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.
There are three principles any person claiming to be rational and moral ought to have: that of submitting to
1) Truth
2) Logic
3) Morality
No marriageable woman ie a woman of good character of child-bearing age who is rational and moral would want to marry a man who does not at least subscribe to these three principles.
The first two principles are easy enough to understand, but what is morality?
I would say it is a system of rules designed to keep the group in existence and apart from others. Religion has this effect and some religions are better at it than others. If the man in question is atheist, then he must at least be prepared to discuss what morality means, if he disagrees with my definition. Unfortunately, most women are not capable of having this discussion, though if she is already of good character, she should have a father capable of having this discussion with her intended.
Dishonest, irrational and immoral people would not be capable of having this discussion and should not be permitted to marry, for obvious reasons.
It has been suggested and encouraged of me that I should begin writing more on my thoughts. I have spoken on the subject of Objectivity so I will attempt to explain my opinions on the matter. Objectivity is an interesting concept but I have come to doubt if its possible for us to be objective. I believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, even it is for practical reasons and I say this because there was a time where I doubted the very existence of Truth. This was a dark time in my life and during that time I became very familiar with nihilism. Alas, here I am on the other side writing about how my ideas evolved. As I have said, I believe in objective truth for practical reasons; although can we know objective truth? That is my question. I’m not a scholar, I’m not an academic. I’m a layman that thinks he has something worth saying and so here I am. I suppose I’ll start at the beginning. How do we come to know things? I say we learn through symbols. Language, picture, example; these are all types of symbols; a method of communication that simplifies a message for transportation from one mind to another. The idea, for example, that is in my mind is very easy for me to picture. I can explain my thoughts to myself with very little effort and very little time but to explain my thoughts to another requires me to write hundreds of words in a specific order and I can assure you, its taking much more effort and much more time. This is why I say that we communicate in symbols; even the very words I’m writing are symbols, painting images (hopefully) in your mind; and this is why I say that we cannot know objective truth. For do images tell us objective truth? Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion? If you’re honest, I think, you know the answer. You can feel something close perhaps, but certainly not the same. And this is what I’m trying to articulate. We can get close to objective truth but how close? It’s impossible for me to say. But there is such a thing as purposeful deception, therefore anything in the opposite direction to purposeful deception brings us closer to objective truth but when we reach this place we call objective truth, and we see or hear it with our senses; can we perceive it honestly, or are we still seeing symbols and silhouettes as our senses attempt to translate this truth into our minds? Furthermore, if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it? Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind? Could we paint the truth in their mind as it was painted in ours? To understand a truth as you yourself understand it, would require someone to be you. You have given words their meanings, symbols mean something to you that is unique to you by the very act of being conscious, having memory, and living. How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across? And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient? How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world? Can everyone know objective truth? Is that a good thing? My position is one I call Subjective Absolutism. I believe there are evils in this world and goods but I recognise that I can’t convince everyone on Earth of my opinions. Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me? Emphatically no. To deny these truths would be akin to denying my very existence. So what is the best course of action? I hold many controversial beliefs, and some of my beliefs I would die for. Is it worth my time to convince someone to believe what I believe, and die for them also? Probably not. So what I do instead is move against the direction of purposeful deception. I don’t aim to convince people of truth, I just speak my truth (forgive the leftist language) and people agree or disagree.
I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted. I weigh the truthfulness of a statement with my own knowledge and judge the statement accordingly, as does everyone else. I have done an insufficient job at trying to explain why its theoretically impossible and highly improbable for the human mind to comprehend objective truth although I have tried, and my aim wasn’t to convince you. I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives. I suppose I’m trying to make a case for Relativism that doesn’t throw away Objectivity because to say there is no such thing as objective truth is (not only saying that the Universe is nothing but lies) an oxymoron for that is a truth statement which goes against the tenets of Relativism. Not only is the mainstream caricature of Relativism self-contradictory, its also evil. This is why I feel the need to offer up an alternative and the best one I can come up with is Subjective Absolutism. Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you. I can only convince someone who is able to be convinced.
