THE RADICALISED RABBI is a blog on Judaism and its very useful ideas and the blogger a Secular Koranist and a revolutionary. You don't have to be Jewish to find Jewish ideas very useful in tidying up your thinking and turbo-charging your powers of reasoning to the extent that you can even predict most events and disasters. The West is heading for disaster with its insane policy of Transnational Progressivism, turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah attracting the same punishment.
It is a positive commandment of the Torah that whoever wishes to eat meat must first slaughter the animal, as it is written, “Thou shalt slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul” (Deuteronomy 12:21)
4. Democracy and in particular representative democracy
5. Sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting eg LGBT rights and a culture of permissiveness and casual sex
6. The Welfare State
7. Imperialism AKA neoconservatism AKA liberal intervention
8. Free porn
9. Gay marriage
10. Mass immigration for the labour force needed to deal with labour shortages caused by feminist policies ie not enough children and badly parented children who are not good workers
8:00 Marriage is a eugenic heritable trait inherited from married parents.
9:00 The generation gap
10:00 The "religion" of sport
11:00 Married parenting
12:00 Healthy gender relations
13:00 Christianity is kaput because it has been replaced by liberalism.
14:00 The unofficial religion of America is the pursuit of happiness, the unofficial religion of Europeans is unquestioningly obeying the orders of America.
15:00 Americans losing their First Amendment rights.
16:00 Foreign policy
17:00 The Wars of the Reformation
20:00 The English Republic
21:00 Monarchy is idolatry.
22:00 The role of the Pope and regicides of three European monarchs
23:00 The design defects of Christianity and monarchy
24:00 Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy and the lack of a US official religion
25:00 The consequence of Western governments no longer supporting marriage
26:00 Degeneracy and decline
27:00 Why it is a moral imperative to fight for the restoration of the patriarchy
Her book spans 100 pages of larger than normal font such that, if she used a normal font (sized 11 or 12) her book may very well be less than 70 pages.
I take it as a compliment that William thinks my book too short and was disappointed not to have been able to read more to prolong the experience of reading my words of wit and wisdom.
I actually agree with her here. Most of the problems faced today are moral issues and are due to a lack of both principle and conviction. She went on to elaborate on this and again, I agree with her words, “A principle is something you make a point of always doing or never doing, whether it resulted in praise, reward or punishment.” Now, though I do agree with this, I will take her to task in relation to it shortly. First, I want to continue by sharing her perceived solution: “It would be in the national interest to adopt the best moral system available.” Now, again, I agree with her on this.
And I agree with his agreement.
Now, if this was what Secular Koranism was really about, I am sure that the majority of Muslims would support it. Indeed, it is these ideas (though, perhaps more thought out and presented in a more balanced and nuanced way) that most Muslims espouse and use to invite their fellow Americans. In fact, most of what I have shared here is not really objected to by any Muslim…and even many non-Muslims would agree.
Again, I agree with his agreement.
The first thing we will look at is something she called a Koranic Credit Score. Now, she didn’t explain this at all in her book, she simply mentions it several times and so, we don’t actually know what this is to be used for. However, since she tells us that those who repent from Christianity and put their names on a registry and those who publicly repent from being the parent of illegitimate children can get Koranic Credit Score “brownie points” and ‘bonuses”, as well as her saying, “Your Koranic Credit Score will be based on your ability to solve problems using Truth, Logic and Morality”, we must assume that this is a kind of social credit system where one’s travel, internet speeds/usage, and ability to buy, sell, work or rent will be limited by the state based on one’s score. What this means is, the more you obey the state control, the more privileges you get to enable you to live comfortably but the more you seek to question the state, or disagree with their views of what “Truth, Logic and Morality” means, the less privileges and so, the harder your life will be made by the state.
Actually, your Koranic Credit Score will be treated like your IQ score. You can boast about it or withhold it, as you wish.
The [Christian] reader is then left to wonder, what about those who refuse to renounce their beliefs? Ultimately, despite the claim that Secular Koranism would preserve the First Amendment, we see that Christians would not enjoy the same privileges as non-Christians. Similarly, those who attempt to enjoy any freedom of speech by calling such a system unjust and oppressive would likewise not enjoy the same privileges as those who would remain silent in the face of such tyranny.
