James Deen rape and porn

The very Jewish and quite politically correct pornographer James Deen has been accused by eight female porn stars of raping them.

The accusations are all obviously false in that none of the pornstars are bringing charges or suing him, probably because he has videotapes of most of the “rapes”.

What is obviously happening here is that pornstars realize that they are hurt, humiliated, degraded, and their souls are being destroyed, but the culture gives them no words with which to express the thought except “rape” and “consent”.   But female consent really is not all that significant.  Consent does not make it good, nor lack of consent make it bad.   Thirty year old women are only marginally more competent to consent than nine year olds.

James Deen tells us (and since it is all videotaped, doubtless truthfully tells us) that all the BDSM is done with safe words and carefully negotiated boundaries.

I have done a bit of BDSM also, and never used safe words or negotiated boundaries.  Safe words and negotiated boundaries are contract negotiations, and you get contract negotiation in sex that is done for money.  The safe words and boundary negotiations are not an indication that all is well, but rather an indication that something is terribly wrong.

399 Responses to “James Deen rape and porn”

  1. peppermint says:

    This is great, the James Deen, jello guy, and Rotherham rapes never happened to the Left because rape can only be committed by White men.

    The feminism train has jumped the tracks. White men are soon to learn that only married sex is safe sex, with marriage replaced with a temporary contract. Then we just switch from shaming women for not sleeping with niggers to shaming women for getting divorced too often, and we’re done. Women don’t like sleeping with niggers anyway.

    Roman women would have written on their gravestones that they had only had sex with one man. So will the daughters of the millennials 🙂

    • fnd says:

      Leftists of the SJW variety accused James Deen of rape. While hating on kikes is cool, let’s not get carried away without the facts.

      “Roman women would have written on their gravestones that they had only had sex with one man. So will the daughters of the millennials :)”
      If millennials reproduce that is.

      • peppermint says:

        (1) Donald Trump is an SPLC-approved hater now, so I can vote for him

        (2) morning in America

        (3) but unlike the ’80s, this time we’re not going back. We’re not doing to our kids what our parents did to us.

      • jim says:

        We know the facts: James Deen is obviously not guilty of rape. Is guilty of hypocrisy, progressivism, and excessive piety while producing BDSM porn.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    This is a pet-case of the Cathedral wherein more of its religious dogma and liturgical prayer-words may be enshrined into the legal system and the courts. Political Correctness IS a religion, not like a religion.

    A.J.P.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    I wonder if this is push-back from the porn-stars, since James Deen has been “shaming” and black-listing porn stars who refuse to sleep with black men.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    So, James Deen starts trying to force porn stars to sleep with black men against their wishes, THEN suddenly they start crying “rape”. Hmmm….

    • Chip Harding says:

      Hilarious.

      Hilarious beyond words.

      May they all, Deen and the whores and the black porn men, die in a fire together, accusing each other of racism, misogyny, and rape.

  5. spandrell says:

    Most awkward humble brag ever.

    • B says:

      hahaha

      Jim’s “slips” about his sexual behavior give me the feeling that he wants to confess/repent, but doesn’t know how.

      • peppermint says:

        He is repenting. He’s taking what he can’t change and using it to tell the truths that are left unsaid and forgotten.

        Which turns him from just another jackass into a credit to his race.

        • B says:

          No, he’s quite proud of his virile masculinity and uninhibited willingness to discuss it with strangers.

          The “truths” of the PUAs are just more lies. It’s like doing a shitty repair job on a car, which necessitates more follow up shitty repair jobs.

          Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt sold men one set of lies-that you can be a whoremaster or his masturbating client without degrading yourself. Feminists sold women another set of lies-that you can be a whore or lesbian without degrading yourself.

          Of course, this was all presented as racy and exciting new truths that the establishment didn’t want you to know.

          All this has created a massive potential client base of alienated men who couldn’t satisfy themselves sexually in this brave new world, and were tired of lonely masturbation and rejection by women who had been “liberated”. So there is now another set of racy and exciting new truths that the establishment doesn’t want you to know. Roissy’s god of biomechanics and all of that.

          But I’m sure if you play this shell game for another round, you’ll win your money back and more. After all, you now know where the ball is, right?

  6. B says:

    >The very Jewish

    If he was very Jewish, he’d not be in this line of work. The whole point here is that being Jewish to him is an incident of birth, and the main thing is to fit into gentile society, even in this degenerate fashion (and doesn’t gentile society proudly announce that there is nothing wrong with making and consuming pornography?)

    >What is obviously happening here is that pornstars realize that they are hurt, humiliated, degraded, and their souls are being destroyed,

    Everyone involved in sexual immorality is hurting, humiliating and destroying themselves. There is no way to swim through sewage and come out clean.

    • jim says:

      James Deen is clearly spouting progressive ideology, not Jewish ideology, and indeed Jewishness is to him only an accident of birth.

      But there is something very Jewish about using cleverness with words to sell BDSM porn as feminist when it so blatantly is not.

      If Hugh Hefner, who was just as clever with words, and a good deal more clever, had been producing BDSM porn he would have gone PUA and told us that women love BDSM porn because they don’t really like feminism and are looking for men who can own them.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        -James Deen is clearly spouting progressive ideology, not Jewish ideology, and indeed Jewishness is to him only an accident of birth.-

        Or maybe it enables him to be more callous and degenerate in a society that he rightly views as alien, in his pursuit to make money.

        He’s not there to convert, after all.

        • B says:

          Stupid. Sexual immorality, promiscuity, etc. are forbidden by Torah regardless of what society is being discussed. You’re not even allowed to look at women who are passing by lewdly.

          And having sex with non-Jews is also forbidden. And of course Jews are commanded to live in such a way that the non-Jews see and are impressed with our moral conduct:

          5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it.
          6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
          7 For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him?
          8 And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

          And this guy is violating all of these prohibitions. Because he grew up in your sick society, where Hugh Hefner is an idol, and every gas station sells Playboy and the values it represents.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Yep, blame the goy. Our poor little Jewish prince, he was turned bad by those goyim!

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Who cares what a Talmudic Jew says? Watch what he _does_.

          • jim says:

            And this guy is violating all of these prohibitions. Because he grew up in your sick society, where Hugh Hefner is an idol, and every gas station sells Playboy and the values it represents.

            There is a noticeable difference between this guy and Hugh Hefner.

          • B says:

            >There is a noticeable difference between this guy and Hugh Hefner.

            Yes-this guy has a soul, which he twists and destroys in serving your idols. Hefner appears not to have one.

            >Our poor little Jewish prince, he was turned bad by those goyim!

            Obviously, this is the case.

            • jim says:

              The difference is that Hugh Hefner was not holier than thou. James Deen is producing BDSM porn and still being holier than thou.

              You and he are exactly alike in exhibiting outrageous chutzpah.

          • peppermint says:

            According to our traditions, we can’t criminalize things after they happen, but maybe the porn stars can find some torts to sue him over.

            Let’s deport him to Israel and let the Sanhedrin deal with him as they see fit. If he truly violated Jewish law in spirit as well as in form, he will be punished, if not, let the White nations, who go to war over treatment of women, see how much the Jews care about shiksas.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Hugh Hefner was not holier than thou
            I remember watching a video from the 1960s of Hefner on Firing Line. He was totally acting holier than thou.

            • jim says:

              My recollection is “More aristocratic and cultured than thou.” Which is much better, particularly for someone in the porn business.

          • B says:

            >My recollection is “More aristocratic and cultured than thou.” Which is much better, particularly for someone in the porn business.

            Well, these are your aristocrats.

          • B says:

            >James Deen is producing BDSM porn and still being holier than thou.

            In your culture, BDSM porn IS holy. Hence you have no compunction about discussing your porn watching habits, your BDSM experiences or your cheating on your wife in public. Why would you? These are signs of a healthy masculinity, which in your hedonistic (Hellenist) society is an absolute moral value.

            Hefner launched and built his career as a pornographer in a milieu described by Tom Wolfe in the Pump House Gang as that of the California electronics worker making $18K per year, and presented a sort of worldview that could be described as Hellenism as recreated by bourgeois boors:

            “And presently Hefner jumped onto . . . the center of his world, the bed in his bedroom. Aimed at the bed was a TV camera he was very proud of. Later on Playboy ran a cartoon, showing a nude man and woman in a huge bed with a TV set facing them, and the man is saying, “And now, darling, how about an instant replay.” Hefner hit a dial and the bed started revolving . . .

            All I could think of at that moment was Jay Gatsby in the Fitzgerald novel. Both were scramblers who came up from out of nowhere to make their fortunes and build their palaces and ended up in regal isolation. But there was a major difference between Hefner and Gatsby. Hefner no longer dreamed, if he ever did, of making the big social leap to East Egg. It was at least plausible for Gatsby to hope to make it into Society. But Hefner? He has made a fortune, created an empire, and the Playboy Beacon shines out over the city and the Great Lakes. But socially Hefner is still a man who runs a tit magazine and a string of clubs that recall the parlor floor—not the upper floors but the parlor floor—of a red-flock whorehouse. There is no Society in Chicago for Hugh Hefner.

            So he has gone them one better. He has started his own league. He has created his own world, in his own palace. He has created his own statusphere. The outside world comes to him, including the talented and the celebrated. Jules Feiffer stays awhile in his scarlet guest suite, Norman Mailer skinnydips in his Playboy swimming pool. He has his courtiers, his girls, and his Nubian slaves. Not even God’s own diurnal light rhythm intrudes upon the order that Hefner has founded inside.”

            I think Carlyle referred to this kind of worldview as lingam/phallus-worship. A sort of solipsism for the well-paid factory worker. Who probably wouldn’t appreciate the Mailer skinny-dipping image, but whatever. Hefner sold these idiots a way to feel classy as they masturbated.

            Of course, this sort of thing sold well to those 60s electronics workers. At the same time, the feminists were selling their college-aged daughters a different, vagina-worshipping worldview. You know, whatever-you’ve got a supermarket, you’re gonna put the organic fruit and yogurt in one section for the yuppies, the Hormel bacon and bratwurst in another for the trash, and the sugar cereal on the bottom shelf where the kids can snag it, and on the cover, there’s a mountain climber so that mom can feel like she’s buying something healthy for the kid. But it’s all one supermarket.

            50 years later, the electronics workers are dead or retired, and the daughters have grown up daughters and granddaughters of their own, and you need to sell something to them. So in a stroke of genius, you can sell them BDSM with a thin coat of feminist paint. Something for everyone.

            It’s not as though Deen invented this shit. He just participated.

            • jim says:

              In your culture, BDSM porn IS holy.

              Nah. We can do BDSM without the need to make it holy. Jews, however … hence James Deen fetishizes consent while producing BDSM pron. Compare Heartiste.

          • B says:

            >We can do BDSM without the need to make it holy.

            Well, this is just the old Cathedral lie that you can have no religion.

            In fact, you will have a religion (not a made up one, but a real one) whether you want one or not, and it will affect all the areas of your life, especially ones as fundamental as sexual behavior.

            Before Joseph’s brothers sold him to the Midianites, they put him in a hole, of which the Torah tells us “it was empty-there was no water in it.” The exegetical explanation for this seeming redundancy is that it is telling us the hole was empty of water but not of poisonous vermin. A further explanation of this is that you can’t have an empty space. Either it’s got Torah (traditionally allegorized as water) or it swarms with poisonous vermin.

            An animal can copulate without assigning any significance to the deed. But a man can’t. If the act isn’t holy, it will become unholy. And then perversions will stack one upon another. Which is what you have in your society.

            • jim says:

              >We can do BDSM without the need to make it holy.

              Well, this is just the old Cathedral lie that you can have no religion.

              BDSM, and the popularity of James Deen with the female demographic, is profoundly embarrassing to the Cathedral, (or rather that male domination and female submission is normal and outweighs the Cathedral promoted converse by several hundred to one is embarrassing) and James Deen is engaged in that stereotypically Jewish pursuit of whipping up a clever explanation of why something that is horribly embarrassing is not horribly embarrassing.

          • peppermint says:

            you can’t do “bdsm” without “consent”. “bdsm” is a weird sex fetish involving “consent”.

            You can have normal sex, which seems a little like “bdsm” if viewed through the bizarre sex fetish of “consent”, but is not the same thing.

            Normal sex is when a man and a woman go to a secluded place and do things that are likely to lead to new life, or, the reaffirmation of their mutual commitment to the alpha lifestyle.

            Women do not care about “consent”, “bdsm”, or any other intellectualization of sex fetishes. They prefer an alpha male to do sex on them and provide for their children, but will accept a number of other arrangements if that is not available.

            • jim says:

              you can’t do “bdsm” without “consent”. “bdsm” is a weird sex fetish involving “consent”.

              Some truth in that, in which case I have never done bdsm by that definition.

              Bdsm, as defined by the politically correct, is only the pretense of male authority and female submission, not the reality, because the reality would be just far too shocking.

          • bob k. mando says:

            “B says: December 11, 2015 at 8:33 am
            And of course Jews are commanded to live in such a way that the non-Jews see and are impressed with our moral conduct:”

            what Jews are commanded to do and what Jews actually do are two entirely different things.

            which is why God keeps smiting your arrogant asses.

            so far as the ‘Deen rape’ story goes, i give that about as much credence as the ‘rape of Dinah’.

            https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+34&version=KJV

          • jim says:

            Jews are commanded to live in such a way that the non-Jews see and are impressed with our moral conduct:

            But I have been profoundly unimpressed by your moral conduct. You never admit error. You lie about your sources. You twist other people’s words. You display egregious chutzpah, denying the undeniable and defending the indefensible.

          • B says:

            >which is why God keeps smiting your arrogant asses.

            G-d punishes us so that we can repent, as a father punishes his children. He has kept us in existence for millennia and brought us back to our Land, just as He has promised. Whereas with you, “when the wicked spring up like grass and the evildoers flourish, it is so that they will be destroyed forever.” Meaning, you will go the way of those who preceded you.

            >But I have been profoundly unimpressed by your moral conduct.

            But the point of the quote is not that every individual asshole out there who makes up his own moral code to suit his nether impulses will be impressed by us. Rather, it is that the nations who care about following G-d can find an example in us.

          • Ron says:

            “You and he are exactly alike in exhibiting outrageous chutzpah.”

            B’s arrogance is clearly for the sake of Heaven, not just his own self gratification.

            Deen on the other hand, is a totally lost soul.

            • jim says:

              B’s arrogance is clearly for the sake of Heaven, not just his own self gratification.

              B believes he has divine authority that when the Old Testament says X, it actually means Y.

              That is no excuse for telling me it actually says Y. Still less is it excuse for his misuse of other sources, such as the Elephantine Papyrii.

          • Ron says:

            “The exegetical explanation for this seeming redundancy is that it is telling us the hole was empty of water but not of poisonous vermin. A further explanation of this is that you can’t have an empty space. Either it’s got Torah (traditionally allegorized as water) or it swarms with poisonous vermin.

            An animal can copulate without assigning any significance to the deed. But a man can’t. If the act isn’t holy, it will become unholy. And then perversions will stack one upon another. Which is what you have in your society.”

            These are noble and righteous words.

        • Ron says:

          @Alan

          You’ve also touched on something important. But in a real way, I think he is there to convert. As Jim has pointed out, men like Deen are conversos. My people are a nation of priests.

          Look at yourself, let’s assume you are a good man who is acting righteously. What if you were to have taken a different path? All that we see now would be twisted. you would be a nightmare.

          I have seen good men who remind me of Deen (from what little I’ve read of him). This is someone who has taken good qualities and been submerged in evil. What’s happening to him now is a warning from Heaven.

          Yes, Jim is right, they women are screaming in pain. But why are they screaming only with him? Is he the only (in)famous degenerate? But with the others it’s pointless. The mind does not acknowledge what it can do nothing about. This one is different, is it because he should know better? Or is it because the nice-guy things he insists on show a code of honor however twosted it is?

          • jim says:

            I think they are screaming at him because he is telling them that he is good and they are good, while they are hurting as if they are bad and he is bad.

            They would likely do the same things for Heartiste for no pay, and hurt just as much, and not scream at Heartiste.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I corrected my comment to make it clearer, time stamp at 08:04

            “He’s not there to convert others, after all” – which follows “Jim”s comment that Mr Deen wasn’t there spouting Jewish ideology. My comment gives the reason why.

            It would be somewhat facile to say that every school of thought is a religion, though. & you’ve confused me with your comment about being a people of priests, which is a presumptious statement given that I don’t know you.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Ron means that he is Jewish, and Jews are a people of priests.

              Indeed, this is exactly why James Deen is getting such a well deserved pile of false rape accusations: For being holier than thou and more progressive than thou while producing BDSM porn.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Mr Deen didn’t convert, he was going about his job like a unethical, yet dispassionate scientist, and “improved” the Cathedral religion while he did it.

            A.J.P.

          • ron says:

            @Alan

            Yeah, I noticed that also after I posted my comment, but even when I thought you meant that he is there to convert others, I thought you meant he intended to convert them to his “converso” progressive ideology.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        *He’s not there to convert others

      • B says:

        You are much better suited at reviewing/discussing pornography than religion. Why is that?

      • Ron says:

        @Jim

        I think you’ve touvhed on something very important to the human condition

        I’ve just been studying how all “suffering” is non existent with “knowledge”. Before I read your last comment, I had only been taught that the word “knowledge” referred to more than just book learning, or craft, but something to do with … the soul. It’s not so much a conscious understanding. Or if it is, it’s a consciousness that isn’t something I have experienced. I think it’s like realizing something is True, even tho one has no idea why he grasps it. And I am not referring to where a thing is obviously false but one chooses to believe it anyway. I say “I think it is like …” because I don’t properly understand the concept.

        To continue, now I realize that “suffering” also has a deeper meaning. Again I can’t put it into a description, because I “know” that I don’t understand what you said properly. But something in me says (human reasoning?) that you nailed it.

    • fnd says:

      I tought jews where mavericks in the porn industry? Goes to show that jews who are not Talmudic turns into high ranking demons.

      • ron says:

        According to our own traditions some of the greatest men in Jewish history were Roman converts to our religion. some of whom were direct family members of Romans who were also our worst tormentors.

        Objectively, the emperor Hadrian caused us Jews more damage than even Hitler, even if you do not believe the Talmudic accounts of the extent of the massacre, it is impossible to compare being thrown out of Europe to being cast out of our homeland. On the other hand his nephew Aquila literally wrote the explanation of the Torah which every Jew for 2000 years bases his understanding on. The extent of what Aquila wrote is so absolutely accepted and so thorough, that most Jews don’t even realize that everything they believe is based on what that one man wrote down.

        This is true of the Romans, the Babylonians, and all the people we have struggled with down to the Egyptians. It is certainly true of ourselves as well.

        I dont’ view any of this as a genetic power struggle. And I think any Jew that does is wrong with regards to his own belief system. Genetics play a large role in the same sense that a good man lacking legs is going to have a hard time running to do the will of God. But genetics plays A ROLE. Neither nature nor nurture have the final say in what we choose to do.

        When all is said and done, we all have free will to choose good.

        Well, that’s how I see it anyway.

  7. pdimov says:

    “The Jews know we’re better than everyone else. That’s all that matters.”

    http://forward.com/articles/170950/the-jewish-porn-star-next-door/

  8. GameOn says:

    I no longer have any respect for Jim. While he has shown a great deal of wisdom and knowledge his willingness to tolerate insults and lies from a dirty rat like B shows he isn’t much of a man.

