THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label liberal democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal democracy. Show all posts
The Koran is the only guide to humanity whose words constitute an Official Handbook by God for Humanity. So why not use it since Christianity is kaput?
Because Christianity is kaput, liberal democracy is coming to an end.
But fear not, the most advanced version of monotheism is at hand to fill the vacuum. It even regulates warfare and international relations.
Let the collapse of the global American empire, which so many Americans never even asked for in the first place, be the silver lining that is the end of democracy.
The end of democracy is to be welcomed because politicians no longer debate, but pander to the worst emotions of the voter who only asked to be bribed.
The Whig Interpretation of history - that everything would get better and better until we reach liberal heaven on earth - was clearly a pie in the sky. Whigs are after all now extinct.
Let us go back to the basics of Truth, Logic and Morality that allowed our ancestors to get where they did and give us all the things we used to enjoy of peace, prosperity and social stability.
We no longer have a stable society because stable marriages and therefore stable families are no longer supported by the government
The rules need to be clear, and they need to be followed. Not only must those who are governed follow them, but so do those in government. This is what is meant by the rule of law, and that rule of law needs to be fair enough to most of the people most of the time. It was the Americans who conceived of judicial review in Marbury v Madison. It is the idea that a law can go against the principles of US constitution and for that reason be declared invalid.
I propose that any law that goes against the Koran should be declared invalid. Many of them nothing more than thought crime eg the Equality Act 2010.
Americans need to return to the first principles of their proposition nation, and work out the following:
1) whether they were a good idea in the first place
2) whether they were followed
3) how far astray they are now from the first principles of the US constitution
4) whether they wish to return to them
America is a republic and was conceived as a godly republic guaranteeing freedom of worship and speech. The First Amendment is based on 2:256 of the Koran which states that there is no compulsion in belief. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and we know that the White House Koran is his. Even now the Jefferson Bible allows Jefferson to speak to us from the grave. What he did to to the Bible - when he extracted only the principles but ignored the stories - is what he was inviting future generations to do to the Koran. If people would but read it, they might even agree with me that the rules are fair enough.
THE KINDEST WAY FOR ANTISEMITES TO REGARD JEWS: TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE FAILURE OF YOUR RELIGION AND POLITICAL SYSTEM AND RESOLVE TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING BETTER. TIME TO TAKE DEMOCRACY OUT WITH THE TRASH AND ADMIT THAT CHRISTIANITY IS KAPUT
The question is why the gentile in his own land allows Jewish organisations such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) to bring unwanted migrants into their country. To be weak and stupid is to invite exploitation and abuse. There are plenty of gentile liberals encouraging Jews to be liberal. This is a matter to be resolved between gentiles themselves, surely? Obviously there will be white Western gentiles who want to co-opt non-white and Jewish minorities in their country to their political cause eg Sarah Jeong. The liberals being what they are would recruit far and wide amongst women, Jews and minorities while the Conservatives would be standoffish and exclusive with the predictable consequences of having a small narrow base of left-behind impoverished old angry technophobic white men regarded as bores even by others of their ilk from the lower strata of society with low standards of sexual morality and behaviour with addictions problems repellent to women of any race.
The kindest way to regard Jews and Judaism is this: think of liberal democracy as a toxic marinade and Judaism as a steak marinating in it with Jewish leaders now too morally poisoned by their moral environment to feel it to be their religious duty to remind the gentile when his laws fall dangerously below the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws.
Jewish motives in encouraging uncontrolled immigration for the Western gentile are hinted at in Mark Collett's video questioning the validity of egalitarianism and feminism.
Is it true that Jews are guilty of malign encouragement to encourage the gentile to become degenerate so he may be more easily tricked and exploited? This must be what is meant by the stumbling block.
Leviticus 19:14:
You shall not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your God - I am your Lord.
If this is true that Jews are forever putting before the stupid and blind gentile stumbling blocks, why does the gentile allow this to happen?
