How Jews should deal with the Jewish Question: ask themselves a few questions and answer them honestly https://t.co/CTq8eD8DNg— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
If there is a Jewish Question, is there a Christian Question? I have a few. How many Christians really believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God? If you cannot affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity, are you by default a Muslim?— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
If you affirm the absurdity that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the Abrahamic God, are you guilty of idolatry? Idolatry is specifically forbidden by the Noahide laws. https://t.co/qv3LvcNH62— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
If you actually believe in the absurdity that an executed revolutionary could be the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God, are you perhaps too credulous? If you only pretend to do so to join the priesthood, are you therefore corrupt? Do we need parasitic priests?— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
If there is a Jewish and Christian Question, is there a Muslim Question? But of course. Is Islam a synthesis of Judaism and Christianity? Is Islam the most advanced form of monotheism for the gentile? Can only Islam regenerate the degenerate West? Can only Islam shame sluts?— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Is Islam the only Abrahamic faith that relies only on the law to maintain morality? The closest thing to a priesthood in Islam would be the judiciary, which is what should already exist in your country anyway if you are an advanced nation with a court and legal system.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
The only thing that would noticeably change in Britain if it were to adopt Secular Koranism would be the court and legal system. The judiciary and legal profession would complain briefly about their period of adjustment to Secular Koranism, but that would be about it.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
What about the different faiths of Britain? All would enjoy freedom of belief guaranteed by https://t.co/35cqVFhIye, but the Church of England would have to be disestablished resulting in those in the Royal succession finally being allowed the human right of freedom of belief.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Charles III, should he wish, could become Head of the Anglican Church to promote his own political interests and sack the Archbishop of Canterbury, or he could convert to Islam, as many people believe he would like to, and remain monarch.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
What would happen if William decided to become a Scientologist when it was his turn to become monarch? This would in theory be possible under Secular Koranism, though not dignified, since the legitimacy of monarchy rests on established practice.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Constitutional monarchy derived from absolute monarchy. It was only a matter of time before people learned that great nations require great leaders and great leaders cannot be recruited from the small and shallow pool of the monarch's immediate and extended family.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
A one party state would concentrate all the political talent of a nation into one party and nurture their talent at Party Training School. The divisive oligarchy we now have wastes any talent it is lucky to find from its pool of mediocrity and trips up its members at every turn.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
As long as the rights of its members are properly protected, we would have bolder leaders and MPs who dare to speak truth to power and will not be forced to apologise if they have not said anything untrue, illogical or immoral.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
The franchise would be narrowed to taxpayers only with the low-waged having the burden of taxes and also that of voting lifted from their weak and puny shoulders. It will become unconstitutional to tax any taxpayer more than a flat rate income tax of 20%. https://t.co/vtZikgiGv4— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Totalitarian thought control that is thoughtcrime legislation represented by anti-discrimination and affirmative action legislation will be repealed as unconstitutional under https://t.co/35cqVFhIye Women will no longer be allowed to compete unfairly against men for employment.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Does the Koran support a one party state? But of course. Having different parties ie amoral unprincipled tribes in a multi-party system of representative democracy is but dividing one's religious and political ideology into sects and rejoicing in conflict. https://t.co/rJ2QuRTW7g— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
The fact that no senior white male in a position of authority in parliament, in the judiciary or academia nor any senior religious leader or journalist will discuss this with me is conclusive evidence that there is no one in charge and everyone is only protecting their own patch.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
Interestingly, no one in the "mainstream" alt-right will discuss this with me either, because my ideas are so radical. They don't feel in a position to discuss them with me because they are too crippled by their ignorance, hatred and fear of the Bible and Koran to read it.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 7, 2019
I was listening to a White Nationalist stream now deleted to my irritation. It seemed an exercise in comparative religion. Hinduism was romanticised, the Upanishads and Vedas praised for the philosophical questions raised. The speaker even knew about the Greater and Lesser Jihad.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
To my surprise, the speaker expressed an admiration for Sufism. In my view they are nothing but extremists preferring to waste their time self-indulgently chanting away when they could be doing something more useful. Typically, this appeals to the romantic Western mind.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
I am afraid I expressed impatience when they were talking about genetic inheritance and the Aryan nature of Indians and Persians. Believing in the Nazi myth created by the Nazis, it was felt Hinduism could be a part of Indo-European heritage of the White Man. Stuff and nonsense.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
Any idea that makes sense could be yours as long as it satisfies the conditions of being true, logical and moral. Why on earth wouldn't you use a useful idea just because neither you nor your ancestors thought of it? This seems the height of arrogance and riding for a fall.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
What about the shitty caste system of the Hindus that even Indians want to escape from? Why do these dumb White Nationalists assume they are going to be in the higher castes? What about a meritocracy which means social mobility which is the antithesis of the shitty caste system?— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
Too bad these White Nationalists hungry for Hinduism fixated on being Brahmins and Kshatriyas seem to have no idea that the white people who would be assigned to the lower castes would object very strongly indeed to such a shitty shitty system.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
“When belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from Him; but in heaven’s name to what?”— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
— Gilbert K. Chesterton
The shitty shit of the Hindu caste system that Gandhi did not quite manage to abolish which explains why India is still a basket case.
G K Chesterton:— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything."
Yeah, the shitty shit of the Hindu caste system and the idiocy of thinking you can just impose it on your people without them objecting. And all cos you like the stories
In the end, sadly, I had all my comments hidden and later found the stream to have been deleted because the person making all those comments does not have the courage of his convictions to defend them, discuss them or leave his echo chamber. Madder and sillier every day.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
What about the Buddhist Question? If you think Buddhism is the answer, you should know the Chinese political establishment saw it as fit only for peasants, relying on political and moral philosophers such as Confucius, Mencius etc for statecraft, who fell in and out of fashion.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
What did Prophet Muhammad mean by “Seek knowledge even as far as China"? https://t.co/jNiWI1HGRj China at least used political philosophers to manage its government. The Tang Dynasty (618–907) is regarded by historians as the high point of Chinese civilisation.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
If you delve into the history of China, you will see that it has managed to survive after enduring a variety of governments and is not too proud to adopt a foreign idea when it knows it has run out of options though it was a difficult time when they finally hit rock bottom.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
What allowed China's survival was Chinese ancestor worship, a practice that established patriarchy. The idea of making married men have an heir and a spare probably came from this practice. The Chinese knew even then that demographics is destiny. https://t.co/IGqkapNJTr— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
It is a great shame that these men are so filled with hatred for Islam that they would basically reject all the good it has to offer and instead opt for paganism and its disgusting caste system because they believe some myth the Nazis created about their Aryan origins.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 8, 2019
