Translate

Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts

Thursday, 24 May 2018

Restoring patriarchy and the real purpose of marriage


Marriage is the only way of regulating the sexual urges of women so that they do not destroy whatever civilisation men and their ancestors have built. The worst of these women will be immoral, in denial and indifferent to the interests of men they do not want to have sex with as well as callously indifferent to their illegitimate children whom they casually conceived.

Being creatures with a defective sense of courage and justice, few women will agree with me about the restoration of the patriarchy. The advantage of their defective courage for those who would challenge them is that, faced with overwhelming odds, they will capitulate quickly.

For the Restoration to take place, men must decide that a leader is required and promise him the loyalty he needs to get things done. I have in mind Captains of industry who are already part of the Deep State examining their consciences, who are perhaps tired of being constantly henpecked, but also afraid of a divorce settlement that will be extracted from them under the rules of no fault divorce.

The Captains of Industry must have sons and daughters too that they do not want to be turned gay or transgender or have their heterosexual children present them with bastard grandchildren. However, if they do not care about this, and all will be lost, I suppose.

It is a mistake for the wealthy to think they will be protected in a failing state. This is probably because these days even educated Westerners have no idea of their own traditions and do not know about the proscriptions of the late Roman Republic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/proscription

Even if you leave the country as refugees, you will be treated like shit as the people men who allowed their women to run their country and were too afraid to take back control form them because you were afraid of being falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence.

What is the sex of your Prime Minister?

What is the sex of your Home Secretary?

What is the sex of your Director of Public Prosecutions?

What is the sex of your Chief Commissioner of Police?

Was not the wedding of Harry the Bastard to that woman with her dreadful family an event widely associated with feminist and black triumphalism over the British monarchy?

And the feminazis want even more feminism?


Oxford University has apologised to David Lammy after retweeting a post labelling his criticism "bitter". Oxford University involved in Twitter row with David Lammy

Black students are right to want to see black therapists

Have you no shame?

Have you no pride?

Clearly not.

The story of Abraham of bargaining with God about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind.

He knows he is speaking with the Almighty who is about to show his wrath and while he may not wish the city to be destroyed, he seems afraid to show sympathy for the city as a whole. So instead of mercy for the city—which he might just as easily have asked for—he says let justice be done, but that it wouldn't be just to destroy righteous men along with wicked ones (Genesis 18:23-25). 
But Abraham's courage has been holding out. He's asked God to save the city for the sake of fifty, forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, and ten people—standing up to God six times. Would he have been able to ask for more, perhaps even bring up the idea of redeeming the city, if he had asked a seventh[!] time? After the third plea, Abraham had been asking for ten less each time; the next in the series would be '0'. 
Did, perhaps, his courage fail him? Or, according to the explanation I usually hear, did Abraham decide that surely there were ten righteous there, and that he didn't need to ask for more? We can only speculate. But it may not have been up to Abraham at all. It seems that as soon as God answers that he will not destroy the city for ten people, God leaves (Gen 18:32-33): 
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home. 
Would God have destroyed Sodom if only one righteous person was found? 
God did find one righteous person in Sodom and showed mercy on him, but not the whole city—instead of destroying Lot with the others, he allowed Lot and his family an opportunity to escape the city's destruction

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

Let the overthrow of the matriarchy and its replacement by the patriarchy be swift and smooth. We must however be prepared to face some inconvenience and expense.

If not even ten good men can be found in the entire West, then we know what will happen and what we in fact deserve.

Pass this message upwards to the most high status male you know and ask him to do the same until a leader is finally found, in the hope that it will get to the people who matter and the movers and shakers, before it is too late.

And do not behave like bitching back-stabbing women to undermine his authority or he will fail and you also suffer defeat. Impose a Code of Honourable Comradely Behaviour and stick to it.

http://www.jewfaq.org/speech.htm

Do not bother with the women who will come round soon enough, but only if you win this ideological battle, if the Restoration takes place, when you control the resources again. Otherwise, be prepared to continue to watch your women give it away for free to those who will only feel contempt for you as they trash and destroy your institutions your male ancestors created.

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, 26 November 2016

What have George Osborne, Theresa May and Tom Holland got in common?

George Osborne

Theresa May

Tom Holland, cricket bore and classical historian

My, hasn't Donald Trump - not standing with his legs apart - got large hands!


Future social historians will ask themselves why the political classes of a degenerate liberal democracy are standing with their legs apart.

Can you imagine a real man like Donald Trump resorting to such a pathetic attempt to convey masculinity and command?

We now talk of fake news. There is now fake masculinity, fake femininity and fake displays of leadership and authority.

The less you have of something you want, the more you want to pretend you have it by adopting ridiculous positions of display.

I'm warning Michael Gove not to adopt that stance if he is still hoping to salvage his political career. It is pathetic that he's trying to get people to like him by appearing to angle for a gig on Strictly Come Dancing. It's only for retired and fallen politicians who need something to top up their income, rather like footballers whose careers have come to an end wanting compo from the Football Association for being sexually abused as a child when they never complained at the time, not even to their parents. If he wants to angle for a position, he should be up to challenging and discussing my ideas, or even more daringly, agreeing with them.
































