The Three Khavian Principles of a Decent Human Being

There are three principles any person claiming to be rational and moral ought to have: that of submitting to

1) Truth
2) Logic
3) Morality

No marriageable woman ie a woman of good character of child-bearing age who is rational and moral would want to marry a man who does not at least subscribe to these three principles.

The first two principles are easy enough to understand, but what is morality?

I would say it is a system of rules designed to keep the group in existence and apart from others. Religion has this effect and some religions are better at it than others. If the man in question is atheist, then he must at least be prepared to discuss what morality means, if he disagrees with my definition. Unfortunately, most women are not capable of having this discussion, though if she is already of good character, she should have a father capable of having this discussion with her intended.

Dishonest, irrational and immoral people would not be capable of having this discussion and should not be permitted to marry, for obvious reasons.

The two purposes of religion: law and spirituality

Religion has a public and private purpose. I concentrate entirely on its public purpose leaving matters of spirituality to others. Spirituality is after all the reward we get when we know we are following the laws of God correctly. If the rules are not clear, then they wouldn't be followed properly or at all. We owe it to ourselves to choose a Book of Rules with the highest authority and the clearest rules capable of establishing, protecting and restoring the patriarchy. That would be the Koran.

When did the state itself begin to conspire to corrupt the morals of the public as the BBC now does?

The BBC continues to conspire to corrupt the morals of the public at https://t.co/R9q32UTHOH  How can such an action be prosecuted, @JonHolb?

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

The offence of conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public is prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. https://t.co/h4XV7pNnkB But what happens when those conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public is the state itself? @rabbisacks @rabbisacks @JonathanArkush @JonHolb

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

Are there political philosophers capable of defining the term "morals"? I would say they come from religion and the Bible. When did Britain turn its back on its Judeo-Christian heritage? I think that would be whenever the last prosecution for this offence took place.

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

When did Britain finally become a matriarchy? I would say when Keith Joseph was forced into apologising for criticising the morals of unmarried mothers whom he said were a threat to the human stock of Britain. https://t.co/cqeGtzr8md

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

When did the state itself begin conspire to corrupt the morals of the public? I would say when the liberal judiciary cooked up the concept of Gillick Competence to mock and humiliate Victoria Gillick in 1985. https://t.co/gg13rmpWNm

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

Is there any public philosopher or lawyer prepared to discuss this with me at all? @alaindebotton @microphilosophy @MelanieLatest @Scruton_Quotes @Contentions @Trad_Muslim @AlanDersh @BBKPhilosophy @PhilosophyNow @CambUP_PHILNYUK @philtalkradio @PhilosophersEye @PhilFacOx

— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019

Cherchez la femme to discover the cause of Western Man's neurosis and dementia

I am inviting people to consider whether married women who want to normalise bastardy could be said to be respectable.

Is a woman who does not want to restore the patriarchy and wants to normalise bastardy morally respectable?

Is the woman who does not want to restore the patriarchy a feminist?

Have feminists not declared their intention of destroying the patriarchy?

Is feminism a morally respectable political ideology, or just a disease of the mind that can only be rooted out by slut-shaming as prescribed by quran.com/24/2?

Everything about feminism undermines marriage, does it not?

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, are they not?

All primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies, are they not?

Patriarchies are societies that prioritise the preferences of married fathers, are they not?

Matriarchies are societies that prioritise the preferences of unmarried mothers, are they not?

The link between bastardy and criminality is well-established, is it not?

https://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty

Can someone who prefers her society to remain a degenerate and declining matriarchy of rising crime and widespread bastardy rather than a patriarchy of law and order possibly be morally respectable?

If woman is not morally respectable because she wants to normalise bastardy, then she must be an immoral woman, mustn't she?

Is there any reason at all to not dismiss the views of immoral women who want to normalise bastardy because they want their society to remain a degenerate matriarchy suffering from uncontrolled immigration and rising crime who do not give a damn about the men of their nation because they are now shacked up with an affluent man and are one of the ladies who lunch and want to normalise bastardy?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-22/middle-class-destroyed-50-all-american-workers-make-less-30533-year

Are these women married to affluent and powerful men who want to normalise bastardy invariably the unthinking supporters of neoconservatism and neoliberalism, who cannot be reasoned with?

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

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

My review of Morality in the 21st century presented by Rabbi Sacks

This is the last in the series and we all know Rabbi Sacks won't be mentioning feminism - the elephant in the room. It is fornication that is fuels feminism, that gives us our short-termist culture of extramarital sex and shopping, of materialism, consumerism, excuses, entitlement and victimhood. It is the most evil and stupid ideology in the world and Rabbi Sacks did not say the F word even once all week, did he?

Perhaps, even as former Chief Rabbi, he has forgotten all about the Noahide laws which enjoins Jews to warn the gentile against permitting sexual immorality that undermines the the institution of marriage.

Rabbi Sacks mentions the Far Right, the Far Left, religious extremists and militant atheist in the context of free speech.

Because no one is in charge - certainly note the white man - society has atomised into a destructive and mindless amoral angry tribalism that we now euphemistically call "identity politics". The largest of these tribes are feminazis and their running dogs bent on pushing ever larger quantities of sexual liberation down our throats at an ever younger age.

We know who is in power by those whom we dare not criticise. Sacks is the world's most influential Jew in the world because we know he drafts speeches for Mike Pence and is forever in and out of the White House and Downing Street, but he, too, is afraid of feminists. It is possible that even a learned rabbi can make a category error and conflate challenging feminism with misogyny, particularly if most of his children are female and he is understandably anxious not to offend his good wife.

Currently, men in the West fear the wrath of feminazis who have infiltrated all the important institutions of state.

