Translate

Showing posts with label Yin and Yang. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yin and Yang. Show all posts

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
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

The Temptation of Eve and why men must always pay for sex

I deplore this attempt to blame women for all the ills of mankind and will address it now, once and for all.

If men now blame all their problems on women, they should also remember that most of their pleasures also come from women.

The Chinese word for GOOD consists of the an amalgam of the word FEMALE and CHILD. I only wish I could have been there when Chinese scholars were debating how to represent the concept of GOOD with which words.

http://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-hao_good.htm

Now that this was the compound word arrived at, one must logically ask if this hypothetical Chinese female would be a slut or this hypothetical Chinese child a bastard. NO, is my answer. If most of your women are sluts and most of your children bastards, then it means the men have lost control, and this is BAD and you should be doing something about this, if there are any moral men left in your society.

Women are indeed temptation for men, but imagine a world in which there are no temptations you could be tempted by. In that case you might as well be dead, or a Buddhist.

Love them or hate them, you can't live without them. By this I mean whether you are a man or woman and hate the opposite sex, you must know that your civilisation cannot continue without the opposite sex.

If the military without women is the exemplar of a hierarchical patriarchy, then the bee colony is the exemplar of an apparently egalitarian matriarchy.

If you asked a wise Chinese person such as myself what feminism represents, I would say it represents the eternal temptation of heterosexual men: fornication. You will not be able to find a single feminist who supports slut-shaming because the secret agenda of feminism is to empower sluts who become the mothers of bastards.

Yin and Yang came from the Ancient Chinese asserting the rather Newtonian principle that every action causes a reaction, and this represents the eternal battle of the sexes.

The sad fact is that sex must never be free for Man because, if it ever did, his civilisation would decline and fall. He must always pay for sex, and this is why the prostitute should always be treated as above the fornicating slut in any rational and well-ordered patriarchy.

There is a reason why our matriarchy have more or less criminalised prostitution: because feminist sluts want to retain their stranglehold monopoly on the supply of extramarital sex to heterosexual men. This is how the matriarchy bribes men who could become fathers of legitimate children into accepting the oppression of the matriarchy.

Marx once said religion is the opium of the people in a patriarchy.

In a matriarchy, fornication is the opium of the people.

We are a matriarchy hooked on fornication.

All it takes is any group, however barbaric, to practise the rules of marriage better than we do, and it will be the end of our civilisation.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=65
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=66
 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Which would you choose: for you and your children to be murdered for religious or political reasons?

I have always said it was a distinction without a difference.

The only reason we should consider is which is more effective, but they are the same.

The enemies of feminism and liberal democracy are perceived to be Islam. The former represents the matriarchy and the latter the patriarchy.

Does it matter to your victims if you kill them for political or religious reasons?

Does it matter that your victims take revenge on you for political or religious reasons, by murdering you and your children?

If it does, what is the difference between being murdered for political reasons and being murdered for religious reasons, in practice and in theory?

If God is an instrument of government, isn't He more effective for this purpose than effeminate liberalism and immoral feminism, ignorant and indifferent to economic and foreign policy, interested only in choosing which bribe to accept at General Elections, eager to believe that it is both possible to have higher government spending and lower taxes and that uncontrolled immigration is good for the economy and should long continue?

The Iranians in their one party theocracy at least had a choice in the kind of foreign policy their country pursues and whether they wanted the hardline Raisi or the moderate Rouhani to pursue it. The Iranians had a more meaningful choice in their elections than the West. In the West, no voter ever votes on foreign policy. If you even ask your MP about this, you are treated as an oddball, or even an extremist who may possibly be a terrorist, probably.

Let us face facts: we are a declining and degenerate matriarchy and we distrust and despise our leaders. There is no evil we would not suspect them of committing. The most surprising thing about the Manchester attack was not that it happened, but the people who cynically observed that Theresa May would benefit from it and win the General Election by more of a margin because of it.

The Ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is now in play. In its Newtonian way it states that for every action there will be a reaction. We and the terrorists who want to kill us and our children are now reacting against the stinking matriarchy we now find ourselves in, wondering which way to head for the shortest way out of the swamp.

The so-called enemies of the West have rational and principled men leading their countries while the West has only incompetent female leaders and a US President the deep state wants to topple and whose wife slaps away his hand when he reaches out for it in public.

