Translate

Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Friday, 26 June 2020

Ten questions on masculinity

1) Can a man be said to be masculine if he has no principles?

2) Can a man be said to have principles if he does not subscribe to any religion or known moral system nor the three basic ones of submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality?

3) Is a man who refuses to declare his principles or his moral system a nihilist?

4) Is a nihilist someone saying "I have no principles I am prepared to defend"?

5) Would you ever choose or trust a leader you know to have no principles?

6) Is there a crisis of masculinity in the West?

7) If so, is this crisis of masculinity anything to do with the fact that no senior politician is prepared to defend a principle and this cowardice has percolated downwards?

8) Do women instinctively despise unprincipled men who are afraid of them and want to topple their statues?

9) What would happen to the nations of unprincipled men who cannot defend any principle verbally, let alone to the death?

10) Do unprincipled men deserve to live in an advanced civilisation?

Sunday, 23 February 2020

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.

Monday, 27 January 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 17 January 2020

Will Yoram Hazony, Viktor Orban, Douglas Murray and Matteo Salvini be discussing Secular Koranism in Rome?

"It is not Christianity that is the religion of nationalists, no, it is Islamophobia. An irrational fear based on koranic misreadings and misconceptions false fed to them by social media and other infidel sources linked to Zionist groups and Wahhabis.


Whenever a white Westerner reverts, he is labeled an ethnomasochist or a traitor to his own kind even though he has adopted a natural belief system of values that submits to the absolute, the intelligent design of this universe and a straightforward morality.


Every time you hear something from nationalists about Islam, it is always the same: "terrorist", "ISIS" or "pedophile". You would never hear that regarding a Christian nor a Jewish convert. Pure naive silence as usual.


For the last ten years since the BNP fell, nationalists fail to find a solution to the national interest but have mainly resorted to infantile islamophobic mania. Nationalism in Britain will fail again and again."



5:00  Leadership with Truth, Logic and Morality
6:00  Co-ed schools and an incorrect idea of what it means to be an alpha male. An alpha male is a leader of beta males.
8:00  Morality, patriarchal moral values
9:00  Idolatry
10:00  Chinese and Jews
13:00  Abrahamic faiths
14:00  Confucius
15:00  Antisemitism
16:00  Why the Chinese chose Marxism
18:00  Boxer Rebellion
18:30  Nazi Germany
19:00  Rape of Nanking
20:00  The middle class
21:00  The short-termism of an atheist nihilist matriarchy with its unprincipled morally compromised men who don't care about posterity hooked on extramarital sex
22:00  In a matriarchy, all men are lower than the unmarried mother and are afraid to criticise them  - this includes POTUS and Jewish baronets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
24:00  No fault divorce
28:00  Association of British Muslims  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Muslims
Religions can be part of the solution for peace, not the problem, faith leaders say
https://religionnews.com/2020/01/16/religions-can-be-part-of-the-solution-for-peace-not-the-problem-faith-leaders-say/
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2020/01/how-to-restore-patriarchy-with-help-of.html
32:00  quran.com/18/4
35:00  Proposed joint letter from Jews and Muslims to Christians warning them of the abomination of idolatry
https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.com/2019/03/proposed-joint-letter-from-jews-and.html
37:00 What Press TV could be doing to embarrass the idolaters and the Jews who have been chosen by God to promote the Noahide laws but who have not been doing so for centuries
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws
"In view of the strict monotheism of Islam, Muslims were considered as Noachides whereas the status of Christians was a matter of debate. "
37:30  Israeli Charedi leader accuses Chief Rabbi Mirvis of ‘blasphemy’ over LGBT guide
Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch claims the British Orthodox Jewish leader was “encouraging” homosexuality by releasing guidance against bullying
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/israeli-charedi-leader-accuses-chief-rabbi-mirvis-of-blasphemy-lgbt-guide/
38:00  Secular liberal diaspora Jew Bret Stephens and religious nationalist Israeli Jew Yoram Hazony discuss nationalism
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2020/01/secular-liberal-jew-bret-stephens-and.html
The Freedom of Nations Conference in Rome on 4 February 2020
https://nationalconservatism.org/wp-content/uploads/mailings/2020/01-15/email.html

39:00  Hungary and Poland only two European nations able to stand up against globohomo.
40:00  E Michael Jones and the First Amendment
41:00  Secular Koranism  https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/96RQWJV
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
42:00  The First Amendment was derived from the Koran
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html
43:00 Why shouldn't Israel be a theocracy?
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2012/01/peace-in-middle-east-questions-to-ask.html
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-solve-problem-of-israel.html
44:00 WASPs
45:00  Catholic Church
46:00  Forced church attendances
47:00  The rules of natural justice and ex post facto law/retrospective legislation
48:00  Israel should be Torah-compliant if it is a theocracy or could it use a lighter kind of theocracy such as Secular Koranism? If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".
49:00  Is Israel even Noahide-compliant?
50:00  ‘Brought to Jesus’: the evangelical grip on the Trump administration  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/11/trump-administration-evangelical-influence-support
"The sooner we have Armageddon, the sooner we will get to heaven"? Is this any way to run a global empire?
54:00  The unreasoning antisemitism of the peasants who cannot believe that Christianity is kaput and democracy is dementia  because everything was working perfectly until the Jews came along and ruined everything, apparently.
55:00  Secular Koranism will protect Jews and gentiles from each other.
56:00  Idolatry  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)
57:00  The Al Aqsa Mosque is on the site of the Third Temple for a reason.
58:00   The Sadducees were the corrupt priesthood of the Israelite.
59:00  Parasitic Priesthood v Theocratic Judiciary
1:02:00 Christianity failed to save Rome.
1:03:00 The disestablishment of the Church of England
1:05:00 What is the point of having an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even Christian?
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-point-of-having-archbishop-of.html
1:05:30  The illegitimacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury
https://archbishopcranmer.com/the-revelation-of-justin-welbys-real-father-does-not-change-nothing/
1:06:00  Charles should become Head of the Church of England after persuading his mother to abdicate, sacking the Archbishop of Canterbury, demanding a DNA test from Harry and then converting to Islam.