Because his political classes are stupid or in collusion with the Jews?
Because his political classes don't care about him?
Or is it because Christianity and liberal democracy are both kaput?
After all, the rules of Christianity come from the Old and New Testament and both promote patriarchal moral values.
Temple Judaism was suffering from a parasitic priesthood in the same way as 21st century Christianity. This ended in Jews who being deprived of their homeland for 2000 years when the Romans expelled them Israel.
Christians are in the rather more fortunate position of being able to use Islam to protect themselves from usurers. Usury is of course the source of Jewish power over the gentile.
The banning of usury would also benefit Jews by preventing them from getting into trouble with the gentile when he realises he can no longer pay back what he owes to the usurious Jew and takes the usual course of action over the centuries: pogrom.
It is odd that Jews are not already promoting Islam as a religion for the gentile since it is their religious obligation to remind the gentile that his laws have fallen dangerously below the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws.
The late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last leader of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism wrote:
'We must do everything possible to ensure that the seven Noahide laws are observed. If this can be accomplished through force or through other kinder and more peaceful means through explaining to non-Jews that they should accept God’s wishes [we should do so]…Anyone who is able to influence a non-Jew in any way to keep the seven commandments is obligated to do so, since that is what God commanded Moses our teacher' (“Sheva Mitzvot Shel Benai Noach,” Hapardes 59:9 7-11, 5745)
It seems obvious to me that people are their own worst enemies and cause themselves terrible suffering when they break their own rules. But this problem is easily solved: Jews just have to acknowledge that they owe the gentile a duty of care ie warning and reminding him when his laws no longer conform to the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws. Those who call themselves Christians need to be honest about whether they really believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God.
If they really believe it, they are perhaps too credulous. If they only pretend to believe it to keep their positions in the Christian priesthood, they are obviously corrupt.
If they reject the Trinity as a patent absurdity while still believing in God, then they are closer to being a Muslim than a Jew.
Even an atheist is closer to being a Muslim than he is to being a Christian who is not only required to believe in God's existence, but that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the Abrahamic God.
Women who want to become mothers should understand that they owe it to themselves to choose the father of their offspring carefully. This means that women should not be having babies until they are married because it is always easier to get a man to have sex with you than to get him to marry you.
What governments should be doing is to make marriage a good bargain for men again. quran.com/24/2 would be the most effective way of making women choose their sex partners who must also be their husbands in a more careful and eugenic way.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.
Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers with illegitimate offspring.
Male solidarity, co-operation and leadership accountability is facilitated by a chain of command in a hierarchical patriarchal society while co-operation amongst men is next to impossible in a matriarchy because there is no clear leader and even the appointed leader is obviously not in control. This is certainly the case in liberal democracies.
In a matriarchy, all men are lower than the fornicating immoral woman because in a matriarchy even the women get to choose their alpha male leader.
Once women get to choose their leader, they will inevitably choose the male leader they find most physically attractive without much listening to rational arguments or caring much about the long term national interest because it is not in the nature of females to trouble their pretty little heads about such things.
You will find that the national interest just does not compute with the average feminist and if you try to explain it to her she will accuse you of being racist, sexist, antisemitic and Islamophobic just to shame you, threaten you and shut you up.
Once males with leadership ambitions realise the importance of female support, they will pander to the female preference in order to become leader and marginalise and even ignore the male preference.
Men who pander to the female preference must logically and necessarily think, speak and behave like a woman.
When men begin to behave like women, they become incapable of defending any moral principle at all and this encourages their enemies who rightly suppose that a nation of men who submit to the female preference without the desire or ability to fight back are ripe for invasion.
In a patriarchy, the alpha male is a leader of beta males. This means that the beta males choose their leader ie the alpha male.
In a patriarchy the status of the female is derived from the status of her father or husband.
The command structure of an army is very simple and accountable. Orders are given from above, and is passed downwards. When someone disobeys the order or fails to perform his duty, you can find the weak link in the chain of command.
