Western Man and his conspiracy of silence

You suffer from degeneracy if most parents in your society are unmarried. If most parents in your society are unmarried, it means your religion is kaput, because the least any religion ought to be doing is to ensure that most people marry before having babies.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

When most men who complain about the government cannot discuss solutions because they fear each other too much to do so, you know the political system is broken. If your religion is broken then your politicians will be corrupt and cowardly voted into office by even more corrupt and cowardly voters who are in denial about the state of their nation.

Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic. White Nationalists won't discuss restoring the patriarchy with marriage using slut-shaming Secular Koranism. Yet when I ask them what they think religion is for or what solution they propose other than kicking out and killing people, they fall mysteriously silent. What could be the matter with them?

Centuries of Christianity has rotted their minds away.

Christians either really believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God, or only pretend to do so.

If they really believe this absurdity, they are stupid and weak.

If they only pretend to believe it, they are corrupt and weak.

That is why Western Man is morally rotten.

It is a toxic mixture of arrogance and ignorance and their innate chauvinism, of course. Because they think they have nukes and have nuked Japan twice, they think they are superior. But military superiority is not permanent. They don't seem to understand that either, or do not wish to discuss it, because they are cowardly and dishonest. The ones who think they are superior because they used to rule the world are only living on borrowed time, borrowed money and are a dead man walking.
And there are some who use the fact that God has not appeared before them like a genie in a lamp as an excuse to deny the necessity of theocracy.

Faith is very simple really: we just choose to believe.

If you see the wisdom of God's laws, you would feel morally obliged to obey them. If you obey them, you incline towards belief and want the rest of society to obey them and therefore the solution of theocracy is both moral and logical.

If you wish to flout His laws, you would deny God's existence because it makes no sense at all to believe in God while flouting His laws and fearing His punishment.

There are those who affect to be intelligent and sceptical, who studied philosophy as undergraduates, but who cannot answer me when I ask them what they think religion is for. I suppose they intend to go to their graves refusing to answer the question. When your religion no longer works, grown men who have studied philosophy as undergraduates refuse to answer philosophical questions because they refuse to acknowledge that their idolatrous and blasphemous religion and their apparently inerrant political system is at fault. Apparently, it is not their job as thinking political activists to consider such questions.

If black people do have lower IQ than white people, it is because more of them are the product of unmarried parenthood.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black

White men in denial that they are living in a degenerate matriarchy cannot bear to discuss restoring the patriarchy. If they disagree that restoring the patriarchy is not the answer to the oppression of living in a matriarchy, what better idea do they have other than killing and kicking people out which most of them, want deep down, but dare not say it?

The fact that the West is a matriarchy means Christianity is kaput. So the next question arises: should Christianity be replaced if it is kaput?

Presumably they don't want to admit that Christianity is kaput because they don't want to consider whether it should be replaced.

They don't want to discuss whether it should be replaced because they have already heard of my solution, which they cannot bring themselves to discuss because they already know Christianity is kaput.

These men are often political activists with degrees, not ignorant folk who never consider such things. Some of them have even studied philosophy as undergraduates. It would appear that not only is Christianity kaput, Western philosophy is also a heap of hooey because it offers no solutions.
Are they taking the position that white people don't need a religion effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality because their magic white skin is going to save them from degeneracy and the matriarchy? It would appear so.

Do such men who have retreated into infantilism deserve to live in an advanced civilisation? I would say not.

If people deserve their government, what does a nation of men afraid to offend unmarried mothers deserve, especially if they are hypocrites who once pretend that they cared about their own racial hygiene?

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers indifferent to the parenting of their casually conceived illegitimate offspring. Britain is undeniably matriarchy. In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother. Andrew Sabisky is now gone because he offended unmarried mothers and their representatives.

What self-respecting man lives in a matriarchy without protest? 

But if he protests he would be immediately crushed and ostracised by his slut-fucking associates. So even if a man agreed with me, he would be too cowardly to be seen to agree with me. 

Only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest and the men I speak to cannot bear for the obvious to be pointed out. This means they cannot accept the truth, much less logic or morality.   

One of the reasons why fewer and fewer men are married now is because marriage is no longer a good bargain for men. Men, being primarily motivated by sex, will do anything for sex, including marry and pay for the children of their wife. Since they no longer need to marry in order to have sex with women, they ask themselves "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" The only way to make marriage a good bargain for men again is to abolish no fault divorce and shame sluts with quran.com/24/2 but lily-livered men who have no investment in the next generation or concern for posterity prefer to keep quiet to avoid upsetting their political associates who will invariably be other slut-fucking men who will have sired bastards.

Not only is Christianity kaput and Britain no longer a God-fearing country, it is now a matriarchy and its men overwhelmingly slut-fearing. 

Have you noticed how not even men who complain about feminism even want to restore the patriarchy by reintroducing slut-shaming?  It is because even discussing the subject honestly and rationally is more trouble than its worth to these men. They will not engage with me on the subject other than to say that their collective tactic of refusing to engage with me on the subject means it will never be discussed, let alone addressed.   

These men refuse to risk anything to address the most urgent issue of the day, presumably because they think they stand a reasonable chance of going to their graves without having to admit the error and disaster of feminism. Do such men deserve to live in advanced civilisation? 

The reason why they are so indifferent to the interests of the next generation is because most of them are not married fathers. There are even those of them who are married fathers who won't discuss that either, presumably because they do not feel they owe their legitimate children even the trouble of discussing the importance of the institution of marriage in oiling the wheels of your civilisation to keep your civilisation going.

This has happened before, for it was Livy the Roman historian who said "We can neither bear our vices nor their cure."

The Romans had the excuse of not having Islam to adopt because Islam came after Rome. We do not. We even have Secular Koranism, which is "Islam Lite".
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

I discuss Mein Kampf and suggest that the degeneracy of the white race can be cured by restoring the patriarchy

1:01:00

Luke Ford's question:

Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?


CK:

A lot of Mein Kampf is about German matters of Germany in the 1930s. Its preoccupations would be quite different to the alt-right of the West now because alt-right is preoccupied with immigration and Nazi Germany didn't have an immigration problem, did it?

LF:

So let me just run it by you again. I'll just go point by point. Hitler had a biocentric worldview perspective on life: first of all a referenced nature so that is identical with the alt-right's perspective. The alt-right and its leaders are overwhelmingly atheists.

CK:

Hitler pretended to be Catholic. In his table talks he he actually favoured Islam because he thought Christianity was a stupid religion, although he was confirmed as a Catholic, so there were lots of things that he wanted to do but he knew he couldn't. He wanted to abolish usury. He did know something about Islam and thought it was a more masculine ...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/187128/nazi-romance-with-islam

LF [pretending I had gone off topic when what I said was exactly on point because he did not like me suggesting that Islam is the answer because Christianity is kaput]:

OK, Claire, I need you to stay on topic. So Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in nature. He contended that before anything else we must attend to nature the world of living things in their environments and is not separate from or above nature but rather a part of nature we need to come to grips with how our nature actually operates, we must align our lives with nature, we must obey nature's laws. That is the alt-right's perspective.

CK:

Is it? I wasn't aware of that. I didn't even know Hitler said all of that. It sounds very vague.

LF:

You know, it sounds pretty clear to me. I mean I don't know what to say if you don't see that that's the that's the building block for Social Darwinism ....

CK:

Is it arguing for Social Darwinism or something like that is that? Is that what you're saying?

LF:

I don't know how you can get more clear than this: Hitler had a biocentric worldview that we must  ...

CK:

What does that mean? Does it mean German-centric?