Wednesday, 15 January 2020

Who won this debate on the nature of divinity and the purpose of religion?

Claire Khaw 
I am actually saying even if God does not actually exist, the idea of the Abrahamic God is nevertheless divine.

AP [A Person]
Because you can imagine something, it doesn't become divine --- except in your imagination.

Claire Khaw
But what could be more divine than the Abrahamic God assuming the Abrahamic God exists?

AP
'Assuming God exists' is what is problematic -- if you imagine that God exists then, by definition, your imaginary God is going to be divine since the word 'divine' means to be God-like. So if God exists, ergo he is divine.

Claire Khaw
But there are other deities besides the Abrahamic God. However, since the Abrahamic God is the most powerful deity conceivable, He must be the most divine of all deities. It really is as simple as that. How would you define divine though?

AP
I've just given a definition of divine; it means to be like a god. This is the dictionary definition. If you imagine a god, then the god is divine. If you're saying that God 'is the most divine of all deities' then you're ranking God along with other gods. You probably mean that you're imagining the most powerful god you can think of.

Claire Khaw
To be divine is to be superior to being merely human. We are mortal, therefore divine beings are immortal.

However, the Greeks have muddied the waters because Greek myths are full of semi-divine beings who are the illegitimate offspring of Zeus. We get the idea though: if humans are mortal, divinities are immortal.

Basically, a divine being can be whatever mortals cannot be ie never die, or at least survive longer than humans who have imagined them.

Since the Abrahamic God is more powerful than any of deities conceivable, I think it is safe to assume that He is most divine. He is still worshipped while deities such as Zeus are not.
The next question to consider is whether He exists.

Since it cannot be established conclusively whether He exists, we should take a teleological approach to God and ask ourselves the purpose for which God was created, if He was created.

Every man-made invention was created for a purpose. Once we learn the purpose of God, we will understand His nature more.

Religion comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind" society.

The five world religions support patriarchy ie marriage and family values.

Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy that of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.

All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.

The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents.

The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents.

Britain is a matriarchy. In fact the entire West is a matriarchy were all men are lower in status than the immoral unmarried mother, and this includes POTUS.

Because of "globohomo" illegitimacy rates are rising worldwide.

Illegitimacy is the consequence, considered a mortal sin by Christians, who have forgotten all about this. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is a bastard.

When the news was announced, nobody in Britain batted an eyelid, nobody cared.

But then Christianity is kaput.

Are we now agreed that Christianity is kaput?

Is the Catholic Church fighting globohomo? It is more known for its paedophiliac priests and Pope Francis saying "Who am I to judge?" when asked about gay priests in the Catholic Church that would have been treated as sex offenders in the Bible and the Koran.

I assume that we are all agreed that Christianity is kaput.

Since Christianity is kaput, the question to be asked is if Western nations need to find a replacement for failed Christianity.

If so, what should be its replacement?

AP
Beneath all the rubbish you have just posted -- the political propaganda --your underlying logic is at fault. If I try and point this out to you, you'll only go on evading the point by posting more propaganda. Only one or two sentences out of what you've posted is indicative of these logical flaws, but any further attempt to discuss this will just lead to more of your copy-and-pasted nonsense, so I'll leave the discussion there.

Claire Khaw
How is my logic at fault?

Which of my sentences are "indicative of these logical flaws"?

What have I said above is "propaganda"?

AP
It's all copy-and-pasted political propaganda. You're not sticking to the discussion about the reality -- or otherwise -- of God. It's not worth going into it all again because we've done it all before and you have no idea how to stick to the point.

Claire Khaw
I am asking you for further and better particulars of your claim that what I have posted is "political propaganda".

What I am saying that the *idea* of God most definitely exists and that should be enough to be getting on with.

How am I not sticking to the point when I am asking you to make out your accusations?

AP
You're asking now but only after dropping a lot of irrelevant crap about patriarchy and single mothers into the conversation.

Claire Khaw
Are you denying that all the five world religions are about protecting the patriarchy and this must mean shaming sluts?

You do know that the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy is marriage, don't you? If you don't practise marriage you are in fact a matriarchy.

AP
None of that is relevant to a conversation about whether or not God exists and what constitutes divinity. You're talking about the *uses* that organised religion can be put to. We have covered this ground many times before. I know what your *political* views are on all these matters, so there is no point in filling the thread with all your cut-and-pasted stuff just for my benefit.