This may seem like more of the same from the Cultural Marxists, Moral Relatives etc. But I think I’ve formulated a coherent framework to understanding truth and in fact I think that being able to discard the belief that anyone has the ability to spread the gospel of Objectivity actually empowers people. You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it. You can act on your instincts and manifest the world according to your own Will to Power. You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths. Form your own and seek the truth.
And with that, I’ll leave you.
WLL2PWR
QUESTIONS FOR WILL
1. On what matter do you wish to know "the objective truth"?
2. What made you doubt "the very existence of truth"?
3. What was the attraction of nihilism when you became "very famliiar" with it?
4. What is "the other side" of nihilism?
5. Why are you obsessed with "the objective truth"?
6. You ask if images tell "an objective truth". Can you give an example of an image whose objective truth you wish to know?
7. You ask: "Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion?" Which painting by which painter do you have in mind when you ask this question and why do you want to know his emotions? If he is already an important painter, there will be a range of scholarly interpretations of this painting and that should satisfy you.
8. Is your search for truth an affection and if so, what is the purpose of this affectation?
You ask: " ... if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it?" It is always possible communicate the truth of our opinion ie that "X believes Y" even if this belief is arrant nonsense.
9. You ask: "Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind?" You must know that it is impossible paint any truth in anyone's mind. Therefore you speak in metaphors and then confuse yourself by taking your metaphor literally. What you may mean to ask is "Is it possible to make oneself understood?" and bear in mind that it is impossible to explain or understand nonsense. The best thing to do when faced with people talking nonsense is to question their mental health and ask what motivates them to talk nonsense eg affectation through wanting to come across as deep, romantic, troubled, passionate etc.
10. You ask: "How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across?" It depends on how good you are at expressing yourself and your command of the language you are using.
11. You ask: "And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient?" Sufficient for what? Persuade your listener to agree with you? You and I already know the answer. Many people are not respectful of truth, logic or morality and consider their egos to be more important than submitting to the truth, the exercise of logic and obeying the rules of morality. Are you perhaps one of them?
12. You ask: "How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world?" Why would anyone want to do that unless they had an important message? What makes you think your message, whatever it is, is that important? If your message were sufficiently important, you would already have been able to articulate it in your own language to persuade your own countrymen of its importance. If they also thought it was important enough, they would make it known to the world.
13. You ask: "Can everyone know objective truth?" The objective truth of what?
14. You ask: " Is that a good thing?" Can you think of an example of it being a bad thing for someone to know "objective truth"?
15. You ask: "Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me?" Who is asking you to ignore your life experiences? Which idea of yours do you believe to be so important or useful that you so earnestly desire it to be validated by others?
16. Which beliefs of yours are you prepared to die for?
17. When you speak of moving "against the direction of purposeful deception", are you talking about government propaganda?
18. What is your truth?
19. When you say: "I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted," are you saying that your ideas are not up for debate and you are not prepared to debate other people's ideas? If that is the case, then you are expecting people to agree with you without understanding the basis of your beliefs or theirs. You seem to be asking for unconditional love. What makes you think you deserve this?
20. You say: "I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives." If what you are trying to say is that the objective truth is irrelevant to our lives, then why are you wasting time and energy agonising and obsessing about it?
21. "Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you." On the one hand, the truth (about what?) is so important that you have been agonising and obsessing about it for years, on the other, you say it is only your subjective opinion about some unimportant matter that it is not worthwhile to discuss. Which is it?
22. You say: " You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it." What do you know to be true? What is the truth that you cannot justify? Why would you fight for something that you dare not articulate and have so far failed to explain?
23. You say: "You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths." What myths are you referring to?
24. You say: "Form your own and seek the truth." What myths are you forming? What truth are you seeking?
25. Are you confusing fact with opinion?
26. What is the truth you are avoiding?
27. Are you seeking a definite answer to whether there is an afterlife and whether God exists?
28. Do you lack the maturity to accept uncertainty as well as submit to truth, logic and morality?
29. Has it occurred to you that if you find uncertainty distressing, you could choose to believe in God?
30. If you want to worship the Abrahamic God as a gentile, only Islam remains now that you know Christianity has been idolatrous for 2000 years. You may remember from the Ten Commandments that God has forbidden idolatry and should expect Him to punish it, especially after 2000 years of its practice.
