The rehabilitation and universalising of nationalism

I define nationalism as government in the national interest. 

Everyone lives under a government of one kind or another. In whose interest should the government govern if not in the national interest?

Since all nations need a moral system for social cohesion, it just a matter of choosing the best available religion. 

Would Immanuel Kant himself deny the universalisability of governments acting in the national interest under universal principles designed to promote world peace through being a peaceable nation?

Since there have been Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, why not Pax Islamica? 

It was after all America that dealt Christianity the mortal blow of separating the church from its state with the First Amendment, and the First Amendment was based on quran.com/2/256

Dealing with Islamophobes who reject Secular Koranism

There is nothing in the Koran that says Muslims are to kill non-Muslims because they are non-Muslims.

Any verse in the Koran that talks about killing non-Muslims are battle orders.

Those who most object to war verses of the Koran are invariably citizens of NATO member states and these nations are infamous for their imperialism and militarism, having participated in two World Wars ending in the nuking of non-combatants in two different Japanese cities.

Prior to that there were the Wars of National Unification in Europe after the 1848 Revolutions which were primarily based on the rejection of absolute monarchs after the French Revolution.

Prior to that were the European Wars of Religion which was about European nations trying to leave the Catholic Empire of Europe in rather the same way Britain tried for three years to leave the EU. Let us hope it will not take as long for the situation to stabilise as it took for the Protestant succession to become secure - about 141 years from the death of Henry VIII to the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Europeans who became Americans to escape Christian on Christian religious persecution pursued their religious persecution against each other in the New World with the non-denominational Puritans and the non-denominational Quakers persecuting and killing each other.

Then the Americans waged a civil war on each other, which was really an American War of Unification, which was its first baby step towards global domination.

Yet it is always US and UK citizens that seem to regard a few battle orders in the Koran with condemnation and horror, as if they had never heard such a thing as killing your enemies in battle. If they could forbid Muslims from killing their enemies in battle, they would, while reserving their right to take all measures, proportionate and disproportionate to deal with their enemies eg the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which would have found no verse in the Koran justifying it.

It has been said that Christianity and Hypocrisy march hand in hand, presumably because Christians have for centuries been practising Supreme Idolatry while condemning it in others.

Now, in the 21st century, Westerners have begun to notice that Christianity and Liberalism (and the sexual liberation it promotes from the rules of marriage and patriarchy) are now indistinguishable. Since the New Testament says nothing clearly, Christians are excused this chief defect of their religion.

On the question of idolatry, there is a strange silence. It seems Christians are now so invested in their idolatry and chauvinism they think they have no duty to answer questions on the idolatry of worshipping an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God which they should know from the Ten Commandments has been specifically and explicitly forbidden.

On the question of the purpose of religion, political activists who call themselves nationalists refuse to answer my question at all. Perhaps they can be excused for not being theologians, philosophers or intellectuals of any standing. Perhaps they are at heart united by nothing more than their common ancestral hatreds of anyone who is above them even if they are of the same race, or of a different race to them, especially if they are Jews and Muslims. To call them nationalists is to dignify their thinking too much, since they are not interested in discussing the national interest, only complaining about foreigners and Muslims whom they think the Jews let in.

In their minds, Christianity and liberal democracy were perfect and working perfectly, until the Jews arrived and ruined everything.

Their history only goes back to living memory of how things were in the 1950s before the immigrants arrived.

They seen to know nothing about history beyond that, certainly nothing about the European Wars of Religion. They are mostly ignorant of the extent and nature of the British Empire. This collective ignorance or loss of memory is to be pitied and condemned because it prevents the problems of the present from being understood as the actions of the past.

Anything wrong with their government now is entirely the fault of Jews and Muslims whom they perceive to be treated better than they - the now redundant formerly working classes - who are the entitled claimants of the welfare state. They seem surprised that they are being warehoused for extinction since they are no longer perceived as for the purpose of working by their government.

It is impossible to get anyone at all to engage honestly and rationally as well as discuss matters in good faith, because they are mostly low status, low education and low income, with a myriad of personal problems and a corridor of locked rooms and cupboards full of skeletons they prefer not to talk about.

Anyone who has a different view will not be engaged with and effectively boycotted as I am boycotted by Mark Collett and Millennial Woes. Their echo chamber will not endure the presence of anyone asking a simple question they cannot answer honestly and clearly without giving up their racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic position: what is religion for and will just their magic white skin protect them from bad government?