Claire Khaw
Divinity consists of being immortal, infallible, supreme, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal - what mortals know they cannot be.

AP
Yes, but you're spouting dogma, and if you do that you're not really asking serious questions about how we can know whether God exists or not.

Claire Khaw
I have already said as an agnostic we cannot know if God actually exists, but what we can be certain of is that the *concept* of God exists, and that is enough for the purposes of having faith. I have not said anything dogmatic.

AP
The word 'concept' only means 'thought' or 'idea'. Being able to *conceptualise* something is not really sufficient to give it an independent existence. For example, you could conceptualise the Loch Ness Monster but it doesn't mean it's there. And if you're saying 'I have a *concept* of the Loch Ness Monster and that's enough for me', this is absurd. But that's basically what you're saying about God.

Claire Khaw
It cannot be denied that beliefs can change our behaviour.

AP
You can't 'prove' the existence of God in any religion, not just Christianity. You can infer God's existence as Descartes probably tries to do (Baruch Solomon?). But participation in a religion is a social act -- it brings benefits which seem self-evident to those who take part. Christianity has become bad at telling people not to become single mothers etc, so from an authoritarian point of view it's not very effective these days. Islam -- which Claire prefers -- is much better at ordering people around. On the other hand, those who do still value Christianity probably do so for other reasons.

Claire Khaw
I have said that the *concept* of the Abrahamic God cannot be denied.What do you think is the purpose of religion?

AP
I'm not playing that game, Claire. You can refer to your copy-and-pasted comments above for the set-piece answers to your set-piece questions.

https://m.facebook.com/questions.php?question_id=2864941283527752

Saturday, 4 May 2019

The purposes and components of religion

I divide religion into two components:

1) the narrative
2) the rules

Religion also has a public and private function:

1) organising your society with scripture serving as constitution, defining and apportioning rights

2) rewarding the believer with a sense of well-being called spirituality when they know they are following the rules properly

Thursday, 4 April 2019

Comparative religion, Andrew Yang , Greg Johnson and UBI



I join from 2:49:00



Monday, 26 November 2018

I discuss Mein Kampf and suggest that the degeneracy of the white race can be cured by restoring the patriarchy



1:01:00

Luke Ford's question:

Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?


CK:
A lot of Mein Kampf is about German matters of Germany in the 1930s. Its preoccupations would be quite different to the alt-right of the West now because alt-right is preoccupied with immigration and Nazi Germany didn't have an immigration problem, did it?

LF:
So let me just run it by you again. I'll just go point by point. Hitler had a biocentric worldview perspective on life: first of all a referenced nature so that is identical with the alt-right's perspective. The alt-right and its leaders are overwhelmingly atheists.

CK:
Hitler pretended to be Catholic. In his table talks he he actually favoured Islam because he thought Christianity was a stupid religion, although he was confirmed as a Catholic, so there were lots of things that he wanted to do but he knew he couldn't. He wanted to abolish usury. He did know something about Islam and thought it was a more masculine ...
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/187128/nazi-romance-with-islam

LF [pretending I had gone off topic when what I said was exactly on point because he did not like me suggesting that Islam is the answer because Christianity is kaput]:
OK, Claire, I need you to stay on topic. So Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in nature. He contended that before anything else we must attend to nature the world of living things in their environments and is not separate from or above nature but rather a part of nature we need to come to grips with how our nature actually operates, we must align our lives with nature, we must obey nature's laws. That is the alt-right's perspective.

CK:
Is it? I wasn't aware of that. I didn't even know Hitler said all of that. It sounds very vague.

LF:
You know, it sounds pretty clear to me. I mean I don't know what to say if you don't see that that's the that's the building block for Social Darwinism ....

CK:
Is it arguing for Social Darwinism or something like that is that? Is that what you're saying?

LF:
I don't know how you can get more clear than this: Hitler had a biocentric worldview that we must  ...

CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean German-centric?

LF:
Does biocentric mean German-centric? Really that's what you're asking me? Biocentric is very clear, Claire, it means a worldview based in nature that humans must align themselves with nature, obey nature's laws that we're not separate ...

CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean empire?

LF:
Because we are in nature, frequently our choice is either kill or be killed ...

CK:
OK,  so he started acquiring empire and it ended badly so maybe that's not always the best thing.

LF:
I'm not talking about whether this is the best thing to do, I'm asking if you can come up with any significant differences between ... 

CK [answering the question immediately and succinctly]:

The alt-right are not about war but about pogrom.

LF [pretending I had not answered the question because he didn't like my answer]:

OK, you've got to stay on topic Claire. When I ask a question you've got to respond to the topic. We can't just go spinning off. Glib, do you want to jump in ...

[Glib and LF talk and I was invited again to comment on what they had just said, which wasn't about anything much in particular as far as I could tell.]

1:10:00

CK:
...  biocentricism meant social Darwinism: eugenics  ... was that what you meant?

LF:
I give up I can't be any more clear than than I was ...

CK:
Can somebody explain to me then? I don't think people understand either. By nature do you mean nature raw in tooth and claw?