The most notable thing about the Muslim terrorists is that they are adhering to their religious principles by terrorising us until they get what they want from us. Do we have any religious or political principle for invading and destroying Muslim countries in the way the US military industrial complex deep state wants us to keep doing? The nearest thing we have is that of the neocon goal of full spectrum global dominance that it does not appear Western voters are even aware of. Presumably, this goal is hidden away from the infantilised and feminised voters of NATO member states who don't like thinking of themselves as ruthless imperialists with blood-soaked hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance

Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep

Yin and Yang and Newton's Third Law

Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War

Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10389/europe-migration-policies

When the G7 heads of state arrive in Taormina, Sicily, for the G7 meeting on May 26, they will find themselves in an embellished, picture-postcard version of European reality. Italy, the host of the G7 meeting, has announced that it will close all harbors on the island to ships that arrive with migrants ( mainly from Libya) for the duration of the two-day meeting. The reason for the closure of the Italian island to migrants is to protect the G7 meeting from potential terrorist attacks. According to Italian reports, "the Department of Public Safety believes that the boats with illegal immigrants could be hiding an Islamist threat".
G7 meetings are, of course, always subject to a host of high-level security measures. However, shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy. Literally altering reality in order to present a whitewashed picture of the influx of migrants into Europe, which happens largely through Italy, is a Potemkin measure, regardless of terror risks. Heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Italy seeks to protect from a terrorist risk, seem not to care particularly about the very real terrorist risks that European citizens are forced to live with daily thanks to the migrant policies of these heads of state.


A meme I found on Facebook

Another meme I found on Facebook








at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, 11 January 2015

The gunning down of Charlie Hebdo is part of the eternal battle of the sexes

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

To call the Paris attacks a 'war’ dignifies pointless slaughter The terrorists’ actions in Paris were anarchic adventures by people who wouldn’t know what to do with 'victory’ if it came upon them, writes Janet Daley:

The consensus is that we are at war. Some people call it a war on democracy. Others say, more specifically, that it is a war on freedom of speech. Then Nicolas Sarkozy topped everybody by saying that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a declaration of war “on civilisation”.

  1. The world is divided between men and women. 
  2. The West is matriarchal and its enemies want to stay patriarchal. 
  3. Matriarchies are without exception declining and primitive societies, and all advanced civilisations are patriarchies. 
  4. A patriarchy runs on marriage the way cars run on petrol.
  5. Everything about feminism undermines marriage.
  6. Feminism encourages women to become sluts because all feminists affirm the right of women to have premarital sex. 
  7. When men say it is OK for women to be sluts, they will become lower than sluts. 
  8. All men in the West are now lower than sluts, including the Prime Minister, the official alpha male of Britain.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/not-only-are-most-men-beta-males-most.html
  9. The apparently alpha male in the West is the charming sexy man sluts cannot resist. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/21st-century-alpha-male-is-one-who.html
  10. It is contemptible for the strong, clever and rich to submit to the weak, stupid and poor. 
  11. This clash of civilisations is between societies who want to promote gay marriage and those who don't want their people and societies corrupted by this kind of shit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-export-gay-marriage-around-the-world-says-David-Cameron.html
  12. How free is speech in France when you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong number? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/how-free-is-speech-in-west-when-you-can.html
  13. Muslims have noticed that Jews have been given special status in France because of Holocaust Denial laws.  
  14. Muslims have noticed that the EU is the cat's paw of America and that the only political parties who matter in America are subject to the control of the Israel lobby. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
  15. Muslims have noticed that Israel is a colonial outpost of the West.
  16. Muslims have noticed that antisemitism is endemic in the Christian West.
  17. Muslims have noticed that Arabs are also Semites and that the Christian  hatred of Jews and Muslims has its origins in Jews and Muslims denying the Trinity. The Inquisition was all about making sure Jews and Muslims forced by the Catholics to convert to Christianity really really believed in the Trinity and were not just pretending to do so. 
  18. Because the Trinity is so hard to explain and justify, Christians have always always hated Jews and Muslims who so very easily demolish this black box theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_theory   that "explains" Christ's divinity.
  19. Because Christians in the West have been so mean to Jews over the centuries, what they did after WW2 was the equivalent of robbing Peter Muslim to pay Paul Jew, which is the reason why the modern State of Israel is so disputed, bitter and contentious. 
  20. The West is now as Christian as a skeleton used to be human, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury is so theologically ignorant that he does not even know he is supposed to believe in the Trinity. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/18/archbishop-canterbury-doubt-god-existence-welby
  21. Christianity is now no different from PC Liberalism.
  22. Muslims have seen what government by pornocracy has done to Western masculinity and don't want their male descendants to become pussy-whipped manginas deprived of their matrimonial homes and deprived of their offpsring or their female descendants to become Slut Single Mothers.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html or for either to be gayly married, and neither does Putin.
  23. Muslims and rational men do not want beta males to be deprived of the right to choose their alpha male leader without having to factor in the female vote. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html
  24. Most female voters just choose the most attractive male candidate. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke
  25. Can feminism cause wars? You betcha.  http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html
  26. Can feminism cause social disintegration? You betcha. http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
  27. Marriage is the pivot upon which true gender balance sits and encouraging women to be sluts and men to be morally-compromised slut-fuckers has tipped the scales in favour of the feminazis.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html
  28. Feminazism is now so advanced that the criminal standard of proof required to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt has now been consigned to the dustbin of history, and not a single member of the judiciary and legal profession has noticed this let alone seen fit to point this out. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/why-wrongful-conviction-of-ched-evans.html  
  29. When the Chinese talk about Yin and Yang, they mean the gender balance and social cohesion that is obtained when most members of society respect the institution of marriage.  http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/201112/2011nxscfz03a9.pdf
  30. Is this a clash of civilisations? You betcha. It is not a war of barbarism against civilisations though, but a war between societies that prefer to be run on patriarchal lines and those who prefer to remain pornocracies. The Bhagavad Gita: "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."  
  31. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, the stupid reason why the British really fought WW1 then WW2 only to lose their empire can be found at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html 
  32. I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that the West are the bad guys and it is time we acknowledged this possibility or begin to discuss acknowledging this possibility before it is completely trashed. It may already be too late, of course, because I have been saying for years the fatal and inherent design flaw of representative democracy is that it cannot be corrected or reformed as Alexander Tytler declared. http://www.commonsensegovernment.com/article-03-14-09.html