Having bribed Western Man with fornication and seduced him into a state of stupor and forgetfulness, he has forgotten and diluted the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15 which states that no man may be convicted of a crime with the uncorroborated testimony of a possibly lying witness.

These days, it is perfectly possible for a man to be accused of a historic sexual offence which, no matter how obviously false, the police are obliged take seriously. The Directrix of the Public Prosecutions has reversed the burden of proof in the CPS guidelines for those accused of rape, but people seem not to have noticed. This of course means that any accusation is now as good as a conviction and that is why no senior male member of the Western establishment - and this includes Rabbi Sacks - will challenge the matriarchy.

Secular Koranism is so obviously the solution for restoring the patriarchy. It may be a one party theocracy, but it is only moderately authoritarian. More importantly for Jews, it conforms to the minimum moral requirements of the Noahide laws.

If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".

If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.

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

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

Only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest. The British have been living in a matriarchy since 1974, when another Jew, Keith Joseph, pointed out that the tolerance of unmarried mothers would destroy the human stock of Britain. Although widely regarded as Prime Minister in waiting, he was made to resign for what amounted to blasphemy in a matriarchy. (In a matriarchy, all men are lower than the unmarried mother, even if that man is a Prime Minister in waiting.) A woman then became the first Tory Prime Minister, taking what many thought to be his place. Joseph took it with good grace and is credited with giving Thatcher most of her ideas.

A patriarchy cannot exist without marriage and marriage is eugenic and about privileging married parents over non-parents and unmarried parents because they undertake the task of rearing the next generation in optimum conditions for the continuation of their race, whatever their race or religion.

If marriage is not practised, the result is degeneracy, and degeneracy will lead to the decline and fall of your civilisation.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies and all primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are degenerate matriarchies.

The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents

The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents

What is the percentage of the illegitimate in your society?

Very disappointingly, Rabbi Sacks does not once mention marital and family breakdown in this very censored debate he was chosen to front by the Series Editor, Christine Morgan. The BBC also has a preponderance of female producers and this should be noted. If you look in the credits of any TV programme produced, you will find that the producer is invariably female.

It has come to my notice that non-Orthodox forms of Judaism is being increasingly led by lesbians. Recently, a female Orthodox Rabbi was inaugurated in Britain. Rabbi Sacks should have a care that Judaism is now too being subverted by the matriarchy, if he cares about his religion and people at all.

All feminists condone fornication and all unmarried men who want to have sex with women they are not married to will also condone fornication. This explains why bastardy has now been normalised. This is now the way of the Western world. Fornication, incidentally, is a deadly sin.

If the rest of the world hates the West, it is only because they can see that the way of the feminised West has failed and resent the way an obviously failing moral and political system is being pushed on them.

Jews are the Chosen People because they are religiously obliged to martyr themselves under their rule of Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the name of God). I would have thought failure to remind the gentile of the minimum moral requirements of the Noahide laws would trigger the sin of chillul Hashem (desecration of the name of God).

Sadly, there are no signs of Rabbi Sacks acknowledging either of these principles of Judaism in this rigged BBC debate on morality. All he ended up doing in choosing to participate in this rigged debate is to give credence to the ideas of Yuval Harari, an atheist and a homosexual who wants to abolish the working classes and replace them with driverless cars and trains.

If I were planning a series on morality, it would divided into the following parts:

1) The nature and purpose of morality - to secure the continued existence of the group subscribing to that morality
2) The means of enforcing morality - this would be law and government
3) The different moral systems available separating the five world religions from the non-divine political ideologies such as Conservatism and Liberalism.
4) The defects of Conservatism and Liberalism would be pointed out.
5) The arguments for Secular Koranism would be made.

On the necessity of hierarchy and the men who have a problem with authority

Does anyone else get it that logically and necessarily we must have hierarchy if we are to have patriarchy, and that marriage is the best way of ordering the rank of individuals in society?

The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy, and in a matriarchy it is impossible to establish your rank or indeed to pull rank on anyone at all.

This is because matriarchies are egalitarian. Women tend to be feminists and feminists are socialists, and socialists are egalitarian. Socialism means a nanny state without which feminism cannot exist. Feminism cannot exist outside an overbearing nanny state because a society of men with male solidarity simply wouldn't put up with feminism.

How is male solidarity achieved? It can only be achieved when men agree amongst themselves that sluts have to be shamed. Since most men are atheists and only think in the short term, they are incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes or immediate prospect of pleasure. Since this life is the only life they expect to have, any threat or bribe would work with them. This means they are incapable of making any sacrifice or showing any courage because they fear loss of status, income and employment and most certainly sexual access to women which they think is a badge of their virility.

In an egalitarian society, individuals will not receive constructive criticism gracefully. Everyone is asking anyone else who tries to correct their behaviour "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?"

If the person attempting to do the correcting says "Well, it is true that you do X and X is wrong" you would be told mulishly "Even if what you say is true, I still won't do what you say and you can't do anything about it, so fuck off."

This could be said to the person supposedly higher in rank to the mule, or lower in rank.

Why would any aspiring male with leadership qualities who is also atheist, cowardly and not prepared to make any sacrifice for any principle wish to lead a herd of mules? Far better to trick, bribe or threaten them than appeal to their reason and good nature which is mostly eclipsed by their massive egos.

The British used to be known for their rules of fair play. The 21st century British male if he is working class is usually someone who has problems with authority, said to be something commonly suffered by delinquent black youth who underachieve in life.

If you have a problem with authority, you will only want to be the leader. If you only want to be the leader, you will not be prepared to obey orders, follow rules or observe the boundaries of correct behaviour.