LF:
Yes, that's that that's the beginning of the Mein Kampf worldview. It's the beginning of the Dissident Right worldview. The Dissident Right is not a theistic movement. The main intellectuals of the alternative right - Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor,  Kevin Macdonald - they're all atheists. They all have a a social Darwinian perspective on life which I'm trying to see how there's any difference from that and the worldview of Mein Kampf.

CK:
Well, Mein Kampf is really more about culture and sociology even because Hitler does write knowledgeably and some compassion about how the poor used to live and and architecture and and lots of other things but you know if you read Greg Johnson's White Nationalist Manifesto, there is actually very little about culture. It's basically "I'd like to kick them out and I want to kick all of them out by 2060" and that's it. Mein Kampf is a more rewarding read. I would suggest for White Nationalists and compare what the white man was in the 1930s and what he he is now. In fact, recently I was watching these videos of these schizophrenics in lunatic asylums in America and it  struck me how articulate even these mentally ill people stuck in asylums were compared to the tongue-tied people you have now. 
It really was astonishing. Obviously, something bad has happened to to the white race and and and this catastrophic drop in in IQ and obviously it's all to do with religion in the sense that the least that a religion can make you do is make you marry before you have children and parent or children properly - that is the very least. Forget all the frilly bits like not eating pork and shellfish and that kind of thing. That's the very least your religion should do for you and and if you won't enforce that then your population will age and become stupid and weak and people will come in and take your stuff, and that's what's what's happening now.

[Luke Ford mutes me and turns to Glib again to talk about nothing much in particular.]



Stupider and sluttier
https://www.theweek.co.uk/94224/why-iq-levels-are-falling

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

Rabbi Sacks:

For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilisation and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care.

The result is that in Britain in 2012, 47.5 per cent of children were born outside marriage, expected to become a majority in 2016. Fewer people are marrying, those who are, are marrying later, and 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Nor is cohabitation a substitute for marriage. The average length of cohabitation in Britain and the United States is less than two years. The result is a sharp increase among young people of eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, stress related syndromes, depression and actual and attempted suicides. The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.

This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of “two nations” a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer. And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history.

http://rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/




2:10:00

CK:

In every nation and every government there will be in every nation every government will have a rent a mob and Antifa is our one now. 
Antifa are probably part of the Deep State. 

2:29:00

Claire, is the left simply more committed than the right?

CK:
Yes, simply because it's easier for them because they're already in charge at the top of the tree. Trump is trying very hard to dislodge them but he hasn't the manpower, I guess. There is no other big idea. I keep going on about religion simply because it has this kind of moral authority -  an instant appeal to people. If the alt-right is just about race and immigration it's not a big enough [idea]. If you wait for everybody to be affected to support you then then it'll probably be too late, so you need some Universalist idea that's capable of appealing to people but I guess the alt-right are the last people prepared to support marriage and family values.
****************************

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.
Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.
Intellectual corruption leads to your leaders not being able to submit to the truth, exercise logic or conform to the moral rules necessary for you to keep your society in existence and in good health.  

This is the only explanation I can think of for Luke's strangely obstructive behaviour when I tried to answer his questions, which the others also noticed.

IN THE COMMENTS

kissmyass682
Why'd Luke get so aggro with Claire? He went from 0 to a 100, is there some history there?

Claire Khaw
Not that I know of, except that, possibly, he didn't like the way my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"

Matvei Daniilovich
Wow, luke actually got a little triggered with Claire.

Claire Khaw
Since I never got to answer the question properly before he muted me, I can only think that it was because he did not like the direction my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"

Alejandro Black
Loved Luke’s Modafinil rage with Khaw

Claire Khaw
I don't think that was anything to do with drugs. 

Lou Duva
Very odd.

Claire Khaw
@Lou Duva I thought it was a bit odd too, but I think it was because he did not like the direction my answer to his question was going"Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"  From what I can make out, Luke was implying that both Mein Kampf and the alt-right want a pogrom.  He knew I would say that the answer lies somewhere in between the status quo of liberal democracy and the pogrom the alt-right are proposing ie the civic nationalism of Secular Koranism and he didn't want me mentioning that again on his show.









Tuesday, 20 November 2018

Stefan Molyneux says no to religion but I, an agnostic, say yes to theocracy



To choose to believe in God, become aware of the benefits a society would enjoy if it obeyed God's laws.

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

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

The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.

All primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.

All civilisations rise in patriarchy and decline in matriarchy.

Jews are the most powerful and successful tribe in the world and managed to get their homeland back after being exiled for 2000 years.

Christianity and Islam are based on Judaism.

Since Christianity is kaput and Judaism is for Jews only, there is only one rational and moral choice because Hinduism and Buddhism are too alien to Western traditions.

If you became Muslim there would be no need for a Sabbath so no need to worry about getting up early on Sunday to go to church. Muslims only have Friday prayers which is afternoon/evening.

You must know that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to be philosophers. The law limits our immorality and our laws should be in harmony with our chosen moral system which, if we are rational, should be a patriarchy supporting marriage and family values ie be a slut-shaming society that does not tolerate sex outside marriage.

Other than Islam, what else would regenerate the degenerate West and restore the patriarchy that made the West great?