    • peppermint says:

      The fact that him and B patiently engage with each other proves that they are both men and patriots. I’ve learned a lot about how Jews think from their comments here. The intercultural dialogue is probably most of the value of this blog, above even Jim’s remarkable contributions to behavioral science.

      • B says:

        What have you people done with the Peppermint?

        • Jefferson says:

          I just want to second what Peppermint says here (and give him some credit for adding to these discussions, if he’s too humble to claim it himself). Debate and discussion here, especially between Jim and B, has often provided insights that I haven’t found anywhere else, and are a real treasure.

        • Irving says:

          I agree with Peppermint and Jefferson. I’ve learned more from Jim’s blog than I did while at university and as for B, his comments are generally, if not invariably, well-informed and interesting, though his Jewish chauvinism is a bit too much for me at times. And so when Jim and B debate, I always take care to read both of them carefully.

  9. Mark Citadel says:

    Whores trying to claw back some dignity through feminist bitchmoaning. At this point, everyone is rolling their eyes. Live like a whore, feel like a whore. Then again, I’m not coming to the defense of a Jewish pornographer. I always enjoy watching the left eat their own.

    • peppermint says:

      You’d be required to feel differently if they found Jesus instead of feminism, of course.

      It’s important to offer a path to atonement and amnesty to your enemies, it weakens their resolve and sews dissension in their ranks. If they would join a convent, they could have amnesty, and their example could be held up for others.

      Some Christian communities take this too far and offer amnesty without atonement, and even protect the “penitent” from the shame of their sin being known.

      Anyway, amnesty for cuckservatives who help get Donald Trump elected. A traitor’s death to those who published cuckservative views and then sat on the sidelines this election cycle.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        “You’d be required to feel differently if they found Jesus instead of feminism, of course.”

        Yes

        “It’s important to offer a path to atonement and amnesty to your enemies, it weakens their resolve and sews dissension in their ranks.”

        Someone knows the art of war.

        “If they would join a convent, they could have amnesty, and their example could be held up for others. Some Christian communities take this too far and offer amnesty without atonement, and even protect the “penitent” from the shame of their sin being known.”

        I’d say this was a primary problem of Modern Christianity, is that it wants to forgive the active sinner. It wants to absolve the murderer as he plunges the knife in. Whereas actually, if you catch him in the act of plunging the knife in, you’re fully justified to shoot him in the head.

        “Anyway, amnesty for cuckservatives who help get Donald Trump elected. A traitor’s death to those who published cuckservative views and then sat on the sidelines this election cycle.”

        I maintain the best outcome of this election is Donald Trump wins a majority of states, but is then cheated at the convention and replaced by Rubio. It will destroy the Republican party and bring us to the edge of a civil war. Reaction cannot advance until Conservatism is utterly and completely discredited and destroyed. People who are spiritually oriented towards right wing politics need to have NO outlet which can represent them, NO way to make their voices heard within the system. Only then will they fully embrace an authoritarianism and be ready to turn on the nation’s left with the force of a tropical cyclone.

        • Eli says:

          That’s an interesting point. It seems that a precedent already exists. The Whigs had to destruct before the Republicans appeared.

          It does not seem like a stretch to imagine that, as the ideological battle lines are being redrawn, that the Republican Party needs to go the way of the dodo, before a National/Nationalist party is born. That, or the Republican establishment gives up for good.

          It may take a few election cycles to happen. Clinton might get into the office.

  10. Thales says:

    This thread is comedy gold.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      When you drag the ugly religion of the Cathedral out of the shadows to take a look at it, it quickly becomes obvious how truly sick and perverse it is. The real issue is then that men are no longer _homo_sapiens_sapiens_ (Latin for “thinking man”) or _anthropos_ (Greek for “one who looks up”) to realise such a thing though maybe they would if they’d come to this blog.

      I won’t disagree that laughter is the best medicine, when it comes to the sickness of the heart, the perversion of truth that the Cathedral wants to sell you…

      A.J.P.

  11. Barnabas says:

    He’s not there to sero-convert others.

  12. A Pint Thereof says:

    Pornography is so viscerally Jewish that the state of Israel itself broadcasts the stuff to Palestinians!

    “Porn movies and programmes in Hebrew are being broadcast by Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television stations of Ramallah, irate residents of the besieged West Bank town said on Saturday.

    “The pornographic movies started on Al-Watan television at around 03:30,” one 34-year-old Palestinian mother named Reema said.

    “I have six children at home, they have nowhere to go with what is going on here and can’t even watch TV,” she said angrily.”

    http://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Porn-the-new-weapon-of-choice-20020330

    Jews are truly sick people.

    • jim says:

      Oh come on. You are watching their stuff.

      I don’t mind James Deen producing BDSM porn. B minds James Deen producing BDSM porn. I mind James Deen producing BDSM porn while being holier than thou.

    • B says:

      Ahahaha

      Yes, we broadcast porn into their homes and also make them rape goats.

      You’d think, being this evil, we would have just killed them or expelled them already, but that would be underestimating our evil. We want them to suffer. Hence the porn and goats.

      Also there was a leftist academic who wrote a paper examining the depth of Israeli racism. Did you know that we are so racist that our soldiers don’t rape Arab women? http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124674

      It’s true. It’s a political expression of our racism.

      • jim says:

        Yes, we broadcast porn into their homes and also make them rape goats.

        You’d think, being this evil, we would have just killed them or expelled them already,

        Israel is ruled by progressives. Being progressives, broadcast porn to turn Muslims and Orthodox Jews into progressives.

        Being progressives, give terrorists generous welfare.

        And, in practice, Orthodox Jews are fine with the program, bitching about it a little, but never making fundamental critique. You are content to be under a state religion that is not Judaism. Over the past couple of millenia, it has become comfortable.

        Hence the obsession with cheese crumbs. You will never get in trouble thinking about cheese crumbs. You could get in trouble thinking about female consent.

        You say “See, we are not evil, we are nice to terrorists”, piously supporting the progressive program while piously condemning it.

        • B says:

          This is just you twisting the truth, as usual.

          Israel has a progressive government-this is not some genius new insight on your part.

          But Israel also has a decent-sized and growing minority of Torah Jews, who take the Halacha on politics as seriously as the Halacha on food and sex.

          Of course, you do not want to see that because it doesn’t fit into your loopy model. Same reason you were able to read Unwin’s book (I’m being generous in my assumptions here) and miss the fact that he says that male sexual restraint is essential for a civilization to function and exist. You just crimestop whatever doesn’t fit, and marvel at how amazingly well your model dovetails with your observed reality.

          I am looking forward to that bottle of Ardbeg.

          • jim says:

            But Israel also has a decent-sized and growing minority of Torah Jews, who take the Halacha on politics as seriously as the Halacha on food and sex.

            You yourself do not seem to have troubled to think through what changes Judaism would need to once again be a state religion after two millenia of adaption to being a religion of exile.

            And you seem rather too comfortable with a state religion that hates you, hates your state, and seeks your. death. You think the wind will blow in your favor in the future, but it is not blowing your way now.

            And I don’t think you take the halacha on sex all that seriously – in part because there are rather too many of them contradicting each other, in part because that is more likely to get you into trouble with the Cathedral than fussing about cheesecrumbs.

          • B says:

            I do not need to invent anything-it’s all in the Mishne Torah.

            This state religion is much weaker than it was 50 years ago. The wind is indeed blowing our way now. Our Hellenist enemies are squealing.

            I would ask you which halachot on sex contradict each other, and which ones I do not take seriously, with sources, but since you don’t know the subject matter at hand, I assume this will result in a squid ink explosion, accusations of me being a liar and not taking sources seriously, etc.

            • jim says:

              I do not need to invent anything-it’s all in the Mishne Torah

              Which for two thousand years you guys have been reading upside down and back to front to adapt it from a state religion to a religion of exile, and if read right way around to make it suitable for a state religion again, is rather horrifying.

              To adapt the Mishne Torah to exile, you have been lying to yourselves about what is in it. To return Judaism to Israel, you have change the lies or recognize the truth.

            • jim says:

              I would ask you which halachot on sex contradict each other, and which ones I do not take seriously, with sources,

              There really is no point in debating with those who lie barefaced, and I should not waste time on an egregious and blatant liar, but I will repeat, briefly, once again a few, a very few of the major points.

              Old Testament gives women no right to choose who to marry and who to have sex with. Modern Judaism gives them divorce on demand.

              Rape (having sex with a woman against her will) is not a crime in the old testament. It is a crime having sex with her against her owner’s will, regardless of whether she willed it or not. However, in many cases, for example an unbetrothed virgin, it is a very minor crime, for which the penalty is that she permanently and irrevocably becomes one of your wives. And as for an unbetrothed non virgin …

              In the old testament, women are like fish in the sea. They become your property when you catch them. And you then have responsibilities to them, similarly to adopting a pet dog. No one consults the dog, and no one doubts the dog is property. Legal status of women in the old testament similar to that of oxen in the old testament, or dogs in the modern world.

              In the old Testament marriages are informal, no big party, no horde of witnesses, and the woman is not present. The woman’s owner agrees to sell the woman to the husband – who may not necessarily be present either, or even consulted, because this is frequently a deal between parents for grandchildren. The owner may well consult the woman, but this is informal. He is under no obligation to do so, and if he does so, usually consults her informally in private.

              Levirate marriage reflects a deal between parents that their children will produce grandchildren, and the moral framework of levirate marriage is that one patriarch cut a deal with another patriarch, paid that patriarch money for his daughters reproductive services, and that patriarch’s daughter then owes the patriarch who paid money the grandchildren he paid for.

              We see in the elephantine scrolls (later than the old Testament, earlier than modern Judaism) that marriage is a contract between the woman’s owner and the husband. (Who seems to get a better deal than in the old testament where he is under his father’s thumb.) The woman does not sign the contract, nor formally agree to it. In many cases it is likely that the woman’s owner consulted her informally, and the contract may well be highly favorable to the woman, and sometimes the contract allows the woman to leave the husband (without any property or support) but there is never any formal evidence of the woman’s agreement, or the woman being consulted.

          • B says:

            Being ignorant, you don’t even know what halacha is.

            Halacha is the set of legal procedures which govern our life. It bears the same relationship as any country’s actual laws do to its Constitution, written or not. The same relationship as your local nuclear reactor’s SOP bears to a physics textbook. Meaning, one is derived from the other, but they are not the same.

            You can no more point to a story that took place before the giving of the Torah as a guide on how to do things on a daily basis than you can draw a practical conclusion about US property law or marriage law by pointing out that the US Constitution holds it as self-evident that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. OK, what does that tell us about the regulation of alcohol containers in public, or whether you can put a guy in county jail for driving drunk? Well, nothing, absent lots of context. Hence, your local PD has an SOP, which it refers to, and not a copy of the Constitution.

            >Old Testament gives women no right to choose who to marry and who to have sex with.

            You are shifting the null. Nowhere does it say you can marry a woman or have sex with her against her will. In fact, it explicitly says that a woman who was raped is like a murder victim, which suggests that getting raped is a big deal.

            >Rape (having sex with a woman against her will) is not a crime in the old testament.

            On the contrary. The Torah compares raping someone to murdering them. It no more has to explain that rape is a crime in and of itself than it has to explain that you can’t have sex with your daughter (which is nowhere explicitly prohibited, by the way.) It is obvious that a raped woman or her legal guardian are entitled to damages for assault, which are listed elsewhere. The Torah doesn’t need to explicitly explain that, any more than it needs to explicitly explain that having sex with your daughter is prohibited. Likewise, when the Torah deals with a raped betrothed girl, it just says “if she was raped in a field, she was like a murder victim, because she cried out but nobody came to help.” It doesn’t have to say “and also if she was raped in a basement, or if she was a mute, or if the rapist held a knife to her throat, or if she was knocked unconscious, etc. etc.” The Torah is not written for idiots.

            >They become your property when you catch them.

            Which law in the Torah says this? Can you please bring a quote? Also some examples would be good, as well as some examples of women in the Torah being married against their will.

            We know that in places where this happens or happened (for instance, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabic countries, the Caucasus, etc.) there are tons of stories of women who were married against their will or engaged to be married against their will killing themselves, running away, being punished by their family for refusing, etc. These stories make for great drama, so they typically occupy a prominent place in lore, folksong, etc. There is not a single such example in the Torah (although there are plenty of terrible stories.) Why is that?

            >Legal status of women in the old testament similar to that of oxen in the old testament, or dogs in the modern world.

            This is just gibberish. The Torah doesn’t say you can sell your wife. You can’t even sell a war captive you’ve had sex with-you must let her go, “for you have humbled her.” A Jewish minor girl you’ve bought from her father for the purpose of marrying your son when she reaches maturity must be released with dowry if you change your mind, again, because you’ve humbled her.

            Is the Torah concerned about an ox being humbled? Does it prohibit you from selling an ox?

            We see women acting for themselves in, for instance, the Daughters of Zelophehad (and by the way, why did somebody not just “catch them” and make them his property? They had a sizeable inheritance, as you know,) Sarah telling Abraham what to do with his concubine and son from her, Devorah (who doesn’t even consult her husband before going off to war,) etc.

            >Levirate marriage reflects a deal between parents that their children will produce grandchildren

            The law on Levirate marriage nowhere mentions parents. It applies to orphaned brothers as well. Further, it does not change in its application based on whether the living brother already has children or not. What it actually reflects is the idea that a man’s lineage and inheritance in Israel is something sacred and should be preserved if possible.

            >We see in the elephantine scrolls (later than the old Testament, earlier than modern Judaism) that marriage is a contract between the woman’s owner and the husband. (Who seems to get a better deal than in the old testament where he is under his father’s thumb.) The woman does not sign the contract, nor formally agree to it. In many cases it is likely that the woman’s owner consulted her informally, and the contract may well be highly favorable to the woman, and sometimes the contract allows the woman to leave the husband (without any property or support) but there is never any formal evidence of the woman’s agreement, or the woman being consulted.

            Except for the clauses where women have the right to demand a divorce at any time. It is difficult to reconcile the idea that the woman who was married in the ketubah you are describing was married without her consent, when her marriage contract says she can stand up in a public assembly and demand a divorce and get one at any time! As for the other ketubah you are thinking of, the girl being married didn’t precisely have an owner. She was a special case. She and her mother had been slaves, and had been liberated on the condition that she would take care of her former owner and his son until their death. And now the son is making a marriage contract on her behalf in which she is released from that condition.

          • B says:

            >To adapt the Mishne Torah to exile, you have been lying to yourselves about what is in it.

            Being such a great expert on Judaism, I’d expect you to know what the Mishne Torah is, and when and where it was written.

          • Ron says:

            @Jim

            The mishne Torah was not meant for exile. The book you are thinking of is the “shulchan aruch” (“the set table”) a compendium of laws written down by Rabbi Yosef Kairo that was clearly meant for the Jews in exile as it does not deal with any of the laws that are important to us when we live in our own land or under our own king. Not to get too far into it, but most Jews today rely on the rulings brought down by Rabbi Yosef Kairo.

            It’s a complicated topic, and I am not a scholar, but in general I’ve been told that a large majority of the rulings written in the SA are based on the Mishne Torah. Why we collectively decided to go with that instead of the Mishne Torah I do not know.

            But the law book that you are criticizing us for not following is actually the Mishne Torah. That is why B constantly refers to it. He is aware that it is the definitive compendium of our laws for all situations and all times, whether we are a state or in exile.

            The Mishne Torah deals with all the laws that we have available based on the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. And unlike other later authors, Maimonides had access to far better sources than anyone today does. I’ve been told that his copies of the Talmud where more accurate and had fewer errors. Again, I’m not a scholar so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt.

          • B says:

            Right. The SA largely follows the MT (about 70% of the time) in its scope, and its scope is more limited, dealing with situations Jews who do not live under a Torah government have to deal with, and not dealing with the laws of Kings, the Sanhedrin, the Temple, etc. Its methodology in establishing halacha is actually unique-the author takes the scholars who he thinks are the top 3 in his era and typically goes with the majority (unless he has a good reason not to.)

            Occasionally it deals with issues that only arise when Jews are living in their own land under a Torah government. For instance, it follows MT when it says that if an army of non-Jews comes to a border city and demands fodder for its animals and says that if not given fodder, they will attack, you are not allowed to give in to this demand, and you are now in a commanded war (rather than an optional one) and we draft everyone, even the bride and groom from underneath their bridal canopy. But this sort of thing is not its focus.

            Incidentally, Rabbi Nachman for instance says that in the Messianic Era, the Law will be like the Mishne Torah. I assume this means its scope, not necessarily every particular ruling.

          • Eli says:

            I would recommend you all take a look at “Jewish Marriage in Antiquity” by Satlow. Large fragments viewable on Google Books.

            In short, it seems to me, jim is correct in that a woman would at best be consulted with, but her father was the ultimate decisor and, yes, seller.

            However, it is incorrect to think that she was just like an ox. And here B is absolutely right: a woman (and hence, her father) could be humbled by mistreatment. An ox (or its previous owner) could not, no matter what the new owner does to it.

            • jim says:

              it is incorrect to think that she was just like an ox.

              I did not say “just like an ox”. I said “like an ox”.

              And the bottom line is that Hebrew practices on sex and marriage have undergone radical change – indeed have repeatedly undergone radical change back and forth over and over again as the surrounding society changes.

              In which case reinterpreting the Old Testament to fit this years Judaism inculcates a habit of brazen lying about texts, which spills over from deliberately misreading the Old Testament, to deliberately misreading sources, contracts, promises, and your adversary’s arguments.

              And you have just done exactly this, by attributing to me the claim “just like an ox”

          • Eli says:

            Also, from the book, it does seem that Jewish marital customs have varied throughout history and location. Though broadly what I wrote above remains the case (father selling daughter, but daughter not like an ox).

            From what I’ve seen so far, Jewish marriage, in its present form, mostly arose from Jewish interactions with Greco-Roman societies, pre-Christian era, with the exception of mandate to follow strict monogamy, which got formalized in Ashkenazi communities around 1000 AD.

            • jim says:

              Jewish marriage, in its present form, mostly arose from Jewish interactions with Greco-Roman societies, pre-Christian era,

              This version of history is because Jews hate Christians, so refuse to acknowledge absorbing Christian behavior, customs, morals and doctrines. Even when Muslims massacre them and Christians protect them, tend to side with Muslims, as in the crusades and as in their current suicidal effort to Islamize Europe.

              Jewish marriage, Roman era, in Judea, was pretty much Old Testament. (Though I would not be surprised if it had gone back and forth numerous times between pre temple times and Roman times.) So Jews had to have absorbed Roman marriage through Christians, because there was not all that much time to absorb it pre Christianity.

              Further, Jews absorbed the version of Roman marriage absorbed by Christianity, not all the other versions of Roman marriage.

          • Eli says:

            >Jewish marriage, Roman era, in Judea, was pretty much Old Testament. (Though I would not be surprised if it had gone back and forth numerous times between pre temple times and Roman times.) So Jews had to have absorbed Roman marriage through Christians, because there was not all that much time to absorb it pre Christianity.

            I am not as certain whether Jewish marriage customs and practices were as solidified as you suggest. For instance, I don’t think that bride stealing was practiced de facto in Mishnaitic times.

