic Church was clearly to blame.  


St. Pius V in the bull Hebraeorum gens (26 February 1569) did not reference blood libel, but he did make multiple accusations against the Jews, including: usury, theft, receiving stolen goods, pimping, divination and magic. He finishes with this accusation: "Finally, we have sufficiently investigated and explored how unworthily this perverse race attacks the name of Christ; how much hated it is by all those who bear that name; and, finally, with what cunning it plots against their lives."

Pope Benedict XIV wrote a bull Beatus Andreas (22 February 1755) in which he does not express any doubt concerning the murders of children ascribed to the Jews. He states they are perpetrated "out of hatred of Christ" and "out of hatred for the Christian faith" in his De servorum Dei beatificatione. In the bull he speaks about determining what is to be done "when there arises a case of this sort, which often comes to be put forward, concerning some boy who was slain by the Hebrews in Holy Week out of hostility to Christ, such as Blessed Simon and Anderl and also many of the other murdered boys whom the authors mention".

The Edict of Expulsion has not yet been repealed. 


Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Democracies are *not* inherently more peace-loving than dictatorships



26th minute

Peter Lavelle:

"The democracy deficit in the European Union is just astounding to me."

Gilbert Doctorow:

"There is nothing particularly surprising in the failure of democracy to control foreign policy or democratic governments, and this is one of the fatal flaws in the whole neocon ideology: the notion that democratic countries are by their structure peace-loving. The voice of the people has no bearing on the conduct of foreign policy and it is carried out by the executive with its own privileges without answerability in many cases to legislature. The notion of democratic countries being peace-loving is shot through. You are confirming the bigger truth which has unfortunately been driving events for the last 20 years."

Dimitry Babich:

"In the late Roman Empire there was no foreign policy. All was internal policy because the whole world was the Empire, and the Empire had no opponents, only aggressors. It had no insurgents, only terrorists. So if we look at the modern United States and the late Roman Empire, we can see some similarities."

Peter Lavelle:

"When the Empire comes to an end, it is the American people who will find out about it last."

Those of you who know what happened to Athens, who exhausted itself through warfare, is that the Athenians kept voting again and again for war ....

It is truly laughable that Britain, who involved itself in two world wars that were really none of its business and lost its world empire as a result, did so because a Liberal Prime Minister thought fighting a short successful war in 1914 would make it more likely for the Liberal Party to win the 1915 General Election. What happened when the war it participated in turned really nasty? Why, the election was cancelled, of course.

It has been said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1. What, then, was WW1 all about? Britain declared war against Germany because of the Belgian neutrality German troops would violate on their way to France. This was the Belgian neutrality guaranteed in the Treaty of London in 1839.  Did Britain lift a finger to help France during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

There is nothing peaceable about democracies at all. Voters in democracies don't give a damn whom their politicians murder and whose countries they destroy as long as their taxes are low and public spending high. Many apparently educated Britons are quite convinced that Russia is the more militarily aggressive country even as they themselves are aware that their governments have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, bombed Libya and Syria. This is what Orwell would have called doublethink.

Do voters in democracies feel well-governed?

The answer can be discerned in how well the anti-establishment Trump is doing in the Presidential primaries and how prepared voters are to believe in conspiracy theories. A significant number of people in the West believe that their governments would actually bomb them and then pretend it was Muslim terrorists who did it, and use that as an excuse to bomb and invade more Muslim countries as well as depriving Western citizens of their liberty and privacy.

Soon, a Caliphate will seem like a sensible replacement for the mess we're in now.


Monday, 22 February 2016

Polygamy would have allowed Britain to replenish its population after WW2, without immigration


If the British were majority Muslim then British men would have been allowed to have up to four wives each, easily allowing them to replenish their population after having started and really lost two world wars.

http://quran.com/4/3

"Only one out of ten of you girls can ever hope to marry. This is not a guess of mine. It is a statistical fact."

Just think: if Britain had already been Muslim, it would not have needed to now be in fear of Muslims having so recklessly allowed so many of them in because they wanted cheap labour.