The Abrahamic God is supreme, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly moral as well as the most powerful God conceivable.



Stefan Molyneux agrees with Claire Khaw on nationalism, patriarchy and marriage
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/12/stefan-molyneux-agrees-with-claire-khaw.html

Have a smaller state, have a theocracy that will eradicate feminism
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/04/have-smaller-state-have-theocracy-that.html

Monday, 12 November 2018

I fail to explain the importance of having a functioning religion to protect your society from its internal and external enemies

From 57:00 you will hear me try to explain the role of religion in dealing with Cultural Marxism which we should really call Feminism which established itself after the Sex Revolution. Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher, grooming gangs, child prostitution, marriage and family values are discussed amongst other things.



MY COMMENTS

4:17 Looks like it will be easier if you all became Muslim because there will be another European War of Religion after the White Nationalist Revolution!
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/11/white-nationalism-is-busted-flush-if.html

7:55 OMG. White people are going to regress into paganism after the White Nationalist Revolution? And this woman is going to be the High Priestess of the Pagan Pantheon? What are the deities of this pantheon? I quite like Aphrodite.

 22:08 I was going to come on to tell you that you have no choice but to adopt Islam if you want to restore the patriarchy, because Christianity is kaput.

All civilisations rise in patriarchy and fall in matriarchy. The West is now a matriarchy.
Lasse Anckarman · 23:39 Islam is stronger than Judaism. That's the reason for the hilarious anti-Islamic propaganda from Jewish media.

Claire Khaw · 15:05 Lasse Anckarman Islam is stronger than Judaism because there are more potential Muslims than there will ever be potential Jews. But the choice is between quality over numbers.

Lasse Anckarman · 0:00 Claire Khaw Hardly. Islam is stronger because it is a religion of love, not a hateful worldwide program for world control.

Claire Khaw · 0:15 Lasse Anckarman Jews do not feel they have a duty to convert the world to Judaism.

29:22 Judaism is divine ethno nationalism, Islam is divine civic nationalism.

29:46 Charles and his brothers have been circumcised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html?fbclid=IwAR0TZPV2KQJNztyS0xki2-LMoeI5EFr9MQFObIx_ObNSlLA2Is5ABYTrtkM

 33:14 Judaism is the most successful form of ethno-nationalism in human history. Jews managed to get their homeland back after 2000 years of exile.

Therefore only an Abrahamic faith with instructions about how to deal with Jews would be adequate for the gentile to guide him on how to deal with his women and minorities.

That would be Islam, I am afraid, because Christianity is kaput.

9:51 You need to restore the patriarchy and I believe only Islam would restore the patriarchy, because only a patriarchy would produce enough good strong men to defend the national interest.

Christianity is the most schismatic religion in the world.

The gentile needs to be protected from the Jew and Islam will do the job because it would ban usury, the source of Jewish power.

The Abrahamic God is the link between all the Abrahamic faiths, obviously, with each claiming that their method of worship is best and yields the best results.

The success of the Jews is undisputed: after 2000 years of exile, they got back their own homeland.

The failure of Christianity is obvious too, since Christianity is now associated with the religion of white people who want to spread gay marriage all over our global village and turn it into Sodom and Gomorrah.

If God exists, He would want to punish those who identify as Christians for 2000 years of idolatry.

The assumption of the Abrahamic faiths is that the world is divided between Jews and gentiles and that Judaism is for Jews only. Gentiles have only Christianity and Islam to choose from.

Since Christianity is kaput, and this cannot be denied because the West is now as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human, there is clearly no alternative.

Hinduism and Buddhism are more alien to Western traditions than Islam.

If you are arguing that the West does not need a religion that promotes patriarchal moral values ie that supports marriage and family values, then please make it.

I have already raised these matters with Greg Johnson at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yB4zW6P3U&t=2061s and have been hoping for another chat.

Friday, 7 September 2018

On what basis should the West choose its next religion?

The answer is simple if you believe that it is the nature and purpose of religion to establish, protect and restore the patriarchy* or else the consequence will be living in a declining and degenerate matriarchy being governed by childless clueless leaders who have no biological investment in the next generation and who cannot think beyond the next general election - always less than five years away.

Since Christianity is kaput and Judaism is for Jews only, the only rational and moral answer is painfully clear, is it not?

If the West consisted mostly of men who are Christian fathers in charge of their families, they would not be putting up with uncontrolled immigration and rising crime, the moral chaos of widespread illegitimacy and gender dysphoria in prepubescent children. This is what  half a century of feminism has done to the West.

Women have been allowed by feminist legislation to compete unfairly against men while neglecting their own very important work - that of raising the next generation. Feminism has delighted us for quite long enough and it is high time men resumed control of the ship of state to steer it away from the rocks. It is certainly time they sent women who cannot take the heat of debate back into their neglected homes, families and kitchens.

* Patriarchy cannot exist without most parents in your society being married parents, and only a patriarchy can produce enough good strong men capable of defending the national interest. (This is why Hungary and Poland have men capable of saying no to the EU, no to migrant swarms and of speaking truth to power while the other leaders of the other EU Member States seem to have lost their voices.)