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

Sunday, 23 February 2014

Why we have weak, stupid and cowardly leaders in a democracy

"True strength is a quality of few men, or else we would not have the word hero. The masses consist of average men, democrats. But a hundred blind men do not make one seer, a thousand cowards do not make a hero, a hundred thousand parliamentarians do not make a statesman.

Cowardly men choose the most cowardly as their leaders, so that they won't have to show courage; and they choose the stupidest among the stupid, so that everyone can have the feeling that he's a little better than the leader."

This is attributed to Hitler, but the only source comes from Konrad Heiden in his contemporary account "The Fuehrer", so take that into consideration.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

How Leaders Fail by Rabbi Sacks

Are my regular readers aware of how inspirational I find Rabbi Sacks weekly sermons on leadership?

The best yet so far can be found at 

I have been saying that Moses would these days be considered a bit of a fascist.

Perhaps Rabbi Sacks will see fit to discuss Secular Koranism, even if a little tentatively, since it will allow Jews to be better Jews and Christians to be better Christians.  I did write to him in the following terms:


Dear Lord Sacks

SECULAR KORANISM
I have been an admirer of your oratory for many years now and also subscribe to your newsletters on the theme of leadership.  I have to confess every time I hear you speak I have this urge to convert to Orthodox Judaism, but the humility to realize that I probably do not have the dedication to do it properly prevents me.  

I wish to bring my little idea of Secular Koranism to your attention so that you may consider how it will benefit Judaism.  It is basically the idea of infusing the country’s legal system with Koranic principles.   It would be a theocracy in the sense that it would be government following God’s laws, but it chooses the most liberal version with the most attractive heaven and the most horrifying hell.  The Koran is also a model of clarity, brevity and faultless legal-drafting.  

Its implementation would make it easier for Jews to be better Jews and Christians to be better Christians.  It is based on the premise that if Islam is Judaism Lite, then Secular Koranism is Islam Lite.  

It is called Secular Koranism because I do not envisage that the judiciary who will have to apply and interpret these Koranic principles have to be Muslim to do so, merely pass an examination in Koranic Knowledge, which I propose that all law students be made to do so.
We both know that Christian values and moral principles are as long as a piece of string and that Christianity and hypocrisy go hand in hand with each other because Christians have had their characters ruined after centuries of being told that they must believe Christ is God or not be considered Christian, and all non-Christians go to hell.  

It was only after the passage of the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 that made it legal to deny the Trinity in this country.  Now, of course, this doctrine is not made known to Christians and many of them have no idea of this requirement even as they claim to be Christians, for fear of their predictable modern reaction if threatened with hell for so trivial a reason.  

While European Christians are often not aware of this requirement, overseas Christians are only too aware of this particular bargain of being forced to believe in a lie and being expected to proclaim the lie as if it were true in order to remain a Christian.  The Doctrine of the Trinity is therefore intended to “explain” Christ’s divinity and the ultimate Black Box Theory.   

Both Judaism and Islam are religions of practice while Christianity is a religion of acquiring a state of mind in order to remain a Christian – and indeed a state of mind that is in fact unconnected to the moral practice of the principles of Christianity.  It seems to be suggesting that however morally reprehensible one’s conduct has been, one can still be granted access to heaven as long as one truly believes that Christ is God.

While the Muslim is enticed into Islam with a consumerist heaven, the Jew is expected to practice his religion simply for having had the privilege of being born a member of the Chosen People.   The Christian on the other hand is bribed by the ease of proclaiming a lie as if it were the truth.   

As you may already know, the Koran acknowledges the debt it owes to the two Abrahamic faiths and promotes the same moral principles of respecting the institutions of marriage and the family to maintain the patriarchy, amongst other things.  It is also tightly-drafted enough to be literally interpreted without causing injustice and offence to reason.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Secular+Koranism has further information on Secular Koranism.

I write to you because it is my belief that you are one of the few people in the world capable of understanding it.  I also believe that if you approved of it, you would be more likely to wish to promote it without fear or favour, or at least discuss the possibility of implementing what is in effect a secular theocracy, out of all the religious leaders in this country.  

No Islamophobe, however rabid, who has managed to make himself read the Koran can really find anything much that is wrong with it.   If the Koran says “all animals are equal”, the Hadith says “but some animals are more equal than others.” Secular Koranism utterly rejects anything in the Hadith that contradicts the Koran.  

I look forward to hearing your views on this idea.

Yours etc

This letter was dated 29 December 2013. I only wish to quote the words of his own sermon at him:

"A leader can simply lack the courage to lead. Sometimes leaders have to oppose the crowd. They have to say No when everyone else is crying Yes. That can be terrifying. Crowds have a will and momentum of their own. To say No may be to put your career, even your life, at risk. That is when courage is needed, and not showing it can constitute a moral failure of the worst kind."

If he cannot praise Secular Koranism, he should be able to at least discuss it.  
at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Maronite Christian ⁨@GBkishere⁩ tells us the story of his life

1:00  Sharia is the bitter medicine Westerners must take.  2:00  Maronite Christianity explained.  3:00  Adam and Eve 4:00 Phoenicians and z...