When I recommend my holistic solution of Secular Koranism, they will say Muslims do not follow the Koran. But the same could be said of Jews who do not follow the Torah. As for the New Testament, I think Christians are excused from following the New Testament properly because nothing is said clearly in it.

The obvious solution to Muslims not following the Koran properly is to follow the Koran properly.

The solution to Christians not having a scripture with clear instructions is to replace the defective scripture of their failed religion with one that does have clear instructions meant for gentiles who wish to worship the Abrahamic God without falling foul of the prohibition against idolatry.

Being dishonest and unprincipled men who were never impressed on the necessity in gentlemen to have a strict regard for truth and upholding codes of honour, they will not be admitting the truth, submitting to reason or engaging in the discussion of any moral or political question in good faith.

Their most immediate short term objective is to go to their graves with their incoherent and paranoid beliefs intact, because they only see things in the short term, being mostly atheists and nihilists who do not care what happens to their society after they are dead and feel no duty to posterity, even if some of them have managed to have legitimate offspring.

Their most immediate objective is therefore not to be seen to lose the argument to me and the best tactic to avoid losing to me is not to engage at all or answer my question, which they pretend not to hear: what is religion for?

Godless liberal Jews can only be defeated by Secular Koranism because Christianity is kaput

I join from 25:00

Do you think I managed to make my point?

Religion is the string that ties a bundle of sticks together

Blogger found GUILTY of broadcasting anti-Semitic music  https://t.co/kDpl9AbvY1 via @MailOnline

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

A sad day for free speech which will only intensify antisemitism and send out the message that Jews do control everything, have undeserved privileges and conspire to deprive gentiles of their human right to free speech.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Holocaust Denial is not illegal in the UK, but the government is treating it as if it were. So much for the rule of law. The rules are always being rigged.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Is there a crime of intentionally offending someone or a group of people?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Alison Chabloz has been confronted by British "justice" and found wanting, says Martin Bashir.  Holocaust denial is not a crime, but one can still be guilty of it. It is British "justice" that has been found wanting. Are British Jews also proud of British "justice"? #TWT

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Are there any fair-minded British Jews who acknowledge that they have are privileged by this legal decision and that the fact of this privilege creates understandable resentment? They can intentionally insult the goyim but the goyim cannot return it without a criminal conviction.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

If I were Jewish and concerned about antisemitism, I'd be concerned the legal decision against Alison Chabloz would in fact increase antisemitism, which it must surely do. The status of the indigenous without a religion has fallen below those with a non-indigenous religion.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

I have explained before that those without a religion will always have to yield to the preferences of those with a religion because that is the nature of things and a law of human nature.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Jews = triangles
Muslims = squares
Atheist anti-Semitic Islamophobes/alt-right = balloons with water

All three are in a confined place and move about rubbing against each other from time to time.  Who is going to keep their shape and who is going to get squished?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Why an atheist might support a theocracy

The advantages of a theocracy even for the atheist is that he would be more likely to enjoy a stable family life, a lower crime rate and lower taxes as well as a government that actually defends the national interest. The disadvantage is that he would have to have his choice of sex partners severely curtailed.

Yoram Hazony's Jewish view on God, Conservatism and Nationalism

https://www.jewishleadershipconference.org/session/god-nationalism-conservatism-jewish-view/

Yoram Hazony deals with Western imperialism.

1) What does Nationalism have to do with Conservatism?
2) What does Conservatism have to do with Judaism?
3) What does Conservatism have to do with God?
4) What does Nationalism have to do with with God?https://t.co/q8XL2YU3hE

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Yoram Hazony does not quite say Conservatism is Theocracy Lite, but I do. "God is not optional. God and public reverence for God is the cornerstone of the Conservative belief system and of Jewish Conservatism itself." He does not mention Muslim Conservatism.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Heidegger is not just sort of a Nazi but is in fact a Nazi, says Hazony, on the question of academic wrong-headedness.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

If you think you have a universal theory of everything, you are just worshipping yourself like the pagan Roman emperors did and are guilty of idolatry, says Yoram Hazony.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

"All of our freedoms depend on recognising and resisting the threat from the New Imperialism and the threat of a liberal empire that seeks to subordinate all the nations on earth to a single regime of law imposing liberal doctrines on everyone everywhere."  The EU is a foretaste.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Yoram Hazony: "The king is fallible, Parliament is fallible and the people too are fallible. Strictly speaking, no institution or human being can be said to be inviolable, and strictly speaking sovereignty belongs only to God."

