THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label sexual liberation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual liberation. Show all posts
"All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Do all civilisations rise in the same way and fall in a different way? But it seems to me that they rise in virtue ie patriarchy and fall in effeminacy ie matriarchy.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.
Are we not obliged to choose the lesser evil if we are rational and moral human beings?
Is there no one prepared to discuss these matters even though they call themselves philosophers, rabbis or religious leaders?
The West is now suffering from a crisis in masculinity - a state of mind prepared to defend patriarchal moral values. In general, it can be said that women are content with lockdown while men are going crazy with cabin fever. Is now the time for feminism to be debunked when men and women react so differently to the same thing?
The cause of effeminacy is sexual liberation. Men will do anything for sex, including become women. They will also yield like women if submitting to immoral women gives them access to sex when previously they were warriors. It is now time to ask ourselves how civilisations fall.
Is theology the study of religious doctrines and their purpose? If so, what is the purpose of the Trinity for the gentile who wishes to worship the Abrahamic God without falling foul of the prohibition against idolatry and blasphemy? What prevents him from converting to Islam other than Islamophobia, fear of ostracism and the chauvinism that makes him think Christianity is "white and civilised" while Islam is "brown and barbaric"?
Perhaps the answer is even simpler: the gentile non-Muslim Westerner simply does not wish to give up what he thinks is this human right to have extramarital sex. If it is the case that choosing one's religion is a moral choice, then we would choose the moral system that most affirms our lifestyle choice. If we choose sexual liberation, or are already hooked on it since we had our first sex education class at primary school, then we would reject any moral system that says extramarital sex should be treated as a sexual offence.
Atheists and nihilists would not care about posterity or the quality of the next generation and be instead solely focused on a hedonistic lifestyle that can only be enjoyed in this life. This means he will be incapable of saying no to any sexual encounter and will be indifferent to any arguments about making any sacrifice for any principle. This also means he will be as predictable as cattle or beasts of burden, requiring only the motivation of stick and carrot, or in the case of cattle-like humans, only the motivation of threats, bribes or lies.
The non-Christian and non-Muslim gentile who says he or she believes in God is an interesting study.
The say they believe in the Abrahamic God but reject His laws found in the Bible or the Koran.
None of the prohibitions apply to them, because what the Jews and Muslims believe are the laws of God are just made up crap to these non-Christian non-Muslim gentiles.
They actually believe that they have a reasonable chance of getting into heaven while flouting God's laws on fornication, adultery and sodomy. For some reason that no one can explain, they don't think any of God's laws that they find inconvenient apply to them. What are said to be mortal sins in Christianity and what are said to be sexual offences in the Koran just don't apply to them at all.
This is yet another sign that Christianity is kaput, since no member of the priesthood would dare to correct them, because they think bums on pews is more important than the correct understanding of the nature and purpose of God's laws.
God is a sexual liberal and a feminist, apparently, just like them.
They have basically created God in their own sexually liberated image according to their own satanic sexually liberated preferences.
The combination of their ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking.
But most dismaying of all is the fact that they cannot be reasoned with, because they reject any truth, logic or morality that they find inconvenient with the rejoinder: "Who the fuck are you to tell me what to think?"
They are of course great believers in equality. Their ignorance is the equal of your knowledge.
The problem with people who don't believe in anything is people who won't risk anything to defend any principle - because they have none.
At the very least, we as reasoning humans should believe in the primacy of truth, logic and morality, even if we do not believe in God.
If through the exercise of our reasoning faculties we arrive at the conclusion that civilised life and the continuation of our tribe, national identity and civilisation is impossible without patriarchy and a religion that promotes marriage and family values, we are morally obliged to support patriarchy.
The world is divided between
1) people who see the point in supporting patriarchy and
2) those who refuse to do so because they are selfish nihilists with no intention or prospect of becoming married parents and who do not wish to make the sacrifice of adhering to the rules in a moral system necessary to keep their group in existence.
What about the people who refuse to even discuss this?
They would be those who are indifferent to the destruction of their own civilisation.
Who are these people?
They make up the Western liberal establishment ie those in academia, politics, the media and the judiciary.
Why won't they discuss any of these subjects or answer any questions?
Because they cannot answer our simple questions honestly without giving up their position and losing the argument.
I wonder if Norman Lamb's late sister Catherine who committed suicide was an unmarried single mother. Lamb is a mental health activist and was a solicitor, but a liberal. Being a liberal, he would want to deny that feminism and sexual liberation causes mental illness.
If @normanlamb is such a committed mental health activist, he should be prepared to participate in a debate on whether feminism causes mental illness and suicide in both men and women. It should be a doddle for him since he used to be a solicitor. https://t.co/fJCPOJXjiO
My position is that feminism causes social problems as well as mental illness, immigration, the emasculation of men and the promiscuity of women, causing them to commit suicide. It also causes bad parenting, suicidal offspring and national degeneracy. What say you, @normanlamb? https://t.co/m155XtDWIO
I think a debate between former solicitor @normanlamb and me on whether feminism causes mental illness would attract global interest and engagement. If we could get people to pay to witness it live, I am prepared to donate the proceeds to a mental health charity of his choice. https://t.co/CGpyC2eop7
I wonder if RT will give me a platform to debate feminism if the liberal media of the West won't. Perhaps Fox News might do this. The bad news is that the Editor in Chief of RT is female. Will the Russians be prepared to let me discuss feminism on RT or are they also just as cucked really? I had in mind being interviewed by Sophie Shevardnadze or Oksana Boyko.
