Translate

Monday, 5 December 2016

Two apparently Muslim practices are really Roman practices?






Peter Jones in Veni Vidi Vici on page 13:

Romans always did a lot of fighting. In the early years this probably consisted of brief raids or revenge attacks carried out by clans under leaders. After a campaign of a day or so, they returned to work their farms. They were, in other words, an irregular farmer-citizen army. Further, since one cannot live by fighting, only by eating, they fought between March and October ie when food was more likely to be easily available. The result was that most fit Roman males had military experience - a tradition that did not change for hundreds of years.

The Koran forbids fighting in the four sacred months.

https://quran.com/9/36

Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

ADVICE TO YOUNG MEN TECHNIQUES TO SURVIVE THE FEMINIST REIGN OF TERROR


Friday, 2 December 2016

An idea for a BBC historical drama of epic proportions on the life of Empress Dowager Cixi

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

This is a fascinating tale of a woman's ambition and her grip on power.

What I would love is for English actors and actresses dressed up as Chinamen and Chinawoman  enacting all the dramas and traumas of life as Chinese Emperors and Empresses. There is no need to speak their lines in a Chinese accent.

The story of Cixi reminds me of the shenanigans of I, Claudius. So, instead of English actors and actresses prancing around in togas, they could prance around in Chinese clothing, and have just as much fun. 

Yes, I got this idea from The Mikado, which was very successful for a long time, was it not?


You can imagine the Chinese agog at this idea, their eyes initially narrowing then growing round at the very idea of this Sino-British collaboration. If the Chinese won't collaborate at all on this rather risque idea, the British can still go ahead and do it their way anyway.

For some reason, I see Simon Armitage writing the script.


Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Nominate Claire Khaw for the Contrarian Prize by 31 December 2016


http://www.contrarianprize.com/nominate/

Introduction of new ideas into the public realm and an impact on the public debate

She believes a one-party theocracy governed under the principles of http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html would cure the British malaise caused by decades of degenerate feminism and over 100 years of bad foreign and domestic policy. (For the avoidance of doubt, the imposition of Secular Koranism does not mean the end of freedom of worship. Synagogues, churches, mosques and temples would stay open and continue to compete with each other to attract adherents. Only the law of the land - which everyone has to obey - would be different.)

Independence of thought and judgement

She is guided only by truth, logic and morality with an almost godlike capacity for impartial analysis, speaking without fear or favour.

Courage and conviction in his/her actions

She has been saying the same thing for about a decade and has not wavered in her message because she knows she is right.

Sacrifice by putting principle above personal advancement

Friendships have been sacrificed as well as membership of a number of political parties who do not see the point of defending free speech. She was once told by Hugh Muir of The Guardian that she could be working for the BBC if only she would renounce her views, but this she steadfastly refuses to do.

Saturday, 26 November 2016

What have George Osborne, Theresa May and Tom Holland got in common?

George Osborne

Theresa May

Tom Holland, cricket bore and classical historian

My, hasn't Donald Trump - not standing with his legs apart - got large hands!


Future social historians will ask themselves why the political classes of a degenerate liberal democracy are standing with their legs apart.

Can you imagine a real man like Donald Trump resorting to such a pathetic attempt to convey masculinity and command?

We now talk of fake news. There is now fake masculinity, fake femininity and fake displays of leadership and authority.

The less you have of something you want, the more you want to pretend you have it by adopting ridiculous positions of display.

I'm warning Michael Gove not to adopt that stance if he is still hoping to salvage his political career. It is pathetic that he's trying to get people to like him by appearing to angle for a gig on Strictly Come Dancing. It's only for retired and fallen politicians who need something to top up their income, rather like footballers whose careers have come to an end wanting compo from the Football Association for being sexually abused as a child when they never complained at the time, not even to their parents. If he wants to angle for a position, he should be up to challenging and discussing my ideas, or even more daringly, agreeing with them.
































Friday, 25 November 2016

The only man who said anything sensible on #Article50 on #BBCQT was an African

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0844z3m/question-time-24112016

The reality is that none of the three of you [on the panel] and our own civil servants really understand how the European Union works: it is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship by European Civil Servants. The MEPs are just cosmetic fronts. My solution to our problem now if I were Prime Minister - which I am not, but if I were - is to give 90 days' notice to European Union that we are going to declare a UDI - a Unilateral Declaration of Independence - and then revoke the European Communities Act of 1972.

This man must be a Zimbabwean and my experience of Zimbabewans both white and black is that they are very clever and well-educated people unlike criminally stupid and spineless British politicians.

This is because President Mugabe believes in education. I was once told by a proud Zimbabwean that he actually has seven degrees and they are not honorary degrees. Mugabe actually studied and passed examinations in them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia's_Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

How nationalism should be defined

Nationalism should be defined as a political and philosophical ideology of promoting the long term national interest.

It has only been demonised because WW1 and WW2 was blamed on nationalism and is now associated with racism and xenophobia in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Actually, nationalism was a reaction against imperialism.

WW1 occurred because the Austrian Empire was weakening and breaking up. Understandably, when this was happening, peoples that used to be under the Austrian Empire aspired to become independent, and that was why the Serbian terrorist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points after WW1 articulated and affirmed the principles of national self-determination, which described the principles of nationhood.

WW2 occurred because Britain and France - both empires - wanted to contain Germany's imperial ambitions.

America is an empire, the EU is an empire, Islamic State wants to become a nation state and then an empire with global domination in mind, but Western nations just want their country back again from whoever is pulling the strings of their leaders who keep foisting more and more immigration on a weary and increasingly anxious populace.

Nationalism does not have to mean war, any more than looking after your own interests must mean you will always be fighting and killing other people, if you are not a gangster.

In reality, well-led nations use a mixture of war and diplomacy as an instrument of policy. We just want wise leaders leading our respective nations, and for this to be done, we have to reform our political process.

Nationhood is indispensable because there seems no other way of organising human society. A nation is a piece of territory with borders with its own government. It is the only group we can join that is small enough to care, but big enough to matter.

The real controversy is not that nation states should exist, but how they should be run, who should participate in their decision-making processes and what rules they should follow. The real controversy is therefore between patriarchy and matriarchy ie whether we return to social conservatism and the practice of marriage as a means of reviving the patriarchy run on the clear rules of healthy competition and low taxes, or carry on as we are, being a degenerate matriarchy in which the preferences of immoral women are always prioritised in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage, where men are lower in status to women.

It is precisely because the West is a matriarchy that makes us a post-truth society operating post-truth politics. Because we are no longer moved by facts and logic, we will be moved by something worse: threats, intimidation and violence.

It is a shame no one will discuss this.