            Anyway, I just looked into Christian influence:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=ObgjNodMKLQC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=jewish+marriage+in+roman+empire&source=bl&ots=J1TIRORaM5&sig=CKKvex3k8zVuqpmmT9t0Vv9yTU8&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwii2on3yNzJAhWDOj4KHU9ZD9YQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=jewish%20marriage%20in%20roman%20empire&f=false

            Whatever influence was of Roman customs on matrimonial customs of Jews, mostly came via Christians. Seems to confirm what you said, indeed.

            As a side remark, matrilineality of Jews was a Mishnaic era, pre-Christian, Roman influence. Of course, up till 5th century, it was easy for a Jew to marry a gentile and convert her into Judaism. Situation changed after 5th century, when Christian authorities erected walls, forbidding Christian from converting into Judaism.

            As a response, from Jewish side, until that time, conversion was easy, as Judaism was a proselytizing, open religion. From 5th century AD on, giur became an elaborate process, and Judaism became effectively closed.

          • Eli says:

            As to Jews hating Christians, well: guilty as charged, Sir.

            My favorite non-Jewish historian, Patricia Crone, writes:

            https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp

            “…there are plenty of examples of persecution of one kind or another; that religious minorities generally speaking did better under Muslim than under Christian rule under pre-modern conditions nonetheless remains true, however hackneyed the claim has become.”

            • jim says:

              that religious minorities generally speaking did better under Muslim than under Christian rule under pre-modern conditions nonetheless remains true,

              Yet oddly, Jews under Muslim rule have been steadily shrinking from a vast horde to handful, while Jews under Christian rule grew from a tiny handful to a vast horde.

              Observe the vast attention focused on Umayyad Spain (Spain after the fall of the Ummayad Caliphate) – one very short period in the history of Islam and one quite small part of Dar Al Islam. It gets the kind of wildly disproportionate attention that Israel itself gets – because it is the only time and place where Muslims were not brutal to Jews.

              Further, Umayyad Spain ended in genocidal massacres of Jews, which absolutely nobody seems to remember, though every single person on the face of the earth remembers Catholic Spain expelling the Jews.

              The Spanish Catholics figured that Jews had too much wealth and power, so expelled them. The Spanish Muslims figured that as a result of Umayyad tolerance, Jews had too much wealth and power, so massacred them. And everyone remembers the Spanish Catholics expelling the Jews.

              Umayyad Spain is a poster boy, given the same disproportionate attention as Mary Curie and Emmet Till get. And just as that very attention proves that women cannot be scientists and black men were never unjustly lynched, the disproportionate and unreasonable attention given to Ummayad Spain tells us everything we need to know about the rest of Dar Al Islam.

              If dancing bear is famous, even though it does not dance particularly well, that tells us that bears do not dance. And similarly, the fame of Umayyad Spain for tolerance and learning tells us that Muslims are incapable of tolerance and learning. If Umayyad Spain is your poster boy, you are mighty hard up for poster boys.

              Making Umayyad Spain the poster boy for Muslim tolerance and learning is like making Trayvon Martin the poster boy for innocent blacks shot by white racists.

          • B says:

            >I did not say “just like an ox”. I said “like an ox”.

            You are not “just like a chimpanzee.” But you are “like a chimpanzee.” Is this a useful comparison?

            There are similarities between a ketubah and a bill of sale of property. There are also differences. The differences are huge. And the differences have not changed since the earliest ketubot we have.

            >And the bottom line is that Hebrew practices on sex and marriage have undergone radical change – indeed have repeatedly undergone radical change back and forth over and over again as the surrounding society changes.

            It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of the differences of Hebrew practices on sex and marriage at various points in history and show the radical changes they’ve undergone. Let’s say, 600 BCE, 200 CE, 900 CE, 1300 CE, 1500 CE, 1800 CE, 1900 CE and today.

            I didn’t pick these dates at random-there are well-known primary sources for each one, which you as a great scholar must surely be acquainted with. It would be trivial for you to show the changes at these points.

            >the disproportionate and unreasonable attention given to Ummayad Spain tells us everything we need to know about the rest of Dar Al Islam.

            Not particularly. For instance, why did Maimonides, when fleeing Muslim persecution in Spain, go to Cairo? The Christian Spanish kingdoms were much closer.

            >Yet oddly, Jews under Muslim rule have been steadily shrinking from a vast horde to handful, while Jews under Christian rule grew from a tiny handful to a vast horde.

            This is nonsense.

            First of all, in 1948-55, a million Jews left Muslim lands to come to Israel. Is a million “a tiny handful”?

            Second, the population growth of Jews under Christian rule was, in the last 500 years, localized in Eastern Europe. Well, what happened in Eastern Europe was more or less what happened to the European settlers in America. The Jews had moved into the European equivalent of the Wild West, sparsely populated in the first place and then depopulated by constant warfare, Turkish and Tatar slave raids, etc. They then had 10 children per family, just as the Puritans did. Christian benevolence was largely expressed in usually not mass murdering Jews.

            Over the same time period, you don’t see the Jewish population of France, Germany or Alsace-Lorraine explode.

            • jim says:

              There are similarities between a ketubah and a bill of sale of property. There are also differences. The differences are huge. And the differences have not changed since the earliest ketubot we have.

              That is what you told me about the ketubot found among the Elephantine Scrolls. And it was a lie. There are huge differences between them and modern ketubot.

              Among the huge differences: in a modern ketubah, the bride accepts the contract and her consent is witnessed. In the Elephantine Papyrii her consent is never mentioned, and in at least some of them it is obvious the bride is subject to coercion.

              A modern ketubah is not a bill of sale because the husband is not paying for the bride, and he is not buying the bride from her owner. The father is not a party to a modern ketubah, and the bride is a party. Elephantine ketubot specify bride price and dowry – the husband pays the father for the bride, and the father pays the husband to stay married. Elephantine ketubot are plainly bills of sale. Modern ketubot are plainly not bills of sale, although it is obvious that they originated from bills of sale.

              You lied, and as usual, double down on lying, with the absolutely barefaced effrontery for which Jews are so justly infamous.

            • jim says:

              Christian benevolence was largely expressed in usually not mass murdering Jews.

              Jewish recollection of massacres is highly selective.

          • B says:

            >in a modern ketubah, the bride accepts the contract and her consent is witnessed.

            She accepts it passively. Which is discussed in the Mishna.

            • jim says:

              If the bride’s consent is needed, silent or otherwise, it gets witnessed and recorded. If not witnessed and not recorded, not needed.

              Therefore Jews did not need female consent until after they came under Christian domination and adopted Christian contractual marriage with the Christian/Roman marriage ceremony.

          • B says:

            You are changing the subject and moving the goalposts.

            Your original claim was that under the Christians, the Jews thrived, while under the Muslims, they shrank to a handful.

            When I pointed out that there were a million Jews in the Muslim world in 1949, you ignored this.

            Your caterwauling about the Umayyads is intentionally misleading. Yes, the Arabs suck. But the fact is that the Jews of Spain survived for hundreds of years under the Arabs, in great numbers. Yet as soon as the Christians took over, they were expelled or forced to convert and then persecuted after converting. So the Christians sucked worse.

            • jim says:

              When I pointed out that there were a million Jews in the Muslim world in 1949, you ignored this.

              Because a million Jews is not very many. Jews in the Muslim world originally vastly outnumbered Jews in the Christian world. By 1949, the reverse was the case.

              I am not obligated to answer every stupid argument you make, any more than I am obligated to contradict every lie you spout.

              But the fact is that the Jews of Spain survived for hundreds of years under the Arabs, in great numbers. Yet as soon as the Christians took over, they were expelled or forced to convert and then persecuted after converting

              You piously overlook the Muslim massacre of Jews in Spain that occurred shortly before the Christians took over.

          • peppermint says:

            The poster case for Christian tolerance of yids is Poland, where the first ever snivel rights law was enacted, the Statute of Kalisz.

            Poland was thus filled with kikes and lay impoverished when not partitioned.

            » 1. …Should a Jew be taken to court, not only a Christian must testify against him, but also a Jew, in order for the case to be considered valid.

            » 2. … If any Christian shall sue a Jew, asserting that he has pawned securities with him, and the Jew denies it, then if the Christian refuses to accept the simple word of the Jew, the Jew by taking oath must be free of the Christian.

            » 10. … As punishment for killing a Jew, a suitable punishment and confiscation of property is necessary.

            » 22. … If any of the Christians rashly and presumptuously jeers at their synagogues, such a Christian shall be required to pay and must pay to our palatine their guardian two talents of pepper as punishment.

            » 30. … No Christian is to accuse a Jew of blood libel.

            Note in particular the abject cuckery of 22.

          • B says:

            >Because a million Jews is not very many. Jews in the Muslim world originally vastly outnumbered Jews in the Christian world. By 1949, the reverse was the case.

            A million Jews is about as many as there had been 1000 years ago. The Jewish population of Muslim countries did not particularly grow or shrink over time. There are only several million of us worldwide.

            >You piously overlook the Muslim massacre of Jews in Spain that occurred shortly before the Christians took over.

            I do not. It was about par for the course for any place where Jews lived among Christians or Muslims-sporadically, there would be massacres and pogroms. But the community as a whole generally survived. The fact remains-the Jews of Spain survived centuries of Muslim rule and did not survive even a few decades of Christian rule.

          • B says:

            The Statute of Kalisz was the only way that the rulers of Poland could induce the Jews to bring their much-needed skills and brains to Poland which, being a frozen wasteland on the rump of Europe, gang-raped by Mongols and Lithuanians, needed those skills and brains badly.

            If they had another source of skilled, intelligent people willing to move into such an environment and set up shop on worse terms, they would have used it. Apparently, they did not have such a source.

        • Ron says:

          @Jim

          I don’t understand, when you say we adopted roman marriage practices what do you mean? Please excuse me, but I am very interested in understanding.

          • jim says:

            Contractual marriage, and the associated ceremony, is one of the forms of Roman marriage, the most respectable form. Priests had to be conceived in such a marriage, meaning that children born to such a marriage were considered more legitimate, at least by some Romans. Christian marriage takes the ceremony almost unaltered, except that the Roman ceremony was presided over first by the Patriarch of the bride, and then by the patriarch of the groom, whereas the Christian ceremony is presided over by the priest. Also, when the Roman ceremony was complete, the bride and the groom chastely embraced, whereas in the Christian ceremony, they kissed.

            That the Christians decided to turn up the heat a little may well be symbolic of Paul’s admonition that each has a duty to sexually gratify the other.

      • Eli says:

        I don’t have the time to delve into the matter deeply, but I trust Crone, an Islamic scholar, more than I do you. No disrespect intended.

        Right off the top of my head, however, I’m a bit puzzled why concentrate on the Umayyads. Fatimids are no less worthy.

        Do you count 19th and 20th century events in your tally? The crusades? The events in Germany during Middle Ages (like burning of Jews in Rothenburg, massacres in Nuremberg etc).

        From what I’m personally aware of, all in all, there was not as much mass brutality against the Jews in the Muslim world.

        As to growth of Ashkenazis vs Muslim-lands-residing Sephardim and Mizrakhim, it’s merely an accident of history: Jews were in occupations conducive to being at the top of society in Christian lands (usury, tax collection, land management, merchantry) vs in Muslim world (in fact, many Mizrakhim occupied lowly occupations). Not for Christian goodwill.

        Again, however, I delegate to a real expert’s opinion.

        • Eli says:

          And, of course, the Khmelnitskiy uprising.

        • jim says:

          From what I’m personally aware of, all in all, there was not as much mass brutality against the Jews in the Muslim world.

          And similarly, progressives are very rarely aware of race hate attacks by blacks on whites.

          Your awareness is strikingly selective. Does the mad caliph ring any bells?

          Reality is that Jewish population under Islam has been steadily declining to nothing, while Jewish population under Christendom has been steadily rising from near nothing

        • jim says:

          I don’t have the time to delve into the matter deeply, but I trust Crone, an Islamic scholar, more than I do you.

          Crone is an islamic apologist, who, among other things, tells us that Islam did not spread by violence and conquest, but by conversion.

          One lie, all lies.

          • Eli says:

            Crone an “Islamic apologist?!” What a chutzpah for spitting off bullshit.

            You are convincing me yet again that you are beyond your depth.

        • peppermint says:

          The Holocaust is a lie.

          The 40 million killed by the Romans at Bar Kokhba after which the Romans used the Jew blood for fertilizer for seven years (lol kchaunukkahh) is a lie.

          The massive pogroms in Russia used to gin up sympathy for Jew invaders to the US were lies.

          Meanwhile, the Jews whined too much about blood libel, so further investigation concludes that the witnesses to the ritual murder of Simon of Trent could not have made up their testimony, since they didn’t know things. The argument that the testimony was made up under torture was only emotionally valid back when the Aryan world wasn’t openly torturing. Thanks, filthy rat kikes! Your intellectual leaders wanted the US government to openly commit torture!

          So I’m going to conclude that every single story of Jews being massacred is a Jew lie, and thank the heebs for planting in everyone’s minds die idee die gaskammer.

          • Mackus says:

            When you say that Holocaust is a lie, what are you specifically referring to?
            That there weren’t six million dead Jews in Nazi Europe, but less than that? How many? Three million? One million? Ten thousand? Zero?
            Is method of execution a lie? Was it not mainly gas, but starvation and working them to the death?
            What part of Holocaust is a lie?

            “All of it” is not sufficiently specific answer.

          • peppermint says:

            Holocaust means death camps with gas chambers.

            There were no gas chambers.

            There were no death camps.

            Holocaust is a lie.

            Some Jews died in the course of a war that the Jewish people collectively started.

            Collective punishment is now well understood to be within the norms of civilized behavior due to the treatment of Germans immediately after the war and subsequently.

            Death to Jews.

            Also burn every university to the ground and hang every instructor to the last part-time undergrad tutor.

          • Mackus says:

            In Poland alone there were 3.1 million Jews (2.4 million of them spoke Yiddish) according to 1931 census, and Germans killed at least half of them, but probably closer to two-thirds (about million Jews in Israel have polish ancestry). That’s still between one or two million dead people, disproportionately high number. Whether it was gas, bullets, malnutrition, disease, or plain old working them to death, Nazis were responsible.

            “a war that the Jewish people collectively started.” collective will? oh vey, next you’ll tell me that in democracy leaders are elected as result of collective will of the people. Where did Jews got their magical powers that allowed them to create hive-mind that goys cannot have?

          • peppermint says:

            Yeah, see, if you count people like that, then the millions of Germans from East Prussia who are recorded to have died answer those kikes who probably slipped into some other country and are living as lolocaust survivors today.

            It’s amazing how many lolocaust survivors there are.

            But if you deny, or even question, the gas chambers and death camps in most of Europe, you go to jail. Which is the final proof that it is a lie.

            The nations of Europe are today dying from this filthy Jew lie. Either they die, or, they will be führious when they reinterpret their situation.

            • jim says:

              It is clear that a great many Jews died under the Nazis, and worrying about the exact manner of their deaths is dangerously obsessive.

              It is also not true that the Jews made war on Germany.

              Hitler’s major charge against the Jews is that when he was injured and sent home in the First World War, he found that the home front was collapsing, that Germany’s ability to support an army in the field was collapsing, and, horror of horrors, Jews were making the problem worse by calling attention to the fact that the home front was collapsing!

              Hitler’s major accusation against the Jews is that they were telling the truth when the truth was inopportune, which falls bit short of “making war on Germany”, or even “Stabbing Germans in the back”.

          • Mackus says:

            >>Yeah, see, if you count people like that, then the millions of Germans from East Prussia who are recorded to have died answer those kikes who probably slipped into some other country and are living as lolocaust survivors today.
            Count people like what?
            Germans fled east Prussia with support of Heer. Jews were in ghettos and concentration camps, how the hell could they give it a slip in large numbers?

            >>It’s amazing how many lolocaust survivors there are.
            Yeah, its amazing. Notoriously leftist wikipedia admits that only 300k of 400k jews from Warsaw ghetto ended up killed.
            That leaves 100k survivors from one city alone. So, yeah, I am not particularly shocked that there were plenty of survivors left to give media interviews and write memoirs…

            >>But if you deny, or even question, the gas chambers and death camps in most of Europe, you go to jail. Which is the final proof that it is a lie.
            USSR also occasionally punished one for telling a lie. If you shouted publicly in Moscow in 1936 that Stalin raped over 100 little boys (lie), or that Beria raped over 100 little girls (truth), in both cases you’ll get quite similar treatment.

            There is third option, to ignore it. It happened long time ago, there is no need to care about it anymore. It would certainly be interesting if courts tried to prosecute someone for not giving a damn about holocaust.
            Saying “whatever” and shrugging when someone goes on about Holocaust hurts narrative of “The Holocaust Industry”. Saying something that can be easily disproved, like claiming there number of victims was less that tenth official number, just makes one look dumb. Its also strengthens narrative of “The Holocaust Industry”, because (ineffectively) arguing the numbers is tacit admissions that Holocaust is serious business even seven decades after it happened, while simultaneously discredits by association everyone even slightly skeptical about ANY detail of Holocaust .

  13. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”,

    By your reckoning, is there any significance to the man adopting an Anglo-Saxon name?

    • jim says:

      Obviously he feels Jews are unmanly, wants to assimilate, is a converso – all the things that B would quite correctly say about him, plus all the things that B did quite correctly say about him.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Are there crypto-anythings these days, by your reckoning?

        I think the man is a crypto-Jew, myself. If he was more about the Cathedral religion than the Cathedral money, he would return to to his former religion and try to convert those people to it them to it. Many European converts did this when they converted to Christianity, after all, while it might have been more profitable for them to go to Rome, or Constantinople or any other early Christian city to make more money, if they were crypto-pagans.

        “Going native”, I don’t think exists for religions. It’s more about being tired with an old way of doing things rather than a love for the new thing.

        A.J.P.

      • B says:

        I suspect that he hasn’t had an ancestor who believed in G-d for four generations, and hasn’t had one who knew how to pray in Hebrew in three.

        His grandfather or great-grandfather decided to trade his birthright for lentil soup, broke the chain going back millennia, and this is the tragic result. I’m sure they were seeing this as a way to ensure a future for their children as American engineers and scientists, not degenerate whoremasters and pornographers. After all, the Americans they looked up to were quite clean-cut, modern and decent, and not like their own embarrassing accented people in their funny clothes rocking back and forth in prayer, who wouldn’t even have a drink of wine with a college dean or Nobel Prize winner due to their ridiculous outdated superstitions.

        Deen is not a converso per se. He is someone robbed of his birthright before he was even born. It takes a heroic effort to fix something like this, to even realize that it’s something that needs fixing, that everything you were taught from birth was a lie. And after you’ve sunk to a certain point, G-d takes away that free choice. As it says, He hardened the Pharaoh’s heart.

        • jim says:

          I suspect that he hasn’t had an ancestor who believed in G-d for four generations, and hasn’t had one who knew how to pray in Hebrew in three.

          Maybe, but for all that he seems stereotypically Jewish – not just that he has a career in porn, but also a career in holiness. Definitely a nation of priests.

          • B says:

            The potential in something for good has a flip side; when it is turned to the bad, it is that much more bad. A bear can eat one person or ten, but it takes a man to murder ten thousand people, and he will use the same skills and abilities that he could have used to save ten thousand people.

            Similarly, while Arabs can mass murder thousands or even hundreds of thousands, it took Germans and Russians to murder millions.