In a matriarchy the male leader is chosen by the females whose interests and preferences are different from and in opposition to male interests. Because they are potentially half the vote in any liberal democracy, female votes will always be chased and the male preferences marginalised. Therefore in a matriarchy the male leader is always mainly chosen by females and this means the marginalisation of male interests.
Because the idea of feminism is egalitarian, everyone in an egalitarian society in which feminism flourishes will think they are equal, when in reality they are not. The wise and strong should lead the foolish and weak, not the other way round. This is precisely what intersectional feminism is all about though: it basically inverts the pyramid structure of the class system at the expense of everyone in the middle. Worse, it encourages undesirable behaviour and discourages moral behaviour ie discouraging chastity, thrift, prudence and industry putting the path of your society on the road to perdition since it is a political system that is in effect a systematic cultivation of failure.
In an egalitarian society, everyone will think they are just as good as everyone else, and this means no one can be corrected. If any attempt is made, the person attempting the correction will be asked "Who are you to tell me what to do?" The person attempt to make the correction will be insulted, lied about, accused, threatened with violence or even suffer violence.
This means leaders dare not correct their followers, and things go wrong.
Also, in a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried single mother with illegitimate offspring which she often badly parents. This must be so because not even the US President - supposedly the most powerful man in the world - dares not criticise unmarried single mothers or propose the abolition of no fault divorce.
If men in the West are in effect slaves to the female preference, then it means that they have to think and talk in a way that women like, and this turns them into women.
Men mind about immigration much more than women and these men are beta males ie low status men who have to compete for jobs and resources and who are most likely to say racist things or do not have the social graces or education to say what they feel to be true without avoiding denunciations of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or sexism.
When Ken Livingstone of all people ends up having to resign from the Labour Party for antisemitism, you know the game is up as regards impartial news-reporting or a Labour leader with any leadership qualities in control of his party. When a Labour leader cannot protect his oldest ally who is clearly innocent of a non-existent offence, you know the game is up as regards getting a decent leader for your country even if the current childless clueless woman's government falls.
As I was saying, lower class men do not have the best of appearances or manners likely to appeal to white middle class feminists who run the show and who will instinctively despise them and find them viscerally repulsive.
Men, when women think this of you, they more or less think you do not deserve to live, let alone enjoy reproductive rights with a member of their sex.They would rather fuck foreign men and invite them into your country by voting for governments that support mass immigration, and not even realise that this is what they are doing because they will have been indoctrinated into thinking that being called racist - as you surely will be if you protest about uncontrolled mass immigration - is the worst crime you can ever be guilty of.
As regards the hierarchy of a matriarchy, there is none. This means no one is really in charge. It is basically run on fear, lust and ever faster buck-passing. Insofar as a hierarchy exists, it is represented by the Cult of Youth. The most powerful members of society are the young, sexy and foolish, who will of course abuse whatever power they have, destroying themselves, others and their own civilisation in the process. These would be mostly the over-entitled female undergraduates with their Guardianista ideas who wrap pussy-hungry male graduates round their little finger at universities, destroying their education and often their reputations if these male undergraduates end up being falsely and maliciously accused of regret rape.
These female undergraduates will soon become graduates and acquire positions of influence and status in the professions. If men protest, they will be falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence to keep them quiet.
The wages of feminism and egalitarianism is the death of your civilisation.
O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.https://t.co/y8xWBI1Fwp
I don't have to be white, male or racist to understand the mechanics of keeping your race as "pure", but even Jews come in four colours and Judaism is the most successful form of ethno-nationalism ever known to man.
The white man is suffering from denial and disbelief that he has fallen so low in his own country he is in fear of his immoral women who would not hesitate for a second to falsely and maliciously accuse him of a historic sexual offence. He also knows he will get no justice.
The atheist gentile is an Islamophobe because he has an idea that his women are more willing to give Muslim men with more resources than him sexual access. The base proletariat unashamedly hates and envies anyone with more and better than they do. It is their nature, after all.