Clearly, what all of this is intended to mean is that the situation is as serious as it is possible to get: that the West will now treat the cause that these multiple terrorist atrocities represent as an official global enemy rather than a sporadic affliction to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. But this is not war – not in any recognisable sense of the word. By which I do not mean that it is something less grave or catastrophic. The last thing I would be inclined to do – as a Jewish journalist married to a cartoonist – is to imply that the events in Paris are somehow more trivial than they appear to be. What I am suggesting is that, by using the word “war”, we are dignifying this pointless slaughter.

War is not all fighting all the time. There are truces, negotiations and longeurs before the next engagement. Ask any soldier if war is a lot of waiting around. How long can a war take? Well, there was The Hundred Years' War and a civilisation can take centuries to fall.  http://mahmoodjawaid.com/Rise_-_Fall_of_Nations_-_The_Quranic_Prescription.pdf

The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945. It is used emphasize the period as a whole. Just as the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was not a single war but a series of conflicts in varied times and locations, later organized and named by historians into a single period, the Second Thirty Years' War has been seen as a "European Civil War" fought over the problem of Germany exacerbated by new ideologies such as communism, fascism and nazism.


War, in modern understanding, has rules of engagement, comprehensible objectives (such as the seizing of territory) and recognisable chains of command. Its conduct is, at least in principle, governed by international law – which is why it is possible to try people for “war crimes”. Its combatants, when captured, must be treated not as common criminals, but as prisoners of war to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. (When George W Bush declared his “war on terror”, he placed himself in the ambiguous position of possibly having to accept terrorists as legitimate military fighters.)

Even in its variant forms – wars of national liberation or civil conflicts between internal rivals – there must be some sense of what it would mean to win and how one might contemplate a negotiated peace. If you are at war with an enemy who has an intelligible goal and identifiable leaders, you have some understanding of the tactics that victory would require – and a vision of what might occur if you lost.

But most significantly for the present context, a real war holds out the possibility of conciliation and the conditions for an arbitrated conclusion. If we take that as a model for the Paris terror strikes, what sort of concessions – what kind of accommodations for peace, or even truce – might we be prepared to consider? Banning satirical images? Monitoring all media for disrespectful references to Islam? Forbidding women who are “immodestly” dressed from appearing in public? Would any of these things be negotiable?

It is disingenuous to pretend that Muslims want to ban satirical images or references disrespectful to Islam when it is pretty clear that all they want is the right not to be gratuitously offended. As for what constitutes gratuitous offence, it can easily be defined as going "over and beyond what is necessary to make a point with the intention of causing gratuitous offence".

As for what a woman many be allowed to wear in public, my suggestions can be found at http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/properly-attired-muslim-ornaments.html I do not think they would be oppressive even to the Western woman, except for those who actually want men to look at their cleavage and other bits.


To the extent that the terrorists have stated their idea of definable victory, it is the establishment of sharia in the West and the eradication of secular democracy. Are we likely to contemplate putting those things on the table in any discussion of settlement terms? Does the enemy even begin to imagine that such a “victory” is conceivable? If not, in what sense is this “war”, rather than just nihilistic, indiscriminate murder? If nothing is up for grabs that the enemy appears to want, must we then just exterminate every follower of the cause in a campaign that will look suspiciously like genocide? (There may soon be political voices in Europe calling for something close to this.) Those are the choices that are available if you call it “war”.
Maybe you find this semantic discussion irrelevant or, at least, less than urgent in the present circumstances. But I would argue that this sort of confusion is critical in countries that need to find some way of coming to terms with what they must begin to see as permanently volatile minorities. 