What William does not seem to understand is that privileges are rights over and above what is normally enjoyed. Christian Americans would continue to enjoy the protection of the First Amendment and have the same rights as non-Christian Americans. However, what is expected to happen is that Islam would become mainstream under Secular Koranism and more and more Americans become Muslim after acknowledging the failure of Christo-Liberalism. One of the selling points of Secular Koranism to Muslims is that it will nudge non-Muslim Americans towards Islam and in a few generations, America would become a Muslim majority country and Secular Koranism slide comfortably into Islam.
The education system under Secular Koranism will be built upon a two tier system - tier A is only for legitimate offspring and tier B is only for illegitimate offspring. She tells us though, the “state provision of educational facilities will be equal.” She even offers hope that perhaps the tier B students will get better teachers, claiming, “Doubtless ambitious teachers would want to teach in the more challenging B schools.” So, why the separation? To humiliate the illegitimate offspring? To protect the legitimate offspring from their cooties? Most likely, it is simply more state control such that they can monitor and influence the potential future state regulated slaves and prostitutes.
The purpose of putting the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents into B Schools is to protect the former from the bad behaviour of the latter. They will however be taking the same subjects and doing the same examinations.
She even tells us what her views are of the “purpose” of religion is by saying, “If it[is] the purpose of all the world religions to protect patriarchy ie the practice of marriage and family values, the Christianity is clearly the weakest link.”. (She says this on page 25 despite having said on page19 that, “We must however give credit where credit is due. Christianity raised standards of sexual morality by imposing monogamy…”)
It is not a contradiction to say that when Westerners took monogamy seriously, Westerners were a different kind of people to what they are now: a people seeking to make polyamory mainstream. Doubtless Romans were a different people when they were a people who hated kings to when they were a people who worshiped their deceased emperors.
Throughout this work, Claire has demonstrated a seeming inability to differentiate between a valid argument and a sound argument.
No examples of this inability were given.
If the Qur’an was revealed for the gentiles only, as she claims, it doesn’t matter how many Jews there are in the world. And on top of that, if the Torah is the best system of morality available to mankind, why would it matter how many Jews are in the World? The percentage of Jews should not have any impact on what scripture a person decides to adhere to.
In this video I make arguments Muslims could use to invite Jews to Islam.
Yet another example of her faulty logic is her saying, “It cannot be denied that if you are an unmarried parent, you must have been guilty of fornication.” Perhaps she is unable to conceive of divorced parents, widows and widowers, or victims of rape. For her, if you are an unmarried parent, you must be guilty of fornication.
Technically speaking, rape is forced fornication or forced adultery. Secular Koranism would punish the unmarried parents of illegitimate children. I had not thought it necessary to state it in a way that requires the use of tautology and pleonasm eg unmarried bachelor/spinster, married spouse, tuna fish etc. It should be clear from the context that I only mean quran.com/24/2 to apply to unmarried parents who are guilty of having illegitimate offspring without a marriage certificate. William, typically, is trying to make me look bad by suggesting that I would want to inflict corporal punishment on divorced and widowed parents. Of course that was not what I meant and it is bad faith on his part to pretend to think it was. In fact, we have discussed this subject many times before and I am known to state the terms of the offence: unmarried parents guilty of having illegitimate offspring with each other without a marriage certificate.
Due to this word play, one may easily get stuck arguing with her while, if she used clear vocabulary, they may agree or the reverse, they may inadvertently agree when in normal circumstances they would be arguing against it. In the end, it is just another layer of subterfuge.
It is unclear on what subject on which I am guilty of "subterfuge". As far as I am concerned, I have proposed quite radical ideas that I already know will make many liberals throw up their hands in horror. I don't think I am exactly holding back on plugging my Secular Koranism as a one-party theocracy.
She went on with her false claims saying, “America is a republic that considers itself to be a Christian nation…”.
The case is famous for Brewer's statements that America is a "Christian nation".
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
In a 1905 book titled: The United States: A Christian Nation, Brewer explained further:
But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation—in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis—one which justifies its use.
What I want to point out is her claiming that America considers itself a Christian republic (which it never has) and her considering it the third Christian empire while also, when it seems convenient to her, claiming her proposed solution would, “finally complete the project of the Founding Father, formally rejecting Christianity…”
I am just making the point that whether America was a Christian nation was controversial way back in 1892. Do the majority of Americans regard themselves as Christian? Are believing Christians still the most numerous religious group in America? What does it mean to be a believing Christian and a cultural Christian? What are the differences in outlook and behaviour? If there are no behavioural differences in these different kinds of Christians and none of them will stand up for a Christian principle because they cannot agree on what Christian principles are, then American Christians must accept that Christianity is kaput in America and get themselves an official religion for themselves or else slide further into a degenerate matriarchy in which their society is being turned into a dysfunctional bee colony before their very eyes.