If you are defiant, rebellious and rude, then people who do actually have something to teach you will reject and avoid you, and this will stop you from making the most of your opportunities.

People who have problem with authority are of course atheists. Their ultimate authority is themselves guided only by their ego, appetites and emotions. Such people would hate the idea of having their behaviour restricted by anything as banal as rules, which they think is for losers, little realising that they are themselves the losers.

What rules should we obey?

From the standpoint of survival, we should always acknowledge truth, logic and morality. However, we all know people who are so egotistical and stubborn that they will never admit that they lost the argument. We might have at some in our own lives be guilty of this trait ourselves and already know that a majority of the households in the land does not have a responsible adult capable of making their offspring acknowledge the error of their ways. Most children are badly parented by their irresponsible single mothers and even married fathers are often weak or allow themselves to be undermined by their wives. This is a great shame because people who never admit they are wrong are condemned to repeat their mistakes again and again and again.

In a matriarchy, all males are beta males. This is unhealthy and dangerous because no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male.

This means beta males will have no one to represent their interests. In a matriarchy, there are at best only beta males with alpha male qualities, but they tend to be flawed characters who have a problem with authority, unable to either obey or lead properly or be guided by religious or moral principles, since they are overwhelmingly atheist, and atheists only worship the False Idol of Expediency.

If they claim to be religious, this really means nothing more than a vague belief in some higher power. If you suggest to them that this higher power might be the Abrahamic God who has taken the trouble of making laws for humanity, they will immediately say that they don't subscribe to that kind of religious fanaticism.

Such people tend to prefer the religions with the vaguest possible rules so they can interpret these principles in any way they like, to suit themselves. Such people are always on the lookout to enjoy spiritual experiences while being disinclined to obey anything as pedestrian as rules, which they think are for losers and uncool people.

To be an alpha male, you must be a leader of beta males and be chosen as leader by beta males without females interfering with their choice of leader. Otherwise, such a leader will end up being chosen by the worst kind of promiscuous and irresponsible female who is a bad mother to her variously fathered illegitimate offspring.

A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers while a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.

We know what we are, don't we?

The average voter in the UK is a 40 year white single mother who hates white men. Sadly, the plebeians of the West overwhelmingly have a problem with authority while the patricians are terrified of being divorced by their feminist wives under the rules of no fault divorce with the consequence of being deprived of their matrimonial home and children for no good reason at all. They are also terrified of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a female and feminist Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am just here to record the fall of the West and explain it to future generations since there is really not much more I can do other than explain and chronicle this process. After all, no one ever listens to me.

I am not really complaining, because men don't listen to each other either. In a matriarchy, all men are beta males and no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. Leaderless beta males think and behave exactly like women and the most telling way that this manifests itself is that these men, like women, cannot ever grasp the principles of truth, logic and morality, however often, clearly and loudly you explain it to them.

If you cannot give them immediate gratification eg sex, success etc, they are not interested. Such men will never be able to make sacrifices for the principle of the thing. In fact, they would openly sneer at anyone prepared to do such a thing as a fool or a fanatic. Not only will they lie to you, they will lie to themselves, even worse and even more. The most bemusing thing about them is that they will always be doing the equivalent of saying "No, thank you" when you offer them something while reaching out a paw to take it. They genuinely don't even know they are doing it, and when you point it out to them, they will be puzzled and offended. Principles are of course the key to moral reasoning so that one knows what one's principles are, and will notice when they are being broken. British men are entirely bereft of the ability to use moral reasoning to check themselves, and instead rely on their emotions and caprice, just as women do.

http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/20-struggles-of-having-issues-with-authority

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

The two principles any human being should have

1) Submitting to the Truth

2) Being guided by Reason

Do I even need to explain why?

Even if we are not guided by morality and are psychopathic serial killers, we would still need to perceive the truth and be guided by reason to obtain pleasure and avoid capture.

Our crazy culture

Politics is downstream from culture.

Culture is downstream from law.

Law is downstream from morality.

Morality is downstream from religion.

Religion is downstream from politics.

Religion is basically whatever is the political orthodoxy of your time whether or not you yourself believe in God whose principles become the law.

Our laws are PC Libtard.

The culture of patriarchy is marriage and family values, the culture of matriarchy is single parenthood and child sexual abuse.

Guess what our culture is now?

If people deserve the government they get, what kind of government do we deserve?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-politics-fight-breitbart-knew-culture-is-key/article/1154466

Did the Jews really break the moral compass of the Christians, as it is being claimed?

The fact this insanity is not only tolerated but held up as virtuous shows just how far our enemies have managed to warp our moral compass. pic.twitter.com/osPdrJv0av

— Mark Collett (@MarkACollett) July 9, 2017

I think it is being suggested here that it was the Jews who "warped" the moral compass of the gentiles.

Does this mean that the Jewish moral compass is more robust and works better than the Christian one?

What is the purpose of a moral compass?

What is the purpose of morality?

All systems of morality are dos and don'ts for their particular group. The best morality will obviously produce the most powerful group ie Jews.

Jews are obviously very powerful because Christians even in their own land cannot mock Jews without suffering loss of status, employment or income or even loss of liberty. This seems to be the price of "winning" WW2 for the Allies and losing it for the Germans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-irving-holocaust-denial-neo-nazi-alt-right-london-forum-meeting-auschwitz-hitler-revisionist-a7719291.html

If the Jewish moral compass works better than the Christian moral compass, what can be done about improving the quality of the Christian moral compass?

Is the Christian moral compass broken beyond repair?

Is the Christian moral compass just the liberal moral compass these days, because Christianity and liberalism seem indistinguishable from each other?