Are the people suffering from mental illness the victims of the bad parenting of an unmarried single mother?
Would you happen to know if Norman Lamb's late sister Catherine was an unmarried mother? She had more than one offspring, apparently. Were they by the same father?
That Norman Lamb's late sister who committed suicide was an unmarried mother is directly relevant to the my claim that feminism causes mental illness, bad parenting, immigration, widespread bastardy and the decline of your nation and civilisation.
Are you saying asking a liberal politician a question is defamatory? I am not the one saying all women are immoral, but making the point that unchaste women are immoral. Is this now no longer allowed?
Do you think there is any danger of Norman Lamb suing me for defaming his late sister just for asking the question about whether she was an unmarried mother?
I only wish to make the point that liberalism in the 21st century is nothing more than sexual liberation from the rules of traditional marriage designed to destroy patriarchy and the possibility of maintaining civilised life and social stability in your nation.
Being legally trained, I am sure Normal Lamb as a liberal and feminist would be delighted that I am offering him an opportunity to argue in favour of matriarchy and sexual liberation being sustainable, rational and moral. I propose to argue the opposite of course.
Norman Lamb will have the might of the liberal establishment at his disposal. I like to think he will not be declining this opportunity of a lifetime in debating little old me, all on my own and quite isolated. It could even be done in the @HouseofCommons and televised worldwide.
Matriarchy - the antithesis of the above. (Some might call it legal positivism which allow such ideas as Transnational Progressivism to contaminate the body politic. Transnational Progressivism can only be pushed on a society that has already been corrupted by feminism.)
What is the purpose of patriarchal moral values? Group solidarity and social cohesion.
What is the nature of matriarchy? Degeneracy and then the defeat of the group by a group practising patriarchal moral values.
What is the essence of patriarchy? Moral restraint.
What is the essence of matriarchy? Sexual liberation.
The price of sex is crucial to the how feminism strikes its bargains with men. It offers men cheap sex with women they are not married to, and also allows men to have sex with other men. Feminism is about facilitating sexual liberation and getting men so hooked on cheap plentiful sex they lose the will to fight feminism.
The patriarchy forces both men and women to mostly have the most expensive form of sex - marriage - by forbidding and punishing extramarital sex. It also criminalises gay sex but allows brothel-keeping. These measures ensure that men pay for sex up front and don't expect to get it for free.
Feminism, you will have noticed, pretends sex is free but loads it full of high hidden charges for which the man himself pays eg CSA or society eg a higher crime rate when singly-parented juvenile delinquents become adult criminals.
The patriarchal imperative is to go forth and multiply thereby creating the manpower with which to acquire and maintain empires.
Sexual liberation - which a matriarchy condones - results in a shrinking and ageing population ultimately becoming unable to even have enough manpower to fight a successful defensive war.
Feminism is not just bad for the West, it is bad for any civilisation.
In the 21st century it means no more than an ideology of sexual entitlement and sexual liberation with policies designed to promote and maintain the sexual liberation of the West that will lead it to its doom.
This dumfuck shit for brains jerk is so dumb it makes you want to puke. Why don't Western governments understand that Muslims don't want to end up like this jerk or his bastard offspring or the sluts he fucks?
The solution is simple. The solution is quran.com/24/2. The solution is Islam.
Liberalism meaningless: the rich think it means freedom from laws and taxes, the poor think it means freedom from poverty and oppression.
Either Liberalism is the same thing as Conservatism or it is not. Anne McElvoy seems to think they are the same.
Do you get the impression that Anne McElvoy uses Liberalism and Conservatism interchangeably? I do.
Is Anne McElvoy's series on British Liberalism just a rehash of her series on British Conservatism?
Listening to Anne McElvoy on British Conservatism/Liberalism, do you get the impression it is just "shit UK governments do"?
British Liberalism and British Conservatism seems to be nothing more than "shit the British government does and thinks".
Anne McElvoy's on Conservatism/Liberalism should be a programme called What Passes for British Political Thought since the French Revolution.
British Conservatism came from an Irishman as a belated response to the French Revolution.
Conservatism is an ideology no older than the American and French Revolutions, which failed to prevent Russian Revolution.
Ask a Western politician or journalist to tell you where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins, and he will start prevaricating and looking nervous and shifty. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Predictably, I received no answer from Anne McElvoy when I asked her this question.
@annemcelvoy Where does Conservatism end and Liberalism begin?
Liberalism and Conservatism means whatever Western politicians want it to mean.
Liberalism and Conservatism means motherhood and apple pie to the typical British voter. It therefore means precisely nothing.