Rancorous proles and peasants are everywhere - this is probably a law of nature in every nation of every race. Envy is not called one of the Deadly Sins for nothing, but that is not the only sin the white degenerate indulges in, for he indulges in all of them as much as he can.
Lust is another Deadly Sin that Western Man is hooked on. He regard his right to fornicate freely as his inalienable human right. Such an expectation presupposes that most of his women must already be fornicating sluts who become unmarried mothers and badly parent their bastards.
Gluttony. In the West, the poor are the people who cannot afford the membership fee of their local gym. Under-educated workless proles on welfare understandably get fat sitting around watching daytime TV wanking to porn and stuffing their faces. Anyone would.
Sloth. Why work when you can get by on welfare and only immigrants do the work? In any case, you learned nothing useful from your sink school comprehensive and you were bored senseless by your mediocre female teacher teaching her feminised curriculum full of feminist propaganda.
Anger at Jews that your stupid ideology of feminism-enriched liberal democracy has caused most of the white race to be unmarriageable so the good ones have to marry out to secure a future for their legitimate children. Laughably, the failure of Christianity is blamed on Jews.
From 35th minute Rabbi Mizrachi denounces the lefty "fancy Jews" who sounded like Palestinians of AIPAC who are out to destroy Israel and Judaism who own CNN and the BBC. They are the cancer on the body of Judaism. https://t.co/UORxRlYOQD
https://t.co/MQbR1os4Yw Should God help Jews or Arabs? Satan: "The soldiers of Hezbollah pray 5 times a day, 80% of the Israeli soldiers don't pray a minute in their whole lives, 20% of them are gay, everyone makes fun at religion and rabbis, they smoke drugs and fornicate ... "
https://t.co/MQbR1os4Yw "In Iran, no woman walks naked in the streets, in Israel almost everyone is naked. In Iran no one will have a gay parade, in Israel if a rabbi speaks against this, the police will take his computer because he wrote on Facebook 'Oy to this shame!'."
'An Israeli posted on Facebook "According to the Torah, sodomy requires the death penalty." 5 minutes later, the cops took his phone and computer away. The gays are the new god in Israel. Tel Aviv is the capital city of the gays. The government of Israel is making everyone gay.' https://t.co/xveYxfREzk
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What do atheists like about their religion of ecology and environmentalism?
They like Nature, they like animals and they are atheists who believe in sexual liberation.
Sexual liberation means the widespread practice of recreational extramarital non-procreative sex.
Because environmentalists believe that the world would be a better place with fewer humans, it gives its adherents the perfect excuse not to marry and have children. Spouses are annoying, inconvenient and expensive and so are children, especially if you want to educate and bring them up properly.
Because Nature is indeed beautiful, Western environmentalists are predictably moved by its grandeur and beauty, more than they are moved by the almost incomprehensible Doctrine of the Trinity that their ancestors once paid lip service to. Environmentalists have Christian ancestors and therefore the religion they reject is Christianity, whose doctrinal requirement is to believe that Christ is also God Himself and His son, which is patently absurd.
Having rejected Christianity, they are unlikely to go for Judaism or Islam either. Christianity in practice only requires people who call themselves Christians to claim that they believe in the Trinity to be in good standing with their corruptible and corrupt clergy who mostly don't believe in it either, while adherents of Judaism and Islam actually have to do things good Jews and Muslims are supposed to do ie refrain from indulging in extramarital sex and celebrate their traditions over and above guzzling chocolate eggs at Easter and indulging in drunkenness and gluttony at Christmas.
Environmentalists also like animals. Many of them are spinsters with cats who indulged in sexual liberation on the cock carousel until they realised they had ruined themselves for marriage before settling down to a life of pets.