Are the directions of the liberal and atheist compass all wrong eg saying East is North, and West is South? Perhaps that is the real problem.

If so, what should it be replaced with if the operation of the Jewish moral compass is beyond the ability of Christian and libtard comprehension because the Christian and libtard are now both degenerate?

Is the Jewish moral compass superior to the Muslim moral compass?

Could it be said that the Muslim moral compass is easier to operate than the Jewish moral compass?

If your moral compass is not working properly, what should you do?

What if the Jewish moral compass is better than the Christian moral compass?

Is the Christian moral compass these days like the liberal/atheist moral compass compass ie pointing in the wrong direction?

How do you know if your moral compass has broken down completely?

Is it when you think someone else has broken yours while accepting no responsibility whatsoever at all for not looking after it properly yourself?

When you start blaming others for breaking your moral compass, is that conclusive evidence that yours has now broken down irretrievably and get yourself a new moral compass urgently and immediately?

If you are saying that someone else's moral compass has broken your moral compass, could it be that your moral compass was never much cop to begin with?

Should gentiles snatch the Jewish moral compass from the Jews and use it for themselves, or just break it - like Hitler tried to do - so no one can use it at all and all be equally lost?

Could Jews validly argue that it was Christians who broke their moral compass first?

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it tell Jews to encourage gender confusion amongst gentiles. If Jews are indeed encouraging gender confusion amongst gentiles, this is not from their holy book.

Indeed, Jews are specifically told not to confuse gender roles. Deuteronomy 22:5 says:

A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Could it be that living in Christians lands has broken the Jewish moral compass or made it work less well?

Could it be that even with a malfunctioning moral compass, Jews being a superior race do not suffer the consequences of a malfunctioning moral compass as much as Christians?

Is it breaking anyone's moral compass to acknowledge that the Jews are obviously a superior race?

Identity politics should be replaced by MORALITY POLITICS and there are broadly only TWO kinds of morality

We all have an identity based on the 5 badges of identity.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-badges-of-identity.html

We cannot help the race/class/age/sex we are but we can change our minds about morality. There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/there-are-only-two-kinds-of-morality.html

The two kinds of morality the West can have are broadly:

1) patriarchal moral values supported by the Abrahamic faiths and

2) their antithesis being promoted by our degenerate feminist matriarchy. The conflict can be resolved by men depriving most women of the vote (by narrowing the franchise to taxpayers only) and marrying them after abolishing no fault divorce and repealing totalitarian anti-discrimination legislation.

There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes

They are:

1) patriarchal moral values advocating moral restraint supporting marriage and the family; and

2) matriarchy based on the polite fiction of egalitarianism which produced feminism and socialism.

This culture has resulted in widespread fornication, bastardy, paedophilia, gay marriage and the decline and fall of Western civilisation.

Always choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is patriarchy because all advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.

Why would you choose to live in a primitive and declining society when you can choose to continue to live in an advanced civilisation?

You are more likely to choose the "morality" of the matriarchy ie PC Liberalism if you are:

a) a baby boomer who doesn't want to admit that you and your government have mortgaged the futures of future generations with the irresponsible government policies you initiated, promoted and supported;

b) a feminist who doesn't give a damn about Western civilisation because you want to destroy the patriarchy;

c) an SJW leftist who wants to undermine marriage because you cannot afford a wife and are prepared to do what feminists want in order to have sex with these women without having to marry them;

d) an atheist who doesn't care what happens after he or she is dead and thinks the status quo will last till you die;

e) a childless degenerate with no biological investment in the next generation;

f) a baby boomer who brought up your children so badly you hate them and want them and their descendants to suffer, or don't care if they do;

g) a degenerate who denies that degeneracy is a problem because you don't mind being degenerate;

h) a morally corrupted and intellectually dishonest denier that one or some or all of the above applies to you even when it does.

How to fight the Culture War

To change the culture, you change the law.

Andrew Breitbart: "Politics is downstream from culture."

Me: "Culture is downstream from law.

Law should be downstream from morality.

Morality should be downstream from religion.

Our religion should be chosen wisely and with care, for the advancement of our civilisation.

When the old religion breaks down irreparably, do not be too proud to replace it with something better that is the latest model which comes with an instructional manual and a guarantee.

If Monotheism were a car, Islam would be Monotheism Mark III."

You fight the Culture War by defining its terms, telling people about it and being the Recruitment Sergeant for Sanity. 

It is because Christianity has failed that Europe is being saturated with Islam, for nature abhors the moral vacuum Christianity has become. https://t.co/WbwSWxcn7F

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Islam has already won the argument if your "liberal" reaction is to ban a religion you hate and fear. https://t.co/yuBm2vCcB3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Islam is only in the West cos Christianity has long departed. It departed when Westerners ceased to believe Christ is also God and His Son. https://t.co/yuBm2vCcB3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

How powerful Islam must be if it can make so many Americans give up their First Amendment. https://t.co/yuBm2vCcB3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Banning Islam is analogous to the lazy wanting to ban the idea of industry. Others will be industrious who will then supersede the lazy. https://t.co/yuBm2vCcB3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Banning Islam is analogous to the nymphomaniac banning the idea of chastity as a cure for her sex addiction. https://t.co/yuBm2vCcB3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

The distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference. https://t.co/AyOWSEaRDg

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Unlike Christianity, Islam does not need to be quarantined from the state because it guarantees religious freedom. https://t.co/cvvWIHbY4u https://t.co/AyOWSDTgeG

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

While I do not deny that Islam is authoritarian, it is, unlike feminism, not totalitarian. https://t.co/AyOWSEaRDg

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 2, 2017

Should law conform to morality and if so what kind of morality should it conform to and why?