LF:

Does biocentric mean German-centric? Really that's what you're asking me? Biocentric is very clear, Claire, it means a worldview based in nature that humans must align themselves with nature, obey nature's laws that we're not separate ...

CK:

What does that mean? Does it mean empire?

LF:

Because we are in nature, frequently our choice is either kill or be killed ...

CK:

OK,  so he started acquiring empire and it ended badly so maybe that's not always the best thing.

LF:

I'm not talking about whether this is the best thing to do, I'm asking if you can come up with any significant differences between ... 

CK [answering the question immediately and succinctly]:

The alt-right are not about war but about pogrom.

LF [pretending I had not answered the question because he didn't like my answer]:

OK, you've got to stay on topic Claire. When I ask a question you've got to respond to the topic. We can't just go spinning off. Glib, do you want to jump in ...

[Glib and LF talk and I was invited again to comment on what they had just said, which wasn't about anything much in particular as far as I could tell.]

1:10:00

CK:

...  biocentricism meant social Darwinism: eugenics  ... was that what you meant?

LF:

I give up I can't be any more clear than than I was ...

CK:

Can somebody explain to me then? I don't think people understand either. By nature do you mean nature raw in tooth and claw?

LF:

Yes, that's that that's the beginning of the Mein Kampf worldview. It's the beginning of the Dissident Right worldview. The Dissident Right is not a theistic movement. The main intellectuals of the alternative right - Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor,  Kevin Macdonald - they're all atheists. They all have a a social Darwinian perspective on life which I'm trying to see how there's any difference from that and the worldview of Mein Kampf.

CK:

Well, Mein Kampf is really more about culture and sociology even because Hitler does write knowledgeably and some compassion about how the poor used to live and and architecture and and lots of other things but you know if you read Greg Johnson's White Nationalist Manifesto, there is actually very little about culture. It's basically "I'd like to kick them out and I want to kick all of them out by 2060" and that's it. Mein Kampf is a more rewarding read. I would suggest for White Nationalists and compare what the white man was in the 1930s and what he he is now. In fact, recently I was watching these videos of these schizophrenics in lunatic asylums in America and it  struck me how articulate even these mentally ill people stuck in asylums were compared to the tongue-tied people you have now. 

It really was astonishing. Obviously, something bad has happened to to the white race and and and this catastrophic drop in in IQ and obviously it's all to do with religion in the sense that the least that a religion can make you do is make you marry before you have children and parent or children properly - that is the very least. Forget all the frilly bits like not eating pork and shellfish and that kind of thing. That's the very least your religion should do for you and and if you won't enforce that then your population will age and become stupid and weak and people will come in and take your stuff, and that's what's what's happening now.

[Luke Ford mutes me and turns to Glib again to talk about nothing much in particular.]

Stupider and sluttier
https://www.theweek.co.uk/94224/why-iq-levels-are-falling

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

Rabbi Sacks:

For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilisation and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care.

The result is that in Britain in 2012, 47.5 per cent of children were born outside marriage, expected to become a majority in 2016. Fewer people are marrying, those who are, are marrying later, and 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Nor is cohabitation a substitute for marriage. The average length of cohabitation in Britain and the United States is less than two years. The result is a sharp increase among young people of eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, stress related syndromes, depression and actual and attempted suicides. The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.

This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of “two nations” a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer. And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history.

http://rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/

2:10:00

CK:

In every nation and every government there will be in every nation every government will have a rent a mob and Antifa is our one now. 

Antifa are probably part of the Deep State. 

2:29:00

Claire, is the left simply more committed than the right?

CK:

Yes, simply because it's easier for them because they're already in charge at the top of the tree. Trump is trying very hard to dislodge them but he hasn't the manpower, I guess. There is no other big idea. I keep going on about religion simply because it has this kind of moral authority -  an instant appeal to people. If the alt-right is just about race and immigration it's not a big enough [idea]. If you wait for everybody to be affected to support you then then it'll probably be too late, so you need some Universalist idea that's capable of appealing to people but I guess the alt-right are the last people prepared to support marriage and family values.

****************************

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.

Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.

Intellectual corruption leads to your leaders not being able to submit to the truth, exercise logic or conform to the moral rules necessary for you to keep your society in existence and in good health.  

This is the only explanation I can think of for Luke's strangely obstructive behaviour when I tried to answer his questions, which the others also noticed.

IN THE COMMENTS

kissmyass682
Why'd Luke get so aggro with Claire? He went from 0 to a 100, is there some history there?

Claire Khaw
Not that I know of, except that, possibly, he didn't like the way my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"

Matvei Daniilovich
Wow, luke actually got a little triggered with Claire.

Claire Khaw
Since I never got to answer the question properly before he muted me, I can only think that it was because he did not like the direction my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"

Alejandro Black
Loved Luke’s Modafinil rage with Khaw

Claire Khaw
I don't think that was anything to do with drugs. 

Lou Duva
Very odd.

Claire Khaw
@Lou Duva I thought it was a bit odd too, but I think it was because he did not like the direction my answer to his question was going"Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"  From what I can make out, Luke was implying that both Mein Kampf and the alt-right want a pogrom.  He knew I would say that the answer lies somewhere in between the status quo of liberal democracy and the pogrom the alt-right are proposing ie the civic nationalism of Secular Koranism and he didn't want me mentioning that again on his show.

Hate and fear is now the religion of the white man, not considerations of the national interest

The fact is that Christianity and Islam were derived from Judaism. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that both represented attempts by the gentile to adapt Judaism for his own advancement.

Since Christianity has failed, Islam must be its replacement.

The most successful form of ethno-nationalism is Judaism. If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.

I don't see white nationalists even acknowledging the problem of white degeneracy, let alone addressing it.

White nationalists must surely understand that their skin colour alone cannot be a religion and learn a little more about their own history when they regularly waged war on each other even when they were the same race and religion. After the Pilgrim Fathers left the Old World for the New World to escape religious persecution, Christians merely continued Christian-on-Christian religious persecution on each other in the New World. Then, the Americans had a Civil War and participated in two World Wars. The war was waged by one alliance of white Christian countries against another alliance of white Christian countries.

The fact is that the white man is not only treacherous to others not of his race and religion, he is also treacherous to those of his own race and religion.

What does this tell us? Only that being unfair and unkind to someone on the basis of race and religion is only another category of injustice out of the many that we can inflict and could suffer ourselves.

The white man is suffering that is close to dementia that began as a neurosis caused by feminism. If there were more of them capable of a sustained rational discussion, things would be better for them, but they are now both timorous and aggressive, in a spiral of self-destructive emotions making them actually incapable of thinking their way out of trouble or understanding or acting on well-meant advice because they have become the women they are always complaining about. Denial is after all a feminine vice and they are now too ashamed to admit they have now become mere women with penis extensions.

What these white nationalists have concluded is that they would like to be free of the disease of feminism which causes immigration because the symptoms have become very uncomfortable indeed. However, they have not yet admitted that they are ill, or that they are suffering from a disease that must be cured for which they will have to seek professional advice and follow doctor's orders before things will get better for them.

Verily, God does not change the lot of a people who do not change what is in their hearts, and their hearts are full of hate and fear. Because they no longer believe in the religion of their ancestors, they have nothing else in common with each other but the hate and fear that they feel for their own political classes, immigrants of all races and religions, their women, for each other, but most of all, for themselves.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=13&verse=11

Atheism, fornication, degeneracy and why our politicians only fill their boots

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fill-your-boots

Your nation is degenerate when your government will not even discuss making the law supporting marriage and family values because it knows that the majority of parents are not married parents in a society where fornication is normalised whose human stock has been destroyed, as the late Keith Joseph warned in 1974.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron

In a degenerate society that is a matriarchy, short term thinking is the ignoble rule and abstractions such as the long term national interest and morality are not the concerns of its leaders who can think no further than the next general election, always less than five years away.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and every feminist condones fornication. Feminism keeps men quiescent by bribing them with fornication. If fornication were a drug, the slut is the drug dealer.