Muslims may not know this, but what they want is really Secular Koranism. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html


  1. If Islam is "Judaism Lite" then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". 
  2. Secular Koranism is the antidote to Islamism and Feminism.
  3. Belief in God and His commandments, or at the very existence of laws that forbid and punish extramarital sex is necessary to make most people respect the institution of marriage.
  4. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
  5. The West is degenerate, and understandably Muslims living in the West do not wish to be similarly infected by this degeneracy when they already know better than to worship the right to have extramarital sex and therefore be lower than sluts after seeing what feminism has done to Western masculinity and femininity and to general standards of morality. Understandably, they want to protect themselves, their children and their descendants from this dsygenic ideology and this toxic ideology.
  6. The imposition of Secular Koranism in the West and in Israel should be enough to appease these radicals. 
  7. Who is in a position to discuss the viability of Secular Koranism? Any qualified lawyer who has read the Koran and heard of Donoghue v Stevenson



A monumental effort is being made to claim that there is scope for real debate here: that the Western principle of free speech should be defended as if it were being challenged in a moral philosophy seminar rather than attacked with Kalashnikovs. There certainly is a legitimate argument to be had over, for example, whether respect for religious belief might be a worthy exception to the principle that freedom of speech is indivisible. (After all, we do actually have laws to prevent incitement to certain kinds of hatred.) But that dispute is academic in both senses of the word: it has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with killing people. Some well-meaning commentators are saying that these instances of mass murder make it necessary for us to engage in an exercise in cross-cultural understanding so that we may reach some sort of accommodation with the religious sensibilities of other peoples. This is dangerous nonsense.

What is the harm of having a law that forbids causing gratuitous offence to those of religious sensibilities, and of going over and beyond what is necessary to make a point?


Yes, indeed, it is certainly a good thing to reach out to minority communities in that way: getting people to talk to each other is almost always advisable. But the place of religion in a secular state, what limits (if any) there may be on free expression, and the need for integration of migrant groups are neither here nor there in a struggle with murderers. Their actions are part of no debate, just as they are not part of any coherent strategic plan for military conquest. They are anarchic adventures grounded in fantasy, carried out by individuals who would not know what to do with “victory” (whatever that means) if it came upon them. It may be no bad thing to use this terrible historical moment to reinvigorate our belief in our fundamental values, but all the protestations of solidarity with the victims – whether they are at a satirical magazine or a Jewish supermarket – will not defeat or dissuade the terrorists. It is an exercise for our own edification, not theirs. There is only one principle that is pertinent here: that it is wrong to kill people. And on that, there is no room for argument.

As far as I know, not even terrorists are demanding the right to gun down people with impunity. These men fully expected to die for what they did and this was what in fact happened. If these two men had been caught alive, it should be borne in mind that the death penalty was abolished in France as long ago as 1981. They committed their crime and paid for that with their lives, which is more than what they would have paid if they had been caught alive. So what is the problem? Are any Muslims saying that these terrorists should not be punished? NOPE. Not even Al Qaeda are saying they shouldn't be punished if caught. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THEN???


Most important, to conflate these things is to pull the whole Islamic population of Europe into guilt by association. Even those Muslims who are prepared to say that they are shocked or offended by caricatures of the Prophet are not ipso facto part of the terror problem: they are genuinely engaging in argument rather than in violence. It would be deeply wrong (and profoundly illiberal) to conjoin them in any way with those who kill, supposedly out of rage at the publication of such images.

There are plenty of non-Muslims who derive a deal of grim satisfaction from the Paris shootings. Does this amount to saying that terrorists should not be punished, or inciting others to commit acts of terrorism or being inspired to do a spot of copy cat terrorism oneself? NO.

Daley is just appalled and disgusted that not everyone is as appalled and disgusted as she is, because she has not seen the light yet, as I have.

All acts of terrorism are caused by bad government policy. To condemn terrorism is a distraction from condemning bad government policy, and I do not wish to be distracted from this. 


Finally, the outcome was almost as satisfactory as could be hoped in the circumstances. And it was handled by the police as criminal behaviour should be. The terrorists may have gone out in the way they had hoped – or not. Who can say what they expected? But they did not get their day in court, so we were spared any display of exhibitionistic fanaticism. Whether their potential followers see them as glorious martyrs or as futile losers is anybody’s guess. Hopefully, the fact that they did not opt for death by planned suicidal means may help to devalue their “achievement”: in the end, they were killed by the enemy, having become hopelessly trapped. That ought to be ignominious enough to take away some of the “glamour”.

Amedy Coulibaly 'Martyrdom' Video Released Online


If the point of the exercise was to instil fear and loathing, it has probably accomplished more of the latter than the former. However much criticism there might be of the security services that should have seen this coming, the French police operation at the climax was quite stunning. The techniques that are gradually being perfected for dealing with this psychopathic crime wave will eventually be even more decisive, as will the security measures that have shut down so many of these operations before they hit the ground. This situation is not hopeless – and it is not war. It is more dangerous than that. But it will only be a threat to freedom, or “civilisation”, if we allow it to be.

If this is clash of civilisations is part of the eternal battle of the sexes, then it started a long time ago, with Adam and Eve.

What is this war about? It is about imposing feminist hegemony worldwide.