            This particular Jew takes the same innate qualities that might have made him a scholar of holiness and uses them to become a propagandist of pornography. To conclude from this that those qualities are bad is like concluding that the intellect needed for the chemistry used to develop poison gas, or the gunpowder that propelled the bullets, or the metallurgy that was used to create the guns was bad.

            The higher something is, the farther it can fall.

            • jim says:

              This particular Jew takes the same innate qualities that might have made him a scholar of holiness and uses them to become a propagandist of pornography.

              While Freud persuades men that they should fuck their mothers, Orthodox Jews wage war on cheese crumbs.

          • B says:

            Torah Jews follow the law on sexual behavior as strictly as they follow the law on food. Since you recognize neither, and in fact recognize no restraint on your behavior (other than presumably the probability of painful physical consequences,) you have to mock.

        • Jack says:

          Glad you admit that Jews have chosen, for whatever reason (something something “decent and modern Americans” etc.), to embrace Progressivism. But it’s the Goyim’s fault that Jews made their decision, because Gentile evil mind control rays are really powerful and really evil, whilst Jewish evil mind control rays obviously aren’t. Right??

          • B says:

            Some Jews have chosen to embrace the most American of American ideologies, i.e., Progressivism.

            Who is more responsible for the Manson Family murders, Charlie or Squeaky?

          • Jack says:

            The double standard is so blatant, I literally can’t even, need to lie down.

            Seriously, how come the geniuses here at blog.jim accept without reservation the notion that Jews can be and are influenced by evil mind control rays emitted by degenerate Gentiles, thus making them “conversos to Progressivism”, yet persistently deny that Jews can and do emit their own evil mind control rays, thereby influencing negatively Gentile society?

            And before you even start, there is absolutely no denial of Gentiles’ agency and responsibility for their sordid state of affairs here; the nuanced view espoused by accredited and acclaimed Zyklon B manufacturers such as myself is that Jews went leftist because it suited them (that is, were not forced or otherwise coerced into it), came to dominate leftism (due to high verbal IQ), and then carved leftism in their own image… and that’s how we arrived at contemporary Progressivism. Somehow steps 1 and 2 are recognized while step 3 is contested, with no logical consistency whatsoever.

            The question of “who started leftism?” is moot. Memes progress, and leftism progressed along Jewish lines in the course of the last previous decades. In 1815 you couldn’t blame Jews for Progressivism, but in (((2015))) you most certainly can. You may argue that Jewish influence is “exaggerated” and that leftism is only 10% Jewish rather than 95%, but to argue that it’s not Jewish at all is intellectually dishonest.

            • jim says:

              Seriously, how come the geniuses here at blog.jim accept without reservation the notion that Jews can be and are influenced by evil mind control rays emitted by degenerate Gentiles, thus making them “conversos to Progressivism”, yet persistently deny that Jews can and do emit their own evil mind control rays, thereby influencing negatively Gentile society?

              Because the Jews are converting to a belief system that made them give up Gaza and will not let them deal effectively with knife wielding Palestinians.

              Because that belief system is hostile to Judaism and intends to assimilate Jews.

              Of course many Jews have a bad influence. B has, for example, said that James Deen has a bad influence, as of course he does. And B has also acknowledged the Pol observation, that wherever you find a bunch of progressives doing something bad and exercising evil influence, you are apt to find a suspiciously large number of Jews among them, and find those Jews often favoring their fellow (progressive semi assimilated) Jews.

              But progressivism is not Judaism, it is pretty much the opposite of Judaism, and it is not “International Jewry” even though there are awful lot of progressive Jews doing bad things. Progressivism is hostile to Judaism, and intends to assimilate Jews.

              People focus excessively on Jews, for the same reason that any market dominant minority gets excessive attention: This leads them to misunderstand events. For example: our recent financial crisis was not complex derivatives created by too clever Jews at Goldman Sach. It was the dud mortgages created by affirmative action bankers. Angelo Mozillo defrauded Goldman Sach. Goldman Sach did not defraud Angelo Mozillo.

              When people say “Derivatives” they means Jews did it, and in particular Goldman Sach did it. When people say “Ninja loans” they mean blacks and mestizos did it, and in particular Angelo Mozilo (a very white “hispanic”) And you will notice that by and large, it is the progressives saying “Derivatives”. (Meaning Jews.)

              This is excessive focus on a market dominant minority distorting our perception of reality.

              During the financial crisis, the affirmative action banker Angelo Mozilo was creating dud loans (ninja loans) and selling them to Goldman Sach. Goldman Sach then converted these into too clever by half derivatives, and sold them to their customers. And when they realized Mozilo’s loans were dud, Goldman Sach continued, dishonestly, to sell these too clever by half derivatives to their customers. But they lost a bundle on Angelo Mozilo’s dud loans. He scammed them, and they were trying to pass the losses onto the government and their customers.

              So if you think Jews are the great masterminds behind everything that happens, you will not understand the financial crisis, nor the current crackdown on campus.

              During the lead up to the banking crisis, you see a horde of progressive banker Jews beating their breasts that bankers oppress blacks and mestizos and then losing money on blacks and mestizos.

            • jim says:

              Jews went leftist because it suited them (that is, were not forced or otherwise coerced into it), came to dominate leftism (due to high verbal IQ), and then carved leftism in their own image… and that’s how we arrived at contemporary Progressivism

              Yes, went leftist because it suited them, came to dominate leftism, but no, did not carve it into their own image. Leftism hates Jews. Example: The Old Bolsheviks purging each other until the party was damn near Judenrein.

              Jews are responsible for a lot of bad stuff, but if Freud urged gentiles to fuck their mothers, he also urged Jews to fuck their mothers, and by and large, had a lot more success getting Jews to fuck their mothers than getting gentiles to fuck their mothers. That really does not look like a terribly clever international Jewish conspiracy. And neither do Goldman Sach’s too clever by half financial derivatives, which were derived from Angelo Mozilo’s ninja loans, for deriving them from ninja loans was not very clever at all.

          • peppermint says:

            but progressivism is institutional, international Jewry. Every major Jewish organization is on board with the agenda.

            They formed the ADL to defend child-murdering rapist Leo Frank. Some ADL fag just got fired for calling for Trump supporters to be murdered.

            They incited mass migration into Europe for the purpose of White genocide and so they wouldn’t be the only minority there.

            Jews are more capable of progressivism because they have less of a sentimental attachment to the Whites who violate progressive dogma by existing. They serve progressivism because they instinctively perceive that anything bad for ordinary Whites is good for Jews.

            If B doesn’t like it, he can reform the Sanhedrin and start issuing fatwas.

            • jim says:

              Jews are more capable of progressivism because they have less of a sentimental attachment to the Whites who violate progressive dogma by existing. They serve progressivism because they instinctively perceive that anything bad for ordinary Whites is good for Jews.

              When whites got burned out of Detroit, did Jews get classed as nonwhite?

        • ron says:

          @B

          You are forgetting the “preachers daughter” phenomenon. You know what kind of tragedies go on even with the best of families.

          People are human. Mr. Deen likes sex, he likes making money for sex, he sees nothing wrong with it, he enjoys the notoriety and the truth is society does not castigate him for what he does.

          He probably sees the morals of society as hypocritical and shallow, I can hardly blame him for that. And I respect his willingness to spit in the face of the empty shaming. If anything he probably has a code of conduct that he absolutely adheres to and thus sees himself as being arguably more righteous than the average hypocrite that views the same porn from the anonymity of their homes.

          The only difference between him and everyone else that does his job is that he is preachy and comes across (from what I have read) as a super nice guy.

          Why does he like it? Why not? Why does any whore sleep around? Some are damaged, some could use the money, some just like it.

          There are only two ways to deal with someone like him.

          1. Punish him.

          2. Give him something better to work with.

          The point of Free Speech is the concept that in such a society you can reach someone with #2.

          Personally, I would have him whipped, and if he was incorrigible, I’d have him killed.

          • B says:

            I think he doesn’t see the morals of society as hypocritical. I think he embodies them.

            The big difference between him and the rest of his colleagues seems to be that he is eloquent enough to elaborately justify why what he is doing is good. But it’s not like he’s Marquis DeSade making the stuff up from scratch. As he points out in the Forward Mag interview, he’s just following through. Rav Kahane wrote about this: What Makes Bernie Run- http://mkwords.com/text/index.php?i=60&a=What%20Makes%20Bernie%20Run?

  14. Dave says:

    What’s the deal with Daniel Holtzclaw, the police officer just convicted by an all-white jury of raping thirteen black women? Thinking back to the Duke rape case, if you can’t avoid all contact with black women, you need to have a partner present and film every moment, because those bitches will accuse you of anything.

    Or was this NOWAG mongrel (half white, half Japanese) so desperate for pussy that he actually did burn coal on the job?

  15. Jack says:

    Rape is bad in so far as virginity is valuable and a woman is chaste. It is a property violation. Of course this is not the case anymore.

    The cultural battle over morality should be viewed as a zero sum game between property rights and empathy. Jesus invented the emotional or mindset technology of channeling empathy TO FEEL HOLY and escape the insecurity of narcissism. This is still the drive behind left wing Social Justice although they have taken it way beyond what Jesus intended.

    In property rights morality, winners of the games that convey property are high status. In empathy based morality, victims and priests are high status. People who subscribe to empathy based morality view the cultural battle as being between evil people with power and stuff and pure innocent victims who deserve it. This is good in that there might be someone richer than you with some stuff you deserve, bad in that it makes being an owner kind of icky and thus completely destroys the incentives that make capitalism work; so stuff will soon stop being produced.

    Women are obviously more likely to support empathy based morality, partly because, in this morality, they are more privileged than men and partly because most of them don’t know where stuff comes from. Since challenging a woman on a moral issue is obviously sexist and increasingly likely to make you a rapist we slide further and further left.

    My guess is these porn stars are just trying to increase their status by painting themselves as victims. That and letting the other producers know that not paying them enough might be rapeism.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Jack”,

      Capitalism isn’t even a proper word-it’s a neologism of the 19th Century used to discredit the Companies that were going out of fashion as the British Empire became more decadent. That is how the word got its “meaning” in the English language, and there are probably similar relevant stories for other languages which adopted it.

      There is exactly zero connection to reigion, by the way, and very obvious connection to the ideology of Republicanism which is very unstable and makes any kind of long-term thinking seem gauche.

      A.J.P.

    • Alrenous says:

      Property rights without empathy are almost a complete waste of time. Hobbes’ war is imprudent, but it’s what you’ll get.
      Admittedly this is still better than empathy without property rights, since that also leads to said war, but also you’re poor.

  16. JP says:

    Insofar that a sexual relationship is non-permanent something is very wrong. It’s only in such situations that safe words ect are needed.

    Even in a very dominant\submissive permanent relationship the dominant has to care about the long term well being of his pet thus the real fear of danger on the woman’s part is mitigated.

    That said some feedback signals can be valuable early on in that kind of relationship. The lines between pleasure and pain are unclear enough as is and the option of saying something meaning ‘too much’ is a good thing until the master knows his pets body and reactions enough not to need such a thing.

  17. Alan J. Perrick says:

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/james-deen-rape-and-porn/#comment-1180570

    Yes, “Jim”, good point.

    I would even go so far as to say that it is likely more Christian to hit one’s wife occasionally, than to never hit her at all. That is because in the Gospel of St Luke xviii., the man who beats his breast in the temple is the one earning God’s favour and Saint Paul wrote (Eph. v., 28.) that “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.”

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  18. Art says:

    Jim:
    “Old Testament gives women no right to choose who to marry and who to have sex with. Modern Judaism gives them divorce on demand.”

    My recollection is that earlier B quoted biblical stories where female consent to marriage was sought. Did he not?
    As far as divorce, a quick google search shows that in Orthodox Judaism a get is still required. Was you comment about non-orthodox judaism?

    • jim says:

      No he did not.

      Abraham decides to get a wife for Isaac. Long suffering Isaac never gets consulted at all. Abraham’s servant goes to Abraham’s nephew, buys his daughter, Abraham’s grand niece, Isaac’s second cousin, for a wife for Isaac.

      At this point Isaac has no idea of what is up, and Rebekah and Isaac have never met. Isaac has never heard of Rebekah, and Rebekah has just been told of Isaac by Abraham’s servant.

      Rebekah’s father and brother agree to this,

      Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go,

      and Abraham’s servant pays them and her. And that is all the wedding ceremony Rebekah and Isaac get. Isaac is not present at his marriage, and it seems that Rebekah is not present either, though I suppose she must have been listening. If she was present, she was silent.

      The next day, Abraham’s servant intends to leave with Rebekah, but, to his surprise and irritation, Rebekah’s brother has cold feet about entrusting his sister to a stranger. So then, the morning after the deal was made, the morning after the money has been paid, the morning that the servant expects to leave with a freshly purchased bride, then Rebekah is informally consulted.

      But this consultation was not normal or normative, because the servant did not expect it.

      So then they all go back to Isaac. Isaac is at his morning meditation, and is pointed out to Rebekah. And then and only then Isaac discovers he is married, and to whom, so Isaac and Rebekah then go to his mother’s tent and get to work on making grandchildren.

      Isaac is never consulted formally or informally, and hears about his marriage minutes before he gets to work producing grandkids for his father.

      I wish I could handle my son in this manner.

      • B says:

        First, this is an arranged marriage for both sides. These happen all the time in the world of Torah Jews, to this day. Today, both sides have the right to refuse, and I assume that it was the same back then.

        Second, this story takes place before the giving of the Torah, and thus is not a procedural indication of how to do things. It is a general indication. We have cases where the forefathers did things that are contrary to Torah law, for instance, Jacob married two sisters which is explicitly forbidden.

        Third, the Torah is not a step-by-step transcription of events. Only the most essential details are recorded. For instance, decades of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob’s life are either elided or described in a cursory manner.

        Fourth, Eliezer first gives Rivka bridegifts. Only after she accepts them does he go to her family and offer them her brideprice. When the family begins to backslide, Rivka is asked to give the final word on her consent.

        • jim says:

          Today, both sides have the right to refuse, and I assume that it was the same back then.

          Today, you have a marriage ceremony in which both indicate their consent – a procedure Jews copied from Christian contractual marriage, who derived it from Roman contractual marriage.

          Back then, no marriage ceremony in that sense. The marriage ceremony was more like selling a cow.

          • B says:

            >Today, you have a marriage ceremony in which both indicate their consent

            You are an ignorant idiot.

            Today we have a marriage ceremony where the man signs a ketubah, with his rights and obligations, in front of two witnesses, then says “behold, you are sanctified to me,” then puts the ring on the woman’s finger, then says some blessings.

            (you do understand the difference between “you are sanctified to me” and “I owe her ass now”, yes?)

            She doesn’t say anything.

            Obviously, if she were to say “no, I don’t want this,” etc., no marriage.

            This is also exactly what the Mishna (the oldest document we have on record describing how these things are legally done) says. He says “you are sanctified to me” and her silence indicates consent. No consent-no marriage.

            There is no reason to think that things 2800 years ago were done differently than they were done 1800 years ago, when the Mishna was codified, except in those places where it tells us changes were made for a good reason (for instance, the bride price, instead of being paid up front, was changed to being paid upon divorce, so that there would be no financial barrier to marriage.)

            Anyway, despite having no idea of what you’re talking about, not even knowing that in our marriage ceremony, the woman doesn’t have to say or do anything but be there and not indicate disagreement, you have absolute assuredness and aplomb. This is a basic reason your predictions tend to suck-you don’t even know what you don’t know.

          • Art says:

            It may be true that today women have more authority than before. But your original claim is much stronger than that.

            • jim says:

              My original claim is that female consent was morally irrelevant for men – that it made no difference if the woman consented or not, only whether the woman’s rightful owner consented, and that you could simply seize an unowned or weakly owned woman. The Elephantine marriage contracts do not specifically address that.

              The Old Testament law, however addresses the matter at length, and stories in the old testament show that these laws mean what they say, and say what they mean.

          • Dan says:

            Theres seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion here. Jim sees fathers organizing or rejecting marriages on behalf of the daughter and concludes the woman had no say. This is a non-sequitor for which he has only circumstantial evidence at best, and which would fly in the face of so many other aspects of Jewish doctrine thats we can safely dismiss it.

            I assume the Jewish (Orthodox) position is the same as the Muslim one (which I am more familair with):

            Consent of both parties is essential. Silence from the woman (often shy about such matters) is taken as consent.
            In addition:
            The fathers approval is also an obligation for the daughter
            The fathers approval is strongly encouraged for the son

            It is easy to see how watching the above play out in real life might seem like the woman to be married had no role whatsoever. But you would be mistaken.

            It is not easy to see how the absence of documenting her verbal acceptance Proves she never gave it (I could only imagine how loud Jim would laugh at feminists who are now trying to claim the same thing regarding sexual consent), especially in light of the overwhelming evidence that Judaism does not debase a womans freedom and humanity in this way in any other regard.

            Jim and religious traditionalists may have a lot in common (I’m guessing thats how B came to be here in the first place), but unlike Jim, I dont believe Judaism ever held that women = children, livestock or property.

            • jim says:

              Jim sees fathers organizing or rejecting marriages on behalf of the daughter and concludes the woman had no say. This is a non-sequitor for which he has only circumstantial evidence at best,

              Oh come on. If female consent needed, needs to get witnessed and recorded, needs a marriage ceremony in which the female is a major actor – as for example in Christian and certain forms of Roman marriage. We just don’t see Jews doing that until well and truly under the thumb of Christians.

              In fact, we don’t really see anyone doing that except as a result of Christian, progressive, or Hindu influence. That this practice is now widespread reflects European world dominion. When the Japanese adopted female consent, they proceeded to employ Christian style marriages with Japanese cosplaying Christian priests.

            • jim says:

              It is not easy to see how the absence of documenting her verbal acceptance Proves she never gave it

              If consent is required for marriage, you have a system for documenting and witnessing it – the marriage ceremony.

              If you don’t have a marriage ceremony, or the bride’s presence is not required at the marriage ceremony, her consent is not required.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Art says:

            -It may be true that today women have more authority than before. But your original claim is much stronger than that.-

            To balance an exact prescription for proper treatment of women in all scenarios would be a truly herculean effort, only doable by a half-man half-god, and I suspect our host is mere mortal.

            His is a critique in one direction, not expected to be completely holisitic. For your own part, “Art”, if you cannot figure out the way to do it, then perhaps such an activity is not for you to be undertaking, in which case you would be expected to at least support a patriarchy in which such treatmeants would at least be possible.

            A.J.P.

        • Art says:

          How relevant is the fact that the story takes place before the giving of the Torah? My understanding is that the forefathers in their hearts knew the law before it was given, and their actions do not contradict the Torah. Is that correct?

          On the other hand I do agree that the fact she was not asked does not prove she did not have the right to refuse. My vague understanding is that women were supposed to trust their fathers on this matter but did have the right to overrule them.

          • jim says:

            My vague understanding is that women were supposed to trust their fathers on this matter but did have the right to overrule them.

            If they had the right to overrule their fathers, then we would need formal and witnessed female consent – a modern type marriage ceremony. And we just don’t see Jews recording or witnessing consent until well into the Christian era.