Knowing this, addicted Western Man will nevertheless not want to give up fornication or the idea of it being his human right because he knows he and his civilisation are dying and, being atheist, wants to enjoy all its available sexual pleasures in this life before it is over.

The addict will not be calling the cops on his dealer.

After what happened to Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph, no senior male politician will be thinking of risking his career for a society whose human stock was not only threatened, but appears to have been destroyed. It is indeed true that people get the government they deserve.

Are there even ten good men in Britain any more, let alone ten righteous men in our political class?

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832

Why does Hungary have Orban but the British only have May, a childless clueless woman who wouldn't know what the British national interest is even if it walked up to her and snatched her handbag?

Catholicism, though failing, has managed to preserve some of the patriarchy that remains in Hungary. 

Only a patriarchy would produce enough good strong men capable of defending the national interest.

A patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of immoral unmarried mothers who are bad mothers and bring into being illegitimate offspring who tend to be criminal and even if not actually criminal, underachieve and then become a burden on society. Their offspring tend not to be desirable employees thus creating a demand for cheaper more willing foreign labour.

Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.

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

Degenerates cannot grasp principles, much less follow them

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

To prevent degeneracy, protect the patriarchy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Jews and Muslims have a duty to warn Christians about their idolatry?

Jews are religiously obliged to promote the Noahide laws which forbids idolatry. The Koran tells Muslims to admonish those who say that God has begotten a son. 18:4

See also 31:3, 12:106, 4:48, 4:116, 39:65, 72:18, 2:51, 21:51-3, 4:117, 6:100, 7:190, 10:18, 18:42, 16:20-1, 3:79, 25:43, 45:23, 6:19, 9:31, 30-31-2, 9:107, 6:82, 39:17, 14:35, 6:162-4

http://www.submission.info/perspectives/monotheism/idolworship.html

Christians are made aware that they are supposed to forbid idolatry. For some reason, they cannot quite see that praying to the idols of Mary and Jesus, or imagining that they are talking to Mary and Jesus when they should be praying to an ineffable God is obviously idolatry.

http://eternal-destinations.blogspot.com/2014/02/messages-from-lord-for-catholics.html

Let us suppose that Jews and Muslims have at some point in the past tried to point out to Christians that they were practising idolatry and gave up for some reason when Christians resorted to violence and intimidation.

The fact that Christians have for 2000 years practised something that they must know to be idolatrous neatly explains why Christianity and hypocrisy so often walk hand in hand. That the West is now Post-Christian and its clergy mired in scandals of sexual misconduct is conclusive evidence that Christianity has failed and is unlikely to regain its moral authority within our lifetimes, if ever.

If you believe that an executed revolutionary can be the co-equal of the Abrahamic God you must be either as credulous as a child or have suspended your disbelief beyond the exercise of reason. If you only pretend that you believe this in order to avoid ostracisation, violence and persecution or perhaps to keep your job as priest, bishop, archbishop or Pope, you must be morally corrupt.

Is it not obvious to everyone except feminists and liberals that all societies that wish to remain in good health require the majority of its people to be parents and for the overwhelming majority of these parents to be married parents?

The Royal Family now an instrument of black and feminist triumphalism

It has certainly lost its mystique.

Harry is just a bastard behaving as you would expect a bastard to behave. That's why he chose her.

If only I had been Charles. I would prefer to go out with a bang and demanded a DNA test.
Then have declared Harry a bastard, and William's mother guilty of treason post-mortem.

In a way she is the perfect wife for the bastard and the perfect ending for the British monarchy. They were being warehoused for extinction anyway. Now, white people can't even be proud of them or feel that at least their Royal Family are special.

When white racial pride is being battered and rocked by mass uncontrolled immigration and PC femicrap, it is at this time that the British Royal Family decides to make itself an object of black and feminist triumphalism.

There was no need to abolish the monarchy. Sooner or later it would make an unforced error. Sooner or later, one of its members would decide to give it up the ghost and the others would be too weak, old, clueless  or apathetic to care.

'If Meghan can normalise feminism, and send a message that this is what we expect of people in positions of power, that will be very helpful,' says author @afuahirsch #VictoriaLIVE pic.twitter.com/FrInxAVxXe

— Victoria Derbyshire (@VictoriaLIVE) May 21, 2018

Why men must resist having a female leader

If men allow a woman to lead them, their enemies will know that there are no suitable men to take up that position. It signals that these men are obviously feminised and therefore ripe for conquest.

Have a smaller state, have a theocracy that will eradicate feminism

Critical mass for any idea can in theory only be reached when it is taken up by at least a second person capable of persuading others - unlikely in a nation of senescent degenerate atheist men cowed by feminism, crippled by lust, anger, pride, envy, sloth, gluttony and greed.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Feminised senescent men will not be taking leaps of faith. They don't believe in God, let alone have faith things will turn out well if they stand up for any principle or take any risk. Yet these men think themselves better than Jews and Muslims they are always complaining about.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Because they have no principles and don't think they need them, they will not be capable of feeling shame or acting honourably or even discussing ideas rationally and honestly without telling lies and  breaking promises. Such men will be moved only by bribes and threats.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

But why a theocracy if you are an atheist or agnostic? The more thoughtful atheist who cares about posterity and has an investment in the next generation would not want to bequeath a hostile environment for marriage and a high crime rate to his descendants,, would he?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

If the laws of a theocracy that creates male solidarity enabling human co-operation to deal with a society's internal and external enemies that preserves the identity of a nation, cultivating national pride. Degenerates and feminists wouldn't care about this.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Why shouldn't we aspire to live in a nation that is proud of its identity? What exactly is so wrong and evil about this? It is only like every child aspiring to live an independent life, to do what being an adult requires. Why can't we have this without being called fascists?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

The US Deep State does not want a world of independent nations having their own foreign policy and so requires us all to be liberal democracies so that it can easily bribe or blackmail key politicians into submitting to it, rig our elections and destabilise our governments.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Interestingly, Russia is technically a liberal democracy, but that is not enough for the American imperialists because, despite being crippled by having to govern under such a system, Putin acts in the Russian national interest and refuses to submit to the neocons.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

How much less anxious would you feel if you genuinely felt your government was looking after your national interest, instead of harbouring a distinct suspicion that your robotic childless female puppet leader would not hesitate a moment to sell you for meat if it suited her?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

The benefit of having a supreme authority - even if the Abrahamic God does not in fact exist - to appeal to is real indeed. Even if He does not exist, what are said to be laws can easily be found in scripture. And therefore the solution to all the ills of feminism is at hand.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

To whom would my solution appeal to? Why, all the previously successful men - from Rolf Harris to Taria Ramadan - who are now being accused of historic sexual offences already knowing that an accusation is now as good as a conviction in the Kangaroo Courts of our Matriarchy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

And so there is a bargain indeed to be struck between Islam and the growing numbers of terrified men with something to lose if an immoral woman falsely and maliciously accuses them of a historic sexual offence. Ya better all start thinking about the deal before you end up in jail

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Not only will you end up in jail because some immoral woman falsely and maliciously accused you of a historic sexual offence, your property will be confiscated preventing its transmission to your offspring. The revolution eventually devours its children, you know.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