She actually says, “You cannot have principles if you have no moral principles, and you can have no moral principles if you have no religious principles. Without religion, you can have no religious principles which are also moral principles.” Now, since she has said of herself that she is an agnostic and she does not affiliate herself with any religion, it is safe for us to conclude that the author herself has no principles…moral, religious or in general. By her definition here, she is an unprincipled woman. But we can add to that a quote from her from when I confronted her with this directly. In her “defense” she said about my questioning her, “All your questions are intended to nudge me towards conversion. It is a marketing decision on my part. I think I have a better chance of selling SK to the Western political establishment as an agnostic than as believing Muslim. Do you disagree?”
It should be clear by now that my principles are to submit to Truth, Logic and Morality. It is possible that William will even remember that this is my Holy Trinity.
My response was that I do not agree and too, Islam and the Qur’an are not commodities to be bought and sold like some cheap fare.
The Koran is a free and possibly divine resource. There is no need to buy or sell it is since it is for all of humanity. It is just too bad that there are so many self-appointed gate keepers like William who think they can veto who gets to read and apply Koranic principles. If the Western ruling classes wish to adopt it, there is nothing any Muslim can do to stop them, just as there was nothing Muslims could do to discourage any moral system that was not Islam other than invite them to Islam or conquer them by war. Muslims can of course declare each other heretics if they dislike each other's interpretations of the Koran, but, other than that, there is not an awful lot they can do if the Western nations decide to adopt Secular Koranism en masse.
The question always will return to you - as the founder and leader - do you practice what you preach? Do you adhere to the Truth, Logic and Morality that you call to? If, as you say, we MUST assume that there is a God and only through such a belief would one fight to defend the institutions of society itself / seeking to fight for patriarchy - Then does the one calling to this believe her own words or not?”
As promoter of Secular Koranism, I logically and necessarily support the principles of Secular Koranism. As a Secular Koranist, you would expect me to promote Secular Koranism, and this I do. This means I am supporting legislation based on its principles which will be different from country to country. For example, the method of its adoption in America would be different to that of its adoption in Britain which has a monarchy whose established church would have to be disestablished. However, what would be similar is that the members of its Supreme Court would also have to identify, list and number the Commandments of Allah in the Koran capable of being turned into UK legislation. I predict that there will be some differences in opinion about the exact verse and number of them from Supreme Court to Supreme Court and from Supreme Court Judge to Supreme Court Judge. I can only say that we will just have to cross those bridges when we get to them.
Obviously, I do not deny that the concept of the Abrahamic God exists. Even if He does not in fact exist, the fact that so many people want to believe in Him would be sufficient for my purposes as a social and political scientist and a moral and political philosopher.
To obtain the full benefit of such a system, most people would have to believe to maintain obedience from generation to generation. It was Voltaire who said that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. I have no doubt that in two or three generations under a one-party theocracy operating on the principles of Secular Koranism, belief in God will be general. Even as atheists remain atheists, those of them who become parents would find the stratagem of warning their children suspected of disobedience that God is watching them irresistible.
Once the laws of God are in place and social order established and enjoyed, belief will follow.
Your introduction should begin with telling us about you, your views on morality, religion and politics and then close with an introduction to your proposed solution, Secular Koranism. Sadly, you failed to tell us what exactly Secular Koranism is or what the principles of Secular Koranism are. The introduction would be a good place to define it for your audience.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will repeat here that Secular Koranism is sharia for non-Muslims in non-Muslim majority Western nations for social conservatives of all races and nations to unite under in order to restore the patriarchy and defeat the matriarchy.
It is called Secular Koranism because non-Muslims such as myself can interpret it.
Patriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of married parents who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring.
Matriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.
Marriage is eugenic, illegitimacy dysgenic.
Marriageability is a eugenic and heritable trait which all right-thinking members of society ought to support.
Unfortunately, because the West is now a degenerate matriarchy, the majority of people in society are sexually liberated liberals rather than right-thinking members of society supporting marriage and family values.
In fact, even children can see that it is better for children to be reared by their two biological married parents living together in a loving relationship than raised by a never married mother who has deprived her offspring of their father who casually conceived them with a procession of unsuitable lovers passing through her bedroom as her variously fathered illegitimate children are growing up. It can easily be imagined that some of these unsuitable men will either resent the presence of her illegitimate children or opportunistically abuse them in some way.
