Translate

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

To what extent does Jeremy Corbyn agree with Paul Craig Roberts about US foreign policy?


Feminism and Gender Neutrality go hand in hand like lunatics and straitjackets


Monday, 28 September 2015

I hate hipsters





The purpose of marriage

THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS THE CONTINUATION AND PRESERVATION OF OUR CIVILISATION BY MAINTAINING AND RAISING STANDARDS

The lauded benefits of marriage is a con trick to entice men and women to make the sacrifices necessary to rear the next generation in optimum conditions in order to prevent the degeneracy of our society and the extinction of our civilisation as well as the loss of the knowledge, skills and achievements of our ancestors.

Marriage is what the current generation owes to previous generations who brought us into being.
It can be seen that marriage is a moral practice even if judged in purely Kantian terms of universalisability. (The principle of universalisability simply invites us to imagine how society would be if all of members of it murdered each other for gain and fun, for example.) Therefore its opposite - bastardy - is immoral.

Why do we owe a duty to previous generations now dead? Imagine, if you will the kind of existence we would have if all the things we now take for granted - electricity, air travel, the rule of law etc - had to be invented afresh by us in our lifetimes. If all the trappings of civilisation were taken away we would be instantly reduced to the state of lower animals.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MOST OF YOUR SOCIETY ARE FEMINISTS, SLUTS AND BASTARDS AND THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM IS RUN BY FEMINAZIS?

You get taken over by people who are not sluts and bastards eg Jews, Muslims, Asians who believe in and respect the institutions of marriage and the family.

WHAT HAPPENS TO WOMEN WHOSE MEN FAIL TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD THEIR MORALE DESTROYED BY FEMINISM?

They are taken as booty and sold as slaves after their defeated men are slain in battle.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/helen-was-slut-paris-was-mcsf-and-troy.html

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. 

Ex-BNP National Organiser Eddy Butler at UKIP meeting in Thurrock


Thursday, 24 September 2015

Can Tina Brown and her prosecco-drinking cronies really justify Western foreign policy to radicalised Muslim youth?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bp2v7

What role can women play in the fight against terror? That’s one of the key themes that will be explored at the Women in the World summit being held in London next month, a group of leading female leaders, thinkers and activists.   It’s the first time the event is being held in London. Tina Brown is the founder of the Women in the World summit and former editor of The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

From 1:44

MH:

What role can women play in the fight against terrorism? That will be one of the key themes in the Women in the World Summit when it comes to London for the first time next month. The event has taken place in the US for the last six years and it's got bigger each time. It's the brainchild of the former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, who is with us in the studio. Good morning!

TB:

Good morning.

MH:

Tina, what do you have in mind in terms of women and the fight against terrorism?

TB [in an annoying mid-Atlantic accent]:

We've put together a very very interesting panel of which I would say one of the key members is Dr Edit Schlaffer who is an Austrian woman. She was a social psychologist and she founded an organisation called Sisters Against Violent Extremism and what she does with her organisation is she works with women and mothers to make them partners in security solutions. Her whole feeling is that women are not being left out because we are talking about ramping up military presence and dropping drones [sic] and major martial approaches to terror but women, mothers, sisters, daughters - we are the front line against the war on terror because we can get at the young people, we can get at the children, and we can get at our siblings to help them understand what it is that is the great danger about ISIS and Boko Haram and these other organisations.

MH:

And yet the evidence as far as IS is concerned and as far as this country is concerned is of women going to be part of IS rather than fighting against them ...

TB:

That is indeed certainly a trend, but certainly mothers can do a great deal and what she has established is something she has called her Mothers' Schools [to teach them how to spy on and boss their menfolk around and monitor their political views by threatening to report them to the security services at the drop of a hat, no doubt] and she has done that in Kashmir and Indonesia and she is now also opening schools in Europe in Belgium and Austria. What she does is she uses the women whose children have been radicalised to talk to the women in the community about how they can stop that happening to their own children and she partners with benign imams [sic] who are on her side and can help reach the communities as well so she actually creates a network - a community network so that there is a safe place, in a sense, for these women and families to go because they don't want to talk to law enforcement and end up getting their kids arrested, they don't want to go public in areas where other people are looking at them as if they are some kind of dysfunctional family. There is a real sense of aloneness for women who start to fear that their kids are going wrong. 

