Translate

Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts

Friday, 4 September 2020

What you must logically and necessarily do if you believe in the Abrahamic God

If you believe in the Abrahamic God then you would logically and necessarily have to obey His laws after knowing He has taken the trouble to reveal them.

When the Catholic Church was the European hegemon, European laws and monarchs were controlled by the Catholic Church until it lost the Wars of the Reformation. But even under Protestantism, Europeans framed their laws according to what they believed the Bible permitted and commanded.

The purpose of God is also to see that the ruler does not exceed the laws set by God and be a check on his power. "Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you" is a universal idea. Emperors of Ancient China were presumed to be given the Mandate of Heaven until it was withdrawn.

But if you believe in the eternal, omnipotent and supreme Abrahamic God who created the Universe and even now controls it, you would have to believe that everything happens for a reason, even bad things. We are being pushed along with a narrative towards a conclusion and this means our suffering has meaning, but it will only have meaning if we make a point of learning from our mistakes.

If you are an atheist, you don't have to believe in God to accept that the Koran containing the rule of law is considered to be most in harmony with the Seven Noahide laws by the rabbis of God's Chosen People.  The Koran is believed by Muslims to be from God and is clearly more efficacious in promoting the rule of law than the New Testament written by mortal and fallible men such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are no Christian theocracies now accept the Vatican, but Iran under sharia has allowed it to defy the might of America and its allies.

There is no requirement to believe in God to restore the patriarchy, but it helps.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 7 October 2017

On the treatment of men by our matriarchy


Since when do the police investigate the dead? What is the purpose of doing so? The CPS has long ago stated that it cannot make charging decisions in relation to deceased persons. The costs of the investigation into Sir Edward Heath amounted to the annual payroll of 50 new police officers. Where does the public interest lie? The outcome, which must have been obvious, can only be to create and circulate an unfair slur.


(Letter to The Times from Jonathan Caplan QC, 6/10/17)

Feminazis want to discredit men.

No one should be convicted of a crime without a trial.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm

The dead can already be libelled, but there are those who want to try and find the dead guilty after expecting them to answer charges, hire lawyers, go into the witness box and answer questions, it seems. Shall we disinter the bones of Heath and put them in prison, as a warning to other dead men?

Have you noticed that only dead white men are subject to this treatment by our matriarchy?

That is because white women despise white men. Know thine enemy. Many white women despise men of their own race viscerally and cannot bring themselves to be fair, if they ever had a sense of justice to begin with, which is doubtful. White women despise confirmed bachelors, probably more than men despise ugly women who are mentally defective. Men who are obviously unable to control their women are despised by men of other religions and races, and regarded as ripe for exploitation and invasion. Even with the best will in the world, it is almost impossible to be respectful of the physically and morally feeble. This is where sexual liberation leads to.

Only forgetful, stupid and incompetent women investigate the alleged crimes of dead men and expect justice. What sex is our Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecution, Chairman of the Bar Council and Police Commissioner?

It was Doctor Pangloss who thought we live in the best of all possible worlds. It is probably right that MSN who allow such things deserve all the punishment they get. Their civilisation should indeed decline and fall and become extinct as a warning to others. They certainly deserve more punishment if they know what is happening and remain too afraid to speak out.

I have a question for Jewish thinkers: have most Westerners now become the Amalekites Jews have a religious duty to exterminate? As I understand it, the Amalekites were Neanderthals and Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage because in their time it had yet been invented. If the West goes the way it is currently going, blurring the distinctions between the married and unmarried and giving both the same rights, won't this process mean the uninvention of marriage itself? And if marriage were uninvented, would humanity not regress into the savage primitive state it used to be in before marriage was invented as mankind forgets all it ever learned? If the answer is yes, should not good men try to prevent this?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 19 May 2017

Is rape culture a feminist conspiracy to discourage men from going to university?

Is this to make them even lower in status to the promiscuous woman?

This will make them angry, bitter, violent and criminal. 

Feminists will use this fact to call for ever more repressive measures against men, causing them to become even more angry, bitter, violent and criminal and so the vicious circle will continue, until the parasites overwhelm the host and resort to cannibalism ... 

Notice how no feminist will discuss any of these issues or answer any questions you might reasonably ask?

Well, they already control the media. Even the men are feminazi appointees and already castrated, especially BBC male presenters with girly haircuts and glasses on Sunday who call themselves Nicky.  

You can fight back risking your liberty, or let the acid bath of feminism wash all over you and everything you hold dear. 




Time for Western men to realise that the burden of proof in a rape case is for the accused to prove his innocence ie a negative and the standard of proof required for the prosecution to convict the accused of rape is no longer the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt.

Why don't male criminal lawyers say something about this? Because they are already cucked and afraid of their female colleagues in the legal profession falsely accusing them of rape, probably. In Britain, the Director of Public Prosecutions is female, so male lawyers practising in the field of criminal law dare not even be seen to be discussing ideas with someone who uses the word "feminazi" ie me.

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Antfem%20to%3ALukeSGittos1986&src=typd 
has my tweets to Luke Gittos. He has deleted all his tweets to me after blocking me, presumably for using the word "feminazi" in case any of his female colleagues report him to the Directrix of Public Prosecutions and ruin his career. 

Be afraid. Be very very afraid, not just for yourself, but for the future of your civilisation.