Who is this war between? Between those who want to spread gay marriage worldwide and those who don't want this shit to come near their people and turn them into degenerate sluts and effeminate bastards afraid of sluts.

If you want to desecrate marriage you can do no better than turn it into a sex toy and give to gay couples to play with, except perhaps to forbid people who are actually capable sexual reproduction not within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity from marrying.

Who is the West rattling its sabre at? At Russia and Islamic State who regard gay marriage as an abomination.

 Was it male or female MPs who overwhelmingly voted for gay marriage?

83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did

Res ipsa loquitur.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-export-gay-marriage-around-the-world-says-David-Cameron.html

Man created God to protect him and his civilisation from his susceptibility to sluts.  

 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 16 June 2014

Eurasianism and the Eurasian

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02052014-globalization-decline-west-eurasianism-state-rebirth-ethnic-socialism-analysis/

Extracts from Matthew Johnson's interesting essay:

"the ideas of “democracy” and “openness” are mere buzzwords that are explicitly connected to the economic interests of those who created the globalization project."

"The main focus of western capital is that “openness” becomes universally conflated with cultural and ideological standardization. “Democracy” can then become universally conflated with securing the maximum return on investment."

"What western pundits never seem to grasp is that the market is the first casualty in capitalist societies once hey come to be controlled by a financial oligarchy."

"It is impossible to become truly competitive in the international arena without honest domestic competition, without the rule of law, without truth and justice in relations between business and the state. "

"The west is controlled by finance capital, since they both approve corporate investments and forward money to the state. This leads to irrational investments, since financial elites are ensured state protection. For economists, this creates the dilemma that self-interest brings corporate capital to act in socially irrational ways. Since economics is institutionally separate from history or ethics, the fact that Goldman-Sachs sends millions in campaign contributions to both parties is not seen as an economic problem. Capital, now concentrated beyond the wildest dreams of Marx, is more powerful than the state. Capital today has complete dominance without responsibility. The desperate American need for cheap credit means that major financial conglomerates negotiate with “public authorities” from a position of strength. The taxpayer is relegated to a bovine mass occasionally milked for bailout funds."

'No discipline, academic or technical, can exist outside of truth. Truth is opposed to self-interest, ideological justifications and private interests masquerading as “universal laws.” '

"If Marx is right, and man is distorted and scarred from capitalist oppression, then their usefulness in social reform is non-existent. Ideology is really a means to provide quick answers to probing questions. The initiated vanguard might know the details, while the herd is satisfied with symbols. Severe contradictions are covered over with pseudo-intellectual cliches."

"Bolshevism, as he sees it, is a form of national socialism that alleviates the suffering of the proletariat while retaining the traditional content from which all legitimacy proceeds."

"The point here is that in times of severe crisis, “democracy” leads to the sophistical manipulation of an exhausted people who care little for freedom, since liberty is useless without security, food or some expectations for a future. What truly matters here is how significant such an approach is for the second decade of the 2000s. Man is irrational at the best of times. When society crumbles around him, anything is possible."

"Ideology, the state and aggregated mediocrity justified social dependence on the state. Previously, it was the neighborhood, parish and commune. Localism prevented massification. Modernity, using nominalism to delegitimize social institutions both formal and informal, created the existential man without vision, moral psychology and worst of all, left him frightened of a freedom that is unfairly tied to one’s highly limited and jumbled store of personal ideas and prejudices."

"Labor is based on culture in that it is reflective of social priorities. It also rests on one’s vocation and talents purified and rationalized the tradition of the craft. Only then can rank and hierarchy be justified, since trade standards become the sole criterion. Only in this context can rights, duties and rewards be allotted rationally."

"rights refer to free opportunity to act, while their corresponding duties require compulsion; the legal ideal is the relation between the two."

"liberal democracy is the political “front” of finance capital and oligarchy. It is, simply, the rule of the wealthy where the powerful promote those who exchange some power in exchange for the acceptance of any blame."

"Darwinian survival, and not Smith’s theoretical model of Perfect Competition, drives capitalism. On the other hand, socialism, quite similar to capitalism, merely deifies the ruling party as the oligarchy that controls all economic decisions from one place. Deification is not all that far off, since the entire social world changes at their command."

"While isolated and pampered American professors speak of the “artificially” and “invented tradition” of nationalism, they retain their beliefs in abstractions such as the state, the “world community,” “international justice” and the isolated consumer acting “rationally.” The truth is that no individual exists outside of his community. This includes language (broadly speaking), religion, customs and moral ideas that make any civil or economic life possible. The context is the nation, which in turn, is part of a larger civilizational order of complimentary nations. Nations retain autonomy, but the civilizational market becomes the locus of trade, finance and philosophical views."

Conclusion
The Russian meltdown of the early 1990s forces those interested in Russian history and social ideas to study and understand appropriate ideas by which this damage can be reversed. It is not just the economic destruction and the impoverishment of entire continents, but also the mental and emotional decay such suffering engenders. Warfare brutalizes a population, destroying once unexamined moral habits and replacing them with sheer instinct. Therefore, reconstruction is holistic, and cannot be relegated to formal political or economic institutions.