In short, marriage is a child protection scheme. It is not a complete disaster if you are a child if only one of your parents living with you is abusive. However, if you are the illegitimate offspring of an unmarried mother who is abusive, in a fatherless home, no one can hear you scream until your abuse comes to the notice of neighbours, teachers and social services, by which time you will have been damaged and traumatised.
It is expected that only Westerners who want to become or remain married parents properly parenting their legitimate offspring would be interested in supporting Secular Koranism. As for those who do not, they can be shamed as unmarriageable and degenerate if they do not get with the program.
Chapter One would remain “What is the Problem” but would lay out your historical context, starting with your views of Judaism, the Christian empires and the last century that has lead us to the liberal and degenerate state of affairs we find today. Here you would bring your statistics on marriage and illegitimate offspring and the like.
50 years of feminism has destroyed 250 years of liberalism and 2000 years of Christianity.
Chapter Two would be “Why Must Something Be Done?” which would outline the possible outcomes of doing nothing at all. It can also offer your views on how a representative democracy cannot solve the problems according to your estimation.
Doing nothing at all would mean the matriarchy widening and deepening the degeneracy that the West is suffering from and spreading it like leprosy or manure all over the world. Turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah would attract the same punishment, if God exists. Even if God does not exist, the consequence of global matriarchy would be dysgenic and regressive in the extreme. If ignored, there is the distinct possibility that the human condition would return to the primitive state it was before marriage was invented and began to be practised. That is why something must be done and done as soon as possible.
Chapter Three would be “What are the Options?’ which would offer true and viable options rather than straw-man arguments. Taking other proposals that have been made, or even other versions of your own proposal offered by others, and then explaining why, in your opinion they are not viable at all. Then, offeryour own proposal at the end.
I actually know of no idea to rival my own and it is not from want of looking. I have been accused of being ubiquitous on social media with the practice of challenging people to knock down my ideas like a boxer wanting to be reigning world heavyweight champion of debate looking for a fight. Sadly, it is like dealing with badly-parented children who have not been taught how to reason. The only argument against Secular Koranism remains "We don't like it, we don't wanna, you can't make us." I have been more or less told that they will not be moved by Truth, Logic and Morality, but only by a police force or an occupying army.
Chapter Four would be “How is it to be Done?” which would serve as a natural continuation from the end f the last chapter. It would outline the need for people to get involved by recognizing and acknowledging the problems, discussing it on social media, and then getting picked up by the mass media. Then, explain how you foresee it being phased in via your four step process. Finally, offer the details of what that one- party theocracy will look like by explaining your institutions as you did in the current conclusion.
My proposal is to divide and rule the Jews and the CIA. I am still trying to persuade Alison Chabloz to say that her views on Jews align with mine exactly and that she trusts me completely to represent her views on Jews. I have been emphatic that only when she does that will her fortunes improve. So far, I have received entrenched resistance to this idea from her and her associates who refuse to properly or at all discuss their views on Jews with me.
As for the CIA, I intend to appeal to their better nature and have already assumed they have one. When they are sufficiently curious to know what I have in mind, a mainstream media outlet such as the BBC will interview me after the restriction on mainstream media against reporting on me has been lifted.
Chapter Five would be, “Asking Questions.” and it would serve as your current chapter by this title does, to offer questions that can be asked on social media, and even to politicians and the mass media, in order to illicit [sic] support and get the ball rolling.
Sadly, without CIA clearance, the presstitutes would be too terrified of discussing Secular Koranism without editorial approval while independent journalists also be crippled by moral and intellectual cowardice manifested through their Islamophobia would refuse to engage with my idea for fear of giving it the oxygen of publicity.
It is telling that the Guardian is refusing even to to do a hatchet job on me because they are more interested in depriving Secular Koranism of the oxygen of publicity than entertaining and informing their readers.
It is well known that nationalists - being mostly crippled by their antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism - cannot bring themselves to discuss Secular Koranism. Some, like Alison Chabloz, have told me that they would "rather die" than do as I have been earnestly recommending for years now - adopt my views on Jews as being part of the solution - particularly as they do not themselves have a better solution.
The rest of the paper is just William telling his fellow Americans to follow his "action plan" instead of seriously considering the "wooden nickel" of Secular Koranism.
I have.
In fact, no less than four different proposals.