In Australia the party closest to Conservatism is called the Liberal Party. Does this mean confusion, incoherence bordering on mania and dementia?
The West whose ideology is Conservatism and Liberalism do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their "religion".
Has Conservaliberalism stood the test of time - all 252 years of it so far?
ISIS have the Koran said to come from God, while the West do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their ideology. Perhaps it can only be found in The Unholy and Unwritten Conservaliberal Book of Making It Up As You Go Along?
There was a reason why the plebs demanded that The Twelve Tables of Romebe placed in a prominent part of the forum so that the operation of Rome's laws would be accessible and foreseeable.
What are Western values? It seems to mean Conservaliberalism which it cannot even agree on or officially define.
Would Edmund Burke be shocked and disgusted that a Conservative Prime Minister has legalised gay marriage?
Liberalism + Conservatism + Wolfowitz Doctrine + Full Spectrum Dominance + Neoconservatism + Neoliberalism = American Imperialism
Can even the most intelligent intellectual defend an ideology that does not have a commonly agreed source?
Is it wise to defend ideologies that are clearly incoherent and make no sense at all which no one can define?
It is clearly unwise to present a programme on these incoherent ideologies relying only on politicians' reminiscences of what was said and done when they were in government and politics without any attempt to define where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins. Let us call it Conservaliberalism then!
Is PC Liberalism the equivalent of Sexual Liberation and casual fornication leading to widespread bastardy and national degeneracy? Is this the "way of life" the West is so keen on defending?
ISIS hate gay marriage while Conservaliberals seem to be saying they are prepared to defend it to the death. What is the point of defending a practice that would result in racial and national degeneracy which God has already declared to be an abomination in both the Bible and Koran?
Another expression of Conservaliberalism is being in the EU and NATO, irrespective of whether or not it is in the national interest, because, let's face it, these pygmy politicians have no idea what to do outside it, because they have no imagination or principles, and have no idea what the national interest is. They only want to be in office without being in power and only think in terms of elections the way children think of playing musical chairs.
Why do Liberals and Conservatives pretend they can't understand why people hate immigration when they know being hospitable to even family members can be a pain?
Would Victorian Conservaliberals' views on sexual morality be closer that of ISIS than the gay and female advisers of Downing Street?
Did Anne McElvoy mention that the National Liberal Party merged with the Conservative Party in 1947? I don't think so.
The Liberal Nationals also changed their name to National Liberals at this stage. (Their reluctance to take this label originally is said to be a reaction to Lloyd George's use of the name for the earlier National Liberal Party in the 1920s.)
So, Conservaliberalism is a good thing then? Well, it has made the West what it is now ...
If I had been presenting the programme, I would have pointed out that Conservatism was no more than a response to the French Revolution.
Since both Conservatism and Liberalism are the same thing in the mind of Anne McElvoy, we can say that Conservaliberalism is no more than 252 years old. I choose 1763 because that was the beginning of the American Revolution, which the French had a part in. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/timeline.html
If the French had not fought the Seven Years War then they would not have found their coffers empty and having to replenish them through the imposition of objectionably high taxes.
If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head.
If Henry Tudor had been Muslim, it would have been no big deal for him to have up to four wives. Think of the number of heads that would have stayed on shoulders and the wars avoided if there had been no Catholic Church for Protestants to protest against and all the religious wars and persecution in Europe that would have been avoided. Forget all the non-Christians the Christians killed, ask yourself how many Christians the Christians killed. It is just possible that Christians killed even more Christians than they killed Muslims. Quite a thought, eh? It was the schismatic nature of Christianity that caused white people to endlessly fight, persecute and kill each other. It was Conservaliberalism that started two World Wars, after all, but Anne McElvoy doesn't mention that either. It is not surprising then that white people became so good at war and took over the world. Now that they only go around hypocritically pretending that they invade oil-rich Muslim countries to save Muslims from themselves and pay mercenaries to fight their wars, they will most probably go the way of the Roman empire.
Was the The Seven Years War fought for Koranically-approved reasons? No, because it only officially permits defensive wars. Sure, go acquire an empire if you want - the Koran allows Muslims conquerors to impose the jizya on their conquered after all, but if you don't win it or can't really afford it, then on your head be it.
Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence Nope. Should Russia have entered it? Nope. If the Russians had had a Caliph of Russia rather than silly Tsar with an equally silly Tsarina carrying on with Rasputin, there would have been no Russian Revolution either.
What do the French now think of their Revolution? Do you know they are now on their fifth Republic? Yep, every time they change their constitution, a new republic is formed, and they have changed their constitution five times already, cos they keep getting it wrong ...
As Zhou Enlai said, it is too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing. Since he is dead, perhaps we should ask the French people what they think of the French Revolution now. I did recently and the response was a Gallic shrug.
Does the picture below say anything you might want to say about Conservaliberalism?
The shift in tone that Pope Francis is bringing to the Catholic Church has serious repercussions for people who follow that religion – but also those of other faith systems. As the most prominent re