So no, I am not appealing just to the lower classes who are despised and marginalised, illegitimate and under-educated with substance abuse problems, because they have lost their ability to become of part of the labour force. These people have been warehoused for extinction.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

One small step to take is to submit to truth, logic and morality, if you know the purpose of morality, and it ain't about getting you to heaven. For me, immortality is a mention in the history books, an occasional nod from posterity, an acknowledgement of achievement, if any.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

The benefits of a having a supreme authority would be obvious to any lawyer who has heard of the Supreme Court - the final court of appeal in your legal system. If you were to say God is your final authority, you would have to obey His laws and we know He won't be adding to them.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

If you're a libertarian, you'd want your society to have the minimum number of laws and the lowest possible taxes. Feminism in its dementia keeps changing and adding to its laws to disguise its failure and to intimidate opponents. If you want a smaller state, choose theocracy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

A theocracy must logically appeal to those who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring with their spouse. Therefore those who refuse to give up extramarital sex would predictably object to the restoration of the patriarchy which would treat them as sex offenders.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Does any species enjoy sexual liberation? Do their females let them? If they did they too would be extinct, if these females let any passing male impregnate just for the fun of recreational sex without choosing carefully the father of their offspring. Marriage is eugenic.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

It is morally obscene, intellectually repugnant to call yourself truthful, rational and moral if you seek dismiss the issues I have raised without discussing them properly. We live in an age of moral obscenity, of intellectual abeyance. There are no rational courageous moral men.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

An entire civilisation that does not have a single rational courageous moral man capable of discussing the issues I have raised deserves to become extinct, does it not?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

The brain drain of the white race

Pity Western Man, now so terrified of being falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence and so trigger-happy that he will shoot anyone in front of him, even one who is attempting to defend him.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

Those who are not afraid to challenge the matriarchy are intellectual mediocrities, low status under-educated men who condemn themselves the moment they open their mouths with their rabid racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia, bad grammar, regional accent and beta male persona.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

Unmarriageable atheist bachelors AKA MGTOW are the other half of the problem of matriarchy. Unmarriageable men means increased bastardy which means more tolerance of bastardy and fornicating sluts meaning more and more of the same until an Islamic takeover, I suppose.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

In a matriarchy, all men are beta males subject to the whims of the fornicating slut and unmarried mother. The instantly alpha male would be a man of requisite status and charisma prepared to challenge and defeat it. No one man with anything to lose at all will come forward.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

The fact that no man with anything to lose will emerge to challenge the matriarchy is because such a man would already know he cannot rely on the loyalty of the beta males below, who are not only low status, but men of infamous for their disloyalty and inability to follow orders.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

Proletarian white males complaining about immigration are mostly fatherless low-skilled socially retarded with some behavioural problem usually caused by drug/drink-dependency. No one in nationalism would even dare deny this. No marriage, no family values, no religion, no morals.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

No morals, no male solidarity, no co-operation possible to deal with the eternal enemies of society and civilisation: sluts and socialists who have a symbiotic relationship. This means there is only a degenerate culture no sane and moral immigrant would want to integrate into.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

And so this, in a nutshell, is why the white man's status in his own land has become progressively lower (pun intended) over the decades. The immigrant male knows white men are too afraid to challenge their own women and too divided to protest effectively.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

Because their own women reject them, they turn gay to get cheap sex from each other. Soon they will grow old and die without issue and descendants and wonder what happened to their lives and their country, blaming Jews, Muslims and foreigners as they breathe their last.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

You don't know what you've got till it's gone. Can you imagine such men restoring the patriarchy or restoring the patriarchy with such low status degenerate unmarriageable leaderless men whom no one wants to lead? They are indeed being warehoused for extinction.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

In the meantime, what are white women to do? The marriageable of them will try to marry marriageable men, and they will not be men of their own race whom they already despise: feminised and impoverished.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

What about marriageable white men already aware of the moral devastation wreaked by feminism? They'll reject white women. I recently heard of Asian Aryanism, a term used for white nationalists who reject white women and take up with Oriental women because of their sensible views.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

To secure their own reproductive rights within their own lifetimes, white men and women feel they have to mate with other races in order to have legitimate progeny and bring them up with a spouse who believes in family values. This is the deadly reality of racial degeneracy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

Are you surprised that "mainstream" alt-right YouTubers such as @MillennialWoes and @MarkACollett won't discuss any of this with me? I have the solution but it is what their subscribers cannot bear to hear, so they promulgate race war or urge some form of displacement activity.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

I hope to demonstrate that the principles of nationalism are the same for every race and nation: patriarchy supported by marriage using a moral system whose laws support marriage. This can only mean Islam if you are a gentile in the West, because Christianity is kaput.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 24, 2018

I have been saying for years that sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society and the only protection against this is the practice of slut-shaming that is required by any religion that promotes patriarchal moral values. These would be the five world religions, but as you know, all religions can be subverted once they ignore their own rules and people either don't notice or don't care.

The sexually-liberated atheist is more prone to doing this than a Jew or a Muslim because Jews and Muslims are more likely to know about the prohibition against premarital sex than the atheist, even if they do not agree with it.

The trouble with nationalists is that they are atheist antisemites and Islamophobes who would rather die than even be seen to be investigating the religion of those they hate and fear with any show of objective impartiality.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage. Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage. Without the patriarchy, not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest. If Western men were mostly Christian husbands and fathers of legitimate offspring, they wouldn't and needn't put up with the matriarchy for even a minute.

Without the family and a functioning religion, men are atomised and competing against each other for the sexual favours of immoral women, incapable of co-operating with each other to deal with their internal enemies: sluts and socialists.

Without patriarchy there is no hierarchy and therefore no accountability.

A matriarchy is basically buck-passing politicians who will blame other buck-passing politicians where the apparent leader is really not in control of anything and cannot rely on the loyalty of beta males to support him. This makes him cowardly, hesitant and cautious and also means nothing much will be done in Trump's term of office.

Without patriarchy, no one in a senior political position will stick his neck out to defend the beta males below. Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph tried to point out the obvious, but had their careers destroyed.

Because courage and truth is not rewarded, no more politicians will speak it on your behalves.

Not only is pointing out the obvious unrewarded, it will get you ignored even by the people who are supposed to be on your side who cannot bear to accept the truth either.

The problem with atheism is that the atheist can only think in terms of his own life and does not care what happens after he is dead, especially if he has no biological investment in the next generation.

Most white nationalists are atheist unmarriageable bachelors which means they are easily intimidated and bribed.

Without religion, there is no possibility of enjoying the inter-generational co-operation that Jews and Muslims enjoy which means each generation of nationalists has to more or less reinvent the wheel.

Often, I feel that nationalists of the previous generation would actually hate to see the younger generation succeed where they have failed.

As far as the younger generation are concerned, they are now so atomised that they cannot form a political party or even discuss anything other than what they imagine their YouTube subscribers want to hear.

And this is why none of them will talk to me. It is abuse of power really, but they don't see anything wrong with that either.

If you really are a political activist, you owe it to your cause to seek the truth and operate on logic, guided by your principles. This is the very least that is required.

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.

Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.

Intellectual corruption leads to the inability to form logical conclusions based on indisputable facts and solve political problems guided by moral principles. Only those from a religious background practising family values would have internalised the categorical imperative to have principles and follow them. The illegitimate, singly parented and the badly schooled will find this almost impossible to do, however patient you are with him. Believe me, I have tried.