Even if we are not guided by morality and are psychopathic serial killers, we would still need to perceive the truth and be guided by reason to obtain pleasure and avoid capture.
David Colquhoun, emeritus professor of pharmacology at University College London, said Hunt’s comments were a ‘disaster for the advancement of women’. But are women scientists really so fragile that they’ll be discouraged by a flippant comment made on the other side of the world? The assumption that they will give up, or never get going in the first place, because of a throwaway sexist sentence just repeats the ‘crying over criticism’ point Hunt is being slammed for making – albeit in an apparently more caring form.
God is a creation of Man for the purpose of serving as an instrument of government to assist him in his politics, morality and spirituality.
It is quite possible to argue that none of the Prophets of God in fact believed in the actual existence of a living God, and only had the same motivation as parents who make their children believe in Santa. That motivation is to incentivize better behaviour than might otherwise be shown without a belief in Santa or God.
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington
The purpose of Judaism is to demonstrate the superiority of a people who created God and who do what their God commands, even if that God does not promise a heaven or threaten a hell in the afterlife. (If that is the case then I am at heart a Jew.)
It was the purpose of Christianity to spread the benefits of a unique and omnipotent God to those who are not born Jews and would not wish to convert. Unfortunately, they did this by means of insisting on their totalitarian doctrine that one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian, or else go to hell. (If that is the case then I am at heart a Christian who wishes non-Jews to enjoy the benefits of believing in an omnipotent perfect God that the Jews created for the benefit of Jews.)
The purpose of Islam is to synthesise the previous two religions by making it easier to practice and easier to understand through the means of one book said to be the direct revealed Word of God, which its adherents are meant to consult as often as they can. To be a Muslim, all one need do is to declare that one submits to God and affirm that Muhammad was His prophet.
If you understand the concept of a unique and omnipotent God, then you would have to accept the inexorable logic that there cannot be other gods but God, because, being omnipotent, He would not suffer them to exist to be His rivals.
God, if He exists, would embody Truth, Reason and Reality, all of which I am perfectly happy to submit to.
I have no difficulty agreeing with Muslims that Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam either.
"43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail." Deuteronomy 28
The above is a state of affairs that the BNP have been complaining about since they began their existence.
But why is it that they themselves are so despised and shunned? The reasons are as follows.
1. Everyone hates sluts and bastards, and even sluts and bastards who have a glimmer of self knowledge and detached self-analysis hate themselves too.
2. We all know the BNP are full of sluts and bastards.
3. The fact that I got expelled from the BNP because I offended a slut with disabled offspring shows that sluts with bastards cannot be criticised. This does not apply only within the BNP but in wider society in Britain as well.
4. The fact that I was only saying something plainly true http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html, which got me expelled, and which I had a right to say in a country that pretends it believes in free speech, is testament to the level of morality now to be expected from the white man. "The lower the morals of women, the lower the morals of men."
5. The fact that Eddy Butler - the BNP's former National Organiser but now proscribed and the sworn enemy of the current BNP leader - said he thought I should have been suspended for telling the offensive truth shows that he no longer believes in free speech but in cowardly, hypocritical, mendacious prevarication which is of course the trait of women, and excusable only in women.
6. The fact that Eddy Butler wants to join the English Democrats shows that he is happy to be associated with a party known for its mediocrity of talent.
7. The English Democrats will never amount to anything because:
(a) Its very existence is an admission of the defeat of British nationalism.
(b) Its ideology of accepting and accelerating the breakup of the UK is actually harmful to English interests.
(c) Its policy of attracting bums on seats without any regard for quality shows its narrow aims, which is to take anyone Eurosceptic as well as the rejects of the 4th and 5th parties.
(d) The presentation of their policies of motherhood and apple pie, couched in the terms devoid of detail, is intentional, for they do not want to offend anyone and will take anyone, like an ugly ageing whore who will have to take any business going.
Eddy Butler, to my horror, has expressed himself happy with this and says he sees no need for change. Such an organisation will certainly survive because the supply of fools in this world is unlimited and there is one born every minute. However, any self-respecting man with genuine ambitions to change things should scorn such an unworthy compromise.