The Eurasian movement, the Non-Aligned coalition, ethno-nationalism, regionalism and the mass renunciation of the failed Washington Consensus are only just beginning to challenge this Faustian beau monde. To grasp the economic options of Putin’s Russia and its relation to China and Eurasian space in general is essential in crafting an alternative to global oligarchy.

The Eurasianist movement has plenty of eccentrics. Some of its advocates promote ideas that should never even be considered. But this eccentricity is compensated by the undeniable fact that a strong, centralized and ideological power is absolutely essential for reconstruction. Such power is not good in itself, but, given the alternatives, protection and regularity become the highest priorities.

Do bear in mind, boys and girls, that Secular Koranism would be the middle way between the patriarchy and the matriarchy, and between capitalism and communism, and is suitable for all races and nations, IMHO.

If Islam is "Judaism Lite" then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Secular-Koranism/657868884251333?fref=ts

The Eurasian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_(mixed_ancestry)

I have heard there has been quite a lot of intermarrying going on between the Russians and the Chinese.

This sounds like a kind of pragmatic, racial and ideological mixing. It seems both sides think they have made good bargains. The Chinese men like Caucasian girls who are nice to them unlike their own stuck up and spoilt women and the Russians like men who are nice to them and aren't drunken philanderers.

Demographics and history have dictated that China has too many men and Russia too few men. This opportunity of race-mixing is therefore irresistible. If either government tried to forbid it, they would fail, and indeed encourage them all the more.

Matthew Johnson's essay talked about financial markets, but it is only through men and women making good bargains with each other that would bring about peace and progress.  This principle is called Yin and Yang, which has a moral dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

"Dropping a stone in a calm pool of water will simultaneously raise waves and lower troughs between them, and this alternation of high and low points in the water will radiate outward until the movement dissipates and the pool is calm once more. Yin and yang thus are always opposite and equal qualities. Further, whenever one quality reaches its peak, it will naturally begin to transform into the opposite quality: for example, grain that reaches its full height in summer (fully yang) will produce seeds and die back in winter (fully yin) in an endless cycle. It is impossible to talk about yin or yang without some reference to the opposite, since yin and yang are bound together as parts of a mutual whole. A way to illustrate this idea is to postulate the notion of a race with only men or only women; this race would disappear in a single generation. Yet, men and women together create new generations that allow the race they mutually create to survive. The interaction of the two gives birth to things. Yin and yang transform each other: like an undertow in the ocean, every advance is complemented by a retreat, and every rise transforms into a fall. Thus, a seed will sprout from the earth and grow upwards towards the sky – an intrinsically yang movement. Then, when it reaches its full potential height, it will fall."


at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 6 June 2014

My class and gender analysis of the decline and fall of the West, caused by sluts and the white man's fear of offending them

It was through joining all a number of political parties that enabled me to arrive at my class and gender analysis of British society and the British political system. I am not going to write a paper on it but it can be briefly summarised as follows:

You can easily divide and rule by creating further divisions within the existing divisions of any society.

The English are a class-ridden society riddled with class rancour, but the English love their class system and love denigrating the classes above and beneath them,.

The biggest unofficial tribe is the "tribe" that is male and female.

This was how I imagine the theory of Yin and Yang was arrived at. Once you get gender relations exactly right you will have order and progress. If you get it wrong you will have strife, chaos and decline.

The only way of balancing the power of each sex is to impose the institution of marriage and regulate the sex instinct of the people. If you let people fuck whoever whatever wherever whenever you will get a bunch of degenerate illegitimate offspring which will be brought up badly by their stupid dysgenic slut mothers, and the next generation will be worse and the subsequent ones even worse, and then the Muslims will take over after the Jews have sucked them dry, or some similar doomsday scenario favoured by antisemites and Islamophobes. Christianity, being now utterly feminised and the Church colonised by Commie Pinko Homos and Feminists is now only a source of income and status for those who wish to subvert the real teachings of the Abrahamic faiths.  The Abrahamic faiths all promote the same moral values viz social conservatism and the prohibition of extramarital sex.

However, since most British women are sluts and most British mothers are SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts, this means most men are MCSFs http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html and most children are bastards.  These people are unlikely to acquire the moral courage or authority to say or do anything effective against the insane social policies of the liberal political establishment.

No good will come of this because we already know that people get the government they deserve, and sluts and bastards are not a source of good government, nor do they deserve it.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/nation-of-disabled-sluts-and-bastards.html

In the meantime, the legitimately born will easily outdo the illegitimate, perpetuating their superiority and their oppression of the illegitimate, who are economically, socially, culturally, intellectually and genetically inferior.

No nationalist will support marriage even when it is abundantly clear that it is the desecration of this institution which has so fatally compromised the white male.