            Boaz, a mighty man (whom I interpret as an aristocrat or prince, warrior power rather than priestly power, but B insists represents priestly power) gathers the elders at the gate to witness and record the legal precedent that he sets, and that he has rightfully acquired Ruth and her father in law’s land. He marries Ruth before the witnesses, but Ruth does not appear to be present when he marries her, and if present, her presence is legally irrelevant, because if it was legally relevant, would have been recorded.

            The incident is in the record in substantial part because Boaz wanted it recorded for legal reasons, so if some detail is left out, that detail is legally unimportant.

          • B says:

            >My understanding is that the forefathers in their hearts knew the law before it was given, and their actions do not contradict the Torah. Is that correct?

            Not quite. In an abstract sense, they followed the principles of the Torah, and their lives are an example to us. But they did not follow the specific commandments, not having them. So we see Yaakov marrying two sisters, Avraham serving his guests meat and dairy together, etc.

            >The incident is in the record in substantial part because Boaz wanted it recorded for legal reasons, so if some detail is left out, that detail is legally unimportant.

            Boaz did not write the Book of Ruth. It would have been difficult for him to do so, since he died before the end of the Book of Ruth. Again-it is not a court transcript.

            As Dan pointed out, you are like a feminist, in that when it suits you, you use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        It is all a matter of expectations. You CAN handle your son in that manner. 🙂

  19. BDSM P says:

    The reason why there is “negotiating consent” and “safe worlds” in BDSM is because many people are roleplaying activity that transgresses boundaries. If you are roleplaying rape and do not have a strict script (who wants that), the girl will be pleading “no, no” so you need a special word that is used to indicate that a direction taken was unwelcome. Jim, you are not wrong that many BDSM people treat this extremely transactionally. It’s partly because the acts are depersonalized when they are done in a club setting or for money, but it’s also because extreme acts have an emotional and physical safety component, so there is a strong emphasis on complete openness on what someone is and is not ok with. BDSM is terrible for many reasons, if you can draw some inferences from what I have written.

    The BDSM you seem to be describing sounds more like couples’ roleplay. Nothing wrong with that, but BDSM is a culture. Incidentally, the culture is being taken over by SJWs who are trying to come in and say “we all want to have fun transgressing boundaries, but some transgressions are off-limits”. For example, some humiliation of women has been deemed “problematic” because allegedly you cannot separate the act from its “political significance”. Same with race-play. Even if your mixed-race couple enjoys it, it hurts black people as a class, so it’s “problematic.” Sorry for the diversion, but it seems like something you might have been interested in hearing about.

    • jim says:

      I don’t roleplay.

    • Anon says:

      “the girl will be pleading “no, no” so you need a special word that is used to indicate that a direction taken was unwelcome”

      BDSM, at least the kind that progressive degenerates in the BDSM “scene” engage in, is necessarily performative (in that it is a performance). Jim had it correct when he said it’s a fetishization of consent. Practicing bondage or sadism on your wife however is fine and also doesn’t require consent or a safeword any more than does playing fetch with your dog.

      And if “no” actually did mean “no” like the feminists pretend then there would be no need for them to use safewords in any situation. Doesn’t it occur odd to any of them that they’re going through great lengths to simulate actual rape and physical sadism in the bedroom while still being able to verbally say the word “no” and then have it be nonverbally understood that they mean “yes”? Modern women are transparent.

  20. Anon says:

    Our resident neurotic poindexter B is wrong again. Deen grew up in a Jewish household and strongly identifies with his cultural upbringing. From Deen’s interview with Forward:

    “I think the neuroticisms, self-deprecation, the guilt [associated with Jews], are 100% true. But, for example, even though Orthodox Judaism is very specific about sex — you only have sex with your wife, you can’t have sex with a shiksa [yiddish for non-Jewish woman, literally meaning “abomination”], etc. — there are also all these weird gray areas. I’ve never felt oppressed sexually, ever, in Jewish culture.”

    Later on in the interview:

    “Respect goes universally across all races, creeds, colors, religions, everything. The Jews know we’re better than everyone else. That’s all that matters. It’s true, we’re the Chosen People. That’s a fact.”

    http://www.forward.com/articles/170950/the-jewish-porn-star-next-door/

    • Anon says:

      Apparently pdimov beat me to the punch.

    • B says:

      There is no such thing as a “culturally Jewish upbringing.”

      There is either Torah Judaism or Progressivism with a Star of David painted on it.

      Reading about his “rabbis” encouraging him to “question everything,” his co-ed school and summer camp (which was a way for parents to let their 12 year old kids have sex with each other,) etc., it is obvious that he was brought up with the latter and not the former. The morals he was steeped in from childhood were completely indistinguishable from mainstream American ones, which are indistinguishable from those of the Oneida Commune, which was of course a completely non-Jewish project.

      • Anon says:

        B your problem is and will continue to be that you blame Cathedral culture on the fallen nature of “the goyim” (translated from retard-speak we’ll say you think it is due to genetic shortcomings), and we all know you really mean white people when you say “goyim”. You do this while accepting none of the blame for the genetic weaknesses of the Jews, and the fact that there are so many secular liberal Jews amongst the high ranks of the Cathedral clearly has nothing to do with a Jewish propensity for suicidal parasitism of it’s host civilization but is due to the influence of the evil goyim turning the noble Jew away from his upbringing.

        • B says:

          You are not translating FROM retard-speak, you are translating TO retard-speak.

          Being Jewish has nothing to do with genetics. A convert is a Jew. Someone who is maternally descended from a non-Jewish woman and has not converted is NOT a Jew, even if he has 15/16ths Jewish DNA.

          The fact that there are so many secular liberal Jews among the high ranks of the Cathedral is obviously due to our higher average IQ. But your hatred was no different 300 and 1000 years ago, when we were not allowed to assimilate into your official structure. Your hatred is motivated by envy.

          And as I have said, your society’s morals are those of Rousseau, DeSade, Lytton Strachey and the Oneida Commune. Who all preceded the widespread entry of Jews into your Cathedral, and who had a big part in building it, and none of whom were Jewish.

          • jim says:

            The fact that there are so many secular liberal Jews among the high ranks of the Cathedral is obviously due to our higher average IQ.

            In part high IQ, but as you earlier acknowledged, there is also an element of nepotism – of favoritism to people in one’s own social and cultural bubble, who tend to be people that anon would certainly call Jewish, but whom you would often be less inclined to call Jewish.

            A Jew gets in at the top because he is good with word games that rationalize the various mutually contradictory tenets of progressivism. He then pulls in a bunch of people to the top who tend to disproportionately Jewish, and not necessarily as smart as himself

          • Irving says:

            B,

            If “being Jewish has nothing to do with genetics”, then where did the secular liberal Jews get their high IQ from in the first place? They might not be religiously Jewish but they’re certainly genetically Jewish, which is where they got their high IQs in the first place. The fact is that all of the Jews mentioned in this article, which elaborates the absolutely decisive and indispensable role that Jews played in the creation of the American porn industry, are no less Jewish than you are: http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

          • B says:

            High IQ is an epiphenomenon of Judaism. Being stupid does not make one less Jewish, and being smart does not make one more Jewish.

            The American porn industry was alive and well in the 1860s. Were the Jews behind that too?

            The Jews in porn are not less Jewish than I am in terms of their birth and their obligations to G-d. They certainly can’t claim that they are Jewish in their behavior, which violates those obligations flagrantly and purposely.

            Jim-as I earlier acknowledged, there is antinepotism, in that Jews in secular liberal positions of authority tend to discriminate against other Jews, finding them an embarrassment. See: Felix Frankfurter’s response to Karski, or Rabbi Kahane’s book on the establishment of the JDL and the response of the establishment Jews.

          • B says:

            Here’s your nepotism: http://www.jewish-e-library.net/Works/Kahane/Story.of.the.JDL/JDL.Chapter06/JDL.Chapter06-034.Page-208.html

            It is important to bring to bear examples of the all-too- bnumerous cases of Jewish problems that the Jewish leader- bship had done nothing about and that JDL’s call for Jewish bPower was meant to resolve.
            bIn August 1968, while I was still associate editor of the bJewish Press, a letter arrived from an employee of the New bYork City Department of Social Services, later to become bknown as the Human Resources Administration. Dated bAugust 23, 1968, it read:
            b“I am currently employed in the NYC Dept. of Social bServices and was shocked and amazed when I recently dis- bcovered that, at a meeting, our current Commissioner, Mr. bGoldberg, informed his administration that he feels that bthere are too many Jews in his upper and middle adminis- btrative force.
            b“He said that he was going to rectify this problem by badding a requirement of an oral examination to the promo- btional requirements for the position of Adminstrator, Assis- btant Director, and Director. This requirement will be so bgeared that only the ‘proper types’ will be acceptable. When bquestioned further, our Commissioner said that the proper btypes would consist of more Negro administrators. I was bshocked that such a statement should be articulated by a bcommissioner of our department. . . .”
            bA postscript added: “Please don’t mention my name, as bour department does not take kindly to complaints.” In- bdeed.
            bWhat Jewish Commissioner Goldberg had said privately, bwithin three years had become official, public, and written bpolicy for the now Human Resources Administration under bits Jewish Commissioner Jule M. Sugarman. On December
            29, 1971, he issued an interoffice memorandum on the bsubject of executive recruitment and placement (Executive bOrder No. 505, Classification 1, 36; Supplements: E.O. 501 b(1) ). The order read:
            b“Effective this date I am establishing an Executive Re- bcruitment and Placement Panel . . . covering all recom- bmendations for the placement of persons in staff positions bthroughout HRA at salaries of $15,000 and above. . . .
            b“This agency has, and must increasingly demonstrate, a bstrategic commitment to the enhancement of career oppor- btunities for all segments of our population and especially bthose groups who have not heretofore had easy access to top bleadership position in governmental service. . . .
            b“It [the Panel] will actively seek after qualified candidates b[particularly those from various minority groups]. . . .”
            bThe collapse of the government led by the wealthy and bpowerful who wished to save themselves by making the little bcitizen, particularly the Jew, pay the militant’s price, was bseen years ago. When Franklin E. White was appointed the bnew general counsel of the New York City Human Rights bCommission, the New York Post on July 8, 1969, interviewed bhim and Jews were startled to hear how their human rights bwould now be protected. White was described as a man b“with a brilliant record and a forthrightly expressed belief bthat treatment of Negros should not be equal—it should be bpreferential.” He called Black campus disruptions “abso- blutely justified” (history does not record a condemnation by bMrs. Schiff of such militancy coming from a non-Jew) and badded: “The white society owes preferential treatment to bNegroes.” The same year the Newark Board of Education bvoted to abolish written and oral exams for promotion in bschools and ten white teachers, mostly Jewish, who had bqualified by exam in the past for promotion to principal or bvice-principal were now dropped in favor of ten Negroes bwho had not made it on merit.

            • jim says:

              there are too many Jews in his upper and middle adminis- btrative force.

              His arguments make sense if every single person in the department is either a Jew or a NAM, and he wants more NAMS, having already entirely gotten rid of the Goy.

              What he is saying only makes sense if they have already gotten rid of every single white non Jew and are hard up to increase NAM representations without Jews copping it.

              That an increase in NAMs requires a reduction in Jews, implies that they have already purged every non Jewish white that they could.

          • B says:

            As usual, you conjecture and spin without actually knowing the facts.

            The mayor of NYC at the time, for instance, was named Lindsay.

            Jews like Sugarman did not mess with the Irish and Italians of NYC in their bailiwicks.

  21. Ahote says:

    The way in which Church Canons handle forcibly raped women is very interesting.
    If raped girl/woman was a slut, she’s excommunicated until she gives indemnification and repents (her rape is treated as if it were fornication). If raped girl/woman was chaste girl, or a loyal wife, she’s to be treated as if nothing happened.

    • Anon says:

      And? Baptists do the same shit but the only thing that accomplishes is the woman being accepted back into the support fold of the congregation with the added bonus of having learned how to not get caught the next time she does it, and you bet your bottom dollar she’ll do it again because of sola fide. Christianity is inherently inclusive and glorifies outcasts and losers and is thus a religion for the weak.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Anon.”,

        Your kind of comments are exactly how the Roman Catholics pump themselves up to justifying the opening of the U.S. Southern border so that tonnes of brown fellow Catholics are let in. This blends out the white population here but that’s fine considering that the whites were nasty Protties to begin with…

        A.J.P.

        • Anon says:

          Forgive me if I’m not following your logic on this one. If anything I’ve ever said on this blog seemed like a defense of either Catholicism or brown people then we’re misreading each other.

          • Mackus says:

            You criticized Christianity by calling it inclusive and weak, and because according to AJP only his specific version of Anglicanism is “real” Christianity, he assumed you criticized “his” Christianity, the only real one. Papists also criticize Christianity, because papists quite OBVIOUSLY are pagans themselves, and not Christians (so you weren’t criticizing Catholic church, remember, you criticized CHRISTIANITY, and since you weren’t criticizing it, you were supporting it), not with their tridentine mass which is OBVIOUSLY totally different from all the other CORRECT masses.
            Since you criticize Christianity, like satanic church of Rome does, you are obviously papist, don’t you dare to deny it, you filthy pope-lover.

            Sarcastic rant over.

            To be serious, AJP is either trolling or stupid, you could murder pope, and he’ll still call you papist.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            It’s exactly the same excuse that the Catholics make.

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The papacy was a Christian office, ergo there is no more pope after the Trentian heresy, “Mackus”.

            Also, I advocate the kind of Christianity that “Jim” advocates. Did you read this blogpost, mister? I noticed you didn’t comment there.

            http://blog.jim.com/war/how-to-genocide-inferior-kinds-in-a-properly-christian-manner/

          • Mackus says:

            I didn’t comment at http://blog.jim.com/war/how-to-genocide-inferior-kinds-in-a-properly-christian-manner/ because I had no objections to the post.

            How exactly is post-Trentian Catholicism heresy, compared to pre-Trentian Catholicism? What Trent changed that made it no longer “real Christianity”, “Alan” “J.” “Perrick”? (Look! I can haz quotemarkz too!)
            Seriously, Trent hadn’t anything in doctrine, it reaffirmed it and clarified conflicting points, condemned protestantism, and codified pre-existing liturgy.

            And seriously, why do you use quotations on my nick? Do you suspect I am not real Mackus? Was I murdered, and replaced by papist servant of Spanish Inquisition?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Mackus”,

            L.O.L.

  22. Art says:

    B:
    “This is also exactly what the Mishna (the oldest document we have on record describing how these things are legally done) says. He says “you are sanctified to me” and her silence indicates consent. No consent-no marriage.”

    Does it say (or implied) in Mishna that she has the right to say “no”?

    • B says:

      Yes. Look here for “consent” and “silent”.

      http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf

      • Art says:

        What I am seeing here is that the plain text does not mention consent.
        But at some point it was interpreted as requiring female consent for marriage but not for divorce.
        When was this commentary written?

        • B says:

          This is the Mishna with the Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud).

          The Mishna is extremely concise and was codified between the first and second century CE by the Tannaim. It was finalized in the beginning of the third century by Yehuda HaNasi, the Exilarch (the prince of the Jews, descended from David.)

          Until the codification of the Mishna, the Oral Torah was not written down but kept by scholars, courts, etc (every settlement with several families was required to appoint a court of three.) The Tannaim started codifiying the Mishna because they were worried that due to Roman persecution, the Oral Law would be fragmented and forgotten. It was used as a very concise reference for study and practice. Some things that were known by everyone, like the laws of tefillin and tzitzit (worn by every Jewish male) were not included at all.

          The Gemara is a record of rabbinical discussion of the Mishna in the couple of centuries following its codification. You can say that the Mishna is a legal code and the Gemara is a body of case law.

          So, for instance, the Mishna in Masechet Kidushin (the part about marriages, which I linked to) says: “A WOMAN IS ACQUIRED [IN MARRIAGE] IN THREE WAYS AND ACQUIRES HER FREEDOM1 IN TWO.” The Gemara says about this “were it taught ‘he acquires.’ I might have thought, even against her will, hence It is
          stated ‘A WOMAN IS ACQUIRED,’ implying only with her consent, but not without.”

          Then they get into case law, talking about how we know she consented, what if she was silent but took her brideprice, for instance here:

          A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a mat of myrtle twigs. Said they to him, ‘But it is not
          worth a perutah!’22 ‘Then let her be betrothed for the four zuz it contains,’ replied he.23 Having
          taken it, she remained silent. Said Raba: It is silence after receipt24 of the money, and such silence
          has no significance.25 Raba said: Whence do I know26 this? For it was taught: If he says to her,
          ‘Take this sela’ as a bailment ,’ and then he says to her, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me therewith’, [if he
          made the declaration] when giving the money [and she accepted it without protest], she is betrothed;
          after giving the money: if she consented, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. What is meant
          by ‘she consented,’ ‘she did not consent’? Shall we say: ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes’,
          and ‘she did not consent,’ that she said: ‘no’? Then it follows that the first clause means that even if she said ‘no,’ it is [valid] kiddushin. But why, seeing that she said ‘no’? Hence surely,
          ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes’, whilst ‘she did not consent, that she kept silence; thus
          proving that silence after receipt of money has no significance.

          Anyway, the significant thing is that even though they argue about all sorts of stuff, none of the rabbis says that you can marry a woman without her consent.

          • Art says:

            Thank you for the explanation.
            In my opinion these documents are supporting Jim’s position:
            The original document sounds as if bride’s consent is not required. But consent is discovered between the lines by the rabbis of the early Christian era

          • B says:

            The rabbis of the early Christian era are the ones who wrote the Mishna.

            The rabbis who commented on the Mishna in the Gemara I quoted mostly lived outside the Roman Empire.

            It would be strange for them to be more influenced by Roman mores than the Tannaim, the codifiers of the Mishna.

            When we look at the Elephantine Ketuboth, it is obvious that not only is the wife’s consent implied, but she can withdraw that consent at any time after the marriage! This is an explicit stipulation, even when the wife is a former slave!

            When we look at Babatha’s ketubah, from the early 2nd century CE, it is a set of promises made by her husband to her!

            • jim says:

              It would be strange for them to be more influenced by Roman mores than the Tannaim, the codifiers of the Mishna.

              It is pretty obvious that today’s Rabbis are alarmingly influenced by progressive mores.

            • jim says:

              When we look at the Elephantine Ketuboth, it is obvious that not only is the wife’s consent implied, but she can withdraw that consent at any time after the marriage! This is an explicit stipulation, even when the wife is a former slave!

              Untrue

          • jim says:

            Rabbis, notoriously, are apt to read older writing upside down and back to front.

            At some point in time, Rabbis started interpreting older laws as requiring consent.

            ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes’, whilst ‘she did not consent, that she kept silence; thus
            proving that silence after receipt of money has no significance.

            In the Elephantine ketubot, it does not appear that the bride commonly receives the money.

            Generally they are set up to provide a financial incentive for the buyer to keep the bride, and not ditch her – containing both dowry and bride price, the bride price being paid to the bride’s owner. If the buyer ditches the bride, he loses both bride price and dowry. If the buyer keeps the bride, her dowry comes in handy.

            On the other hand Rebekah did silently receive payment after her father agreed to marry her to Isaac, and perhaps could have refused payment at that point. Or perhaps not. Evidently Laban and her mother did not interpret her silence as consent. I conjecture that were Isaac to divorce her without cause, she gets to take that payment with her when she leaves, but as long as he keeps her, it sticks with him, this being the behavior that most closely approximates that of the Elephantine Scrolls.