When men are so morally corrupt they let every principle slide for the sake of expediency because they no longer believe in God and no longer care to defend truth, logic and morality, you know your civilisation is fucked. Even the women know this intuitively. That is why they want migrant men to come to the West and prefer to be raped by them rather than breed with contemptible cucks who are so spineless they wouldn't know what a principle is, let alone what it is for, even when it comes up and kicks them in the place where their balls should be. 
 

A warning to men who are BMVOF*: things will get much worse very quickly if you continue to ignore the problem of feminism 

Our matriarchy does not care about BMVOF. Being a matriarchy, they will always prioritise the concerns of female voters whose support is crucial to winning any election.

The more men become BMVOF, the more feminists will use these men as evidence that men are inferior to women, and claim more privileges against men, creating even more BMVOF creating more evidence men are inferior to women, increasing the female demand for more privileges against men etc etc. Feminists don't care about male mental health. The more neurotic he is, the more vulnerable to feminine manipulation he is. Eventually the few men allowed to live will be drones for the purpose of mating with the queen and the only female allowed to mate is the queen. Male chicks and bulls are routinely destroyed, for obvious reasons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/hatched-discarded-gassed-what-happens-to-male-chicks-in-the-uk-10088509.html

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


Other than the few bulls needed for breeding, the vast majority of male cattle are slaughtered for meat before the age of three years, except where they are needed (castrated) as work oxen for haulage.

Points to bear in mind about the imperative of defeating feminism:

1. Men who want legitimate male offspring must campaign ruthlessly to abolish no fault divorce to clear the decks for themselves, or else be financially ruined by the rules of no fault divorce which will in addition deprive of them of access to their children by their malicious and vengeful ex-wives.

2. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of sexual access before the horse of re-establishing the patriarchy.

3. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of marriage before the horse of abolishing no fault divorce.

4. Men unprepared to defend marriage who do not send the vile baggage of feminism packing really do not deserve to have offspring.

5. A nation that has no senior and honourable men prepared to acknowledge the need to re-establish patriarchy through uncompromisingly supporting marriage does not deserve to survive.

6. A nation whose senior male politicians are too morally degenerate and intellectually dishonest they cannot acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

7. A nation in which no  respectable or honourable men of talent or political ambition can publicly acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

8. A nation in which no men of talent or political ambition can acknowledge that nationhood cannot exist without the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

9. A nation in which no men of talent, leadership or political ambition can be bestir themselves to challenge and defeat the matriarchy because they are atheists and do not care what happens to their country after they are dead does not deserve to survive.

*BMVOF - Beta Male Victims of Feminism


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

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Feminism and Western Foreign Policy pointedly *not* discussed at the Progress meeting on countering Muslim terrorism




















































































































































































































































White middle class feminazis in the media who control spineless unprincipled men don't care about the morality of Western foreign policy or social policy. Those who control our media are mostly feminists, gays, atheists and the opposite of people who support marriage and family values.

Having destroyed the masculinity of men of their own race, they now wish to invite men of other races to enter their country in order to destroy their masculinity too.

Under cover of terrorism legislation, the government can easily now censor the free exchange of ideas to demonise anyone who points out an obvious truth or uses logical arguments to press his case.

When people like Anjem Choudary easily win the argument, the government simply ceases to engage with them at all and then incarcerates them.

It is not just Muslim radicals who suffer this treatment, is it? Even now as you read this, plans are afoot to impeach Donald Trump, before he has even been inaugurated.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/donald-trump-may-get-impeached-within-a-year-if-you-believe-the-betting-odds-6377488/

Corporate media still has a purpose even if the rest of us already know they are the biggest manufacturers of fake news.

This is how it works: the media spin a narrative - any narrative at all, no matter how illogical, transparently false and immoral. Our politicians pretend to believe it and vote for it. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

My message to Channel on being radicalised by the resignation of Keith Vaz
























Although I am not Muslim, I feel I am becoming increasingly radicalised every time I hear about the stupidity, hypocrisy and cowardice of our MPs.

Is there anyone in a position of authority I can speak to whose views would command my respect, who could persuade me that the answer to the problem of increasingly stupid, hypocritical and cowardly MPs running the government is not in fact a one-party theocracy governed under Islamic principles?

I was very upset to hear that not a single MP defended their human right to hire prostitutes. Hearing that Keith Vaz had resigned his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee disappointed and saddened me profoundly.

Not only are MPs incapable of defending a principle - the principle that it is not illegal to hire prostitutes - they are also incapable of protecting their own interests of having the option of hiring prostitutes should they ever choose to do so. If those in charge of the ship of state are incompetents and imbeciles, then how can they give us good government?

If they cannot properly look after the interests of voters, let alone the long term national interest, then an Islamic State could be seen as an increasingly viable and attractive alternative.

While I have no intention of joining Islamic State at present, I would like someone in charge to reassure me that our liberal democracy is working well, so that I do not become even more radicalised the next time I hear of our MPs not defending a principle or the rule of law, or appearing not to even know what they are.

Your prompt response and assistance in this regard would be much appreciated as I do not want to become dangerously disillusioned with the current government or the current system of government and end up becoming a jihadi bride or sex slave.
What Claire Khaw wishes to avoid


https://www.counterextremism.org/about-us/contact-us/
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, 27 September 2015

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

Thursday, 4 June 2015

Cato Institute discuss rule of law around the world without discussing Sharia law


Is common law derived from sharia law?

If so then it is the same system though of course libtard laws and God's laws would be antithetically different.  If the system is fine but the content is bilge, then the solution is simple: change the content.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...