When you would expect nationalists to care about racial health and hygiene, but they don't and won't and say that the problem is something else, you know the end is nigh.

Nationalists prefers to call this issue a mere obsession of mine, because they know they don't want to do anything about it and are in any case not in a position to do anything about it.  None of them care to examine the nature and purpose of marriage, because most of them are SSM-parented or have themselves impregnated SSMs and are themselves despised, illegitimate and lower class.

And that is why all the other nationalists have the same position on marriage as Nick Griffin's: avoidance and silence.

Being mostly confirmed bachelors or in fact unmarriageable, they already know that they have as much chance of selling marriage as an ugly pock-marked woman has of selling beauty cream. They already know they have lost the game, because they wield no moral authority, for beta-omega males who are scared, stupid and skint are expected to suffer, especially when they are so unfit for purpose that they cannot complete with immigrant labour even in the field of unskilled manual labour. No one cares about these lower class racists whom no sane employer would want to hire.

Nothing will change, nothing will be said, and the white race will carry on sliding down its slippery slope to NIGGERDOM as more and more of their middle class lose their middle class status when their slut daughters present them with bastard grandchildren who are the spawn of a carelessly chosen short-term sex partner who was probably a jobless autistic learning-disabled loser or a drug-addicted criminal they had sex in a toilet with when they went clubbing, whose name they have forgotten if they ever knew it.

The only surprise is that these white men who call themselves nationalists who have already lost everything anyway won't even acknowledge the truth as they lie dying on their death beds ...

Instead, they prefer to whinge about the Jews or how Muslim grooming gangs groom the abandoned daughters of slut mothers, because they are so low they are afraid of offending these SSMs, who would withhold sex as well as votes from them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

What about the alpha males, the non-plebeian nationalists? They tend to be chinless wonders like Gregory Lauder Frost who is the Treasurer and Vice President of the Tradition Britain Group who apparently loathes feminism so much he will not discuss it, or a celibate Catholic like John Kersey, also Vice President, who urges white men to have large families, or yet another Catholic like its third Vice President Christopher Gillibrand who cannot bear to acknowledge the failure of Christianity. http://www.traditionalbritain.org/about  It is of course Catholics who fear and hate Islam most, but there is nothing else left in the world to reimpose social conservatism now, is there? To expect UKIP or the BNP to ever acquire sufficient moral authority when its leaders are so cowardly and venal as well as painfully shy of discussing sexual morality is rather like waiting for the Second Coming of Christ.

I have often wondered why I have been regarded as persona non grata at TBG meetings without a proper explanation, but I now suspect it is because they hate and fear Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html, which they cannot bring themselves to discuss without having fits of the vapours.

So there you have it. If you wonder what your civilisation is dying of, it is of sluts and the men who are so afraid of offending parasitical sluts who are the agents degeneracy that they dare not officially and uncompromisingly support the institution of marriage. To do this, they would have to acknowledge that supporting the institution of marriage would logically mean forbidding extramarital sex, and this they will not contemplate doing in the same way that an addict who has no long term incentive to give up will not contemplate giving up his habit, even as he loses his job, his wife, his children, his home and his self-respect.
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 6 September 2013

Simon Sheppard - a Prophet of our Times?

Simon Sheppard nowhere said in this book that that was his intention nor did he mention the term yin and yang at all, but this is in fact what this revolutionary and seminal work has accomplished. It explains the destructiveness of the gender war that is being waged and which will forever be waged, for women will always want more rights than they currently have and men will always be the weaker sex unless they avail themselves of the protection of a moral God which forbids extramarital sex.

Sheppard does not mention marriage as the answers to society's ills, however.

HOW DESECRATING THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS DYSGENIC AND HAS CAUSED THE FEMINISATION OF MEN

It is marriage - a very delicate mechanism - that is the pivot upon which gender *balance* rests. It is respect for the institution of marriage that reins in the worst vices of each sex, but we no longer respect it.

Because it is now the majority practice to have sex with a sex partner to whom you are not married before you will consider marrying them, men are now forced to lie in order to get sex from a woman to whom they are not married.

To become habituated to lying because men want sex and are expected to have extramarital sex, must corrupt the character of men.

"After the male has made a successful approach, saying anything the female does not like, and which induces any unpleasant feeling, irrespective of how truthful the statement is, immediately sours the male's chances.  His error is often irrevocable.  This is a likely source of male dishonesty, and indeed the male may, from adolescence onwards, adopt female perspectives in order to improve his success.  The most convincing liar is one who has deceived himself."

The process of the feminisation of the Western heterosexual male has now been explained and revealed.