          • B says:

            >Rabbis, notoriously, are apt to read older writing upside down and back to front

            You are notoriously apt to not read what you claim to have read, and then lie badly about it, assuming that whoever you are speaking with is equally a fake and a poser. Example:

            >Rebekah did silently receive payment after her father agreed to marry her to Isaac

            Anyone who had actually read the Bible would know that she took the payment before her father was involved, before Eliezer even knew who her father was:

            22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold; 23 and said: ‘Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee. Is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in?’ 24 And she said unto him: ‘I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore unto Nahor.’ 25 She said moreover unto him: ‘We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in.’ 26 And the man bowed his head, and prostrated himself before the LORD. 27 And he said: ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who hath not forsaken His mercy and His truth toward my master; as for me, the LORD hath led me in the way to the house of my master’s brethren.’

            I continually overestimate you. I assume you at least read the texts about which you attempt to argue. And you continually turn out not to have any idea what those texts say and then lie about them. And then project your dishonesty onto our rabbis,

            • jim says:

              Anyone who had actually read the Bible would know that she took the payment before her father was involved, before Eliezer even knew who her father was:

              I don’t see Abraham’s servant telling her that that payment obligated her to marry Isaac – or even telling her who Isaac was at that stage.

              Abraham’s servant believed that this was the women he had been sent to find – but he intended to sound out her rightful owner first. To broach the topic with her first would have been grossly improper by the standards of eighteenth century England and pretty much every patriarchal culture that has existed throughout history. If he could not do that in eighteenth century England, he certainly could not do that in the time of the patriarchs.

          • B says:

            >I don’t see Abraham’s servant telling her that that payment obligated her to marry Isaac – or even telling her who Isaac was at that stage.

            You think guys randomly showed up and gave single girls a bunch of gold for no reason? You think they would just put a ring on their nose and bracelets on their hands randomly?

            Had she not taken the ring and bracelets, there would have been nothing to talk about.

            And had she not taken the silver and gold and raiment after Laban and Bethuel told him that they had no objections (“The thing proceedeth from the LORD; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good.”) then there would have been nothing to talk about. And only after he gave the silver and gold and raiment to her did he give something to her mother and her brother.

            And then when her family started trying to backtrack, they asked her to give the final word. And again, had she not said “I will go,” there would have been nothing to talk about.

            • jim says:

              You think guys randomly showed up and gave single girls a bunch of gold for no reason?

              He has a reason, which he then explains to her father. It would be improper by eighteenth century standards, let alone by the standards of the time of the patriarchs, to explain to her.

          • B says:

            Of what relevance is the 18th century? It would also be improper to give a bunch of jewelry to a random girl by 18th century standards.

            • jim says:

              Of what relevance is the 18th century?

              You are an ignorant bumpkin. You don’t understand how patriarchy works, how any society other modern progressivism works.

          • B says:

            You are like Margaret Mead, taking one society you understand poorly and misextrapolating onto another society and time of which you understand nothing.

            I know you know nothing of the Torah, since you’ve shown yourself incapable of quoting or summarizing even this short passage accurately. I strongly suspect you have never lived or operated in a patriarchal society, either.

        • B says:

          Jim-logic:

          1. The Jews have changed their legal code since Torah times.
          2. We know this, because in Torah times, women were property, “like a chest of drawers”.
          3. We know this, because this is how it works in a patriarchy.
          4. We know this is how it works in a patriarchy, because that’s how it was in the Torah.
          5. We know this is how it was in the Torah, because in Torah times it was a patriarchy.
          6. We know that in a patriarchy, women are property, “like a chest of drawers.”

          Round and round, impervious to logic or sources.

  23. […] from Jim, some thoughts on James Deen rape and porn (ambiguity by lack of commas apparently intentional). He includes this wise observation for no […]

  24. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It’s remarkable that most of the fighting in this comment section is against Wordists

    http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/09/05/there-is-a-difference-between-a-classroom-and-a-battlefield/

    http://whitakeronline.org/audio/bobw_townhall_050903.mp3

    The whites who come here are generally in support of this sort of project.

    A.J.P.

  25. Art says:

    Jim:
    “Legal status of women in the old testament similar to that of oxen in the old testament, or dogs in the modern world.”

    Jim,
    Do you believe that under ancient Jewish law a husband can sell his wife like he can sell his livestock or a pet dog?

    • Art says:

      Never mind. I see that you answered that upthread.
      And I think B’s response:
      “You are not “just like a chimpanzee.” But you are “like a chimpanzee.” Is this a useful comparison?”
      is fair.

    • jim says:

      No, cannot sell his wife like an ox or dog.

      But can sell his daughter like an ox or a dog.

      • Art says:

        That’s a very important change in the legal status. I would expect it to be spelled out explicitly.

        • jim says:

          If you change things explicitly, well, you are pretty much Christians. So Jews change stuff and deny they are changing it.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -So Jews change stuff and deny they are changing it.-

            The Cathedral does it the same way…

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            THis is just your ignorance speaking. When Jews change stuff, they explain what they are changing and why.

            Example: brideprice used to be paid before marriage. This caused problems for poor men, as it currently does in Arab society. So Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach, the head of the Sanhedrin in the 1st century CE, made a change-the brideprice is now listed in the ketubah and is paid in a divorce. The Jewish people accepted this change, so it is now universal.

      • B says:

        No. He can only sell her if she is a minor, and only for the purpose of marriage to the buyer’s son. And this only happened in cases where he could not feed her.

  26. Art says:

    Jim:
    “That is what you told me about the ketubot found among the Elephantine Scrolls. And it was a lie. There are huge differences between them and modern ketubot.

    Among the huge differences: in a modern ketubah, the bride accepts the contract and her consent is witnessed. In the Elephantine Papyrii her consent is never mentioned, and in at least some of them it is obvious the bride is subject to coercion.”

    B,

    Do you disagree that in this respect the Elephantine ketubah is different for modern ones?

    • B says:

      Yes, of course I disagree.

      There is no indication in the Elephantine Ketubot that the bride is subject to coercion.

      The Elephantine Ketubot give the woman more freedom than those of today or of the Mishnaitic and Talmudic periods, because they specifically reserve the right for her to demand a divorce publically and get one! Actually, the Jerusalem Talmud (written before the Babylonian one) seems to mention the possibility of such clauses in a ketubah, but not as typical practice.

      Does it stand to reason that you are marrying someone without regard for their wishes if they specifically have the right to exit the marriage on demand at any time?

      • Art says:

        Every modern ketubah I found online includes bride’s affirmative consent, which is not found in the Elephantine Ketubah.
        That in itself does not prove coercion, and we can discuss what it means.
        But for now can we agree on this observation?

        If so, my next question would be: when did bride’s affirmative consent become customary?

        • B says:

          The Ketubot in the Papyrii are here:

          http://arthistory.wisc.edu/ah505/articles/Porten_et_al.,_The_Elephantine_Papyri.pdf

          They do not include witnessing to the wife’s consent.

          But they stipulate that the wife can demand a divorce at any time. Which presupposes consent. Otherwise, presumably she would have divorced him as soon as the marriage ceremony had taken place.

          Today’s ketubah follows a text set by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE, supposedly by Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach.

          We also have the ketubah of Babatha, who was a Jewish woman living in the very beginning of the second century CE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babatha

          The text of the ketuba is here:

          https://books.google.co.il/books?id=VFhwknlb_FAC&lpg=PR19&ots=fSi1egtpuz&dq=talmud%20ketubah%20text%20of%20contract&pg=PA722#v=onepage&q=talmud%20ketubah%20text%20of%20contract&f=false

          Please read it-it’s quite short. Does this read like the purchase of a slave or animal to you?

          • jim says:

            They do not include witnessing to the wife’s consent.

            But they stipulate that the wife can demand a divorce at any time. Which presupposes consent. Otherwise, presumably she would have divorced him as soon as the marriage ceremony had taken place.

            Some of them do allow the wife to leave at any time for any reason – usually without her assets or children. Some of them don’t.

            We don’t see previously unmarried women allowed to leave their husbands at any time.

            Looks to me that the Elephantine Papyrii reflect social but not legal norms that a wife that was divorced by her husband without cause was subsequently free, subsequently belonged to herself, even though she legally still belonged to the head of her household. We don’t see a previously unmarried wife free to leave her husband at any time.

            In the case of a woman with property (such as a dowry) even if allowed the right to divorce, that right does not imply consent.

            An imaginary scenario consistent with the Elelphantine Paypyrii:
            A young widow with significant assets wants to marry a musician. Head of household says “No. You are too horny for your own good. You are marrying the butcher”.

            Widow protests vehemently, predicting that the butcher will beat her. Head of household yields a little:
            “OK, I will write into the bill of sale that you can divorce him at any time – of course if you do divorce him at any time you will lose everything you have, which is probably what would have happened had you followed your pussy and married that no good musician.”

            Head of household then receives a significant payment from the butcher.

          • Art says:

            B:
            “Today’s ketubah follows a text set by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE, supposedly by Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach.”

            Did that original text include witnessing the bride’s consent?

            “Please read it-it’s quite short. Does this read like the purchase of a slave or animal to you?”

            It certainly does not.
            While I do not agree with Jim’s position, I think Elephantine Ketubah provides more support for his side than for yours.
            And I am just as skeptical about your assertion that the relevant laws and customs had not changed in any significant way.

            • jim says:

              B.

              “Please read it-it’s quite short. Does this read like the purchase of a slave or animal to you?”

              Art:

              It certainly does not.

              It also dates from a time when Jews are subject to Christian influence and Roman power.

              That this marriage contract is B’s argument is an implicit admission that Jewish marital practices changed under the impact of exile, or Roman power, or Christian influence, or all three.

              I would expect, I would guess, that when the Jews were in Babylonian exile, their marriage practices became Babylonian, that when they restored the walls of Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple, their marriage practices were still Babylonian, but, under the pressure of the theocratic government, under the pressure and personal violence of the high priest, drifted back to patriarchal and Judges period forms, and remained that way until the Jews were once again dispersed by the Romans.

              I also predict that if the Jews of Israel take back the temple, and make Judaism their official religion again in place of progressivism, they will again drift back from progressive norms, to patriarchal and Judges period norms.

              And if they are not willing to do that, are not willing to take back the temple.

          • B says:

            >Some of them do allow the wife to leave at any time for any reason – usually without her assets or children.

            Either you are willfully lying about the content of the ketubot, or you didn’t actually read the ketubot, and are lying about that. In all the contracts, the woman who initiates a divorce pays a set price and takes all the rest of her assets. It says nothing about children.

            The three ketubot we have from Elephantine are those of Miphtaiah , Yehoishma and Tamet.

            Miphtaiah’s ketubah says:

            Tomorro w o[r] (the) next day, should Miptahiah stand u p in an assembly a n d say:
            “I hated
            Eshor my husband,”
            silver of hatred
            is on he r head.
            She shall PLAC E UPON t h e balance-scal e and
            weigh out to Eshor silver, 6[+l] (= 7) shekels, 2 q(uarters), and all that she brought
            i n i n he r han d she shall take out,
            from straw to string,
            and go awa y
            whereve r she desires,
            without
            suit
            or without process.”

            She has to pay him the exit price, and everything else she keeps. Nothing about children.

            Tamet’s ketubah says:

            Tomorrow or (the) next day, should Tame t stand up and say:
            ” I hated m y husband Anani, ” „ ,
            2 g(uarters)
            silver of ha(t)red is on her head.
            S h e shall give to Anani silver, 7 shekels and all that she brought
            i n i n he r han d she shall take out,
            from straw to string,”

            Same thing.

            Yehoyishma’s ketubah says:
            “A nd if Jehoishm[a ] hate her husband
            Anania h and say to him: “I hated you; I will not be to you a wife,”
            silver of hatred is on he r head (and) her mohar will be lost. S h e shall PLAC E
            UPON
            the balanc e scale and give he r husband Anania h silver, 7 shekels, [2]
            q(uarters), and go out from him with
            the rest
            of
            h e r mone y and he r goods and
            he r property,
            [valued (in) silver (at) 6 karsh, 2+]6 (= 8) [shekels], 5 h(allurs), and
            the rest
            of her goods
            whic h are written (above). He shall give her on [1] da[y] at
            1 stroke”

            >I would expect, I would guess, that when the Jews were in Babylonian exile, their marriage practices became Babylonian

            That is your problem. You expect, you guess, you assume, and then to you whatever you guessed or assumed becomes reality.

        • B says:

          Comment is held up in moderation, due to links.

          Reposting it with broken links.

          The Ketubot in the Papyrii are here:
          harthistory.wisc edu ah505/articles/Porten_et_al.,_The_Elephantine_Papyri. pdf

          They do not include witnessing to the wife’s consent.

          But they stipulate that the wife can demand a divorce at any time. Which presupposes consent. Otherwise, presumably she would have divorced him as soon as the marriage ceremony had taken place.

          Today’s ketubah follows a text set by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE, supposedly by Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach.

          We also have the ketubah of Babatha, who was a Jewish woman living in the very beginning of the second century CE: Wikipedia /Babatha

          The text of the ketuba is here:

          https://books.google. com /books?id=VFhwknlb_FAC&lpg=PR19&ots=fSi1egtpuz&dq=talmud%20ketubah%20text%20of%20contract&pg=PA722#v=onepage&q=talmud%20ketubah%20text%20of%20contract&f=false

          Please read it-it’s quite short. Does this read like the purchase of a slave or animal to you?

      • jim says:

        There is no indication in the Elephantine Ketubot that the bride is subject to coercion.

        The Elephantine Ketubot generally say, that if such and such bad and wicked thing happens, the bride is free to go where she wills.

        Which implies that if nothing bad happens she is not free to go where she wills.

        • B says:

          Again you are lying. Badly, at that. If you are the best NRx has to offer, the movement is doomed.

          Every ketuba from Elephantine says that the woman can initiate a divorce if she hates her husband, just by standing up and demanding one, and there is no suit or legal process-she just pays her exit price and goes.

        • Art says:

          Where do you see that? What B quoted shows unconditional right to divorce.

          • jim says:

            I don’t read B’s quotes, because he is a habitual barefaced liar, and produces things out of context or in false context. Which quote do you have in mind?

          • B says:

            hahahaha

            what a Communist.

            “Don’t look at the evidence produced by those lying capitalists, comrade! Those photos and quotes are not trustworthy-they are doctored!”

            • jim says:

              There are three complete marriage documents/Bills of Sale in the Elephantine Scrolls.

              One of them permits the women to go where she wills and to varying degrees keep some personal property, but she loses her dowry, and has no support.

              One of them does not permit the woman to go where she wills. If her husband unjustly divorces, she returns to her owner.

              One of them permits the woman to go where she wills if her husband divorces her without cause, but for if she divorces her husband without cause, she has to return to her head of household, therefore cannot leave her husband except by permission of her former owners.

              If you told those who bother to read your evidence something different, you lied. Knowing your habit I expect you implied something different, that you led the reader to believe something different.

              Which is why I no longer bother reading your supposed evidence.

          • B says:

            >There are three complete marriage documents/Bills of Sale in the Elephantine Scrolls.

            What happened to “many”? Three is “many”?

            But you’re improving. Earlier you said “many of them failed to specify that the woman on exit could go where she wills”. Now it’s “Two of them permit the women to go where she wills.”

            Your reading comprehension is getting better by leaps and bounds, and I have faith that if you keep it up, by 2016 you’ll be at what used to be considered 12th grade level!

            >to varying degrees keep some personal property

            This is you lying, either about having read the ketubot, or about their content. Which is it?

            The actual ketubot, which I quoted earlier, say that a woman who leaves can keep everything except the “silver of hatred” (the price the party initiating the divorce pays to the other party). Previously, what she brought to the marriage is listed, and it is clear that this silver of hatred is a minor part of her property. There are no “to varying degrees.” Each ketubah says that once she has paid the silver of hatred, “all that she brought in in her hand she shall take out, from straw to string.”

            One of the ketubot (Yehoyishma’s) says that if the woman initiates the divorce, she “may go to her father’s house.” Not “shall”-“may.” It also says that she will go out with all her goods minus seven shekels and two quarters, plus the brideprice her husband, Ananiah, paid her. “Her” goods. Not “her father’s” goods.

            • jim says:

              I am tired of your lies, and am less and less inclined to read them or respond to you. By now, anyone who takes anything you say seriously is too stupid to be worth talking to.

              If anyone is interested, here is a link to the marriage document that is most plausibly the normal case, standard marriage in that time. (Second Temple period, before Roman rule)

              If her husband divorces her, she is a free women, “goes where she wills”, and keeps the dowry. If she divorces her husband, she must return to her owner, which means she cannot divorce her husband except by permission of her former owner.

              Since she cannot, in the normal case” “go where she will”, then should she run away from her husband, she will be forcibly returned and punished.

          • B says:

            Dummy, the document you linked is the one I quoted. Anyone can click on it and see that it says exactly what I said it says:

            [SPAMMING. You lied about the document, then I told the truth, then you repeated the lie in almost the same words. Once is sufficient. Repetition wastes reader bandwidth

            Rest of your repetition deleted]

          • peppermint says:

            At least we’re not Christians here, who must pretend that the ancient Heeb traditions are the same as the Apostolic doctrines and early Roman practice, only those rotten Phillistines who wrote the Talmud corrupted it, or Christian Identarians, who pretend furthermore to be the true descendants of the Heebs.

            For me, this argument elucidates the true traditions of the Heebs with respect to marriage, i.e., the way their culture has historically chosen what genes go into the next generation. This debate could not happen with anyone but a solid Talmudist and an atheist, and probably isn’t to be found anywhere else.

          • B says:

            You could always change your mind and go be a Black Israelite: https://youtu.be/apTouMWnMGo

            I hear they’ve got white ones, too.

            We have not historically chosen what genes go into the next generation. That’s a concept alien to us. Every man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. But we do have a firm concept of marriage. The woman is sanctified to the man, but she is not his slave. The man is not sanctified to the woman. Nuances like this escape the dumb, who can only understand either gender-equal degeneracy, or brutish master-slave relations, but not a hierarchical (unequal) relationship based on love, respect and an agreement to serve G-d. It says in the Torah that when G-d made woman, he made her as a helper against man (translated as “counterpart” usually.) The traditional interpretation is that if the man does right, she will be his helper, but if he does not, she will be against him. She is not the active party here, but neither is she a dumb beast.

            I’m not a particularly solid Talmudist, sadly. But this stuff is basic. Of course, to someone whose forte is porn reviews and explaining that monkeys don’t masturbate, it might be the major leagues.

          • B says:

            >I don’t read B’s quotes

            >then you repeated the lie in almost the same words.

            Communists always lie, and then censor.

            • jim says:

              It is not censorship because I let you say it once. Even let you say it twice.

              I just don’t let you say it over and over and over and over again. This blog has a tendency to degenerate is to you and me saying
              Is
              Is not
              Is
              Is not
              Is
              Is not.

              Which is a waste of the readers time.

          • B says:

            The readers have not complained (except for the more odious Nazi ones). Just the opposite-some of them like it.

            Pretty much every comment posted by Jack or AJP is the same exact thing, but no censorship there.

            Our arguments degenerate to you saying “is” and me saying “is not” and bringing sources, and you saying “is” and refusing to bring sources.

            Finally, again, you claimed that you do not read the sources I quote because I am a liar. Now you are claiming that you are censoring me because I am posting the same sources. How would you know, if you don’t read them?

