Racial superiority rests on following your religious principles after choosing the right religion

If asked whether your race or religion is more important to you, how would you answer? Only if you are an observant Jew could you honestly answer that both are logically and necessarily equally important.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) February 28, 2018

What bemuses me about white supremacists about their racial superiority is their inability to go with the logic of racial superiority. The following questions should occur to the thinking racist:

1) If racial superiority exists, does it really only rest on the colour of one's skin?

2)  If racial superiority is not just about the colour of one's skin, does it rest on military, social, economic, political and moral superiority? 

3)  If racial superiority rests on military superiority, then racial superiority rests on science and technology upon which perceived social, economic and political and moral superiority rests.

4) The question of how military superiority is gained must be asked. It seems to me that this was kick-started by the Industrial Revolution which was all about selling stuff everyone round the world wanted to buy, and how to make them most profitably and cheaply, which was what science and technology was all about. Obviously, with all the SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) and variously fathered and badly parented illegitimate offspring that state schools have to take, you cannot expect this tradition to be kept up, particularly when one of the two parties of government refuse to countenance selective education, and this hurts the working classes by depriving them of the opportunity to better themselves. 

5) It is your culture that enables you to maintain your military superiority. The Pyrrhic victories of WW1 and WW2 over Germany only sent the British into a tailspin of social unrest. After WW1 there was the General Strike of 1925, when the working classes felt they had died like flies in the Great War for nothing very much. Mosley's attempt to correct the situation failed, because what he wanted to do was correct the political system itself, proposing to abolish the Upper House and replacing it with Fascist Corporatism and a pruned Lower House. Instead of being more careful about whom they went to war with, the British thought they would finish the job with Germany in WW2. Again, they failed, but this time decided to let their hair down and everything hang out with their welfare state and their swinging. This accelerated their degeneracy and explains how they have got to the pretty pass of white men now being helpless against a Muslim invasion and their women totally out of control and hating them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists#Character

The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups—a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy.

Am I alone in thinking that on the whole Mosley's proposals for reform seem sensible enough?

6)  Culture is really the practices that the law allows, and the law is a reflection of whatever the current political orthodoxy - a mixture of religion and political tradition - permits. So now we approach again my pet theory, which is that Christianity has failed. Christianity has obviously failed because it has not protected the foolish British from their avoidable folly of following their ridiculous liberalism and the brain-numbing stupidity of their idolatrous Christianity. All the things they could have done to avoid the folly of declaring two World Wars on Germany would have been prevented by Islam as well as the post-war self-indulgence of not parenting their children properly and sinking into a culture of wine, women and song leading to the progressive (pun intended) enfeeblement of mind, body and spirit.

Returning to the subject of racial superiority, it does appear that racial superiority is only military superiority and military superiority is obtained by the happenstance of history eg the Industrial Revolution, an unplanned population explosion, and geopolitics. It is obvious that racial superiority is not permanent and relies on the rules one practices in one's racial group. Even Hitler did not assume that the Germans were so superior and perfect that they need do nothing more other than to marinate in their racial superiority. Indeed, he could be said to be urging Germans to strive and fight in order to become superior or perhaps just as good as the British. He was probably content with being just as good with what everyone thought were the masters of the universe of the time, the British.

Assuming that you are a racist who believes in the concept of racial superiority, the next question is to ask yourself must be "Who is the most racially superior race of all?"  The Romans were once racially superior because they were militarily superior, but when they declined they eventually lost their culture of producing soldiers to conquer other lands, and lost the taste for conquest, sinking into decadence, wine, women and song. Why, a Roman emperor even changed his religion in an attempt to arrest decline. In the end, Rome was sacked, and the Roman Empire is no more. You cannot be racially superior to anyone if you no longer even exist.

Who, then, is racially superior? Not the Europeans in the great scheme of things, I'm afraid, simply because military superiority does not last forever, as I have easily demonstrated with the Romans, if you do not inculcate a culture, political system or maintain a religion that perpetuates it. You may technically be at the top of the tree, but you may just fall off if you suffer a dizzy spell it even if no one pulls you off.

To be racially superior one has to satisfy the condition of being in existence and of at the very least holding territory. Racial superiority does not necessarily rest on numbers, but numbers help if you are in the business of acquiring more territory. Israeli Zionist Jews are insisting that they have no imperial ambitions and simply want to live in Israel in peace. The Chinese already have enough on their plate and have for centuries been sucking their pencils on the question of their proper relationship with the rest of the world. 

The top dogs of racial superiority are Jews and Chinese, simply because they have been around so long. I would award the top prize to the Jews, because they at least have bothered to write things down properly in their scripture and had a head start. Unlike the Chinese, Jews also had the perspicacity to attribute their survival to their God, to stop themselves from becoming too big-headed.

According to the Chinese calendar it is the year 4715.  According to the Hebrew calendar it is the year 5778.

Now that we know that Jews are racially superior, we have to ask ourselves why they are racially superior. Clearly, it is their religion. Clearly, their religion is so obviously superior that two of the most famous attempts to adapt Judaism for gentiles are universally acknowledged to be Christianity and Islam. Christianity is now kaput, so the next religion of the West has to be Islam. It is really as a simple as an arithmetical problem. You have 3. You take 2 away and have 1 left. The one left is Islam, and the answer is the answer even if you don't like it.

My hypothesis can even be mathematically proven if we can agree that what made Britain great was the fact that it was the first nation in the world to have a world empire. 

How did they lose their empire?  The most proximate cause was WW2. It has been said by A J P Taylor that WW2 was a continuation of WW1.  Why did the British declare war on Germany in WW1? Because the Liberal PM Asquith thought a short successful war would make him more likely to win the General Election of 1915.  Imagine, losing your world empire because the Liberal Party wanted to win an election that was subsequently cancelled! You would have thought that the British by now would have realised their error or could have accepted Mosley's attempt to correct it, but what their political leaders lacked in wisdom was equalled and exceeded by their stubborn pride and chauvinism.

It is easily provable that the great upheavals suffered by the British would have been easily avoided if they had been Muslim and followed the Koran. The Koran only allows defensive wars and neither WW1 nor WW2 could by any stretch of the imagination be called defensive. British foreign policy was impelled primarily by a dog in the manger attitude towards Germany because it saw Germany as a rival and a threat. It is the equivalent of a foolish Monopoly player buying up properties he didn't want just to prevent his opponent from completing his set and bankrupting himself in the process and not being able to make the most of any opportunities he landed on, because he was mortgaged to the hilt. 

Now they are the poodle of Uncle Sam and remain a vassal state of the EU, with approximately half its citizens begging to retain this status and its male MPs too terrified to question the parasitic nature of feminism for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence. How are the mighty fallen.

www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-permissible-fight-islam-383824313

What is the sex of the Prime Minister?
What is the sex of the Home Secretary?
What is the sex of the Commissioner of Police?
What is the sex of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
What is the sex of the Chairman of the Bar Council?
What is the sex of the Director General of the CBI?
Is the Archbishop of Canterbury a bastard?
Has Peter Hitchens called himself a feminist?
Is Roger Scruton, the Conservative Philosopher, too afraid of his wife to challenge feminism?
Is Philip Davies MP, who used to challenge feminism too afraid to continuing doing so now because the feminazis have got him by the goolies?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-no-western-man-will-fight-feminism.html

Why does the Mail pay Peter Hitchens to sneer at British Conservatism?

Why Feminist Peter Hitchens is all talk and no trousers

Roger Scruton fails to denounce feminism again

Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher evasive and prevaricating on feminism

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

What is the very least your religion should be doing?

Supporting marriage and the family.

This is what all the five world religions have in common.

Oh, and telling the truth, behaving honourably so men can co-operate with each other to defeat the internal and external enemies of their nation.

The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are sluts and socialists.

Patriarchy must therefore be regarded as the foundation of all civilisations. When your national religion no longer sanctifies marriage, it must be regarded as having failed.

How do you know when your religion no longer sanctifies marriage?

When your society is no longer a patriarchy.

How do you know when your society is no longer a patriarchy?

When your government no longer prioritises the preferences of married fathers and instead panders to the female voter which means it has become a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who are the bad parents of their illegitimate children who will not grow into productive citizens but become the adult criminals of the future.

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

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/six-in-ten-northern-ireland-babies-are-now-born-outside-wedlock-31550726.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/births-outside-wedlock-at-new-high-28608539.html

https://www.facebook.com/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times-417696111659379/

http://old.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060416/focus/focus3.html

No other country has over 85 per cent of babies born to unmarried mothers and over 50 per cent without registered fathers. No other country routinely discusses parenthood in such relationship neutral terms as 'baby father' and 'baby mother'. No other country so readily accepts absent fatherhood or brings up children so carelessly. And no other country not at war has such a high murder rate.

Islam was meant to be an improvement on Christianity the way Christianity was meant to be an improvement on Judaism for gentiles

If Judaism is for Jews only, then Islam must be the religion gentiles must have in order to accommodate Jews and Christians without subjecting them to persecution and injustice. The Koran calls Jews and Christians "People of the Book" and acknowledges Judaism and Christianity as the foundation of Islam.

The Koran recognises that insisting on belief in Christ's divinity as a tenet of Christianity does not help Christians lead a moral life, and dispenses with it, but at the same time allowing Christians to think what they want in the matter of their Trinitarian God. The only purpose of the Christian Trinitarian God is of course to make Christians feel special, different and better to Jews and Muslims. Now Christianity has weakened and is indistinguishable from Liberalism, it must be time for Christians to question the efficacy of their faith in even promoting the Biblical principles of traditional marriage, family values and patriarchy. The West is currently beating eaten alive by the degenerate and insane policies of our feminist and parasitic matriarchy that Christianity can no longer protect the West against.

The objective truth must surely be that Christianity was based on Judaism and that Islam is a synthesis of both Judaism and Christianity, but with their vulnerabilities patched.

Why the Jew will continue to triumph over the poor, stupid, cowardly and hypocritical gentile male - Part 2: One Party State

There is no Jewish conspiracy, merely a few fatal vulnerabilities in the Western political system that the gentile is too stupid to notice or too scared to change.

There is an Israel lobby in the US. It is called AIPAC.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

In Britain you have Friends of Israel in the major three parties, including the fringe party of UKIP.

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

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

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

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

http://ukipfriendsofisrael.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-ukip-must-support-israel.html

A divisive multi-party system means that a policy of divide and rule works very well.  "If you say you support Israel, we will keep your party in funds", say the Friends of Israel to each impoverished political party.   "OK", the party leaders obediently respond, holding out their hand  ...

If Britain had a one-party state then Friends of Israel would quietly go away, and then perhaps quietly return to bribe individual members of the party.

A one-party state makes the most of our agreement and we already know that the British voter has no particular desire to expend British resources, weaponry and lives to either harm or help Israel.    Therefore if there were a free vote in Parliament as well as a referendum about whether Israeli considerations should continue to feature so greatly in British foreign policy, we might even get a sensible answer.

But it is impossible to get a sensible discussion about a one-party state as a matter of constitutional reform because you will find that the average Briton cannot even bear to discuss it.  Even if they accepted the reasoning for this, they would blanch at having to say the same thing to other people because they fear the mockery and derision of the ignorant and know they have not got it in themselves to repeat the message until it is understood, knowing they will wilt like a flower or melt like wax.  In fact, many of them play dumb and say they don't get it.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-prospectus-for-dictatorship-of-one.html explains the advantages of a one-party state.

And that is why the British are doomed.  And this is how they behave when they are supposed to have free speech.  Imagine an even more egregious and toxic form of cowardice when they are told officially they no longer have free speech.  Then they really would be pissing and shitting themselves all over the floor of the House.  

This idea has in fact already been proposed by Frank Field MP, no less, but our MPs fear to discuss it for fear of incurring the mockery of their colleagues and the displeasure of their leader.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jan/22/frank-field-mandelson-clarke-cable

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/brit-d24.shtml

And even when Peter Bone MP helpfully introduced a Bill to give MPs more rights in the form of the House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html very few of them indeed dared to show an open interest in it.

That is how "courageous" these gentile male politicians are .  As for the gentile male politicians who oppose the current political establishment, their calibre of courage is even lower in education, principle and courage, and that is why the Jew will continue to triumph, and deservedly so, for the strong should rule the weak and the clever the stupid, even if they are few in number, for that is the way of the world, which the stupid are too to understand, too apathetic to question and too gutless to fight.      

Why the Jew will continue to triumph over the poor, stupid, cowardly and hypocritical gentile male - Part 1: SSMs

http://www.realityreviewed.com/

Who knows about the truth of these allegations, but there is great anger and suspicion.

I have always preferred the cock-up theory to the conspiracy theory and still do.  People really are that stupid.

Also, because Christians are made stupid, hypocritical and cowardly by their doctrine of the Trinity (which even Christians do not believe), it makes it easy for the Jews to mess around with their heads.

The ultimate Jewish conspiracy is that the Jews created Christianity to fuck with the heads of gentiles.  (Islam, of course, is the antidote.)

Think of the Jew as a violent but gullible husband and the Jew as his wife, and you may begin to understand this relationship.  The wife knows that she can get him to do most things if she keeps on his right side, but he is stronger and holds the purse strings.   Why, once he even got him to buy her a fur coat (analogous to modern State of Israel) after he beat her up (all those pogroms of the past culminating in the most recent one of Germany).   She knows she would get into trouble if she killed him, and so has decided upon the policy of killing him with cream, which is perfectly legal.   She wants him to have a heart attack and die ASAP so she can inherit his fortune.

Think of the cream as liberal policies killing with kindness and indulgence, and you get the idea.

Jews are culturally more protected from sluts and bastards than the gentile and they also have the Jewish mother  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mother_stereotype who keeps her husband and his legitimate children on their toes.

Meanwhile the gentile mother would be at work being a bad employee and a bad mother, who might even tell her daughter to go on the pill before she is of age, just as long as she doesn't get pregnant.   This gentile mother - a liberal - might even share a spliff with her children's friends to show how cool and with it she is, and insist that her children and her friends call her by her first name, so she won't feel so old.

Jews also make a point of preserving their culture because most of them do not live in Israel, while gentiles have let their hair down so much that what is left of their culture is just rock and roll and sex and drugs and shopping.

For this reason, Jews have greater social and cultural cohesion and they are smarter too, while degenerate gentiles have had their braincells fried after so many generations of sluts and bastards doing rock and roll and sex and drugs.

Even now the white working classes in nationalist movements are incapable of understanding why they are hated.  (Some of them think it is some sort of Jewish conspiracy.)   But it is simple really.  All the poor of the world are despised.  However, after so many generations of welfarism and their culture of excuses and entitlement, all they think they can think of doing to get their way is by whingeing more loudly.  Sadly, however, they do not realise how much they are loathed and feared.  They are seen as social failures and low status men with no money and no prospects and, the voter - always an incorrigible snob - wants nothing to do with them or their party.  In fact, many people even pretend they don't know what the BNP are complaining about, so disgusted are they by the lowlife CHAVs who seem to be promoting policies that they are honest to admit that they also support, but who represent the lowest form of life, as far as they are considered.

Sadly, for the BNP, they cannot and will not prosper under the current leadership or with the current intake, tainted by racism as they are.   The only people who join are the people who join the party only when their interests are threatened.  The do not enter politics for noble reasons.  In other words, they do not enter politics for the purpose of righting wrongs that they themselves are not suffering from. (For example, my suggestion at  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/04/should-bnp-stand-in-hackney-north-stoke.html  was not supported in the party because they frankly admitted that they had no wish to help black people with their policies and preferred the safer option of having a numerically greater vote in Bethnal Green & Bow than the gentrified  Hackney North & Stoke Newington.  A great opportunity missed, I thought, because the party preferred a respectable vote to an opportunity to change the image of the party and fretted about what its core supporters might think about saying they want to help prevent more black schoolgirls getting shot dead buying fried chicken at the local takeaway.)  These people do not understand the concept of principle, though some of them might be able to define it if they looked it up in the dictionary.

Talk to them about free speech, rule of law or whether something done by the party is constitutional to even the most educated and intelligent of their number and you will get a puzzled silence and then a blank look, followed by a stock phrase about "preserving party unity".  You might even be told that these concepts are beyond the understanding of the average party member or indeed even the leadership.

And so BNP activists will continue to be abused and exploited by their leader, probably in the same way villeins were once treated by their feudal lord.   For  quite a few of them, the party is not really a political party at all, but a social club.  Their greatest fear is to be expelled from their social club, rather than serving the cause (which I probably need to remind them is the promotion of the racial health and hygiene of the white race as well as the British national interest).  This Cause can only be served by telling the truth as they see it, which of course they have not the courage to do.

It is only through taking responsibility for their own misfortunes and proposing practicable and sensible changes to improve their lot (eg uncompromisingly promoting family values supported by marriage, selective education, lower taxes and fewer laws) that would they attract the interest and sympathy of the educated middle classes, but they are not big enough to do that, preferring to blame their misfortunes only on government, immigrants and Muslims.

The BNP dares not criticise their own promiscuous women, who commit the foul sin that is the miscegenation of the unmarried, who are making the white race weaker, more stupid, more degenerate and more cowardly with every bastard born in Britain each minute of the days, because so many of their members are singly-parenting or were singly-parented.

The rot is already too deep.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=single%20mom

But what can you expect from men like that, who are not afraid to admit that they are afraid of their promiscuous women who bear bastards and disgrace their race?

Why, nothing at all, these people who have betrayed their cause by choosing to remain silent about SSMs in the name of expediency and party unity while pretending that the cancer of bastardy is not a cancer but a perfectly normal and respectable British practice.

Thus is feminism is one of those slow-growing cancers that affect organs below the waist.  By the time the symptoms manifest themselves, it will have spread to the other major organs too.   And that is why it is hopeless.

But if we are really dying, it is as well to know of what we are dying and say our last goodbyes while we still have time.

Judaism Explained before Easter

A recent decision by Orthodox Jews to bar a child of a mother who is a convert to Judaism from attending a Jewish school because the child was insufficiently Jewish explains exactly why Christ had such a problem with Judaism.

Unfortunately, he paid for his audacity with his life. His followers invented the story of his Resurrection and the "theory" of the Holy Trinity to make Christ's ignominious death less upsetting for those disposed to become Christians.

The Koran explicitly acknowledges Christ for extending monotheism to gentiles. Christ's crime, as seen by the Jewish priests, was in wishing to spread the benefits of monotheism to those not members of the Jewish tribes. It was Christ acting to end the Jewish monopoly on monotheism that resulted in his execution.

Muhammad developed on Christ's theme, ie that faith alone - not race - is sufficient to avail oneself of the benefits of monotheism. Christ must have concluded that, in order for a better world to be created, monotheism must not remain the exclusive preserve of the Jewish tribes. The Islamic concept of "ummah" - a community of Muslims united by a common belief that does not exclude anyone on grounds of race - is an excellent expression of this ideal. This is far more powerful, in the opinion of this atheist, than the racial exclusivity of the Jews and the Trinitarian incoherence of the Christians.

It would seem that Christianity and Islam share the same aim, that of making monotheism more accessible to others not born into the faith, while Orthodox Judaism has a tendency to be exclusive and restrictive. While Judaism requires a typical male convert to undergo circumcision - an eye-wateringly painful operation in the apprehension of the average male - Islam does not require this.

It was really all a dispute about intellectual property and copyright, folks!