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

"We don't have to call the US constitution a liberal document." It is an academic myth of the left that the founding of the US is based on John Locke.  35% of the citations from polemical texts are to the Bible (mostly Deuteronomy), 8% Montesqui, 8% Blackstone, 3% Locke, 5% Hume.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Almost all the rights enumerated in 1 through 8 [Amendments] are taken from the English Bill of Rights or from the Petition of Rights by John Selden who took from The Talmud. But for these safeguards, America would have become like Revolutionary France, says Yoram Hazony.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

'Our job is prepare an option that will be on the table when some big crisis hits and when political and religious leaders in circumstances we cannot imagine says "What do I do now?" [Spending time studying the Bible and the Talmud.] That's something we can do.'

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

"Let's drop this nonsense that Burke was the first Conservative. He stood and defended 1700 years of English tradition? What tradition was he defending if he was the first Conservative? It doesn't make any sense!"

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

"We can't control whether people will buy what we have, but we can control whether it will exist and be easily accessible." The Koran is very easily accessible, fortunately!

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Iraq discussed by Yoram Hazony, who declares that there was virtually no one in Israeli Security and Intelligence establishment who believed it was possible to turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. He appeals to the Deep State and in particular the media to win hearts and minds,

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 9, 2018

Email explaining my reasons for wishing to convert to Orthodox Judaism

Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018, 17:04:30 GMT+1
Subject: For the attention of Dayanim Abrahams, Binstock, Gelley and Simons

Dear Rabbis Abrahams, Binstock, Gelley and Simons

You may find my application for conversion a little unusual.

I am applying directly to each of you because I fear that any attempt I make to get a Letter of Recommendation from my local Orthodox rabbi will be unsuccessful.

While I have met Rabbi Sacks twice and have a Facebook friend who is a rabbi, I suspect no Letter of Recommendation from them will be forthcoming either.

I believe the reasons are because I am a nationalist and a political activist. While I have advocated nothing that would offend against the Noahide laws, the general attitude towards me seems to be that of deep wariness.  This may be to do with a series of gun and flag photographs found online that I imagine would offend Jewry but which I hasten to assure you were intended to identify myself with nationalism so that I can make the following points:

1)  If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.

2)  Christianity is idolatrous and offends against the third Noahide law, while Islam satisfies all seven.

3)  Jews have a religious duty to remind the gentile when his laws fall dangerously below the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws because it is part of their tikkun olam.  Secular Koranism more than satisfies these standards. thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

4)  Because of rising antisemitism, Jews are understandably fearful of saying anything to provoke the gentile.  However, once I become an Orthodox Jewess, I will be able to throw myself in front of the bullets shot by outraged gentiles intended for Jewry on your behalves as one of you in an act of Kiddush Hashem.

5)  While acutely aware of the obvious idolatry of Christianity for so many centuries, I do see that you could not for obvious reasons quite bring yourselves to point this out to Christians when they took their religion seriously in fear that it would provoke their customary violence and intimidation. In any case, you cannot now bring yourselves to point this out the Post-Christian in the current atmosphere of rising antisemitism now that he no longer believes in anything other than sex and drugs and rock and roll as well as gay marriage and transgenderism.

6)  It has been said that Islam is "Judaism Lite". If this is so, then Secular Koranism is intended to be "Islam Lite" and, with this in mind, I conceived of Secular Koranism.  Secular Koranism is not a belief system, but a legal system that guarantees freedom of belief with https://quran.com/2/256, would make it unconstitutional to tax a citizen more than a flat rate income tax of 20% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums, shame immoral women who produce illegitimate offspring and then badly parent the next generation of unemployable criminals with https://quran.com/24/2 and is intended to restore patriarchy which will not be too difficult once good moral men and women who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring co-operate with each other with a view to drawing a line very firmly under so many decades of degenerate culture.

It is my considered view as a rational and moral woman that feminism that produces the sexual immorality that is undermining Western civilisation, and I would like this matter highlighted and publicised in my campaign to promote the Noahide laws among gentiles with the assistance and support of what I hope will become my Kehillah Kedoshah.

To this end, I thought the quickest way would be to write to you individually in the hope that you will believe me to be a suitable candidate for conversion after meeting me and then write each other Letters of Recommendation on my behalf.

I trust my blog https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.co.uk/ will display what little knowledge of Judaism I have so far managed to acquire.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw