On discovering Nicolas Gomez Davila through Eric May

https://www.pronouncenames.com/pronounce/Nicol%C3%A1s%20G%C3%B3mez%20D%C3%A1vila
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila

Edith Sitwell  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5l3UPlO60M Chinese joke from 8:00

Claire Khaw's aphorisms 
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/aphorisms-of-claire-khaw.html

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/can-opinion-defamatory/

Religion gives us status and identity without which we are but mere cattle

If the Universe was created by a Supreme Being, was that being good, evil or indifferent to either?

Would there be any point in choosing to believe in a supreme being that is indifferent to us or actually evil? No, because it would do us no good. Believing in an evil supreme being would neither improve our behaviour nor give us comfort.

Therefore we could choose to believe in a supreme being that is morally perfect, He would be omnipotent because He created the Universe and He must be omniscient to have created the Universe.

What if such a supreme being that is the Abrahamic God does not really exist?

It would still be useful to believe in Him because a Hypothetical Supreme Being would be the final authority for every question or decision, allowing us to order our thoughts and actions according to the Word of God found in scripture.

The advancement of civilisation is the consequence of allowing belief in God to guide our actions through the rule of law.

It may be that the Abrahamic God is no more than a Noble Lie, but it is belief in God and obedience to His laws that made Jews the world's most ancient and powerful tribe. The most ancient gentile empire is China whose emperors relied on the Mandate of Heaven - an idea that contained in it a conditional grant of earthly authority, but only if the emperor gave his people good government. Jews and Chinese are peoples who have maintained their identity over the ages. In our time of dentity crises of individuals, especially transgender individuals as well as nations and empires, a well-balanced and realistic national identity would give individuals and nations the self-esteem they crave. If framed attractively, imaginatively and inspirationally, it could even herald the moral regeneration of the degenerate, provided a suitable attitude of humility before God (if He exists) could also be instilled.

Diversity, identity and the importance of having fixed principles

"Diversity" these days is not just about race and religion, it includes varieties of what the Abrahamic faiths would consider sex offender eg those guilty of fornication, adultery and sodomy. If Westerners feel that their government is incompetent and their childless clueless leaders corrupt, they should understand that they are in fact living in a matriarchy.

If the problem is matriarchy, then the solution must be patriarchy.

If the destination is patriarchy, the vehicle must be theocracy.

A theocracy is a society governed by the laws of God to ensure that His laws - particular the ones on on marriage - are obeyed from generation to generation, otherwise degeneracy will be the consequence, and the decline and fall of your civilisation will be the inevitable result.

Sadly for humanity, our global village is now a matriarchy with only a few pockets of resistance here and there.

Pakistan launched its gender neutral passport in 2017.

Matriarchal dementia will engulf our global village unless something is said and done.

On the question of identity, it is not something we worry about until and unless there are other people we perceive to be acting against our interests to worry about.

As for our own individual identity, this needs to be fixed to a degree, or we will go mad. Can you imagine looking in the mirror and every time seeing a different face or a person of a different sex looking back at you?

Our political parties do not have principles, so principles of Liberalism or Conservatism are only what those who are said to represent these ideologies say they are. Recently, the British have been informed that British Conservatism means gay marriage after it was introduced by an unprincipled Conservative Prime Minister.

As we can see, political systems that are undeniably man-made eg Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism. Fascism and Nazism do not last very long before, particularly if they do not support marriage. Moral systems that are said to be divine ie the five world religions which do support marriage have a rather longer shelf-life.

In the West, there are only two possibilities for the gentile: Christianity or Islam, because Judaism is for Jews only.

Christianity has failed because it has been idolatrous for nearly 1800 years. We know it has obviously failed because Christianity and Liberalism are now indistinguishable from each other.

Since you have to believe that Christ is the co-equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God to be Christian, the only people now who say they do would be priests, bishops, archbishops and Popes. If you say you believe this, you are perhaps too credulous. If you only claim to believe it to keep your job, you are undeniably corrupt.

It is not too much of a surprise that the world's most powerful church - the Catholic Church - is now mired in sex scandals of sex offenders in its senior ranks. One lie leads to another and lying corrupts our morals and intellect, leading to a kind of paralysis that stops one from using truth, logic and morality to solve and avoid problems.

Matriarchy is established on a foundation of widespread illegitimacy caused by tolerance of the widespread practice of fornication. Catholic priests who have lost their moral authority in a tsunami of sex scandals will not be in a position to condemn fornication with any moral authority at all.

It has been said the West is a civilisation of Islamophobes. I do not think the Western Man is so much afraid of Islam as of the prospect of having to marry a woman of his own race and fathering and paying for her children. It is this prospect that dismays him more than anything else. He feels no woman can be trusted but, if he insists on chastity and virgin brides, he too must observe those rules against extramarital sex. Clearly, the sacrifices the grandparents and ancestors of the degenerate Westerner made to bring him into being are too great now for him to contemplate making himself. Instead, he looks forward to a future utopia where the working classes are eliminated and when people amuse themselves by having recreational sex with each other and their sexbots.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book

Yuval Harari is a civilly partnered Israeli whose ideas have been given credence by the former Chief Rabbi Sacks:

If you have at home a teenage son who likes computer games, you can conduct your own experiment. Provide him with a minimum subsidy of Coke and pizza, and then remove all demands for work and all parental supervision. The likely outcome is that he will remain in his room for days, glued to the screen. He won’t do any homework or housework, will skip school, skip meals and even skip showers and sleep. Yet he is unlikely to suffer from boredom or a sense of purposelessness. At least not in the short term.

Hence virtual realities are likely to be key to providing meaning to the useless class of the post-work world. Maybe these virtual realities will be generated inside computers. Maybe they will be generated outside computers, in the shape of new religions and ideologies. Maybe it will be a combination of the two. The possibilities are endless, and nobody knows for sure what kind of deep plays will engage us in 2050.

In any case, the end of work will not necessarily mean the end of meaning, because meaning is generated by imagining rather than by working. Work is essential for meaning only according to some ideologies and lifestyles. Eighteenth-century English country squires, present-day ultra-orthodox Jews, and children in all cultures and eras have found a lot of interest and meaning in life even without working. People in 2050 will probably be able to play deeper games and to construct more complex virtual worlds than in any previous time in history.

The environmentalists are for this on the grounds that the fewer humans there are in the world, the less they will pollute and damage the environment. It is not entirely a coincidence that environmentalism is synonymous with sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and parenting.

We can no longer bear our vices nor their cure.

Why we must never lose sight of our principles

My review of Morality in the 21st century presented by Rabbi Sackstury.html

The badges of identity

1. Country of Birth
2. Country of Residence
3. Language spoken
4. Religion/Politics
5. Class
6. Gender
7. Age
8. Marital status and whether a parent
9. Sexuality
10. Race (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH NATIONALITY)
11. Nationality (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH RACE)

People who confuse race with nationality tend to be not the brightest or best educated of people and have trouble understanding abstract ideas.

Race is something about yourself you cannot change (unless you are Michael Jackson and prepared to have cosmetic surgery.

Nationality is something you can acquire or lose, like your passport(s). Some people have more than one, someone people don't even have one.

Why I, a non-white, do not feel threatened by the ideas in Markus Willinger's Generation Identity

Yes, I know Willinger talks about a time when Africans and Muslims have returned to their homelands, but in a way I think anyone, even the indigenous, will want to flee the country when things get bad, and they will.

The rage felt by the youth of today is the rage felt by any adolescent that is unsure of its identity and cannot find anything appealing in its own land.  There are surely many now who find British culture shallow and degenerate.

What is British culture but pop culture, pub culture, TV culture, football culture, gay culture and drug culture?

What is the British character most recognised by foreigners but the culture summed up as "Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Tesco, ASBO and Paedo"?

If you agree that British culture is the result of its laws and social practices, so is it also the result of its political culture, and its political culture is called Representative Democracy. This means that its political system consists of amoral political tribes incapable of thinking beyond the next general election whose divisions are easily exploited by the Israel lobby. The rights of these tribe members are abused regularly by their leaders and their cronies, and but they (especially the ones in Parliament and who are Cabinet Members) are too stupid to notice or too scared to protest against this. The consequence of this political culture is that all politicians who want to remain politicians must toe the line and play the system, and this means not saying anything that might resemble the truth or engage the public.

Only when the political culture changes will the British character change for the better.

When British culture changes for the better, Muslims will no longer wish to distant themselves from the culture of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, nor will Muslim women feel the compulsion to wear the niqab, hijab or burkha to proclaim that they are not sluts like the non-Muslim indigenous females.  They may not be so rude as to tell Western women what they really think of their morals, but that is what their obsession with wearing the Muslim uniform is really all about: an assertion of a feminine identity that is not part of Western slut culture.

The solution is therefore very simple: Western women should simply collectively resolve to cease to be sluts, for the good of everyone else, including themselves and future generations.

What is a slut?  She is a fornicatress.  Who is a fornicatress?  Any woman who has pre-marital sex.

It remains to be seen how resolute are these Identitarians in challenging the matriarchy that squats above their heads.

Why the English are disadvantaged in their quest for cultural identity compared to the Scots, Irish and Welsh

The English are particularly disadvantaged in this, because the Scots and Welsh define their identity by their common hatred of the English.

Stupidly and sadly, most of the idiot English are surprised that they are hated by the Scots, Irish and Welsh because they are so ignorant of their history that they have no idea what their ancestors did to the Welsh, Scots and of course the Irish, because they are not taught their own history by their female-dominated teaching profession about their wars of conquest of the other kingdoms of Britain.

Unfortunate and pitiable are those who are so ignorant of their own history that do not know why they are hated by others, like a disgusting and contemptible drunk with no memory of what he did or said the night before he collapsed on the streets and fouled his trousers.