Here is a simplified one that has been acclaimed by Muslim and non-Muslim alike - pic.twitter.com/1n6uSc3Spr
"Those inclined to do so, do research and use your social media platforms to spread the word about the original intent and principles of our nation, the Founding Fathers and our Constitution."
What does William think was the original intent and principles of America?
"Join collectives and sign declarations meant to reinforce our nation’s principles or to stop the creeping immorality and the laws which seem to protect it."
What collectives and declarations and what principles? Which laws protecting what "creeping immorality"?
"Go to school board meetings and voice your opinions so as to influence the education system. Do not put your children back into the school system until education becomes the priority rather than social agendas."
How many years of home schooling does William envisage?
Thank you for reminding me to go through his list one by one. I actually couldn't be bothered because I assumed they would only provoke indifference, boredom and apathy, and it seems on further examination that I am right.
In other words, he has no solution to the political problems of America other than to tell his fellow Americans to convert to Islam.
As for my future plans, one of them is to get Ann Coulter - my favourite white nationalist - to interview me after reading Secular Koranism - available on Amazon at https://amzn.eu/d/7EP1hEy and the Koran. I have already enquired about her fee but I fear she may also be too intellectually crippled by Islamophobia to even respond. Those who wish to support my project of the wholescale transformation of Western morality from degenerate sexual liberation to Secular Koranism with the national characteristics of their Western nation should request that she interview me after having read the Koran and my book at https://www.aurumbureau.com/speaker/ann-coulter
Going by the Heideggerian principle of authenticity, an observant Jew is more authentic than a secular Jew, and the more senior the observant Jew, the higher in religious authority he is. The higher in religious authority the Jew, the closer you will get to authentic religious authority.
If you are talking to Catholics, the highest in authority is the Pope. If you are talking to Anglicans, the highest in authority would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, or possibly the monarch since the whole point of the founding of the Church of England was for Henry VIII to be his own Pope. It is said the Hasmonean Dynasty became extinct because of its failure to make the position of the monarch and the chief priest strictly separate.
Secular Jews are basically regarded as heretics by religious Jews. The interesting thing about Jews is that the secular ones are more powerful because they have assimilated with gentiles and the Orthodox Jews are not because they are alien to gentile sensibilities.
If God exists, then presumably He would favour the religious Jews and punish the secular liberal Jews.
The most egregious of secular liberal Jews would be George Soros because he is the most wealthy supporter of liberal causes, but who would be the leader of Orthodox Jews? We know they cannot agree amongst themselves. Jews tell me that they do not accept the moral authority of their chief rabbis because to be chief rabbi is to accept the position given to them by their gentile overlords. Traditionally, the chief rabbi would be rabbi chosen by their gentile overlord to collect a minimum of taxes from his community with the option of keeping anything over that for himself.
Therefore, a more authentic Orthodox Jewish leadership selection method must be chosen. Ironically, this is a situation in which Jews have much to learn from gentiles since the selection process I propose would be the Papal Conclave rules.
However, since it would be inappropriate for the Sistine Chapel to be used for this purpose and Orthodox rabbis wouldn't be seen dead in it since churches are places of abomination where idolatry is practised, I propose that they could be locked in the Knesset with similar accommodation or just sleeping bags or futons if they want to do it on the cheap until they choose a Chief Rabbi the way cardinals choose a Pope.
God's attitude towards gentiles would be analogous to his treatment of Jews with Noahides ie righteous gentiles protected while unrighteous gentiles would be unprotected from corruption, sin and temptation.
My position is that Christians without guidance guilty of worshiping an executed blasphemer would be more in trouble with God if He exists than Muslims who attempt to follow the Word of God in the Koran.
If Christians have indeed been cursed by God as Jews have also been cursed because of their disobedience, then the way of lifting that curse must be to follow the Koran.
Jews are useful to gentiles because of their litmus paper like qualities serving as a control group whose behaviour can be used to predict the consequences of similar behaviour in other groups.
The problem with liberal assimilated Jews is more a problem with liberalism than with being Jewish.
Those who have been following events in Israel will know that the conditions there are now close to civil war between secular and religious Jews in rather the same way that Trump supporters and Biden supporters can be described as a culture war that may lead to violence.
It could certainly be argued that liberal democracy has also destroyed both gentile and Jewish identity.
1:20:00 "What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."
1:22:00 One-sentence explanation of the nature and purpose of Secular Koranism
1:23:00 My agnostic identity is maintained because it is important to make the point that the utility of religion is obvious even if you do not believe in God.