            • jim says:

              The readers have not complained (except for the more odious Nazi ones). Just the opposite-some of them like it.

              I am getting complaints in private channels.

              You often contribute interesting and important stuff. Trouble is that when you state some outrageous blatant barefaced lie, as you so regularly do, and I call you on it, as I very seldom do, you then repeat it, and I then reject it, and then you repeat it. And repeat it. And repeat it. That gets tedious. At some point I just have to call a stop. We have both agreed that this link represents typical second temple period marriage. You say that link says one thing. I say it says the opposite thing. People can read the link or not without you repeating the same lie about the contents of the link over and over and over over and over and over again.

          • k says:

            It looks to me like B does a lot of ridiculous nitpicking.

            For example:
            >What happened to “many”? Three is “many”?
            Only three contracts existed, ever? Or, at least one out of three in the historical record is not good enough to extrapolate to many?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -we’re not Christian-

            L.O.L., “Peppermint Papist”, speak for yourself.

            “My single appeal will be to the Holy Scriptures. And yet, I am sure that it will be hard to gain entrance to ears and minds already filled, unfortunately, with a prejudiced opinion.” – Niceta of Remesiana (335-415), a Serbian bishop of old

          • peppermint says:

            that’s right, the way your society deals with marriage isn’t about what genes go in the next generation, that’s an alien concept applied to humans but not goats. Marriage is about like love and hot mouth and butt and condom sex, right?

            Faggot.

            You know, last time I leased an apartment, the owner would have had to file a claim to evict me before the terms of the lease were up, he couldn’t simply buy me out.

            No wonder you guys push divorce and gaymarriage on us. The terms of Jewmarriage terms are retarded and no White man would ever sign a lease like that on a g-d damn gaming console.

            Also, AJP, the Jew is telling you what your scriptures mean. You should listen to him because his people wrote them, instead of larping like you can make up whatever you want and then magically convince all Whites to agree with you.

            The things that I admire most about women are how they are instinctively non-ideological and non-ego-driven.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            Who in the world are you calling “faggot”, you boring homosexual?

            I am at least taking the side of my ally, while your disgusting scent wafts on the breeze all by itself.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            AJP, you worship a community organizer who said that you are not of this world and getting cucked is the highest virtue and blessed are the meek they shall inherit the Earth. And then you say you’re taking your own side?

            When ((Jesus)) said that divorce was permitted due to the hardness of your hearts, by which he meant to impose White marriage on his people, I did not know that what he was hoping to get replaced was whoremongering multiple temporary marriages that are even less secure than Islamic marriages.

            This explains a lot about how Jews and Jewesses interact.

            But that’s totally lost on cuckstains. They just want to cuck for the Jewish Patriarchs, and get cucked as ((Jesus)) and told them to.

            Hundreds of millions of White ancestors whose children didn’t reproduce, and hundreds of millions of White babies who were never born, can’t cry out for vengeance against the preachers of cuckstainty because souls do not exist.

            AJP, you’re not taking your own side. You’re larping that you can convince Whites to believe a lie about human nature and history of Whites and Jews, while B, a Jew, is on the Internet telling the truth about Jewish history.

            It’s not going to happen, cuck.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            The thing you’re forgetting is that Hell is forever.

          • peppermint says:

            Half the time you’re a tendentious Bob Whitaker Mantra bot. The other half the time you’re a tendentious cuckstain faggot larper cuck bot. One of these has a future, the other does not.

            Did you know that Bob Whitaker doesn’t believe in god?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            You’re on your own here.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >that’s right, the way your society deals with marriage isn’t about what genes go in the next generation, that’s an alien concept applied to humans but not goats.

            Yes-we see a big difference between humans and goats.

            >You know, last time I leased an apartment, the owner would have had to file a claim to evict me before the terms of the lease were up, he couldn’t simply buy me out.

            I’d figure as a self-respecting Aryan you’d have built your own tarpaper shack by now with your own two hands.

            >No wonder you guys push divorce and gaymarriage on us.

            Did we do Heliogabalus and Antinous on you people too? Did ZOG propaganda make the ancient Greeks gay? Face it, it’s something in you.

            >The terms of Jewmarriage terms are retarded and no White man would ever sign a lease like that on a g-d damn gaming console.

            Well, good luck with your reproductive success. I assume my greatgrandkids will be speaking Hebrew while yours (if you have any) will be rapping in 22nd century ebonics.

          • peppermint says:

            That’s right. I did repeatedly say that a White man needs to build a house and invite a woman to live with him, which you interpret literally as is the custom of your people.

            White women generally expect their White men to at least co-lease an apartment with them and at least claim to be on a path towards a respectable career.

            Your laws are explicit and finding the spirit of the law to adhere to, as Jesus said he was doing, just means violating the law. Jesus’ bizarre mishmash of Jewish law and White attitudes towards the law was probably the result of him being half Roman.

            This has been an interesting conversation 🙂

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”

            I noticed you have quite a strong affinity for the Talmudic Jews that are at this blog, and that connection extends to you using their anti-Christian arguments.

            –> “Peppermint Papist” Talmudic Jew or not?

          • peppermint says:

            The Pope recently said that the path for Jews to get into heaven is a mystery of the faith and no attempt should be made to convert them.

            As a White racist, I assume he meant by that that it is futile to try to get a Jew into heaven by baptizing him and immediately gassing him.

            Also, AJP, you seem to be tormented by a Frankenstein’s monster of incoherent slogans. Try not hunching over your tablet screen so much, it might help you appreciate that B is on the other side of the planet from you.

  27. Art says:

    Thank you for the explanation.
    In my opinion these documents are supporting Jim’s position:
    The original document sounds as if bride’s consent is not required. But consent is discovered between the lines by the rabbis of the early Christian era.

  28. Art says:

    Jim:
    “It also dates from a time when Jews are subject to Christian influence and Roman power.”

    Roman power – yes. But probably not “Christian influence”. Too early.

  29. Art says:

    B:
    “When we look at the Elephantine Ketuboth, it is obvious that not only is the wife’s consent implied, but she can withdraw that consent at any time after the marriage! This is an explicit stipulation, even when the wife is a former slave!”

    The right to divorce is clear. But where do you see “implied consent”?
    Making your own decisions and having the right to overrule decisions that others make for you are not the same.

    • B says:

      It is clear that if you are entered into a contract which specifies that you can exit at any time, you can exit immediately upon entrance, and so there is no point in entering you into that contract unless you’re willing at the time of entry to stay in it.

      • jim says:

        All the elephantine contracts specified that you could exit only at considerable cost, and many of them failed to specify that the woman on exit could go where she wills – therefore in many cases female exit required a return to the hand of the head of household, therefore exit was only possible with the permission of the head of household.

        • B says:

          When you say “many,” you are engaging in exactly the same sort of lie that you typically accuse me of. To the casual reader, it would appear that there were in fact many, and you had read them.

          There are three Elephantine Jewish marriage contracts in the sources I quoted. Since previously you did not even know of their existence, I doubt you’ve read any others (reading even these ones seems to have strained your capacities.)

          Out of these one says “back to her father’s house.”

          >therefore exit was only possible with the permission of the head of household.

          This is sophistry.

          >All the elephantine contracts specified that you could exit only at considerable cost

          As I said above, reading seems to take a serious toll on you. The cost is the same whether the man initiates a divorce or the woman.

      • Art says:

        Are you a sucker for free trial memberships?

        In one case the woman is the one making the decision.
        In the other case the father makes the decision which she can overrule by taking some extreme measures.
        Makes perfect sense in the system where father’s authority is the rule and daughter’s disagreement is a rarely exercised exception.

        • B says:

          >Are you a sucker for free trial memberships?

          Everybody is, hence the freemium model which is so common. What’s the relevance?

          It is assumed that a man makes decisions in the best interests of his wife and children. A wife and mature children can disagree and do their own thing, but as you said, this is an exception. And today we see that for instance the Chassidim usually have arranged marriages, with the children having veto rights. And yet the whole thing relies on consent, if only by silence.

        • Art says:

          In fact, you cannot design a better set of legal rules if your objectives are:
          – Affirm fathers authority. recognize fathers as usually best decision makers.
          – Recognize women as having certain rights and provide reasonable protection from stupid or malicious fathers.
          – Discourage capricious and frivolous disagreements.

      • peppermint says:

        T-Mobile will pay your silver of hatred if you divorce Verizon to marry them, but I think you need to return or buy a leased phone.

  30. Art says:

    Art:
    In fact, you cannot design a better set of legal rules if your objectives are:
    – Affirm fathers authority. recognize fathers as usually best decision makers.
    – Recognize women as having certain rights and provide reasonable protection from stupid or malicious fathers.
    – Discourage capricious and frivolous disagreements.

    B:
    I agree.

    Art:
    Then why the change that is better optimized for women making the decision?

    • B says:

      I do not think that this change was more optimized for women making the decision. For instance, the standard ketuba we have today, which goes back to the Talmud, has witnesses witnessing the woman’s consent (which is to say, lack of voluble opposition,) but does not let the woman get a divorce on demand (the Elephantine Papyrii say that she can get a divorce just by asking, and there is no suit or legal recourse for the husband.)

      In the modern contract, the husband must pay her a ketuba if he decides to divorce her (though this is not always enforced,) but if she demands a divorce (for instance, if the husband is repulsive to her,) she has to prove her case. But she doesn’t have to pay an exit fee. She just doesn’t get her ketubah sum (which is a deferred mohar, or brideprice.)

      These are all particular details. The essential thing is this: there were marriage contracts 2600 years ago, and there are marriage contracts now. In all times, the woman was acquired as a wife, not as a slave or property, and was sanctified for a wife, not as a possession. It was not an equal contract then, nor is it now, but the husband is not the owner of a wife as he would be the owner of a Canaanite slave or piece of livestock, and he never was.

      Why the change? Probably different communities had different customs. You can see the Elephantine Papyrii have some standard formulations. Even today we have different communal customs, and back then things were less standardized. Even prayer as it exists today did not exist back then, being standardized several centuries later. So I would guess that at some point (probably around the 1st century CE) when the Sages standardized the marriage contract, this is the text they settled on.

      • peppermint says:

        Kinda ridiculous to brush aside differences in the women’s buyout clause and claim that the form is the same.

        Don’t Jews understand that a contract is a contract, at least until you sucker someone into signing it?

        But it’s all about the love and the rings and the sexy sexy sex. Never mind the terms. Our culture did the same thing, and you rightly ridicule us for it.

        • B says:

          It is not all about the love and the rings and the sexy sexy sex.

          It is about serving G-d.

          It is not good for man to be alone.

          A man has a duty to make children.

          G-d has given man a counterpart. Not an equal. But not a slave or a piece of livestock. You don’t buy a woman. You sanctify her for yourself (hence, the word for betrothal is kiddushin, sanctification.) Sometimes things do not work out, at which tragic point you need a way to divorce without destroying either party.

          Divorce used to be somewhat more equal in Elephantine times, but became somewhat less equal in Talmudic times (a man could divorce a woman without her consent for causes like burning his food, while she had to prove cause,) and then became somewhat more equal afterwards (they established a stricture where you couldn’t divorce a woman without her agreement.) In practice, they don’t seem to have had a ton of divorces in any of these time periods. There were some (I can quote you a particularly interesting example where one of the Sages got divorced). I assume that this is because Sex in the City was not a thing, because women and men (perhaps somewhat less so) tended to be virgins at first marriage and this causes bonding, and because there was no redistributive court system incentivizing divorces.

          These are the principles that inform the ketubot of Elephantine and the ketubot of the Talmud, which are today’s ketubot.

          To take all that and to say “a woman is like a sheep and can be bought from her owner, and if you find one wandering around, you can just claim her, and anything else you guys believe you just stole from the Christians” is degenerate.

      • Art says:

        B:
        “I do not think that this change was more optimized for women making the decision.”

        Because you don’t think the explicit consent requirement has that effect or because you don’t think that effect was intended?

        • B says:

          Because I think that the explicit consent requirement had no practical ramifications. Previously, women’s consent was implicitly required-I see no indication that anyone was married against their will, Afterwards, to this day, women’s implicit consent is required-as the Talmud says, the woman silently taking her brideprice, letting the man put the ring on her finger, etc. is consent.

          If anything, the Elephantine ketubot give women more power than today’s ones and those of the Talmud, because in the former, the woman could initiate a divorce and the man had no recourse.

          • peppermint says:

            — the Elephantine ketubot give women more power than today’s ones and those of the Talmud,

            I should hope so. To me, a woman who can arbitrarily leave is at best a tramp and at worst a whore. There’s this joke, “I pay for sex, they pay me to leave”, I think I heard it from Woody Allen.

          • Art says:

            B:
            “Because I think that the explicit consent requirement had no practical ramifications. Previously, women’s consent was implicitly required-I see no indication that anyone was married against their will”

            While that may technically be true, you can have very different practical ramifications depending on how the bride may exercise her will.

            Suppose a girl declares that she will only marry a guitar hero and she must fall in love with him first.

            Under explicit consent rules there is little her father can do.

            Under the other set of rules (consistent with the plain reading of the law) the father can force his will, but the daughter can overrule him.
            But if she does, she will immediately be faced with serious consequences.
            In practice this set of rules should have several effects. First, it will force the daughter to come down to earth and consider her options very seriously. Second, you are correct saying that it makes no sense for the father to force his will if he knows the daughter will overrule him no matter what. That’s why we should expect the cases of daughters exercising their veto to be very rare.

            In some sense one can say that under the second set of rules implicit consent is required, but do you see the difference in practical ramifications?

            • jim says:

              The normal case was that a woman cannot go where she pleases. Therefore cannot run off with the Guitar Hero, and if she does can be brought back and beaten.

              She runs off to the Guitar Hero. Is dragged back and severely beaten.

              After the beating, Dad hastily marries her, over her indignant protests, to the butcher, with a very substantial dowry to compensate for her presumed loss of virginity.

              Divorces the butcher, formally or informally, runs off to find the Guitar Hero. Dragged back to dad, who has just lost the dowry. Now he really beats her.

              Marries her to the baker, who is considerably older and fatter than the butcher, because no one wants a problem girl, particularly as this time around, Dad is a bit tight with the dowry. This time she stays put, in part because of beatings, in part because her last two visits to the Guitar Hero were disturbingly brief and she suspects her third visit would be even briefer, in part because she can all too easily imagine her increasingly pissed off Dad marrying her to worse than the baker.

              So is she now consenting to marry the baker?

          • B says:

            >Under explicit consent rules there is little her father can do.

            >Under the other set of rules (consistent with the plain reading of the law) the father can force his will, but the daughter can overrule him.

            This is all “spherical horse in a vacuum” stuff.

            The reality is that one of the commandments of the Torah is that you honor your parents. And this is not just some vague Christian thing, but has a lot of practical ramifications.

            In the societies of which we speak, people didn’t and don’t get married without parental approval. Neither men nor women.

          • B says:

            >The normal case was that a woman cannot go where she pleases.

            By “the normal case” you mean “Jim extrapolated it from the verbiage he found in one out of the three ketubot”.

            • jim says:

              By “the normal case” you mean “Jim extrapolated it from the verbiage he found in one out of the three ketubot”.

              Two out of three ketubot, one of which you pointed to as the normal case and standard boilerplate, as indeed it obviously is.

          • B says:

            >She runs off to the Guitar Hero. Is dragged back and severely beaten.

            Nowhere in the Torah or in the Elephantine Papyrii does it say that a father can beat (severely or not) his grown up daughter or son.

            In fact it is forbidden to beat any adult.

            • jim says:

              Nowhere in the Torah or in the Elephantine Papyrii does it say that a father can beat (severely or not) his grown up daughter or son.

              There is extensive provision in the old testament for corporal punishment, and nowhere is any age limit provided.
              Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).”
              Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”
              Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
              Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”
              Prov 23:14: “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel).”
              Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”
              Deuteronomy 21:18

              18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
              19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
              20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
              21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

              Nowhere is any age limit provided, and the fact that in extreme cases, father needs the support of the other men of the city implies a grown son.

              And we see old man Abraham casually exercising patriarchal authority over forty year old Isaac – for example when he decides to marry Isaac to Rebekah Isaac gets no say, does not even hear of it until he meets Rebekah.

              And again, we see the Old Testament provide for total patriarchal authority over women, regardless of age.

              And the Elephantine Papyrii take for granted that an adult woman is not allowed to leave her birth household, except certain conditions are met. If not allowed to leave, allowed to be punished is implied.

              Plus, Elephantine society and Old Testament society is clearly way more patriarchal than eighteenth century England, and eighteenth century England did have corporal punishment for adult women.

              The elephantine scrolls have the same wording for a slave girl as a wife, and we can be pretty sure the slave girl was subject to corporal punishment regardless of age.

            • jim says:

              Your interpretation of the Old Testament is consistent with modern twenty first century progressivism, but is far to the left of the progressivism of my youth, far more radical, far more hostile to the family, far more hostile to authority of the father, far more tolerant of lecherous and irresponsible female behavior, than the progressivism of my youth.

              I am pretty sure that if I had been arguing with a Jew when I was a kid, he would have found an interpretation of the Old Testament consistent with the progressivism of his day, rather than twenty first century progressivism.

          • B says:

            >Nowhere is any age limit provided, and the fact that in extreme cases, father needs the support of the other men of the city implies a grown son.

            All of these passages are talking about a minor.

            There is not a single case in the Torah of someone beating his grown child.

            Nor is there a single case of someone executing a rebellious son, by the way.

            >Plus, Elephantine society and Old Testament society is clearly way more patriarchal than eighteenth century England, and eighteenth century England did have corporal punishment for adult women.

            Again, Ibn Khaldun says it best:

            “Be careful not to reject such information about the conditions of
            dynasties, because you have not seen such things yourself. You would then be like the son of the wazir who grew up in prison. The wazir had been imprisoned by his ruler and remained in prison several years. His son grew up in prison. When he reached the age of reason, he asked his father about the meat which he had been
            eating. (His father) told him that it was mutton, and he asked him what that was. When his father described a sheep to him in all details, (the son) said, ‘Father, you mean, it looks like a rat?’ His father was angry with him and said, ‘What has a sheep to do with a rat?’ The same happened later about beef and camel meat. The only
            animals he had seen in prison were rats, and so he believed that all animals were of the same species as rats.”

            To a man such as yourself who only understands force and who seems not to have done a very good job raising his children (based on what you write about them,) the idea that a father can exercise authority over his grown children without beating them, that a grown child who won’t listen to you if you don’t beat him or her will not listen to you even if you do beat him or her, is alien. Every animal is just a sort of large rat.

            • jim says:

              >Nowhere is any age limit provided, and the fact that in extreme cases, father needs the support of the other men of the city implies a grown son.

              All of these passages are talking about a minor.

              There is no indication that any of them are talking about minors, and the passage relating to execution by stoning is clearly not talking about a minor, but rather someone physically capable of physically resisting corporal punishment, an adult, or at least full grown, son.

          • B says:

            >Two out of three ketubot, one of which you pointed to as the normal case and standard boilerplate, as indeed it obviously is.

            Liar. Only Yehoishma’s ketuba says this.

          • B says:

            >There is no indication that any of them are talking about minors

            There is also no indication (in the sense you mean, i.e., a clear verbatim prohibition) in the Torah that you can’t have sex with your daughter. So what? We know how these laws were/are applied.