Eddy Butler has given up. If he had any fight left in him he would start a radical but non-racist civic nationalist party with me, but he refuses to either contemplate or discuss it, because he cannot afford to be seen to be associating with the likes of me, because of the things I say about Feminists, Sluts and Bastards, because he wants to be SAFE.
2. The parties who oppose the LibLabCon, ie UKIP and BNP, are afraid of Slut Single Mums. (It was a Slut Single Mum in the BNP who got me expelled for saying things offensive to the Disabled and their Slut Single Mum ie herself.)
3. Those who dissent from the leadership of UKIP and BNP (such as Eddy Butler and the English Democrats), are also afraid of Slut Single Mums.
WHO AND WHAT ARE SLUT SINGLE MUMS?
Slut Single Mums are women who make bad reproductive choices, who choose violent criminals as sex partners, have illegitimate children by them and then complain when their badly chosen male partners misbehave, who expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their ruined lives, who do not take kindly to criticism of their lifestyle choice and may threaten violence and death upon those who do challenge their behaviour.
Another example is Riven Vincent who knew she had MS as long ago as 13 years ago. Another example of a woman who has made a bad reproductive choice is Riven Vincent who knew she had MS as long ago as 13 years ago (but, because she is married, does not come under the category of an SSM (Slut Single Mum) though her reproductive choice was undeniably questionable). She then went on to have a severely disabled daughter who is now 7, who cannot lift her head, move any of her limbs and is blind. Riven Vincent's MS has now kicked in and she too is now disabled and therefore is the unofficial holder of the most martyred woman in the Britain. You could not hope to make a worse reproductive choice even if you tried. Indeed, she is Queen of the Disabled and Mumsnet and the PM himself admits that he is afraid of Mumsnet. Riven Vincent is therefore above criticism. Indeed, she is treated as if she were above the Queen, who is often the victim of tasteless jokes by Republicans.
But it gets worse, for I have discovered that nationalist men are actually not afraid of admitting that they are afraid of women like these, and these women are the worst of people, whose reproductive choices bring shame to this nation (because their offspring are illegitimate and grow up criminal) or, if they are not, they bring disability (both learning and physical) to the next generation in increasing numbers. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html
But these men shrug their shoulders and refuse to defend my freedom to say what is in fact true, however offensive it is. "What do you expect? You were offensive and we don't want to offend anyone by having you as a member." This, from members of a party whose very existence is found offensive by the political establishment!
How can men who are afraid of the worst of people, Slut Single Mums who cannot even choose a decent partner to have a child with, ever ever succeed?
These are men who are afraid to criticise women whose reproductive choices, if left unchecked, would lead to Britain consisting mostly of Disabled Sluts and Disabled Bastards?
Deuteronomy 28 finishes with the curse:
68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.
Who would want to buy a Disabled Slut or a Disabled Bastard as a slave?
There was a time when the children taken from Britain as slaves to be sold in Rome were praised for their angelic appearance.
"Non Angli, sed angeli" – "They are not Angles, but angels". Aphorism, summarizing words reported to have been spoken by Gregory when he first encountered pale-skinned English boys at a slave market, sparking his dispatch of St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to convert the English, according to Bede. He said: "Well named, for they have angelic faces and ought to be co-heirs with the angels in heaven." Discovering that their province was Deira, he went on to add that they would be rescued de ira, "from the wrath", and that their king was named Aella, Alleluia, he said.
Perhaps now - should such a terrible thing happen - they would only be sold as meat not fit for human consumption.
"Cursed are the unmerciful, fornicators [Who are Fornicators but Slut Single Mums breeding criminal and variously-fathered feral bastards whose numbers now exceed that of wives of husbands who have babies born in wedlock?], and adulterers, covetous persons, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and extortioners."
It does sound like they mean us, does it not? (Implicitly included are those who refuse to condemn them, and this is just about everyone in the land.)
A nation whose men are afraid of Sluts and Bastards turn the other way and pretend not to hear, or even understand what I am saying, because to even show an inkling of understanding of what I am saying would mean they would have to agree with me.