Thursday, 6 September 2018

The purpose of life for rational and moral men and women (feminists not included)

God created a logical universe. A morally perfect and omnipotent Abrahamic God would not do otherwise than  create a logical universe. If the world seems illogical to us, it may be because we lack the truth or morality necessary to understand ourselves, our own history as well as the defects of our religion and political system.

If speech is further censored and the exchange of ideas obstructed because our politicians do not wish us to discuss our history, religion and politics to understand and solve our problems, we would become increasingly dishonest, immoral and illogical.

To be human is to be put on earth to ponder matters of fact, solve problems rationally and solve them without transgressing our moral principles.

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

National identity and National Consciousness

National identity is forged in the furnace of war and revolution. How else does one form of national identity replace another? Religion and political ideology (and change thereof as well as the culture produced by religion and politics) is the only source of national self-consciousness.

What is self-consciousness in the philosophical sense? When we realise we are different to other people and know for a fact that our interests are different to theirs. We know we are different to other people when we do things differently to other people for special reasons of our own. Jews are a good example of a people with a very developed by sense of group identity.

Democracy, liberalism and feminism are the sacred cows of the West. The consequence of this unholy trinity is that it leads to matriarchy, and a matriarchy is a primitive, declining and extinct society, or one that is about to become extinct. All the five world religions anyone has ever heard of is about protecting the patriarchy and promoting marriage and family values. Once your government stops doing that, you will become a matriarchy.

White men no longer wishing to live in a matriarchy saying they are tired of suffering the consequences of uncontrolled immigration seems a perfectly respectable political aspiration to me.

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

Alt-right YouTubers invite libertarian on their show. I am a libertarian theocrat prepared to have my ideas challenged.



I would like to discuss the following, which I think should be of interest to the alt-right:

Has Christianity failed?

If Christianity has not failed, why are most Westerners Post-Christians complaining about being exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims?

Is it not obvious that religion is crucial to social cohesion and male solidarity enabling men to co-operate with each other to defend their nation against the eternal enemies of civilisation: sluts and socialists?

Is it not obvious that the purpose of patriarchy is to support marriage?

Marriage is the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions, not something to be given to LGBT couples to use as a piece of paper to give to each other as love tokens to their current object of love.

Is it not obvious that patriarchy can only be supported by theocracy?

Only in a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.

If you agree with me about the failure of Christianity, do you think it needs to be replaced?

If you agree with me that Christianity needs to be replaced, what do you think it should be replaced with?

If you disagree with me that the religion that should replace failed Christianity is Islam, then what do you think is the religion that should replace it?

Judaism?

Hinduism?

Buddhism?

Bahaiism?

Scientology?

Rastafarianism?

The worship of white Nordic gods?

The worship of Greek or Roman gods?

If  Islam is "Judaism Lite" and the thought of submitting to Islam is oppressive, this seems to suggest that Judaism would be much too hard for white nationalists.  After all, the Koran does not prescribe the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+15%3A32-36&version=NKJV
http://biblehub.com/exodus/31-14.htm

Nor does the Koran prescribe the stoning of disobedient sons who are drunkards and gluttons.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rebellious-son

Islam is in fact the easier option. As long as we are clear about this.

If it is none of the above, then can I assume that you are planning to start a new religion?  If this is your plan, may I point out the following:

As we all know, Judaism - the first Abrahamic faith - has had its ups and downs: Jews have been kicked out of their homeland three times.  Also, it must be remembered that ancient of kingdom of Israel was in decline as soon as King Solomon died.

Christianity took about 350 years to be successful, from Christians being thrown to the lions and the Roman emperor Constantine converting to Christianity. Not having a plan means condemning your children, grandchildren and descendants to a New Dark Age of several centuries.

The Islamic empire was acquired with relatively ease, presumably because it seemed such an obviously good idea that the pagans of Arabia didn't fight that hard against it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/earlyrise_1.shtml

Muslims are already here with their shops, post offices, mosques and curry restaurants everywhere in the UK as it is.

If Westerners want to reform Islam, then this can only be done by Westerners adopting Islam itself.

These are the points I would most like to discuss on these guys.

If you would like to my ideas being scrutinised and challenged by a panel of the alt-right, please make your feelings known to Mark Collett http://www.thefallofwesternman.com/ and the host at https://ask.fm/NoWhiteGuilt

Friday, 27 April 2018

Religion, nationalism and patriarchy


Sunday, 15 April 2018

Millennial Woes and I define the alt-right



Millennial Woes attempts to answer the question "What do you define as the alt-right?"

Nonsensically, he says the alt-right are:

people on the right, broadly ... maybe not in the sense of being economically right-wing, but definitely in the sense of believing in hierarchy. We are not egalitarians, we do not believe in equality. We believe in Khaw Things like Khaw Nature and race and race is part of that. We don't believe that you can be ignore the conditions that you were born into and born with and we don't believe that you should because it is a Khaw Part of you and if you deny it, you are denying it.  You're deluding yourself and everyone else. In other words, identity is not wholly constructed. It would be difficult to come up with a percentage to which you can construct your identity. You do throughout your time and your life but you've always got the stuff that you were born into as well. 