Environmentalism is the product of our Culture of Consumption, or, if you prefer, our Culture of Sex and Shopping. We know this because Environmentalism has no solutions other than recycling. It certainly dares not touch the vexed issue of usury which turbo-charges our consumerism. The worship of Mammon is about creating desire for a consumer good where none previously existed, impelling its victims to lend and borrow irresponsibly to satisfy a desire that will soon be replaced by another desire for another consumer good, reducing us to mere fungible units of consumption, without identity and without principle who become the disposable units of a disposable culture. As well as individuals, governments also lend and borrow irresponsibly and their victims are its citizens, at sea in a swamp of empty consumption, simultaneously indulging in all of the Seven Deadly Sins at an unprecedented rate.
Environmentalism is silent on usury, but Islam, which would ban usury, is not.
The Bible and the Koran condemn profligacy and waste, but what is waste if not throwing away perfectly useful things just because they are no longer new or fashionable, to buy something else we don't need with borrowed money we don't have?
Waste is of course supremely environmentally unfriendly when you think of all the factories producing things nobody really needs belching out pollution caused by its energy-consumption.
Have you noticed that Britain's only Green MP 's constituency is in Brighton, the gay capital of Britain? Gay sex is the cheapest form of sex you can get, cheaper even than hiring a prostitute. Gay sex is the cheapest form of sex because gay couples who have sex with each other are most likely to enjoy the sex act for the sake of the sex act, while heterosexual couplings require seduction, domination, submission or the exchange of money for sexual services. Marriage is the most expensive form of sex,while fornication is the second most expensive.
To perpetuate the matriarchy, feminists have to ensure that most of the sex that takes place in society is extramarital sex, and this is why they get so offended about my proposal to shame sluts, as quran.com/24/2 requires.
To become a patriarchy again, gay sex and fornication have to be criminalised while marriage is reconsecrated and prostitution tolerated once more.
You may have noticed that feminists want to in effect ban prostitution by criminalising the punter for buying sex, which is much more intolerant and restrictive than the Koran. The Koran at least tolerates prostitution provided you do not compel your slave girls. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=24&verse=33
So there we have it: patriarchy is about keeping the price of sex high which is eugenic and in the long term national interest, while matriarchy is about keeping the price of sex comfortably low for degenerates and atheists who refuse to make the sacrifices required for marriage and family values, who don't care about their children, descendants, society, nation or civilisation after they are dead. The political system that most favours the perpetuation of the matriarchy is of course liberal democracy, because it ensures that government can never think beyond the next election, which is always less than five years ahead of the present. This means they can never think of promoting the long term national interest, which explains why politicians are invariably stupid, corrupt, short-termist, unprincipled, cowardly and damnably irresponsible.
Worse, the Fourth Estate - the media who are supposed to call to account the government as well as analyse and report stories and opinion - have been co-opted into the exercise of defending this political system, probably because they are also mostly sexually corrupt and stuffed with feminists and LGBTs.
You pays your money and you makes your choice: are you a rational and decent person or a hedonistic degenerate bent on filling your boots before you die with no thought for posterity?
If you are the former, you would feel morally obliged to choose a one party theocracy. If you are a degenerate, you would of course be happy with things exactly the way they are. You would not be capable of telling the Noble Lie or wish to perpetuate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
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.
The irrational and emotional are frightened by truth and logic. This means more women than men are frightened by truth and logic.
Do you find this Russian easily far more convincing than lying canting warmongering Western leaders who are zombie flesh-eaters death-walking into another European war?
The Ukraine and the Crimea has always been Russia's backyard, but everywhere in the world is America's backyard.
Sergey Karaganov was foreign policy adviser to both Boris Yeltsin and President Putin and he is saying if Ukraine joins NATO it will be regarded by Russia as an act of war, geddit?
Who is right? Wise experienced old white men or over-promoted mediocrities in our much-vaunted and feminised dumbed down liberal democracy steering the ship of the state into the rocks?
It is an attempt by the US to isolate Russia and China. TTIP works in the same way EU directives and the ECJ works, except it will be run by Neoconning shits bent on global domination.