Remember: Demographics is destiny.

Islam would have protected the British from those pesky Muslims they now hate and fear.

Profound truths are paradoxical. 

Thursday, 17 December 2015

Anne McElvoy on British Conservaliberalism

British Conservatism: The Grand Tour
British Liberalism: The Grand Tour

Liberalism meaningless: the rich think it means freedom from laws and taxes, the poor think it means freedom from poverty and oppression.

Either Liberalism is the same thing as Conservatism or it is not. Anne McElvoy seems to think they are the same.

Do you get the impression that Anne McElvoy uses Liberalism and Conservatism interchangeably? I do.

Is Anne McElvoy's series on British Liberalism just a rehash of her series on British Conservatism?

Listening to Anne McElvoy on British Conservatism/Liberalism, do you get the impression it is just "shit UK governments do"?

British Liberalism and British Conservatism seems to be nothing more than "shit the British government does and thinks".

Anne McElvoy's on Conservatism/Liberalism should be a programme called What Passes for British Political Thought since the French Revolution.

British Conservatism came from an Irishman as a belated response to the French Revolution.

Conservatism is an ideology no older than the American and French Revolutions, which failed to prevent Russian Revolution.

Ask a Western politician or journalist to tell you where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins, and he will start prevaricating and looking nervous and shifty. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Predictably, I received no answer from Anne McElvoy when I asked her this question.




Liberalism and Conservatism means whatever Western politicians want it to mean.

Liberalism and Conservatism means motherhood and apple pie to the typical British voter.  It therefore means precisely nothing.

In Australia the party closest to Conservatism is called the Liberal Party.  Does this mean confusion, incoherence bordering on mania and dementia?

The West whose ideology is Conservatism and Liberalism do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their "religion".

Has Conservaliberalism stood the test of time - all 252 years of it so far?

ISIS have the Koran said to come from God, while the West do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their ideology. Perhaps it can only be found in The Unholy and Unwritten Conservaliberal Book of Making It Up As You Go Along?

There was a reason why the plebs demanded that The Twelve Tables of Romebe placed in a prominent part of the forum so that the operation of Rome's laws would be accessible and foreseeable.

What are Western values? It seems to mean Conservaliberalism which it cannot even agree on or officially define.

Would Edmund Burke be shocked and disgusted that a Conservative Prime Minister has legalised gay marriage?

Liberalism + Conservatism + Wolfowitz Doctrine + Full Spectrum Dominance + Neoconservatism + Neoliberalism = American Imperialism

Can even the most intelligent intellectual defend an ideology that does not have a commonly agreed source?

Is it wise to defend ideologies that are clearly incoherent and make no sense at all which no one can define?

It is clearly unwise to present a programme on these incoherent ideologies relying only on politicians' reminiscences of what was said and done when they were in government and politics without any attempt to define where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins. Let us call it Conservaliberalism then!

Is PC Liberalism the equivalent of Sexual Liberation and casual fornication leading to widespread bastardy and national degeneracy? Is this the "way of life" the West is so keen on defending?

ISIS hate gay marriage while Conservaliberals seem to be saying they are prepared to defend it to the death.  What is the point of defending a practice that would result in racial and national degeneracy which God has already declared to be an abomination in both the Bible and Koran?

Conservatism + Liberalism = Gay Marriage

Conservatism + Liberalism + Democracy = Immigration?

Another expression of Conservaliberalism is being in the EU and NATO, irrespective of whether or not it is in the national interest, because, let's face it, these pygmy politicians have no idea what to do outside it, because they have no imagination or principles, and have no idea what the national interest is. They only want to be in office without being in power and only think in terms of elections the way children think of playing musical chairs.

Why do Liberals and Conservatives pretend they can't understand why people hate immigration when they know being hospitable to even family members can be a pain?

Would Victorian Conservaliberals' views on sexual morality be closer that of ISIS than the gay and female advisers of Downing Street?

Did Anne McElvoy mention that the National Liberal Party merged with the Conservative Party in 1947? I don't think so.