Attempting to sum up, he says, the alt-right are:

people on the right in terms of things that used to characterise Conservatism a long time ago, like before the 20th century. Conservatives were people who believed in land, nation, kith and kin, community and hierarchy. So the alt-right is just a revival of an ancient form of Conservatism, an old form of Conservatism, but also it is not wholly right-wing [looking increasingly confused and nervous taking a sip from his empty mug which he uses as a prop when trying to hide his confusion and nervousness] definitely in terms of economics, but also in terms of lifestyle, technology. We're not just a bunch of nutters who want to erase this stuff in order to return to the land 100%, but again that is very difficult to characterise the movement as a whole. The movement is very difficult to characterise as  a whole. 

He admits he is not having much luck with the question and says he will move on. Then, recognising that he of all people should be able to define the alt-right, he apologises for his poor performance, and tries again:

Obviously, it's a controversial movement because it takes as a given that race is real and that races are different intrinsically or they may as well be different intrinsically because the differences are reinforced culturally because people care about their identity so much that they might as well be genetically bound to those characteristics that are associated with that identity.
In other words, you'd struggle to beat the collectivism out of a Chinese person whether it's genetic or not because that is part of their identity, it is part of how they see themselves, how they have been raised, how they will honour their ancestors and so on. 

His use of the analogy of struggling to beat the "collectivism" out of the Chinese is curious. He may have a problem with Chinese people because of me, but he may be using the Chinese as a substitute for Jews or Muslims since he is also obviously antisemitic and Islamophobic as well as racist.

If Millennial Woes wants to penalise collectivist Chinese, Jewish or Muslim behaviour by beating the hell out of them - and it would not be too far-fetched to imagine him wishing to do so - then that would have the effect of discouraging the Chinese from worshipping their ancestors, the Jews from practising male circumcision and the Muslims from their prostrations.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10445-martyrdom-restriction-of

"All negative commandments of the Bible, except those with regard to idolatry, adultery, and murder, may be transgressed if there is danger of life" (Sanh. 74a; Yer. Sanh. iii. 6; Yer. Sheb. iv. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 55a).

https://quran.com/16/106

Muslims are allowed to renounce their faith under duress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya allows being economical with the truth, which British politicians have been known to joke about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economical_with_the_truth

In Islam, Taqiya or taqiyya, literally "prudence, fear") is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.
If Millennial Woes beats the hell out of the Chinese for worshipping their ancestors, it wouldn't affect the Chinese that much in the long term as long as married Chinese couples still tried to produce an heir and a spare.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-to-become-hungry-ghost.html

Millennial Woes is basically saying that if you ain't white, gentile and Islamophobic, you can't join the alt-right. I am saying it doesn't really matter what he says because he is not the Pope of the alt-right.

Alt-right just means nationalists without a party forced to go on YouTube to get their message across because it is easier than joining a political party and doing boring stuff that is nothing to do with getting likes and subscribes on your YouTube channel.

My definition of the alt-right:


"Do you see a relation between the alt-right and religion? Since the alt-right is so societally focused, do you see religion as having a role in organising that?"

"I don't really understand the second part of that question," says Millennial Woes.

Obviously, the question is about whether the alt-right could be more effective if it used religion. My answer is yes, of course, if it uses Secular Koranism - a legal system like EU law and not a political system - to unite social conservatives of all races and religions to overthrow the matriarchy and shoo the feminazis out of public life in the West and then impose a one party theocracy.

In answer to the first part, he says:

Not really. There are Catholics, there are Protestants, and there are pagans and there are atheists. There are multiple relationships so no one single relationship. I don't think by its nature it is an atheistic movement, but I don't think it is by its nature a religious movement necessarily. I think it is a  movement that believes in elevating men, Man, people, humans and in that sense you could perhaps call it religious, but that's reaching a bit. I think the alt-right as a movement is fairly indifferent to religion. There are people who obsess over the Middle Eastern origins of Christianity and see that as something that has to be purged and flushed out but then there are people who are hardcore Catholics and Orthodox.

If Millennial Woes were taking question from me instead of blocking me on https://ask.fm/oneparty4all, I would have asked him the following:


  1. Is the rise of the alt-right linked to the failure of Christianity?
  2. Did you know that Conservatism has no declared principles that any Conservative politician can agree on or is prepared to implement? 
  3. Did you know that Conservatism was an ideology created in reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution after the Enlightenment made it impractical for Britain to return to the kind of Christianity Britain practised after the Americans quarantined the church from the state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States 
  4. Is Conservatism really "Theocracy Lite"?
  5. Is Conservatism about preserving patriarchy through marriage as an institution?
  6. Is marriage the only way to preserve patriarchy? 
  7. Is patriarchy the only kind of society capable of producing enough good strong men to defend the national interest?
  8. Is nationalism - the ideology of protecting the national interest - only possible under a patriarchy?
  9. Would you agree that a patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers?
  10. Would you agree that a matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who badly parent their variously fathered illegitimate offspring producing the next generation of unemployable criminals causing a demand for foreign labour from businesses which all governments of all mainstream political parties feels they must satisfy?
  11. Would you agree that feminism causes immigration?
  12. Would you agree that feminism bribes men with fornication to keep men quiescent under the matriarchy?
  13. If religion used to be the opium of the people, is extramarital sex now its replacement in our Age of Atheism?
  14. Is shaming sluts the only way of restoring the patriarchy?
  15. Are the alt-right afraid of challenging feminism because they fear the consequences of having sexual access to feminists withdrawn? 
  16. Are virtually all women in the West now feminists?
  17. Can you be a feminist without condoning fornication?
  18. Does everything about feminism undermine marriage and by extension patriarchy?
  19. Is patriarchy impossible without marriage?
  20. Is the sexual liberation promoted by feminism a mortal threat to patriarchy?
  21. If the West had men who are mostly Christian husbands and fathers, would they be putting up with Transnational Progressivism and uncontrolled immigration? 
  22. If Christianity has failed, must it be replaced?
  23. If Christianity must be replaced, should it be with Islam?
  24. If Christianity must be replaced, but not with Islam, what religion should be used?
  25. Can white people really do without a religion when their enemies as you see them - Jews and Muslims - have their own?  
  26. Could nationalism ever succeed without something more than the idea of expelling Jews, non-whites and Muslims from the West?
  27. Is the failure of Christianity evidenced by the triumph of feminism?
  28. Which is more likely: that the West is re-Christianised or that it is Islamified?
  29. Is your unwillingness to discuss the obvious solution to the failure of Christianity and the need to replace it with a functioning and effective religion capable of restoring the patriarchy by maintaining decent standards of sexual morality due to the fact that most alt-right YouTubers and their followers are unmarriageable men who do not want to think about marriage because they already know no decent woman will marry them?  
  30. If the white men can no longer contemplate making the sacrifices of marriage in order to properly parent  the next generation, how are they going to arrest the degeneracy of the white race?

Thursday, 1 February 2018

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

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

My recent questions and answers on religion and theology

Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible?

Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interested in bums on pews without regard for religious principles. The Church is materialist now and measures its success by the gross weight and volume of those who sit on its pews. Even as the West is afflicted by a wave of morbid obesity, by this measure the Church still fails.

Do you think that Odinism has anything to offer for Britons?

Of course not. The Vikings died out! They settled in Europe, became Normans, Christianised themselves and became Catholic.

White Sharia is not genuine, it is just Wotanist neo-NS hatred towards women and gays. Sharia Law would not accept such pagan plagiarism like that.

Very true, but those who support it at least have this gut instinct that it is feminism that has brought the white man so low.

What do you think of White Sharia?

White Sharia is an excellent way of showing that what White Men really really want would be far far far more restrictive on women than the real McCoy if you were interpreting the Koran properly.

 Do we live in the best of all possible worlds?

If there is only one world, then what we live in must be the only and therefore the best possible world, logically speaking.

I see you are quoting Dr Pangloss in Candide.

If we take an impartial view of things, even our misfortunes are part of the sum total of human life and knowledge and we should feel privileged to take part in it, however insignificant we feel ourselves to be.

Obviously, we would only be able to take such a detached view if we are philosophers, which very few of us are but which I like to think I am.

Does Christianity make Christians stupid?

It is rather corrupting bargain Christians are forced to make: to pretend to believe that Jesus is simultaneously God Himself and His Son.

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive ....

Who is being deceived?

Christians are deceiving each other as to the nature of God.

Why is telling porkies about the nature of God bad when most people don't believe in God anyway? Who cares if Christians really believe Jesus really is divine?

Because believing that Christ is simultaneously God Himself and His Son is a different order of belief to believing that if there was a Creation there must have been a Creator and that Creator is the Abrahamic God, the most powerful entity conceivable by Man who is unique, omnipotent, supreme and perfectly moral who is also our personal God.

Also, we shouldn't tell porkies to each other or to ourselves and then persecute people who won't tell the same porkies we are prepared to tell.

The bargain Christians are required to strike with God is immensely corrupting, and this is why Christianity and Hypocrisy go hand in hand.

Islam is the Goldilocks religion of the Abrahamic faiths because Judaism is too high-maintenance but Islam is just right with a low entry threshold but no requirement to tell porkies about believing in the Nicene creed and then killing or persecuting other Christians because you don't like the way they worship God or the way they think about God.

 Kevin and Dave do not like Jews, they blame them for society's woes

People with no religion are defeated by those with religion. People who ignore the rules of their religion are defeated by those who follow them.

Why do you admire Jews and Judaism?

Because gentiles can learn from Jews about why they are the most powerful tribe in the world.

 What about Judaism gives Jews the edge over gentiles?

All the rules that Christians and Muslims plagiarised from Judaism, of course.

 Why did Islam run out of steam?

Islam ran out of steam because the Ottoman Empire closed the Gate of Interpretation ossifying Islam and its laws.

Why did Christianity fail?

Because the Doctrine of the Trinity is an absurdity and even pretending to believe it is morally corrupting making you stupid, hypocritical, weak, dishonest and cynical. Christianity couldn't survive once it became legal to deny the Trinity or if Islam is around as a competing religion. And so here we are.

 Is Islam inevitable?

It is more inevitable than a Christian revival. Why would you try to repair your irreparably broken boiler when a new one has just been delivered?

You too can ask me questions at https://ask.fm/oneparty4all

Maronite Christian ⁨@GBkishere⁩ tells us the story of his life

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