Oh, and why are the Americans taking an interest in soccer of all things and investigating Blatter, a citizen of the world's most famously neutral country, Switzerland?
Our zombie flesh-eating warmongering leaders are blundering into another European war at America's behest. The American's don't care because they have the buffer state of the EU as well as the Atlantic. Why are our leaders throwing all this warmongering shit at the fan having locked us into the fucking room with them?
Why can't our democracy solve this little problem?
Russian and Chinese leaders at least on sane principles of promoting their own national interest, even if they get things wrong. On what basis do leaders of liberal democracies act on? Do they even know?
Has any politician seeking election said anything about Britain's imperialist bombing of Muslim countries? Or why Israel takes precedence?
— Ibrahim Hewitt (@ibrahimhewitt56) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Why do voters not care about foreign policy? Cos deep down they don't care who their government invades/bombs/maims/kills.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Will voter be thinking about who their government invades/bombs/kills/maims on 7 May 2015? NOPE. Democracy = MORAL VACUUM
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Are terrorists right to conclude that the only language voters in the West understand is VIOLENCE and LOTS OF IT?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 EFFECTIVENESS OF TERRORISM: 12 October 1984 - Brighton Bombing; 15 November 1985 - Anglo-Irish Agreement.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
If you are Muslim and care enough that Muslims are being invaded/bombed/maimed/killed to attend demos your children may be taken from you.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
You are radicalised when you realise that your government are the bad guys and that participating in the democratic process is futile.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Some Muslims have concluded participating in the democratic process is futile cos most voters are Islamphobes hoping more Muslims get killed
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Even if most voters don't actively want to kill Muslims they r clearly indifferent to the fact that Muslims are killed by UK foreign policy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Most voters are comfortable hating Muslims because hatred gives them the certainty they need in an uncertain world.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
If Islamophobes stopped hating Muslims whom could they hate? Their own government/ignorance/cowardice/hypocrisy? Easier to continue hating.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Why will no Western media discuss Western foreign policy honestly except @RT_com? Because they don't want to discuss the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
To discuss the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE that is Western foreign policy would mean discussing the nature of democracy and it is a MORAL VACUUM.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
What are we to think of the @BBC, which refuses to ever discuss Western and UK foreign policy honestly or facilitate a proper debate?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Radicalised Muslims already know what to make of this, while non-Muslim UK voters turn the page, watch porn or pour themselves another drink
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
"All terrorism WITHOUT EXCEPTION is the consequence of bad government policy." Discuss. Will the BBC be discussing this? What do you think?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
I challenge Cameron/May to an open & public debate:
ISLAM (Shari'ah)
Vs
MAN MADE LAW (Democracy)
Which is better/the future for Britain?
— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) March 23, 2015
What is democracy but knaves soliciting the votes of fools once every 5 years and bribing voters with their own money?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
In any general election the rich will vote for their party and the poor will vote for the party of the poor. What is the morality of this?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage is simply government by knaves for fools and vice versa.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Where is the sense of pursuing a deranged foreign policy and then complaining about terrorism when its victims react violently?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Let us see how free we are in the "free West" to debate any of this. It should be revelatory when no journalist and no MP touches this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ntfem Islam's central statement of faith got mega-publicity in recent Sydney hostage event b/c of blanket media coverage.