MH then goes on to elicit TB's views on the female US Presidential candidates without venturing to rip apart this incoherent harebrained idea. She did just call her "Tina", after all.  If MH ever interviewed me, would she call me "Claire"?  The thrill of hearing her say my name would just overwhelm me with pleasure ...

https://secure.cadoganhall.com/event/women-in-the-world-london-1/book/?performance=1419

http://www.cadoganhall.com/tour-dates/women-in-the-world-london

PARTICIPANTS INCLUDE:

A stellar line-up of international names including actors Meryl Streep, Carey Mulligan and Rupert Everett, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon, Cara Delevingne, Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, German Federal Minister of Defence Dr. Ursula von der Leyen, Baroness Mary Goudie, Liberian Nobel Peace Laureate Leymah Gbowee, architect Zaha Hadid, author Frances Osborne, actor Archie Panjabi, Member of Parliament Mhairi Black, ‘Inspire’ co-founder Sara Khan, Baroness Valerie Amos, UK Minister for Internet Safety and Security Baroness Joanna Shields, historians Simon Schama and Amanda Foreman, Saint Monica Girls’ Tailoring Centre Director Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe, film director Sarah Gavron, co-founder of Women’s Equality Party Catherine Mayer and founder of Women for Women International Zainab Salbi, with more to be announced.

https://www.majesticwinecalais.co.uk/Prosecco-Corte-Alta-zidF-36095
Only £3.99 a bottle at Majestic in Calais.

How to think about Islamic State by Pankaj Mishra

Powerlessness and deprivation are exacerbated today by the ability, boosted by digital media, to constantly compare your life with the lives of the fortunate (especially women entering the workforce or prominent in the public sphere: a common source of rage for men with siege mentalities worldwide). 

In other words, the misogyny caused by feminism and the perception of feminazis in positions of power over men sends young men straight into the arms of Islamic State. It would appear that Tina Brown and her cosy little circle are actually a big part of the problem, rather than the solution with their incoherent and transparently self-aggrandising ideas. How would you as a man feel if you realised that your wife and her feminazi coven are monitoring your and your son's political views at the dinner table?  She may even maliciously accuse you to expedite her divorce and improve the terms of the settlement. It is quite laughable to think that she and her prosecco-guzzling circle would do anything useful other than to alienate men even more and make them more likely to join ISIS in order to defy and challenge the matriarchy. The government would be crazy to pay for this initiative, but then again we already know that those in charge of the ship of state are imbeciles, lunatics and extremists, don't we?

Wednesday, 16 September 2015

John Laughland: The State as the Primary Factor in Peacemaking


From 15th minute.

John Laughland:

"Good nations will engage in good international relations while societies in a state of decomposition just like families where the parents are divorced or where the father is absent they are more likely to produce unsociable children, so countries which are in a state of decomposition are likely to be disruptive on the international stage. I think this is particularly true of the United States of America and the countries of the European Union who, having embraced post-modernism and post-nationalism and who above all are faced with catastrophic decline, try to compensate for these internal problems by projecting evil on to imagined bogeyman out in the world outside and by destroying those bogeymen as it were to expel the evil and to maintain intact their illusion of their own moral and political superiority.
It is for all these reasons that I believe we must liberate ourselves intellectually from the grip of this supra-nationalist ideology. Nation states are not barbaric and belligerent structures of naked vertical power. They are natural entities which correspond to certain basic human needs, for example, to the need of a shared language. Very often of course they correspond to the dictates of geography, which we cannot change.
Like the medieval cathedrals which grew out of Europe's Christian faith and which remains some of the greatest monuments in the world, so nation states are the greatest constructions of the human spirit. International organisations by the same token are not necessarily virtuous."

Why non-Muslim male Britons haven't got it in them to fight feminazism


Alison Saunders, *Head of the CPS*, wants more men to be convicted of rape on the accusation of drunken slags who were up for a shag anyway

Why is Alison Saunders of the *gender imbalanced* London CPS "disappointed" that John Terry was acquitted of a racially aggravated offence?

Did the Crown Prosecution Service exceed its powers as John Humphrys was suggesting to Alison Saunders?

Philosophical and legal questions on rape

How democracy has allowed feminazis and sluts to subjugate men

BBC Woman's Hour should be prosecuted for conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public but the DPP is a feminazi


UK in 'ever-losing battle' over online radicalisation, says Lady Warsi