Claire Khaw and Stefan Molyneux discuss whether law should conform to morality and if so which morality and why. https://t.co/bypUkwyKwF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 2, 201

Stefan Molyneux on how theocracy could be libertarian and result in a minimal state:

When laws are founded on religious dogma then they tend not to multiply beyond all reason because they are limited by the fact that if the religious dogma does not ask for certain things to be enforced then it is tough to make the case that it should be. When religion is very strong, the laws tend not to multiply.

The Ten Commandments versus the Federal Registry which has hundreds and thousands of new regulations every year. 

When you get rid of the big laws, you don't end up with no laws, you end up with infinity of little laws. 

If people obey moral rules, you don't need a big government. 

If people respected the family, we wouldn't need the family court. 

If people respected property, we wouldn't need the criminal court.

Discussing whether feminism is evil with Stefan Molyneux

https://t.co/rAnPoh81KC Am I the only person to have noticed that @StefanMolyneux avoided answering this question?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 22, 2017

The nature and purpose of patriarchal morality - the only kind of morality fit for the purpose of imposing group solidarity

God, marriage and Western civilisation

The Roman birth rate fell when the Roman Empire was declining and falling. A falling birth rate is a signifier of a decline in the ability and numbers of married men available to exercise good husbandry over their women.

Make no mistake, a lower birth rate is the consequence of degeneracy, and degeneracy is the consequence of prioritising the right to have recreational sex over the duty to have legitimate offspring as well as producing a heir and a spare. Degenerate societies are invariably senescent and effeminate.

Even if we all replaced ourselves and all married and had a son and a daughter, women would eventually predominate because women live longer than men, unless this is dealt with using sati - the Hindu tradition of widow burning.

Those who are concerned about immigration should note that in Calais there are hardly any young people and certainly more old women than old men. This explains the inability of Calais to repel invaders.

The purpose of marriage is to have legitimate offspring, so that the quality of the next generation is maintained and not worse than the current one, and therefore the best they possibly can be. This duty to have legitimate offspring is linked to the attempt by a nation's government to maintain its ability to fight a successful defensive war.

While there are some who blame the increasing feminisation of society to material causes such as oestrogen in the water, feminisation is caused by policies tolerating extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is of course forbidden in both the Bible and the Koran which treats it as a sexual offence attracting corporal and even capital punishment.

We can most easily understand God by knowing what His laws are, and we can most easily please Him by obeying them and divining their purpose. Even if we do not really believe in the literal existence of God, we should have no difficulty identifying the evils His laws were intended to discourage and prevent ie degeneracy. The problem of degeneracy will always remain as long as the next generation require sexual reproduction to come into being.

We are degenerate if we are morally, materially, intellectually and physically inferior to our parents. If we are legitimate but our offspring are illegitimate, we are degenerate. If we are gay and cannot bring ourselves to marry a spouse of the opposite sex with whom to have legitimate offspring, then we are also degenerate.

God if He exists intended for us to obey His laws and rewards those who most faithfully and rationally obey His laws with success in warfare. It is the Koran that states His laws most briefly and clearly compared to the Old and New Testament.

Only Christian and Western chauvinism prevents degenerate politicians who have been marinating in porn and morally corrupting feminism for decades. This degeneracy they already suffer from also prevents them from acknowledging that their society is degenerate. This means they cannot bring themselves to discuss, let alone implement policies that would bring about the moral regeneration of the West because democratic politicians already know that the overwhelming majority of their voters do not wish to give up what they regard as their inalienable human right to have extramarital sex and are too cowardly to persuade them otherwise.

The Abrahamic God is also the Roman God of War as well as the synthesis of the deities of the Greek and Roman pantheon. While Mars was the Roman God of War, Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of Wisdom and War. In the end both the Greeks and Romans broke their own rules. The Greeks who prided themselves on their reason lost their reason when they succumbed to ruinous wars and warmongering, and the Romans who prided themselves on their hatred of kings and autocrats in time began to worship their emperors.

Great civilisations breaking the rules that made them great are of course well advanced in their journey on the road to perdition. Liberalism is no longer about free speech and rational discourse but about gay marriage and labelling anyone opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage as extremists and potential terrorists. Gay marriage is really no more than sanctifying a sexual offence, and analogous to repealing criminal laws to "solve" the problem of rising crime.

The West has now strayed so far from the baseline of morality that it has redefined both the institutions of family and marriage for the purposes of making their perversions legitimate in the eyes of their law. It is laughable that a family is now defined as capable of existing in any form other than children and their biological parents. The right to marry has now been extended to couples patently incapable of sexual reproduction with each other.

Gay marriage is conclusive evidence of degeneracy because its existence proclaims the government's intention of conferring equality on couples obviously not capable of sexual reproduction with each other and only interested in recreational sex with those who have taken the trouble of getting married before having legitimate children staying together to bring them up. As Aristotle said, the greatest injustice is treating unequal things equally.

Those who don't respect the rules of traditional marriage are invariably degenerate and will eventually defeated by people who do see the benefits of marriage and family and the necessity of enforcing a system of laws that protects these institutions.

British values/morality v Islamic values/morality

According to Ofsted, 'fundamental British values' are:

• democracy
• the rule of law
• individual liberty
• mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.

What are Islamic values? Are they necessarily antithetical to British values?

Islamic morality can be defined because its rules of morality can be easily ascertainable by reference to the Koran eg the prohibition of usury, pork, gambling, alcohol, extramarital sex.

British values cannot be similarly established because there is no authoritative book with the title "British Morality For All Time" said to be written by the Greatest Liberal of All Time. Liberals will doubtless be dismayed to know that the Koran is obviously conceptually superior any other idea including liberalism because it is said to be the directly transcribed Word of God.