If however women were expected to be virgins before marriage, the transactions would be more honest. A man would decide upon the woman he wishes to have as a wife but without the option of taking her for a test drive, so to speak.  (I have heard of a middle-aged woman who claimed she never married because she did not believe in sex before marriage, and sex before marriage in Britain would be the only way to get yourself into the game of finding a husband if you are not Jewish or Muslim to whom premarital sex is frowned upon.) This prohibition against premarital sex would inevitably make the courting couple dwell on non-sexual matters during courtship, which means that the man is not compelled to lie to the woman to get sex, but will be judged solely on his ability to provide for her and any children they might have together, and whether he would be a good husband and father. This is a better criterion to judge a man because what is being contemplated is their long-term future together instead of merely whether she is physically attracted to him ie whether he will do for a one-night stand. The offspring of the former will inevitably be of better quality than the latter. The important thing is that their children will be legitimate and grow up into responsible adults with the guidance of both parents with the benefit of their respective family connections and their cultural and economic resources.

This practice, if practised generally would tend to improve or at least maintain the quality of the next generation.

This practice, if abandoned by most people would tend to make each subsequent generation more degenerate than the other.

Marriage is eugenic, while bastardy is dysgenic.

THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN UPHOLDING THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

The story of The Fisherman and His Wife perfectly explains the greedy female's lust for power, and it is this fairy tale that hints that history is doing nothing but repeating itself for our benefit because we have chosen to ignore its lessons.

How have we ignored its lessons? By refusing to take religion seriously because we are too busy worshiping what is now our sacred cow of sexual liberation.

I would be the first to admit that most would point out that refraining from premarital sex would put rather a dampener on things.   I would also be the first to admit that most people would not voluntarily restrain themselves from having premarital sex unless there is the prospect of immediate punishment in this life and in the hereafter.

Whom does this moral restraint benefit?  One's society, the next generation yet to be born and our civilisation.  "Who cares?"  I can hear the atheists asking as they shrug their shoulders.

WHY WESTERN MEN FEAR TO CRITICISE IMMORAL WOMEN

Men who defend or refuse to criticise immoral women such as single mothers because they wish to avail themselves of the free to cheap sexual services they offer are in fact acquiescing in their own oppression.




Simon Sheppard does not in fact propose any political solutions, though he hints at them. What he does admirably is to explain and demonstrate how men are in fact exploited by women. The long term survival of any race, nation or civilisation is threatened by women having too much power, he also says.

Feminists will hate it because nothing he says can be disproved. Feminists also hate the objective truth, and never ever consider the long term national interest.

Below are a few choice quotes that will give you a flavour of the book.

"The male inclination is to encourage the strong, while the female tendency is to nurture the weak. Males value the old for their wisdom and experience, while females value the young, for their appeal and future promise."

"Female avoidance of risk means that radical solutions to society's problems will be abhorred, even when such radicalism is necessary. However, feminised societies are intrinsically unstable, with the result that large shifts can take place relatively quickly."

"1. Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller.
2. Females make large differences smaller and small differences larger."

"Sexual freedom replaces political freedom."

"Moral values must not shift rapidly or they would command no respect and thus no mass adherence."

"While the population, especially the male population, is distracted by their ... sexual appetites, and diverted in pursuit of what they have been led to believe is their fair quota of sex, an oligarchy is able to further its agenda unimpeded." [Sex is the opium of the West.]

"A correspondence exists between religion and sex: religion is the ancient sublimation of sex, for both provide the individual with a kind of immortality."

"Giving females a voice and allowing them to express their views on contemporary social problems is like asking the Devil for advice on how to cure sin. The weight of human misery and downright trouble, not to mention evolutionary damage, caused by allowing a small segment of the population, the fortunate, the attractive reproductive female free to rein of their instincts is enormous. So much of the social cruelty which is routinely being inflicted, and the burden of guilt arising from it, would be prevented if more normal relations between the sexes could be achieved."

"1. The super-masculine state dominates.
2. The super-feminine state becomes extinct."

"A weak person given power becomes not strong, but strongly weak. Machiavelli is the great master of power politics and an analogy in his style would be of a weak and indecisive king with an enemy gathering at the border. His generals clamour for a pre-emptive attack, but the king uses his power to overrule his generals and force a delay. Eventually the moment to strike is lost and the prevaricating king is toppled by the invading army.

Such is the situation with a feminine society - over-sensitive, critical of itself, tolerant of its enemies and ultimately doomed to domination by a more masculine strategy."

"Western societies are not evolving, but regressing."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/190124024X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


Photo of 'Sex and Power' front cover   
Sex & Power

A MANUAL ON MALE-FEMALE RELATIONS


SIMON SHEPPARD
Photographs of a few pages of the book. Throughout, yellow boxes denote material from other sources, and blue ones are original material such as anecdotes of notable events and behaviour.






 



 



 



 



 



 



 




http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Power-Manual-Male-Female-Relations/dp/190124024X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377715983&sr=8-1&keywords=simon+sheppard+sex+and+power


http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1901240991
Musigyny is a related product by Simon Sheppard.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 31 December 2012

Claire Khaw to be Development and Communications Manager at the Marriage Foundation?

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...