The Liberal Nationals also changed their name to National Liberals at this stage. (Their reluctance to take this label originally is said to be a reaction to Lloyd George's use of the name for the earlier National Liberal Party in the 1920s.)

So, Conservaliberalism is a good thing then? Well, it has made the West what it is now  ...

If I had been presenting the programme, I would have pointed out that Conservatism was no more than a response to the French Revolution.

Since both Conservatism and Liberalism are the same thing in the mind of Anne McElvoy, we can say that Conservaliberalism is no more than 252 years old. I choose 1763 because that was the beginning of the American Revolution, which the French had a part in. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/timeline.html

If the French had not fought the Seven Years War then they would not have found their coffers empty and having to replenish them through the imposition of objectionably high taxes.

If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head.

If Henry Tudor had been Muslim, it would have been no big deal for him to have up to four wives. Think of the number of heads that would have stayed on shoulders and the wars avoided if there had been no Catholic Church for Protestants to protest against and all the religious wars and persecution in Europe that would have been avoided. Forget all the non-Christians the Christians killed, ask yourself how many Christians the Christians killed. It is just possible that Christians killed even more Christians than they killed Muslims. Quite a thought, eh? It was the schismatic nature of Christianity that caused white people to endlessly fight, persecute and kill each other. It was Conservaliberalism that started two World Wars, after all, but Anne McElvoy doesn't mention that either. It is not surprising then that white people became so good at war and took over the world. Now that they only go around hypocritically pretending that they invade oil-rich Muslim countries to save Muslims from themselves and pay mercenaries to fight their wars, they will most probably go the way of the Roman empire.

Was the The Seven Years War fought for Koranically-approved reasons?  No, because it only officially permits defensive wars. Sure, go acquire an empire if you want - the Koran allows Muslims conquerors to impose the jizya on their conquered after all, but if you don't win it or can't really afford it, then on your head be it.

An Islamic rate of tax is only a flat rate income tax of 20%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums Did you know hedge funds also charge 20%?  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/two_and_twenty.asp  Why is 20 the magic number? Because it is the highest percentage most people would willingly pay without trying to avoid or evade it.

Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence Nope. Should Russia have entered it? Nope. If the Russians had had a Caliph of Russia rather than silly Tsar with an equally silly Tsarina carrying on with Rasputin, there would have been no Russian Revolution either.

What do the French now think of their Revolution? Do you know they are now on their fifth Republic? Yep, every time they change their constitution, a new republic is formed, and they have changed their constitution five times already, cos they keep getting it wrong ...

As Zhou Enlai said, it is too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing. Since he is dead, perhaps we should ask the French people what they think of the French Revolution now. I did recently and the response was a Gallic shrug.

Does the picture below say anything you might want to say about Conservaliberalism?



Anne McElvoy's series on British Conservatism

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

A historical analysis of Holocaust Memorial Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thirty_Years%27_War

Monday, 10 November 2014

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years


http://www.scottmanning.com/content/treaty-of-london-1839/
Can you find any word in the Treaty of London that obliged Britain to go to war against Germany? I can't.

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

The Parliament Act 1911 reduced the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five, however the election that would have been due by 1915 as a result of the Act was not held due to World War I (1914-1918)

At this point, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave suffrage to most of the adult population (men over 21, women over 30).

That was when the thin end of the wedge of feminism was inserted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9602114/The-First-World-War-the-war-that-changed-us-all.html

Gone was the expansive optimism of those Edwardian years, with ludicrously young men bowling up to recruitment offices, broad grins on their faces, as they stood on tiptoe and stuck their chests out to appear older.

In its place came the horror – and the cynicism. Towards the end of the war, officers noticed that men stopped singing the morale-boosting songs they had invented themselves and were reduced instead to the miserable, characteristically English, downbeat cry of “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here.”