Islamic morality is intended to be universal and eternal, unlike British morality, which is indistinguishable from British values and British culture. British values were defined under a Conservative government whose leader and Prime Minister legalised gay marriage. British values were only defined British values in response to those who sought to challenge it by asking the government what they were.  The most fundamental British value is of course the right to have extramarital sex, which is now regarded as an inalienable human right. The evil consequences of these values have been described at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/uk-britain-motto-idUKL1256515520071112

In my view, the exercise of defining British values is futile and illogical.  It is illogical to define British values simply because they are bound to change if it is indeed the case that British values means British morality and it is the law's role to limit our immorality. The law changes from time to time and government to government. After a revolution, the morality that emerges is bound to be radically different to the morality that was in existence before the revolution. To advocate the return to pre-revolutionary laws would mean one is a reactionary, or a counter-revolutionary and therefore a security threat to the current regime, with grave consequences for our reputation, career and perhaps liberty and life itself. Even without a revolution, morality changes but more gradually, for example when a Labour government repeals a law passed by a Conservative government or vice versa, or when a Conservative Prime Minister legalises gay marriage.

On the grounds of individual liberty we should of course be allowed to say that the current system of morality is not one we ought to have, give reasons and propose changes which can only be done by changing the law (eg repealing or passing an Act of Parliament) or by changing the government (eg Labour, Conservative, UKIP etc) or indeed changing  the entire system of government (eg from a representative democracy to a Caliphate, dictatorship, one-party state, theocracy etc).

If we cannot do this without being arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation under s 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as Anjem Choudary was, are even those who articulated and commissioned the declaration of British values breaking their own rules?

If the government is breaking its own rules - the one concerning upholding the rule of law as well as the one about individual liberty (which must surely include freedom of  expression and freedom of belief) - then British values as pronounced by the British government is a sham.  They were only declared so that those who question and challenge it can be demonised as extremists and then categorised as potential terrorists, as a way of intimidating those who are thinking of speaking out as well as punishing those who already have. 

Is Politics Based on Morality?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2015/04/20150427t1830vNT.aspx

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/faculty/peter/

https://eastanglia.academia.edu/CatherineOsborne

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/stephen.a.de-wijze/

@LSEpublicevents @catherinerowett @LSEPhilosophy What is morality anyway? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If politics is not based on morality, then what is it based on? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents How many kinds of morality are there? There is only morality based on God's law and the other kind. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If we are talking about morality based on God's law, then we might as well talk about the Koran. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Patriarchal moral values: God, social conservatism, hierarchy, marriage, no extramarital sex #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Matriarchal moral values: atheism, PC Liberalism, egalitarianism, gay marriage, polyamory #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Morality is a system of rules designed to bring about social cohesion and group solidarity. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Politics is the exercise of imposing your religion/political ideology on others. #LSEmorality @catherinerowett
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Morality is a system of rules designed to bring about social cohesion and group solidarity. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents There is Yin morality and there is Yang morality. http://t.co/hEnzV71JCN #LSEmorality @catherinerowett
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents All advanced societies are patriarchies, all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If https://t.co/rSYlKax8rM is true, and it appears to be, then feminism, democracy and liberalism will not last.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Matriarchy natural fallen state of man, before marriage practised. Patriarchy the attempt to overcome this state
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents http://t.co/cw6AeQSvtK Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents What the debate betwn Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about http://t.co/kAPiYS96Mw #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents How do we measure effectiveness of a moral system? By how long civilisation adopting it endures. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents PC Liberalism v Islam: which morality will prove to be the victor in a war between the two? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Could it be said that egalitarianism/feminism/pornocracy is the systematic cultivation of failure? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Could it be said that the patriarchy is always the lesser evil if compared to the matriarchy? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is it time for men to take back the ship of state from women steering it into the rocks? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If democracy does not help us get good government then it must be time for us to abandon it. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents http://t.co/bYwOq5QanX How chasing the female vote increased our taxes n reduced our liberties #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Was indiscriminate universal suffrage a grave and tragic error? Should it be abolished? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Would it not be more moral to allow only taxpayers to vote? No representation without taxation. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Have you noticed that every time we vote the government gets worse? Wd it b logical to stop voting? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Are @UKIP's policies more moral than libtard policies? They are certainly closer to God's. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Wd it be illiberal/blasphemous to suggest that sexual morality has a bearing on general standards of morality?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is it the moral duty of gvt to prevent degeneracy and dysgenic policies from being implemented? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents How consistent with morality are most voters? Can they be trusted with the vote? #LSEmorality @catherinerowett
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If most voters are ignorant/stupid/venal, would it be more moral to withhold the vote from them? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents If most people are stupid, then this logically and necessarily means most voters are stupid. #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Do gvts who care abt the long term national interest have a moral duty 2 stop stupid voters voting? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Wd it b moral 2 disenfranchise non-taxpayers who r mostly stupid/poor/parasitical? #LSEmorality @catherinerowett
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is it more moral to worship an omnipotent and morally perfect God or worship sluts/sexual freedom? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Wd it be moral to shame sluts who r the carriers of illegitimacy and degeneracy? #LSEmorality @catherinerowett
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Wd it b more moral 2 adopt Sharia Law suggested by @anjemchoudary than carry on with libtard laws? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Wd it be more moral to replace the party system with a one-party state if we get better government? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Should morality be based on Sharia law? If not, why not? @anjemchoudary @catherinerowett #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is Western foreign policy based on morality or is it an evil criminal enterprise? @anjemchoudary #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents When voters vote, do they think of foreign policy or about which bribe to accept? @anjemchoudary #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is feminism based on morality or is it more based on sexual immorality? @anjemchoudary #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Is feminism toxic to morality as well as to reason and the long term national interest? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