The white man will be hated and pitied for so many more things in the days and years to come, chief of which is his fear of his even more contemptible women, infamous for their promiscuity and their incompetence as mothers and wives as well as the criminality, promiscuity, depravity and disability of their offspring.

Sunday Sermon: On Identity

We are something between whom we think we are and what others think we are. This means we are a combination of subjective and objective perceptions of ourselves and others.

There are parts of our identity we cannot change, ie

- where were were born
- to whom we were born
- the gender we were when we were born- our race
- our country of residence
- where we grew up

collectively known as our past.

The are also parts of our identity that we can change, ie

- our sexual preference
- our political and religious views

collectively known as our present and our future.

That would be the best and most objective way to analyse the elements of our identity

"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." 

Birth and Belonging: Personal, National and Ethnic Identity

http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/events/china-birth-and-belonging.aspx

A fascinating symposium demonstrating that the Chinese are also whingeing about not knowing what they are and what they are supposed to be.

Obviously, the Chinese are not what they were, ie in pigtails, concubines, bound feet etc.

But what are they now? Is it a race thing or nation thing?

In Taiwan they have a better idea of ancient Chinese traditions.

On the mainland they are modern individual barbarians: godless, consumerist, mostly without relations, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, little emperors who will probably euthanase their parents if they hang around too long.

(The Chinese were once known for their filial piety.)

Identity, at any rate, is something that can be

1. performed
2. claimed
   
3. fought over

Identity is what those with a weak sense of identity seek to establish. The lack of it is most painful at adolescence, impelling some to become suicide bombers as an assertion of an identity they have chosen to embrace.

Let us therefore universalise this pain in a world with an embarrassment of riches as to the kinds of identities we could embrace.

The factors affecting identity are:

1. birthplace
2. race
3. nationality
4. religion
5. family
6. politics
7. culture
8. language
9. gender
10. sexual orientation
11. talent
12. reputation
13. occupation
    
14. associates
15. current place of residence
16. where our heart is
17. class
    

I could go on and on, but ultimately, we all have multiple identities.

Our identity depends on who is asking, why they want to know, where we are and the social context in which the question is being asked.

They are shifting all the time.

What a shame that members of BNP - for whom such a symposium would be so enlightening, would never dream of attending such an event.

That is because they are working class and lower middle class, who are conservative people who would unhesitatingly say things "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

They are unimaginative people who like being with their own kind even as they are unkind to their own kind.

They are right, up to a point, that a mono-racial nation is visually comforting, but forget that people of the same race will soon find differences to kill each other over. History is littered with endless examples.

There was an exercise in which someone would be asked to copy from a picture, another would copy from that person's drawing and yet another would do the same etc.

This exercise made me think of Chinese whispers and out of control cancer cells dividing, not stopping, not doing what they are supposed to do.

The result could be more interesting, perhaps, if the artist, Yuen Fong Ling, had made a participant draw a self-portrait of himself and had someone else copy the result etc.

It was one of the many demonstrations about how deracinated and inauthentic the British and overseas Chinese are.

The concept of Chinese identity is paradoxically stronger in a non-Chinese, even if mistaken. It is after all the non-Chinese, who say very confidently that the Chinese are this, that or the other.

The Taiwanese think they are the real thing because they have been protected from the unChinese characteristics of Communism, while the mainlanders think they are The Real Thing, whatever they have turned into.

Even now we no don't really know what we are, what we could become or what we ought to be.

Perhaps too much choice is confusing, unsettling and upsetting.

This partly explains why Muslim youth who blow themselves up do what they do. They live on as Islamist terrorists, which was the identity they actively embraced and must have known would establish their post mortem reputation. They lived and died with this certainty.

Our identity is what we really are, what we want to be, and how others see us. Only if they are in harmony will we be happy in our skins.

Theological debate: Christianity v Islam

Below is a debate started from http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/ with Len, which has now turned into a theological debate.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25291932&postID=8117455235810229967&page=1&isPopup=true

While I am delighted to hear that you have read the Koran, Len, you clearly read it with a closed mind. It consists of moral warnings and guidance expressed in legalistic terms, rather like a contract you would be making with God if He were a door-to-door salesman promising eternal life and bliss if you fulfil your part of your contract. The Koran is no more than a restatement of the Ten Commandments in poetic and legalistic form. All the morality that is contained in Judaism and Christianity you will find synthesised in the Koran, with the over-harsh bits in the Old Testament and the vague bits that create doubt and conflict, such as the Trinity, excised.

If I were you, I would choose the religion that is

1) most effective in doing
2) the most good
3) for the most people.

Ask yourself if you really believe in the trinity, or are you really just a
Cultural Christian, who uses Christianity as a badge of identity? You are welcome to tell me what you find disjointed and illogical about the Koran, should you wish to pursue this discussion.

20 June 2009 08:03