'We’ll be home by Christmas’: the departure of the 1st Battalion of the Mid-Kent Volunteers for the front from Royal Tunbridge Wells in 1914

http://www.lchs.museum/ww2/pow.htm




THE KHAVIAN ANALYSIS OF HOW BRITAIN LOST ITS EMPIRE

Because the British ended up destroying their greatest achievement after their reckless participation in two world wars, run on a policy of being nasty to the Germans because they were perceived to be rivals, they had to and still now make themselves believe that it was all worthwhile (because they had to save the Jews or that Hitler would have invaded Britain) because otherwise the truth would be too much to bear.  ("The horror, the horror.")

This brings to mind a game of Monopoly I once played. My opponent tried to thwart my acquisitions by buying up properties he knew I wanted, but in the end found himself so denuded of cash that he could not make the most of his opportunities or pay the rent when he landed on my low-grade hotels in Old Kent Road and the Whitechapel Road.

No sensible German military leader would have taken the trouble to invade Britain because it was a maritime nation with a navy enormously superior to Germany's. The cost would be ruinous and any victory Pyrrhic. Besides, the Germans wanted to expand eastwards towards Russia, not take on a maritime nation by mounting a blockade with its inferior navy.

As for saving the Jews, the British themselves were not too fond of them, if truth be told, and neither were the French or the Poles or the Russians or the Italians etc.

I know Irving is denounced as being a Holocaust Denier, but it is probably because he points out so many uncomfortable truths. It has been pointed out that all the Nazis did was just conduct yet another of the pogroms European Christians periodically mounted on Jews, a bit like a man coming home after a bad day at work and kicking the dog and being irascible to his wife and children.

The Nazis were not planning to exterminate them but to expel them and the Madagascar Plan is evidence of this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

If this is so, Germany was really no worse than Britain during the Edict of Expulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion


It would appear that antisemitism is in fact a problem of Christianity.

I often asked myself why this Christian hatred of Jews is called antisemitism when the Arabs who are Muslims are also a Semitic race.  I believe the answer is this: the hatred was not so much racial as ideological, since both Jews and Muslims because of their religion would necessarily deny the doctrine of the Trinity

Enforcing belief of the Trinity was what the Spanish Inquisition was all about, was it not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Christians were not just nasty to Jews and Muslims, but also nasty to each other with their inter-denominational rivalries. Unitarian Christians and Quakers were also given a terrible time by the Established Church, Catholics were nasty to Protestants eg St Bartholomew's Day, and vice versa eg British in Ireland.

It was only as recently as 1813 that it became legal to doubt the Trinity without the unpleasant consequence of losing one's job.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

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

In Toland's first book Christianity not Mysterious (1696), he argued that the divine revelation of the Bible contains no true mysteries; rather, all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles. For this argument he was prosecuted by a grand jury in London. As he was a subject of the Kingdom of Ireland, members of the Parliament of Ireland proposed that he should be burnt at the stake, and in his absence three copies of the book were burnt by the public hangman in Dublin as the content was contrary to the core doctrines of the Church of Ireland. Toland bitterly compared the Protestant legislators to "Popish Inquisitors who performed that Execution on the Book, when they could not seize the Author, whom they had destined to the Flames".

Britain, being the most successful military nation in the world at the time of WW1 felt they could take on anything, even the Germans on land. British generals probably longed for another war just to keep their troops on their toes and periodically battle-hardened.

War was just a party for the world's most successful military nation.  Indeed, every war was a party as far as the British considered and Britain was the No 1 Party Girl of the world. It was unthinkable not to gate crash or accept invitations for a "party".  No respectable woman should accept every invitation or accede to every request to "party".  In just the same way that a party girl easily becomes a fallen woman Britain has lost her status, respectability and reputation.

Is British foreign policy now being run on saner principles?

I would suggest not.

The other point I want to make is that the reasons why Britain went to war was because it operated a system of government called democracy, which hasn't done it much good either.

If Asquith had not been worried about what the voters would think, would he have entered WW1?

If the democracy, Christianity and Liberalism are unsound ideologies to base our governments on, had we not better consider an alternative sooner rather than later?

After Hubris, there can only be Nemesis and perhaps ISIS ...



On the Avoidability of World War One


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/19/darkest-days-truth-behind-britains-rush-to-war-douglas-newton-review

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...