@lyhairian @LSEpublicevents Do feminists think of morality and the national interest when they r not demanding more privileges? #LSEmorality
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 21, 2015

What and who is a psychopath?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29804446

One civil servant suggested "psychopaths" could be useful to the authorities after a nuclear attack: http://t.co/4TmKkIt1Uc
— Sanchia Berg (@Sanchia7) October 30, 2014

@martinboniface @Sanchia7 UK politicians are emasculated libtards incapable of any coherent strategy conceivably in the national interest.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today A psychopath is just someone who rejects conventional morality and acts only for self-gratification.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today If a psychopath is someone who rejects conventional morality what is conventional morality?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Does conventional morality - whatever that means - vary from time to time and age to age?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today If a psychopath is someone who rejects morality then what is morality?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Is "conventional morality" another word for "the political orthodoxy of a particular time and place"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Can anything that is necessary ever be immoral? Do the ends justify the means?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today The political orthodoxy of our time is compassion for criminals and tolerance of evil - libtardism.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Anyone who goes against current political orthodoxy would be called evil/heretical/traitor/psychopath etc.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Why is the current political orthodoxy tolerance of evil/compassion for criminals? Cos women are in charge
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Any individual who offends against feminist orthodoxy would be called a psychopath by feminazis.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today What a man might think reasonable and necessary a woman might decry as cruel and psychopathic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today In a post nuclear Britain, would you rather a man ran the show or would you want @HarrietHarman to do it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 If someone who goes against feminist orthodoxy is more suited to run post-nuclear Britain why not let him run it NOW?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today All cultures give women all sorts of ready-made excuses for their capriciousness, cowardice and hypocrisy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Feminist hegemony has virtually criminalised masculinity, and this is dysgenic and disgusting.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today It is disgusting n immoral to see the strong/clever/wealthy willingly submitting to the weak/stupid/poor.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today y do men submit to women? Because women control the supply of sex and feminism bribes men with cheap sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Because men submit to women in the West, everything they might logically n do is considered psychopathic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today What is so bad about feminism criminalising what is natural to masculinity? The fall of your civilisation.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Why talk about someone being a psychopath anyway? Why not just call them good or evil? Too "judgmental"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today What is so great about feminist orthodoxy when it always tell you to suspend your judgment?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today What is so good about feminist orthodoxy when it always tells u to refrain from exercising discrimination?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Anyone who deviates from feminist orthodoxy will be labelled autistic or psychopathic by the matriarchy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Jane Hogg, Scientific Officer at the Home Office sounds an interesting lady and a *psychopath*. Heh heh.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 Female rulers tend 2b worse than male rulers cos it is the nature of women 2b more cowardly and hypocritical than men.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Clever of Jane Hogg, a psychopath wanting 2 preserve her femininity, 2 say a psychopath shd govern Britain
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today Calling ppl "psychopaths" mendacious. Let us use words such as good/evil, moral/immoral, right/wrong again
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

@Sub_Strata @Sanchia7 @BBCr4today When we discuss morality again we should ask ourselves if sexual morality is linked to general morality.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 30, 2014

Can You Pass The Psychopath Test?

My result:

"Sometimes you are a little distant from other people. You are no stranger to difficult times and a little depression, but overall, you are fairly friendly, outgoing and enjoy the company of others. You don't like to be on your own too much, you are very empathic, and you do feel bad when you see someone in need (heck, you might even help others from time to time!)

Don't worry about your potential to become a psychopath, as long as you keep yourself surrounded with good people and a healthy lifestyle, you will be fine!"

Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

The question of the connection between the law and morality is central to the history of legal philosophy. The debate, which has lasted from Ancient Greece to the present day, has been dominated by two broad categories of theory: natural law theory and legal positivism. Classical natural law theorists like Aristotle argued that laws were necessarily connected to man’s moral life, and had as their aim some higher moral – or divine – framework. Legal positivists, whose arguments dominated the 20th Century, argued that natural law theory confused the issue of what the law is and what it ought to be, and that laws could have authority irrespective of whether or not they were ‘good’.

Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral. The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this? Is it simply because natural law theory has been convincingly defeated? Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society? Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?

http://londonlegalsalon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/are-we-all-legal-positivists-now.html

I think it would be helpful to redefine the terms of debate so we know what we are talking about. My heart always sinks when people approach this debate with a discussion about morality, which none of us can ever agree on and which no one ever attempts to define.

To this end, I shall attempt to define morality in terms general and neutral enough to acquire the necessary consensus required to move this debate forward.

The purpose of morality is social cohesion.  

Religion is the means through which a society acquires social cohesion and is also another name for state ideology. It comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind". To bind what? To bind society. Religion is the means through which any society acquires social cohesion. This means that in every age we will have different ideas of what constitutes morality according to fashions of thinking and the spirit of the age.  Religion is therefore the means through which morality - different in every age - is instilled.  In Britain and the West, morality is no longer Christian, but PC Liberal, however much politicians insist that the West is Christian and witter on about its Judeao-Christian heritage.  It can be seen that PC Liberalism overrides the moral values of other forms of morality, because PC Liberalism is supported by legislation ie the Equality Act 2010.  It is already clear that all other ideologies are subordinate to it when a Christian couple was fined for refusing the custom of gay couple http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297171/Christian-B-B-broke-equality-laws-refusing-let-gay-couple-share-room-legally-turn-away-homosexuals-non-profit-organisation.html and a Jewish school was declared sexist and racist for having selection criteria that went against the rules of PC Liberalism.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415678.stm Freedom of contract is no more, and a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake of gay propaganda is threatened with prosecution.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/bert-and-ernie-gay-wedding-cake-northern-ireland-ashers-bakery

If morality is for the purposes of instilling morality, then what is the purpose of politics? I would say that politics is the process of imposing our belief of what  is moral on others.  If we are in government, this is what we can do to others.