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) December 15, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Liberals are known for their support of liberal intervention ie invasions of usually Muslim countries to impose regime change.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Number of deaths caused in the West by Muslim terrorism is very small compared to Muslim deaths caused by Western intervention
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme What is the equivalence to Western lives to Muslim lives: 1 Western life is worth 1000+ Muslim lives?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The quality of a religion should be judged according to its scripture, not in the defective way its adherents follow it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme If Australia has a problem with refugees who are criminally violent, it should take fewer of them, or none of them at all.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Accepting refugees is something liberal matriarchies who pride themselves on their compassion are very keen on.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme There is probably liberal guilt involved in taking in refugees because these liberals know they have destroyed their countries
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The trouble with what passes for ideology in liberal matriarchies is that it is mostly self-destructive and irrational.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme When you hear young men - @telbo5000 is 31 - squeal about compassion like women - you know they have been feminised.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Therefore in @telbo5000 you have feminised thinking coupled with the male tendency for being violent: the worst combination.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme As we already know, women are more libtard than men and men who want sex with libtard women must agree with their views.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Women wear the badge of compassion the way they would bear the badges of femininity and desirability to men.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Men want women to be compassionate cos they don't want women they love 2b cruel so they see compassion in women as desirable.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Bachelors must flatter sluts to get sex. Husbands however fear no fault divorce: MEN STITCHED UP NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Beta males these days do not even get the alpha male of their choice to represent their interests because women have the vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme You have to acknowledge that all parties in the West even the anti-establishment ones unquestioningly chase the female vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme As I see it, representative democracy cannot in fact reform itself and it will now be a race to the bottom.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme I was expelled from the @bnp for alienating their single mother with illegitimate disabled offspring vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme You would have thought that an ethno-nationalist political party would care about the quality of the next generation but no.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Even the organisations who are supposed to be pursuing aims for a particular cause subordinate that cause to the female vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme I actually point this out to nationalists who have in effect retired, but they refuse to agree or pretend not to get it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Even the ones who are well-disposed towards me cannot grasp the enormity of how they are in thrall to the female vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme By directly disenfranchising the non-taxpaying we disenfranchise most parasitical single mothers and their offspring.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Islam denies the need for the separation between Church and State because it dispenses with the need for a corruptible clergy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Islam asserts that our laws should be consistent with our state ideology/religion and that should be consistent with morality.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The purpose of morality is to obtain social cohesion for the protection of the group against its internal and external enemies
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Our external enemies are predictably foreigners who may come to invade, exploit and enslave us.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The internal enemies of any society are always sluts and socialists and their bastard spawn.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme If bastards turn out OK they will say "My mother was a slut but look at me I turned out OK so it is OK for women to be sluts."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme There is nothing effective at all in Catholicism that would discourage women from being sluts in the 21st century.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme How could Catholics fight their matriarchal governments anyway? It has no army and no one really prepared to fight for it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme If the Catholic Church became powerful enough it would probably start conducting another Inquisition, so no thanks.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Islam has never conducted anything resembling an Inquisition: wars of conquest were enough to satisfy it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The first hurdle of anyone wanting to become Christian/Catholic would be the requirement to believe Jesus is God.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The requirement to believe Jesus is God would be considered an absurdity by anyone educated living in the 21st century.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Islam denies the Trinity and only requires its adherents to believe that God's message to man is contained in the Koran.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme Even the most rabid Islamophobes I know can't find much wrong with the Koran and have to fall back on their hatred of Muslims.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme If Muslims suffer for being Muslims it is because their governments do not follow the Koran properly and they don't either.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme With its advanced legal system Secular Koranism presents an opportunity for the West to seize the initiative once again.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme My greatest hurdle is getting a lawyer to read the Koran and seeing its potential for the moral regeneration of the West.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
@AnthonyLarme The final line of defence of Islamophobes remains to refuse to read the Koran while proclaiming their hatred of Muslims.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
"You may wonder that the dollar's strength (lack of collapse) in the face of money printing and ever expanding debt accumulation is as a consequence of underlying US economic strength or huge amounts of (Invisible) gold reserves at Fort Knox. The real reason why the US is able to get sway with printing unlimited amounts of money is the US Military, as the US remains the worlds sole hyper military power following the collapse of the soviet union and increasingly relies on global military power to back up the dollar as the worlds primary means of exchange, as any country that chooses not to comply will likely be on the receiving end of a 1000 tomahawk cruise missiles as Libya is experiencing today or even worse as Iraq has experienced during the past 8 years."
Can a nation that operates foreign and domestic policies that are obviously evil, destructive and self-destructive prosper or even survive?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 16, 2014