If they agreed with me they would feel a moral imperative to join me in being abused and vilified by the feminazis, which, being the women they have now become, they are not prepared to do.
As men they would then feel uncomfortable about their role in life, and so men like Eddy Butler will pretend that I am an extremist or a crank while he is the one being pragmatic and moderate.
I have this to tell Eddy Butler:
The truth just is, whatever we think is reasonable, moderate or moral, and it is we must accommodate ourselves to the truth, rather than accommodate the truth to our preferences, ideology and perceptions.
Those who prefer safety to liberty deserve NEITHER.
In totalitarian Britain, no opinion honestly held may be expressed if it offends any of the groups of people privileged by PC legislation, eg women, the disabled, the single mother, etc.
That a party supposedly dedicated to challenging PC is now kowtowing to the forces of PC liberalism is indeed an interesting development. This is what the drive for "respectability" in British politics does to you, into a cowering and craven position of self-abnegation before unwed single mothers with disabled offspring, who are the most voracious consumers of welfare.
(In case you do not know what it was that I said to trigger the events that ended in my expulsion, I expressed the view that I would rather not have to bring up a severely disabled baby and that I would regrettably have to resort to infanticide if the midwife did not "take care of it" for me, which she would have in the time when home births were the rule rather than the exception.)
This is because I do not think it right to pass on the burden of its upkeep to the taxpayer just because I could..
I am very touched by the messages of support I have received and the people who admitted in private to me that they would have said the same thing if they had dared.
In a rational and honest society I would be praised. In totalitarian Britain I am universally reviled for saying what everyone really thinks.
Is it reasonable to have faith? Should we have faith in reason? Whether we believe in God or not, surely we should have faith in the future and faith in our convictions?
Our convictions must surely be in accordance with Truth, Reason and Reality or they will not withstand the wear and tear of Truth, Reason and Reality.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unique, then He must surely also incorporate Truth, Reason and Reality.
On this point perhaps atheists and monotheists can agree: that whether we believe in God or not, we must inevitably submit to Truth, Reason and Reality.
Which might conceivably make us all Muslim originally, without realising it ...
Why don't we have a one-party Government of National Unity? Then everyone can have a coalition with each other and just agree with each other when they happen to agree with each other. Then we would have fewer sterile arguments about "them" being the party who want cuts in public services while "we" are the party who want cuts in public expenditure, and get on with the job in hand of deciding where the axe should fall.
The NHS as it currently operates is a luxury we cannot afford. And there are many others one too, such as universal child benefit, and this should be debated by all MPs of all parties together, irrespective of ideology.
Only one ideology should be allowed, which is a strict regard for truth and the National Interest, not narrow party political advantage. This means thinking in centuries, rather the short-termist five year tranches that those who govern us cannot go beyond.
And yes, I am in fact aware of how alien and outlandish these suggestions sound to most of you.
Conservatives, as we all know, are the hatchet men of soft fluffy pink liberal fantasies. We are the people who say things like "Santa Claus does not exist", "single mummery is bad for society", "free love is like jumping off the cliff of civilisation" and upset people. That is why we are known as the Nasty People.
But children need to know that Santa Claus does not exist, or they will be laughed off the international stage when their money runs out after they have thrown it away on propping up the unproductive at the expense of the productive, heaping up their funeral pyre with their best possessions and then going up to sit on it, inviting others to light their fire.
Conservatives are the people, or ought to be the people, who tell it like it is, and are supposed to know why one must be cruel to be kind.
So badly have the Conservatives betrayed their own principles that true Conservatism - not Cameron's Compassionate and Progressive varieties - are now represented by the Muslims, who question feminism, denounce female promiscuity, family breakdown and divorce, and tell the political classes that the threat of Islamist terrorism is entirely due to decades of British and American foreign policy.
The Credit Crunch was due to complacency, excessive risk-taking and irresponsible borrowing and lending. Call it usury if you must.
The truth is so ugly that we turn away from it, in the same way that we keep silent about our most embarrassing mistakes, and even consciously repress bad memories, and then forget the lessons they could have taught us.
Only truth can set us free now, but we are no longer able to face the truth.