The problem with this debate is that nobody really properly defines what natural law is because they confuse it with a kind of universal morality which they cannot define.  As I understand it, natural law was synonymous with God's law and in the West God's law came from a Christian God and can be found in the Bible.

As I see it, all the Abrahamic faiths promote the same kind of moral values and essentially promote what feminists would call the patriarchy through in effect forcing women into marriage because its alternative - prostitution, spinsterhood, a life of fornication, abstinence or lesbianism, was generally considered undesirable.

Social conservatism as I see it amounts to no more than the imposition of the rules of respecting marriage, which logically must meanthe prohibition of extramarital sex.  If in this day and age we as a society do not respect marriage, it is only because the overwhelming majority of people have premarital sex, which is a species of extramarital sex.  Indeed, we are encouraged and expected to do so by the government and the media in the form of literature, theatre, cinema, TV and even schools.  The easiest way to make men respect marriage again would be to simply forbid all forms of extramarital sex and punish any transgressions.  If this were socially and legally forbidden, no one will ever say again that marriage is "only just a piece of paper".

For the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful to define natural law as anything that is in harmony with Biblical and Koranic principles, for we would then immediately know we what laws and what kind of morality we are discussing and rejecting and the reasons for so doing.

The Bible and the Koran are undeniably "sexist" and "homophobic" and clearly forbid extramarital sex.

It is also worth nothing that much of our PC Liberal laws go directly against the moral vaues of the Abrahamic faiths ie what constitutes natural law.  If this is how natural law is defined and perceived, then this would help clarify the terms of debate, and tell us what we are really for or against as individuals, and actually get us somewhere.

In a nutshell, we should regard natural law as laws promoting social conservatism forbidding inter alia extramarital sex, suicide and usury and legal positivism as laws promoting the opposite.

"Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral."

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die" has always been the official position of the legal profession and the judiciary, who are in effect mere "soldiers" of laws following orders. Lawyers can only work within the parameters of what the law and the legal process allows, ie apply it rather than make it, and it is up to criminals and politicians in the legislature to push the boundaries and see how far they can go. Of course, it is not completely unknown for the criminal, lawyer and politician to reside in one person.  

It should also be noted that the "I was only following orders" excuse does not always work, as those tried at Nuremberg discovered. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

"The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this?"

Because there is  no agreement about public morality in our society known for its diversity and people would rather not "go there" to avoid being accused of hate speech, presumably. In any case, the only "public morality" that is now allowed is PC Liberalism, and this means refraining from saying things offensive to the protected groups in the Equality Act 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

The Equality Act 2010 should be considered the 21st century equivalent of the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

Has natural law theory been convincingly defeated?

I would suggest that it has not been convincingly defeated because war was never officially declared, let alone fought.  PC Liberalism simply crept up on us unawares and we suddenly found it in our homes as a flood water, perhaps. In time it will recede, then we can begin clearing up the mess and think about how in future we can strengthen our flood defences.

"Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society?"

The triumph of legal positivism is akin to a successful breaching of a society's defences when its leaders were asleep on the job, or who were perhaps like the Trojans ignoring Cassandra's warnings against bringing the Trojan Horse into through their city gates.

"Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?"

Only if we think the moral values contained in the Abrahamic faiths serve a useful protective purpose. Clearly, those who value their right to have extramarital sex more than the need to respect marriage as an institution - ie social liberals - do not.

Is there any purpose to respecting marriage? Only if we think it useful to rear the next generation in in optimum conditions.

What would happen if we give up the practice of marriage? If we did, most children and people would be illegitimate and we would become increasingly a nation of sluts and bastards. Is there a problem with illegitimacy? http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/ Is there a problem with becoming poorer, stupider, more depraved and held in hatred, ridicule and contempt by the rest of the world? Jamaican levels of illegitimacy are over 85%.  http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html  I would have thought so, but not liberals, it seems, who have sanctified the slut and really cannot see the problem with illegitimacy, which is akin to suffering an inferior race to flourish within your race at the expense of the legitimate. Perhaps everyone else is right and I am wrong. None of the stuff I fret about will come true, will it? These are only prophecies contained in an old old book about a deity it is no longer fashionable to fear.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

What is morality really? It is a set of rules designed to maintain and perpetuate the strength of a society beyond the lifetimes of its current members.  Most childless people, and people who care nothing for their children or the next generation, and who do not believe in God, would not trouble their heads too much on this question, I imagine. "This will last my lifetime", they probably think.

These days it would not be socially acceptable to point out that people without children probably vote, vote think and behave in a  more selfish and short-termist way than parents with legitimate children that they love or that female MPs voted in a conspicuously different way to lower the standards of sexual morality when it is obviously true. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html These days, it seems to be socially acceptable for men to avoid offending women and to even say that they are afraid of offending women. Perhaps that makes sense if they have women in a position of authority over them and who could easily deprive them of their job, status and income.  Legal positivists should be pleased about this, I imagine, while natural lawyers are in a state of traumataised horror, awaiting a malicious accusation of a historic sexual offence in a state of pitiable and emasculated helplessness.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil." 

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-bhagavad-gita-indicates-position-we.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-debate-between-natural-law-v-legal.html
What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about