The degenerate who has difficulty understanding the nature and purpose of principles will have greater difficulty applying them if they their morality is non-existent. Most of them will have difficulty even recognising a situation when the exercise of principle is required, because they are accustomed to responding instinctively and thoughtlessly to the promptings of their baser appetites. If sex is offered, they will take it, even if they have already said they are not looking for a relationship and would even agree with you that immoral women who are also bad parents of illegitimate offspring cause the social problems of immigration they are always complaining about.

Such degenerates are only left with denial, apathy and the stated intention to leave the country if it all gets too much to bear.  

Recreational sex is a drug and Western governments want us all hooked on it and then die childless without descendants to please the environmental and gay lobby

OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO DIE WITHOUT CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN OR DESCENDANTS BECAUSE IT IS SICK OF GOVERNING US HOPING WE WILL TAKE THE HINT AND COMMIIT SUICIDE - WE WILL SOON HAVE THE RIGHT TO EUTHANASE OURSELVES.

What else are we supposed to think?

Only if you are a Jew or Muslim who takes your religious principles seriously would you still marry, still parent legitimate children and hope your children will in turn parent properly your legitimate grandchildren.

TIME TO TAKE FEMINISM AND DEMOCRACY OUT WITH THE TRASH because more of this shit will just lead to civilizational extinction.

THE NEOLIBERAL AGENDA AKA TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM

The plan is to outsource all the work to the Third World and invite immigrants to do the work that you are not trained and don't want to do. When the workers of all sexual orientations and races start dying out gay and childless after embracing degenerate liberalism and feminism, they will be replaced by robots.

By then our ruling classes won't have to worry about peasant rebellions because the plebs will have died out. The only people left will be the affluent men and women so disgusted with each other that they would rather have sex with robots than each other.

Eventually, the robots will conk out from bad maintenance and no one will know how to fix them, and then even the privileged entitled men and women who despise and distrust each other will die out too, and then the environmentalists who want to make us gay and fewer will be happy, because they think the more people there are, the worse it will be for the environment, and the fewer there are of us, the better it will be for the environment. That's the SHIT of liberalism, feminism and environmentalism for you, folks!

Are you really fool enough to think our gay and childless leaders have it in them to restore patriarchy, even if they wanted to?

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/budapest-something-is-coming-benedict-option/

One of the more vivid images that Americans have of drug abuse is of a rat in a cage, tapping a cocaine-infused water bottle again and again until the rodent expires. Years later, as recounted in Johann Hari’s epic history of the drug war, Chasing the Scream, a curious scientist replicated the experiment. But this time he added a control group. In one cage sat a rat and a water dispenser serving diluted morphine. In another cage, with another rat and an identical dispenser, he added something else: wheels to run in, colored balls to play with, lots of food to eat, and other rats for the junkie rodent to play or have sex with. Call it rat park. And the rats in rat park consumed just one-fifth of the morphine water of the rat in the cage. One reason for pathological addiction, it turns out, is the environment. If you were trapped in solitary confinement, with only morphine to pass the time, you’d die of your addiction pretty swiftly too. Take away the stimulus of community and all the oxytocin it naturally generates, and an artificial variety of the substance becomes much more compelling.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jul/05/yuval-harari-sapiens-interview-age-of-cyborgs

“we will see real changes in humans themselves – in their biology, in their physical and cognitive abilities”. 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/silicon-assassins-condemn-humans-life-useless-artificial-intelligence

“What made us sapiens will make us gods”.

Because even as the book has humans gaining godlike powers, that is only one eventuality Harari explores. It might all go pear-shaped, of course: we sapiens have a knack for hashing things up. Instead of morphing into omnipotent, all-knowing masters of the universe, the human mob might end up jobless and aimless, whiling away our days off our nuts on drugs, with VR headsets strapped to our faces. Welcome to the next revolution.

Harari calls it “the rise of the useless class” and ranks it as one of the most dire threats of the 21st century. In a nutshell, as artificial intelligence gets smarter, more humans are pushed out of the job market. No one knows what to study at college, because no one knows what skills learned at 20 will be relevant at 40. Before you know it, billions of people are useless, not through chance but by definition.

“Children alive today will face the consequences. Most of what people learn in school or in college will probably be irrelevant by the time they are 40 or 50. If they want to continue to have a job, and to understand the world, and be relevant to what is happening, people will have to reinvent themselves again and again, and faster and faster.”

Why Jews in the West fulfilling their religious duty to promote the Noahide laws should encourage Western governments to adopt Islam

Rabbi Kin asks if Jews are negligent in not doing what they were supposed to which is to "Recount His glory among the nations." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+96:3&version=NIV  Otherwise, humans will become worse than animals. He concludes by saying our civilisation will be destroyed if we keep changing the laws and drive ourselves and everyone else mad. God's laws don't change because He doesn't make mistakes, unlike liberals and feminists.

Rabbi Mizrachi predicts another Holocaust with an 80% attrition rate because of the disgusting behaviour of Jews who claim to be religious and says he won't even ask God why He would allow such a thing because it is obvious. https://t.co/zLdF67v0W5

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 16, 2018

There appears to be a school of thought in Judaism saying that if only Jews would perform their religious duty and remind the gentile not to fall below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws, all will be well again. This means Jews must point out to the gentiles of the West in no uncertain terms that Christianity has failed and propose that their failed religion be replaced with Secular Koranism ie Islam as I, an agnostic, interpret it, and become a one party theocracy. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html 
Fortunately, America can do it without even having to change its constitution though I would advise the omission of pursuing happiness altogether.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-us-could-become-one-party-state.html

Government is now beginning to target the rich to fill its coffers. Remember how the Roman Republic imposed proscription? The wealthy and influential should start protecting their wealth from greedy governments.  @holland_tom @wmarybeard https://t.co/mQpG701Szl

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

So I was not the only one to find that strange statement by Nia Griffith more than a little odd. The lights are on but nobody's in. But then that bolsters my case for having an alpha male in charge of the ship of the state chosen by beta males. https://t.co/B2CcALEYiX

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

It is obvious to me anyway that what is or isn't in the national interest is a topic particularly suitable for philosophical debate. Too bad Western academic philosophers are not fit for purpose, eh? @RockingMrE @Philosophi_Cat @OUPPhilosophy @PhilosophyNow @Roger_Scruton https://t.co/aAKI0Wfw3U

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Future historians will have to read between the lines of our lying media to deduce the majority view. Do you ever wonder if the voting for war and yet more war by the ancient Athenians was rigged? @holland_tom @wmarybeard https://t.co/xXC67tgikQ

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

I think I speak for people everywhere when I say that the least people expect from their governments is that they are promoting the national interest. This would mean a one party state, but why is this so bad if the rights of party members are constitutinally protected?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Currently, the general belief in those living in liberal democracies is that their politicians are not acting in the national interest and are merely selling out the national interest in obedience to whoever issues their orders which is mostly the arms lobby if they are in NATO. https://t.co/sNpjDWnMpU

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If you are British, you should bear remember it was Britain that declared war on Germany in both World Wars. Military belligerance even if backed by the Americans is unwise in the extreme. We should be friendlier to the Russians with whom we share a contiguous landmass. https://t.co/DVf4BTggqU

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If we envy the Russians for having an alpha male leader who seems to know what he is doing and is trusted by the Russians, it is only because we are sick and tired of our own who do not know what they are doing and who are loathed and despised by the people they presume to govern https://t.co/idgecYDXr4

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

As humans whatever our race, religion, class or nationality, the least we can aspire to is to die wiser than when we were born. To do this we must consider the nature of truth, logic and morality and always ask ourselves if our thoughts and deeds are in harmony with this trinity.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

We never know if pursuing our self interest will result in our interests. Similarly nations not really know if a course of action would promote their interests. However, if we regarded our nation as a self-interested entity, then the same moral principles should apply too. https://t.co/msuWhUVkEb

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What religion would you choose if you were shopping for one as an agnostic if you already see the utility of religion? I say there is only one choice the Western gentile non-Muslim can choose after he acknowledges that Christianity has failed, and I am arguing as an agnostic. https://t.co/2X2eYhowDU

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

The Koran allows only defensive wars. If Britain had been properly Muslim and following Islamic principles, two World Wars would been avoided and Britain would have retained its world empire. Quite a thought, is it not? https://t.co/8ulXJ7mEbD

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

As a Muslim country after WW2, the Koranic permission for men to have up to *four* wives would have easily allowed Britain to replenish the war casualties of two World Wars *without recourse to immigration*. Quite a thought, is it not? https://t.co/QNdP1hAJcP

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Imagine if Western governments abolished usury. Property prices would fall dramatically and debts would be forgiven. Western nations would rebase their currency. There would be inconvenience and confusion, but this would eventually be resolved. The world would make a fresh start. https://t.co/inKp7tDDbk

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

https://t.co/j1EfQ9UCYC The 4 Steps of Atonement is a very useful Jewish idea that I urge all to consider, but especially Western governments and historians. 
Step 1, Regret.
Step 2, Ceasing. 
Step 3, Confession and restitution.
Step 4, Resolution https://t.co/feYMHs52Ku

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What should Britain regret? It should regret starting two World Wars the way a bad Monopoly player would buy up properties to prevent other players ie Germany from acquiring them and then end up in debt and unable to benefit from opportunities that came his way. https://t.co/tP1vISCVT3

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What should Britain cease? It should cease pursuing its policies of proxy imperialism dictated to it by America, because it has ceased to be an empire and is now a vassal state. It is in the awkward position of being both the vassal state of the US and the EU. https://t.co/9bx5FN8zgk

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What should Britain confess? It should confess that it was its insane participation in two ruinous World Wars that resulted in loss of empire. After all, the greatest achievement of Britain was its world empire on which the sun never set. https://t.co/yiMOtWPkdg

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What should Britain resolve? To not repeat the mistakes of its history and resolve to do better in future, under a different system of government and a different religion because Christianity has failed. Surely all this must be obvious to most reasonable people? https://t.co/BVH6nooOaO

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

All this I have concluded without once having recourse to belief in God. It is really not that hard to acknowledge that God is an instrument of government and His laws are there to preserve our nation and civilisation the way Judaism has preserved Jewish identity over the ages. https://t.co/WiaiZGobWJ

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

The success of the Jews in propering and remaining in existence is evidence of the effectiveness of Judaism from which Christianity and Islam are derived. Christianity has failed, so Islam must be the answer to the problems of the West created by liberalism. https://t.co/fQHs30CTP0

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If you are an anti-Semite, Islam will protect you from Jews. If you are Jewish, you must acknowledge that the legal principles of the Koran satisfies the 7 Noahide laws, while nothing in the New Testament with its vague extremist stories is anything to base any legal system on. https://t.co/fv9jGLKc7Q

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Could someone please draw this to the attention of Melanie Phillips who has blocked me on Twitter because she does not like what I say? She seems hell-bent on attempting to revive the corpse that is Christianity, which would be a waste of time. Even if Britain had an absolute dictator, it would not be enough if he just forced everyone to attend church on Sundays and declare that they believe that Christ is God, would it, Melanie? To restore patriarchy, sluts must be shamed and to do this as soon and as effectively as possible requires the enforcement of quran.com/24/2, quran.com/4/15 quran.com/4/16 and the abolition of no fault divorce, the civil partnership and gay marriage as well as the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 and the Equal Pay Act.

By the way, Melanie, only Islam guarantees freedom of worship with quran.com/2/256 and only Islam specifically accommodates both Jews and Muslims. Christian scripture does not accommodate either Jews or Muslims. The First Amendment was derived from the Koran I was also disappointed to note that what she says about Islam in http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7087 is either irrelevant or untrue.

Because Islam absolutely forbids usury, Jews would no longer get into trouble with the locals and be moved on by gentiles in pogroms when gentiles who borrow usuriously from them realise they will never be able to repay their loans. Calvin the anti-Semite was obviously wrong in allowing Christians to practise usury, thinking it was jolly clever of him to allow Christians to practise usury while making sure Jews always got the blame.

If you are Jewish, you must know that the Jews of the West won't all fit into Israel when they have to flee their failed states of the West. If you are gentile, you must acknowledge that Christianity has failed because it no longer even supports marriage or family values. #Islam https://t.co/DKEIP7GocS

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If you are a married father, you will know that patriarchy will restore your society to one which prioritises the preferences of married fathers over that of unmarried mothers with variously fathered and badly parented illegitimate offspring. https://t.co/QOaLva472h

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If you are a woman who wants to be a married mother properly parenting her legitimate offspring without having to be a working mother, patriarchy will give you a greater likelihood of finding a husband capable of providing for you and the children of your marriage. https://t.co/Nf6iMxGQ6q

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

What if you have no intention of becoming a parent of legitimate offspring or of properly parenting them? Then I think your views should be ignored because you are saying you do not intend to make any biological investment in the next generation. This seems fair enough to me. https://t.co/oquWnlggOC

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

If the majority of British voters say they have no intention of becoming the parents of legitimate offspring, should the government abide by their decision? Are you so much of a democrat that you will favour the selfish preferences of the majority over national survival? https://t.co/gwdGDvqPPY

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

I have just demonstrated why democracy in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage is a busted flush and actually immoral and a recipe for failure. Democracy in Athens did not last long, did it? You must have deduced by now that there are more fools than the wise. https://t.co/PLXE3gYD76

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Who should vote? Only those who pay tax. The Koran would make it unconstitutional to tax the citizen more than a flat rate income tax of 20% - you don't have to be Muslim to find this attractive.  https://t.co/uVBQTA4cYK The low-waged would be relieved of voting and being taxed. https://t.co/WvoouyMByL

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

It has been easy to demonstrate that Secular Koranism has something for the political classes (they'd become more popular), the wealthy (prevention of a failed state and the inconvenience of becoming an economic migrant) and, last but not least, the poor who'll feel looked after. https://t.co/KplZXhzp2C

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Since Koranic principles are obviously fairer than communism or free market capitalist principles, the West should really give Islam a go, because it is only through the West adopting it that will reform Islam. https://t.co/yl5bG34vQI

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 15, 2018

Gay marriage is definitely flouting the Noahide laws on sexual morality for which God will definitely zap us. 

Reform and Conservative synagogues and especially churches are more impure than mosques for the Ultra Orthodox Jew, says Rabbi Mizrachi. Mosques at least do not practise idolatry.  https://t.co/aoPYWpBOZL

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 15 March 2018

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/did-you-know-napoleon-was-a-serious-admirer-of-islam.html

Napoleon wanted to be the same genius conqueror of the world. He wanted to be for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries “what Muhammad had been to the seventh.” Therefore he could not accept the slightest denigration of the Prophet. He admired Muhammad in the following words: “Mahomet was a great man, an intrepid soldier; with a handful of men he triumphed at the battle of Bender (sic); a great captain, eloquent, a great man of state, he revived his fatherland and created a new people and a new power in the middle of the Arabian deserts.” Here Napoleon refers to the Battle of Badar which was fought in the second year of Prophetic migration to Madinah.

“Voltaire”, said the Emperor, “in the character and conduct of his hero, has departed both from nature and history. He has degraded Mahomet, by making him descend to the lowest intrigues. He has represented a great man who changed the face of the world, acting like a scoundrel, worthy of the gallows. He has no less absurdly traverstied the character of Omar, which he has drawn like that of a cut-throat in a melodrama. Voltaire committed a fundamental error in attributing to intrigue that which was solely the result of opinion." Omar here refers to Omar bin al-Khattab who was the second caliph after Prophet Muhammad. 

Napoleon rejected the central theme of Voltaire’s play that Muhammad was a fanatic. He observed that the rapid social changes and political victories which Prophet Muhammad realized within a short span of time could not have been the result of fanaticism. “Fanaticism could not have accomplished this miracle, for fanaticism must have had time to establish her dominion, and the career of Mahomet lasted only thirteen years." General Baron Gourgaud, one of the closest generals to Napoleon, gives almost identical accounts of Napoleon’s evaluations of Voltaire’s play. Napoleon further observed that "Mohammed has been accused of frightful crimes. Great men are always supposed to have committed crimes, such as poisonings; that is quite false; they never succeed by such means." 

Napoleon was a true admirer of both Prophet Muhammad and his religion. As an aspiring world conqueror and legislator, Napoleon adopted Muhammad as his role model and claimed to be walking in his footsteps. Before his military excursion to Egypt he advised his soldiers and officers to respect the Muslim religion. “The people amongst whom we are going to live are Mahometans. The first article of their faith is this: "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet." Do not contradict them… Extend to the ceremonies prescribed by the Koran and to the mosques the same toleration which you showed to the synagogues, to the religion of Moses and of Jesus Christ.” 

“In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful, there is no other God than God, he has neither son nor associate to his rule. On behalf of the French Republic founded on the basis of liberty and equality, the General Bonaparte, head of the French Army, proclaims to the people of Egypt that for too long the Beys who rule Egypt insult the French nation and heap abuse on its merchants; the hour of their chastisement has come. For too long, this rabble of slaves brought up in the Caucasus and in Georgia tyrannizes the finest region of the world; but God, Lord of the worlds, all-powerful, has proclaimed an end to their empire. Egyptians, some will say that I have come to destroy your religion; this is a lie, do not believe it! Tell them that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, his prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur'an... we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?” 

Humberto Garcia observes that Bonaparte promised “to restore egalitarian justice in Ottoman Egypt under an Islamic republic based in Cairo.” The intended Islamic republic was to be based upon the egalitarian laws of “the Prophet and his holy Koran.” Bonaparte casted himself as a Muslim convert and took the Islamic name of “Ali”, the celebrated son in law and cousin of Prophet Muhammad. He expressed his desire to establish a “uniform regime, founded on the principles of the Qur’an, which are the only true ones, and which can alone ensure the well-being of men.” Garcia further observes that “supposedly, the French came as deist liberators rather than colonizing crusaders… and not to convert the population to Christianity…” Juan Cole states that “The French Jacobins, who had taken over Notre Dame for the celebration of a cult of Reason and had invaded and subdued the Vatican, were now creating Egypt as the world’s first modern Islamic Republic.” 

Throughout his stay in Egypt Napoleon used the Qur’anic verses and Ahadith (Prophetic reports) in his proclamations to the Egyptians. “Tell your people that since the beginning of time God has decreed the destruction of the enemies of Islam and the breaking of the crosses by my hand. Moreover He decreed from eternity that I shall come from the West to the Land of Egypt for the purpose of destroying those who have acted tyrannically in it and to carry out the tasks which He set upon me. And no sensible man will doubt that all this is by virtue of God’s decree and will. Also tell your people that the many verses of the glorious Qur’an announce the occurrence of events which have occurred and indicate others which are to occur in the future…” Napoleon used the Muslim apocalyptic vocabulary and tradition to convey his political motives. Ziad observes that the “use of the Qur’an and Sunna in the remaining proclamations serves to consolidate further the image of Napoleon as not only a follower of Muhammad, but a Mahdi destined to conquer that region.” Napoleon truly infused his declarations with “an unprecedented degree of Qur’anic allusion and auto-deification. No longer a mere exporter of the Enlightenment, Napoleon is now the arm of God…”

Napoleon formed a “Directory” comprised of French officials, Cairo elites and Muslim clergy. He patronized mosques and the madrassas, the centers of Qura’nic studies programs. He participated and presided over the Muslim festivals and Egyptian holidays and “even tried converting the French army to Islam legally without undergoing the Muslim practice of circumcision and imposing the wine-drinking prohibition… Marriages between Frenchmen and Muslims women were common, accompanied by formal conversion to Islam. Indeed, French general Jacques Manou, governor of Rosetta, married a notable Egyptian woman of the Sharif cast and changed his name to “Abdullah” (Servant of Allah).” Manuo was a senior French general. He married Zubayda in the spring of 1799. “The adoption of an almost Catholic discourse of piety in an Islamic guise by a French officer in Egypt could scarcely have been foreseen by the Jacobins on the Directory and in the legislature who urged the invasion.” 

The French Jacobins like their deists comrades believed that “Mahometans” were “closer to “the standard of reason” than the Christians…” 

Some notable French thinkers, as discussed above, had already “tried to show how close Europeans could be to Islamic practice, without knowing it, as a way of critiquing religion.” They had already employed Islamic ideas to root out the priestcraft. Therefore, Napoleon was reaping the fruits of a long strand of French radical enlightenment where Islam and Muhammad were the known commodities. Bonaparte’s personal deistic disposition and the overall French propensity towards hatred of organized Christianity and its irrational dogmas combined with simultaneous appreciation of Islamic rational monotheism and medieval Islamic civilization were truly at play in Egypt. The political expediency added to the already existent seeds of the French radical enlightenment and caused them to flourish in a congenial Muslim Egyptian environment. The French were not accepting a new religion. They were accepting a reformed version of their deeply held religious convictions, something already present in their religious outlook. 

Bonaparte dressed in Islamic attire, promoted Islamic art and sciences, and greatly emphasized the “affinity between the French egalitarian principles and Shari’a law. 

The Egyptian scholars, in their letter to the Sharif of Mecca and Madinah, wrote the following about Bonaparte. “He has assured us that he recognizes the unity of God, that the French honor our Prophet, as well as the Qur’an, and that they regard the Muslim religion as the best religion. The French have proved their love for Islam in freeing the Muslim prisoners detained in Malta, in destroying churches and breaking crosses in the city of Venice, and in pursuing the pope, who commanded the Christians to kill the Muslims and who had represented that act as a religious duty.” Napoleon’s public conversion to Islam was more significant for the Egyptians than any of his other policies. 

Napoleon’s conversion to Islam was highlighted by the known newspapers both in France and England. In England, the “Copies of Original Letters from the Army of General Bonaparte” was published in a total of eight editions to implicate “a Franco-Ottoman conspiracy to eradicate Christianity.” The publicity and importance given to Napoleon’s proclamation was geared towards “supplying indisputable evidence of French admiration of Islam”, and identifying a “Jacobin-Mahometan plot to undermine British national interests at home and abroad.” The alliance between the Islamic Egypt and French republicanism was the source of English paranoia that resulted in a grand scale polemical works against Islam culminating in a new biography of Muhammad, the professed model of Napoleon Bonaparte. Humphrey Prideux’s famous biography “The Life of Mahomet, or the history of that Imposter, which was begun, carried on, and finally established him in Arabia… To which is added, an account of Egypt” was published in London in the year 1799. The books multiple editions over a short span of time, the enthusiastic support it generated both from the Church of England and English monarchy and its widespread distribution over the European continent in different languages reflect the levels of anxiety, alarm, suspicion and fears caused by a perceived alliance between the Islamic and French republicanisms. 

Prideaux’s claims of hundreds of thousands of hidden “Mahometans” both in France and England highlight the extent of cross cultural pollination of Islamic ideas during the eighteenth century Europe. While scolding the Mahometan policies of Bonaparte, Prideaux also wanted to incite the British public against the radical enlighteners at home, like Henry Stubbe, John Toland, Blount, Tindal etc., who, like Bonaparte, subscribed to the Islamic republicanism. The egalitarian republicanism of the radical enlighteners both in France and England was depicted as the “corrupt political theology imported from the Muslim world.” The Christian Europe’s divine right monarchy and ecclesiastical authority were in a chaos due to Islamic ideas foreign to Christian Europe. Napoleon’s supposed conversion to Islam had really caused a public paranoia about an Islamic conspiracy to overtake Europe. Napoleon was completely identified with Islam and Muhammad. 

“Although Bonaparte and his defender, Bourrienne, prefaced this account by saying that Bonaparte never converted, never went to mosque, and never prayed in the Muslim way, all of that is immaterial. It is quite clear that he was attempting to find a way for French deists to be declared Muslims for purposes of statecraft. This strategy is of a piece with the one used in his initial Arabic proclamation, in which he maintained that the French army, being without any particular religion and rejecting Trinitarianism, was already “muslim” with a small “m.” Islam was less important to him, of course, than legitimacy. Without legitimacy, the French could not hope to hold Egypt in the long run, and being declared some sort of strange Muslim was the shortcut that appealed to Bonaparte.” 

A systematic study of his ideas over the later years of his life substantiates the fact that he was a true admirer of Prophet Muhammad and his religion. Juan Cole admits that “Bonaparte’s admiration for the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast, was genuine.” Napoleon expressed the same positive sentiments about Muhammad and Qur’an while leaving Egypt after his failed attempt to control it. In 1799 on his way back to France he left specific instructions to French administrators in Egypt. He strongly urged them to respect the Qur’an and love the Prophet, "one must take great care to persuade the Muslims that we love the Qur'an and that we venerate the prophet. One thoughtless word or action can destroy the work of many years." Napoleon showed the same respect towards the Prophet in the last years of his life while living in captivity on a tiny Island in the middle of Atlantic Ocean, Saint Helene, without any hope of political power or gain. One can easily see that in conformity with the French Enlightenment ideals Napoleon truly believed that Prophet Muhammad’s concept of God was genuinely sublime and that the Prophet was a model lawmaker. That is what he said in St. Helene: “Arabia was idolatrous when Muhammad, seven centuries after Jesus Christ, introduced the cult of the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus Christ. The Arians and other sects that had troubled the tranquility of the Orient had raised questions concerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Muhammad declared that there was one unique God who had neither father nor son; that the trinity implied idolatry. He wrote on the frontispiece of the Qur'an: "There is no other god than God." 

Muhammad’s lack of resources and greatness of accomplishments make him the super hero. His fifteen years of achievements surpass fifteen centuries accomplishment of the Jews and Christians. “Muhammad was a prince; he rallied his compatriots around him. In a few years, his Muslims conquered half the world. They plucked more souls from the false gods, knocked down more idols, razed more pagan temples in fifteen years, than the followers of Moses and Jesus Christ did in fifteen centuries. Muhammad was a great man. He would indeed have been a god, if the revolution that he had performed had not been prepared by the circumstances.” 

Napoleon said, "Mohammed appeared at a moment when all men were anxious to be authorized to believe in but one God. It is possible that Arabia had before that been convulsed by civil wars, the only way to train men of courage. After Bender we find Mohammed a hero! A man can be only a man, but sometimes as a man he can accomplish great things. He is often like a spark among inflammable material. I do not think that Mohammed would at the present time succeed in Arabia. But in his own day his religion in ten years conquered half the known world, whilst it took three centuries for the religion of Christ firmly to establish itself.” Napoleon identified himself with Muhammad. "Mohammed's case was like mine. I found all the elements ready at hand to found an empire. Europe was weary of anarchy. Men wanted to make an end of it.” 

Napoleon believed that religion was necessary for law and order in a given society. “All religions since that of Jupiter inculcate morality.” He further stated that “Society needs a religion to establish and consolidate the relations of men with one another. It moves great forces; but is it good, or is it bad for a man to put himself entirely under the sway of a director? There are so many bad priests in the world." That is why he did not abolish any religion from any country which he conquered. It seems that he outwardly showed respect to almost every faith tradition including the Catholics but inwardly despised Christianity due to his deistic notions of the divinity. The same reasons made him respect the rational monotheism of Islam. 

Napoleon entertained the same lofty ideas about Islam in the final years of his life. He said "The Mohammedan religion is the finest of all. In Egypt the sheiks greatly embarrassed me by asking what we meant when we said 'the Son- of God.' If we had three gods, we must be heathen." He was a staunch admirer of Islamic morality which he considered a prerequisite to the wellbeing of all societies. “A man may have no religion, but may yet have morality. He must have morality for the sake of society.” The simple Islamic monotheism, its lack of burdensome ceremonies and strong emphasis upon morality were the keys to Napoleon’s admiration of Islam. "That is how men are imposed upon Jesus said he was the Son of God, and yet he was descended from David. I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours. The Turks call Christians idolaters." While denying the biblical miracles attributed to Moses, Napoleon confirmed the historical miracle of Muhammad, the stunning victories and sweeping social changes in a short span of ten or so years. " 

John Tolan states that “Bonaparte's Muhammad is a model statesman and conqueror: he knows how to motivate his troops and, as a result, was a far more successful conqueror than was Napoleon, holed up on a windswept island in the South Atlantic. If he promised sensual delights to his faithful, it is because that is all they understood: this manipulation, far from being cause for scandal (as it had been for European writers since the twelfth century) provokes only the admiration of the former emperor.” 

NAPOLEON ON POLYGAMY

Napoleon was also impressed by certain aspects of the Islamic Shari’ah and intended to incorporate some of them into his “Napoleon Code”. John Tolan observes that Napoleon was “ready to excuse, even to praise, parts of Muslim law that had been objects of countless polemics, including polygamy.” Napoleon argued that “Asia and Africa are inhabited by men of many colors: polygamy is the only efficient means of mixing them so that whites do not persecute the blacks, or blacks the whites. Polygamy has them born from the same mother or the same father; the black and the white, since they are brothers, sit together at the same table and see each other. Hence in the Orient no color pretends to be superior to another. But, to accomplish this, Muhammad thought that four wives were sufficient.... When we will wish, in our colonies, to give liberty to the blacks and to destroy color prejudice, the legislator will authorize polygamy.” 

The identification between Napoleon and Prophet Muhammad and the emphasis upon Muhammad the lawgiver perhaps played a role in Adolph A. Weinman’s visual expressions which decorate the main chamber of the U. S. Supreme Court. Weinman (December 11, 1870 – August 8, 1952), a German-born American sculptor, visualized the Prophet as one the great lawgivers of the world. He is one of the eighteen great conquerors, statesmen and lawgivers commemorated in a series that includes Moses, Confucius and Napoleon. Even though Muslims have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of the Prophet, they can still appreciate the impact of his legacy upon the legal and political traditions in the West. 

Jew prescribing Islam for gentiles satirises white nationalists

Karaite Jew recommends Islam for atheists to better fight feminism

Anti-feminist Karaite Jew encourages mosque attendance