            >and the passage relating to execution by stoning is clearly not talking about a minor, but rather someone physically capable of physically resisting corporal punishment, an adult, or at least full grown, son.

            He’s capable of resisting corporal punishment, but not capable of resisting his mother and father bringing him to the elders at the gate (which the Torah requires) or running away?

            The reason the elders (the court) are involved is that this is a judicial procedure. The rebellious son must be of a certain age, between 13 and physical maturity, and meet a bunch of conditions. There is no record of such a son being tried or executed: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16525.html

            • jim says:

              >There is no indication that any of them are talking about minors

              There is also no indication (in the sense you mean, i.e., a clear verbatim prohibition) in the Torah that you can’t have sex with your daughter.

              It is certainly implied that you cannot have sex with your daughter, and it is also similarly implied that there is no age limit on patriarchal authority over children – example long suffering forty year old Isaac continues to be treated like a small child by Abraham. He must have felt like Prince Philip in the shadow of Queen Elizabeth the Second.

          • B says:

            >Tamet has no option of leaving her husband at all. If she divorces him, she has to remain in his household – no real right of divorce at all.

            I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by lying about something anyone can verify.

            Tamet’s contract says that if she wants to leave, she will give Anani 7 shekels and 2 quarters, and “all that she brought in, she will take out”. What else could this possibly mean aside from her leaving? If someone tells you, “the wife took all her stuff after the divorce except the car,” obviously they mean “she left,” not “her stuff is gone but she’s hanging out in the living room, sleeping on the couch.”

            And in the one ketuba you have where the woman returning to her father’s house is even mentioned, you pointedly ignore that the translation is that this is optional, not mandatory.

            In your incessant attempts to accuse us of lawyering in bad faith, you end up doing an enormous amount of lawyering in bad faith.

            • jim says:

              >Tamet has no option of leaving her husband at all. If she divorces him, she has to remain in his household – no real right of divorce at all.

              I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by lying about something anyone can verify.

              Tamet’s contract says that if she wants to leave

              you call me a liar, yet I gave the link, and you fail to give the link.

              Tamet’s contract says nothing about her being permitted to leave if she divorces her husband.

              And here the link is again:

              Page 209, what happens to Tamet if she divorces her husband, see also footnote 20, page 209, for the translators interpretation of that provision

              Tamet’s contract says nothing about leaving if she divorces her husband. She can only leave if he divorces her.

              That is the clear and plain meaning of the contract, and so it is interpreted by the translators. See footnote 20 of page 209.

              Further lies on this topic will be deleted without response.

              Any topic on which you lie barefaced, I now adopt a policy of allowing one lie so that people can see you are lying barefaced, and then deleting subsequent repetitious lies.

  31. Art says:

    k:
    “It looks to me like B does a lot of ridiculous nitpicking.

    For example:
    >What happened to “many”? Three is “many”?
    Only three contracts existed, ever? Or, at least one out of three in the historical record is not good enough to extrapolate to many?”

    There is no rational way to extrapolate from one to “many”. You must have at least two.

    • jim says:

      Let us imagine future archaeologists are trying to figure out what kind of society we had.

      A future archaeologist is never going to find a contract from our era of the form “If person B does some bad thing to person C then person C is free to go where she wills”, because she is always free to go where she wills. Even if finds a million contracts, will not find one such contract. The existence of a single such contract implies an entire society in which women can be, and frequently are, dragged back to their owner and beaten for running away.

      One such contract is sufficient. We have two such contracts from the second temple period. One of them may reflect some special and unusual circumstances, but the other one seems to be standard boilerplate:

      Repudiation by declaration by husband

      a. (21)Tomorrow or (the) next day should Ananiah stand up in an assembly26 and say:

      b. “I hated my wife Jehoishma; (22)she shall not be to me a wife,”

      c. silver of ha[tr]ed is on his head. All that she brought in in (to) his house he shall give her29 — her money (23)and her garments, valued (in) silver (at) seven karsh, [eight] sh[ekels, 4+]1 (= 5) [hallurs], and the rest of the goods which are written (above).32 (24)He shall give her on 1 day at 1 stroke [and] she may go [away34 from him] wher[ever] she [desires].

      Repudiation by declaration by wife

      a. And if Jehoishm[a] hate her husband (25)Ananiah and say to him.

      b. “I hated you; I will not be to you a wife,”

      c. silver of hatred is on her head (and) her mohar will be lost. (26)She shall PLACE UPON the balance scale and give her husband Ananiah silver, 7 shekels, [2] q (uarters), and go out from him with39 the rest of (27)her money and her goods and her property, [valued (in) silver (at) 6 karsh, 2+]6 (= 8) [shekels], 5 h (allurs), and the rest of her goods (28)which are written (above). He shall give her on [1] da[y] at 1 stroke and she may go to her father’s house.

      In the former case she may go wherever she pleases. In the latter case, may only go to her father’s house – which implies she require’s her father’s permission to leave her husband. (Actually her brother. “Father” seems to be boilerplate.) Which implies that if she goes somewhere else, can be dragged back to her father’s house for a beating, then sent to her husband’s house for some more beating.

      • B says:

        >In the latter case, may only go to her father’s house

        It does not say “only.”

        [Deleted, not for lying, which I let you do all the time, but for wasting the readers bandwidth by lying repetitiously]

      • Art says:

        To me these differences imply that marriage contracts are negotiable, that the bride has rights that can be negotiated.

        • peppermint says:

          Sadly, despite the leadership of Jews, marriage contracts in California are non-negotiable.

          What words people can agree on get passed through the committee regardless of their context. Which is how all of us can be more horrifyingly retarded than any of us.

          Naturally, the horrors of the 20th century, both the fake Holocaust and the real Soviet experiment, are blamed on single men acting by their own authority.

          Also, marriage among Whites should be non-negotiable, exclusive, irrevocable, and enforced by bars and motels refusing to serve married people who don’t have their spouse with them lest they be regarded as sketchy.

        • jim says:

          Her rights were negotiated by her owner. In that sense, a dog has rights.

          It looks to me that these contracts could not be individually negotiated, except for details like the amount of money, and whether the marriage was polygynous, that their terms were set by custom or law, though we do not have enough contracts to say that with confidence.

          • Art says:

            We see contracts with different amounts and different terms of divorce.
            How do you conclude that amounts are negotiable but divorce terms are not?

          • Art says:

            When ownership of a dog is transferred, it is not customary to negotiate the terms of dog’s separation from the new owner.

          • jim says:

            In a normal society – everywhere except where progressives have imposed their views – a fertile age woman living on her own, not under male supervision, is assumed to be a whore – assumed she has had sex, and is having sex, with a wide variety of different men.

            In most cases, this assumption is quite obviously true. The normal case (apart from our highly anomalous society and era) is that it is socially forbidden for a fertile age woman to live apart from male supervision, to live apart from the authority and supervision of a male who has a reason to not let her fuck around, and authority to prevent such behavior, but progressives have been getting violent on societies where it is legally forbidden.

            I am not just talking about the society found in the Elephantine scrolls, where women are sold like dogs, and their marriages agreed by head of household without their formal or recorded consent. I am not just talking about eighteenth century England. I am talking about Australia when I was young man. It was extraordinary and shameful for a woman to be unsupervised. This rule was in the process of collapsing, but there was still one hell of a lot of informal enforcement which could get quite coercive.

            And the while all marriages had strict and recorded formal public consent, if Dad thought it was time for daughter to get out of the house, she was apt to wind up marrying someone from a short list of males approved by Dad, moving directly from Dad’s supervision to her husband’s supervision. Dad would create a situation where daughter felt urgent pressure to get nailed, and urgent pressure to get out the house and the only way to get nailed was to get engaged to one of the boys dad introduced her to.

            Thus though the legal form of marriage was completely different to that of the Elephantine Scrolls, the substance was probably pretty similar to the Australia of my youth.

          • B says:

            >I am not just talking about the society found in the Elephantine scrolls, where women are sold like dogs, and their marriages agreed by head of household without their formal or recorded consent. I am not just talking about eighteenth century England. I am talking about Australia when I was young man.

            “Analogical reasoning and comparison are well known to human nature. They are not safe from error. Together with forgetfulness and negligence, they sway man from his pur­pose and divert him from his goal. Often, someone who has learned a good deal of past history remains unaware of the changes that conditions have undergone. Without a moment’s hesitation, he applies his knowledge (of the present) to the historical information and measures the historical information by the things he has observed with his own eyes, although the difference between the two is great. Consequently, he falls into an abyss of error.”

            -Ibn Khaldun, Muqqadimmah

          • peppermint says:

            » When ownership of a dog is transferred, it is not customary to negotiate the terms of dog’s separation from the new owner.

            Yes, because those terms are usually set in law. In our culture.

            The problem is the analogy of ownership for wives, when a lease is a more appropriate analogy.

            A better analogy would be a helper animal that a disabled individual will have transferred to them. The Simpsons had an episode where Homer got so fat his healthcare paid for him to have a trained monkey, which was by the end of the episode returned to its previous owner after Homer fed it too many donuts.

            B is trying to insult Jim by quoting some mudslime, but he really only shows that mudslimes are pretty close in attitudes to their fellow semites.

  32. R7_Rocket says:

    259 comments and counting… ((((B)))) must be posting comments again.

  33. Art says:

    B:
    “When we look at the Elephantine Ketuboth, it is obvious that not only is the wife’s consent implied, but she can withdraw that consent at any time after the marriage! This is an explicit stipulation, even when the wife is a former slave!”

    Jim:
    “Untrue”

    The word “obvious” is untrue. The rest I think is either true or debatable.

    • jim says:

      If the contract said that provided she pays the silver of hatred, buys out of the marriage, then she can go where she pleases, then she could withdraw her consent at any time.

      Clearly the normal case is that a woman cannot go where she pleases. Ordinarily a woman must always be under the supervision and authority of a male with a motive to prevent her from fucking around, and authority to prevent her from fucking around. If she cannot go where she pleases, impractical for her to divorce without her father’s permission. Well, she can beg for forgiveness afterwards, instead of asking for permission first, but there may well be consequences.

  34. Zach says:

    “I am getting complaints in private channels.”

    I think more to the point, you feel obliged to respond to someone who you (and perhaps others) feel is continually intellectually dishonest.

    That can get very annoying.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Private” means precisely that. Don’t pry.

      Or do pry, if your racial inclination prompts you to do it. Don’t, however, expect that others won’t point out such correlation.

      A.J.P.

      • Zach says:

        You misunderstood me.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Are you on “Peppermint Papist”‘s side in which any explicit sympathy or loyalty to our host is strictly verboten?

          All white ethnics are the same.
          http://www.anglicancatholic.org.uk/

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            congratulations, this time you named an actual church. One with, according to Wikipedia, 10,000 followers.

            They’ve figured out how to finesse the issue of apostolic succession –

            » the Roman Catholic Church maintains that this apostolic succession was broken by the use of the Ordination Rite of King Edward VI, which deletes all reference to the central priestly function and was deliberately designed to contain no indication of the “fullness of the ministry”, specific tasks of the Catholic bishop or the “high priesthood”, which the Holy See considers essential. The Romans assume that their point of view, based on Late Medieval sacramental theory, is valid for all periods of church history.

            » In their refutation the Archbishops pointed out, amongst other matters, that no such priestly functions or sacramental theology were evident in the Papal ordination rites of the 9th and 10th centuries, which would render their ordinations invalid as well, using the same criteria aimed at the Anglicans.

            What exactly is that church’s doctrine on Elizabeth II? Presumably, they’re following the Orthodox model there as in their doctrine on the Papacy; for centuries the Patriarch of Constantinople has been in a city where the government officials were all goatfuckers and young White women were systematically trafficked by goatfuckers. Are they going to say to give under Caesar what is Caesar’s? Elizabeth II has abdicated and should be thrown in a common jail for her crimes, and nothing but a full-throated declaration that England needs a real monarch will do for a tiny but infallible organization dedicated to the eternal truth.

            But this is pointless. They have no strategy to grow except for by the will of the Lᴏʀᴅ, and can only say to the plain meaning and official meaning of Jesus quotes that the traditionally official meaning is different.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            What I had intended to link is actually found in the other, similar comment…Typos happen sometimes, as you know.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            so basically, you’re still a larpy faggot, still wish it was 1920 when the Klan was relevant, still cucking for larp theology that you’re too dumb to even understand

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69TIdUHHWqg

          • Zach says:

            I haven’t been following the conversation to be honest. To know which side I’m on, I’ll have to re-read everything and pay attention to the names.

            I have been B’ed before (by his evil twin no doubt) elsewhere, as Jim is being B’ed now. I empathize.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Are you on “ Peppermint Papist”‘s side in which any explicit sympathy or loyalty to our host is strictly verboten?

          All white ethnics are the same.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnic

          A.J.P.

    • peppermint says:

      Why would anyone go through the effort of sending an email to complain privately when they can simply post insults without even needing a real email address?

      For example. AJP is such a larpy cuck he pretends not to know what that is. He furthermore hasn’t gotten the picture that Trump is better than Whitaker or that understanding signaling is better than Christianity, because winners are better than even the most principled losers where available.

  35. Art says:

    With divorce being available to women but not as easily as it is today, saying that women were “sold like dogs” only makes sense to me in the context of feminist rhetoric.

    • jim says:

      When one sells a dog, one is normally worried about the quality of home, and the dog is sold with conditions of good treatment. Peppermint papist gives the example of a Simpson cartoon, where Homer’s dog is returned to its former owner because he fed it too much food. They were sold like that dog – the rules ensure the welfare of the girl, but the girls opinion about her welfare is not necessarily given much weight, or necessarily given any weight.

      B observes that marriage document / bill of sale for an Egyptian slave girl is pretty similar to that of a Jewish non slave girl, and concludes that slave girls had modern feminist freedoms. This interpretation is unreasonable, so unreasonable that I doubt his sincerity in making it. I would call that a lie.

      In the Australia of my youth there were social restraints against women living independently of the authority of a male with the authority and motive to prevent her from fucking around, but marriage, of course, required explicit and formal consent before witnesses.

      It is evident from the wording of the Elephantine scrolls that in Elephantine there were often legal restraints against women living independently of the authority of a male with the authority and motive to prevent her from fucking around, that a woman could be coercively returned to proper authority, and that marriage did not require consent.

      So, if she thinks she should run off with the Guitar Hero, and her father thinks she should marry the baker, and her father marries her to the baker without asking her, divorcing the baker without parental approval is likely to result in a beating, particularly if in the process she pisses off a substantial chunk of family money.

      “Like a dog”, implies that dogs are generally well treated, and we are socially and legally required to treat them well, but no one takes the dog’s opinion very seriously, and no one is required to pay attention to the dog’s opinion.

      Obviously Yehoyishma’s owner would not tolerate her husband mistreating her. Equally, he would not enable her to act like a spoiled lecherous brat.

      • Art says:

        Good treatment responsibility is not the reason I objected to “sold like dogs”.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Art”,

          L.O.L….

          A.J.P.

        • jim says:

          Then what was your objection? You, like B, point and splutter at the suggestion that any document associated with Jews has a meaning different from twenty first century progressivism, but do not in fact present any arguments.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            He’s going to start dancing soon.

          • Art says:

            I see it the other way around.
            The argument I have been making is that at least some of these documents stipulate women’s right to separate from their husbands.
            And you are responding by pointing out that divorce was not as care free as in the 21st century.

            • jim says:

              some of these documents stipulate women’s right to separate from their husbands.

              And some of them do not. In form the decision as to what rights the woman has is made by her owner, normally her father. It is likely that he was socially and perhaps legally constrained to give her certain rights, but we do not have enough data to say that with confidence.

              The substance of the documents is generous, kindly, and respectful to the women. The form of the documents treats them as property being sold or leased for sexual purposes – and the substance of Tamet’s lease/bill of sale is rather close to property being leased for sexual purposes.

              Looking at the rather limited set of documents as a whole, it looks like women started off as property, wife status was a step up from property but substantially less than self ownership, and if wrongfully divorced, (divorced by husband, or violation of contract by husband) a woman became self owned and fully independent.

              The form of the documents, whatever rights are given to the wife, is unambiguously a sale or lease of property. The owner may well be socially constrained to give her rights as a wife, it is plausible that he is socially or legally required to do so, but in form, her rights are whatever he damned well feels like.

              In this context, to interpret the documents in a manner consistent with twenty first century progressivism is obviously unreasonable. There is room to interpret them in a manner consistent with one’s own culture, just as one tends to project human level consciousness onto the behavior of non human animals. I tend to interpret them in accord with the Australia of my youth, which was radically and wildly different from twenty first century progressivism, but the propensity to do so should be resisted. THEY ARE $@(!^& BILLS OF SALE!

          • B says:

            A woman sold for sexual purposes is a concubine.

            A woman leased for sexual purposes is a prostitute.

            Both of these words exist in Biblical Hebrew, and in Mishnaic Hebrew, and are quite distinct from the word for wife, in form, derivation and usage.

            I am willing to believe that in the Australia of your youth, there was no distinction between wives, whores and concubines, which would explain a lot.

            • jim says:

              A woman sold for sexual purposes is a concubine.

              A woman leased for sexual purposes is a prostitute.

              And as Peppermint observed, the Elephantine “marriage documents” are mighty close to prostitution – property being leased rather than sold for sexual purposes

              To which I would add that the one clearly free woman in these documents, Miptahaiah, was clearly a concubine or harlot progressively descending into outright prostitution – suggesting that in Elephantine, respectable women were not free, and free women not respectable, which was also the social, though not legal, situation in Australia within living memory.

    • peppermint says:

      Yes. Instead of being sold like dogs, they were loaned like seeing-eye dogs.

  36. Alan J. Perrick says:

    A return to a time when women were escorted is probably what is required. It’s an interesting proposal too, because the amount of work that would be needed puts the responsbility back on men, and any willingness to go along with this plan also would imply that women can’t take care of themselves, ie. women have a different kind of agency.

  37. Art says:

    B,

    Do we have any evidence that the right to divorce belonged to the woman, not her father?

    • B says:

      It says in each document, “if the woman should stand up and say ‘I hate my husband’, silver of hatred is on her head, she’ll pay X and take the rest of her stuff from straw to string.”

      Jim wants to claim that after all this, she would consider living in her ex-husband’s household. I guess the translator of the Elephantine Papyrii claimed this as well for Tamet in a footnote to her ketubah (although Jim has no problem ignoring the translator making a point of the “may go back to her father’s house” in another footnote-I guess sometimes the translator is wrong). I do not know of any case anywhere in any culture where a divorced woman continued to live in her husband’s house (American dysfunctional families aside.)

      • jim says:

        It says in each document, “if the woman should stand up and say ‘I hate my husband’, silver of hatred is on her head, she’ll pay X and take the rest of her stuff from straw to string.”

        You are arguing that the right to assets is largely meaningless without the right to go where she pleases.

        Exactly so. My point precisely. She has no right to go where she pleases, therefore right to assets largely meaningless.

        You conclude, contrary to the plain and clear meaning of the bills of sale, that she had the right to go where she pleases.

        I conclude, in accordance with the plain and clear meaning of the bills of sale, that she could not go where she pleased and therefore had limited right to control her own assets. Observe her owner disposing of her assets in this contract and other contracts concerning women’s property.

        Similarly, eighteenth century English women generally had very limited power to control their own assets.

        And I remember a time, when women who wanted to sign something, generally needed their husband or father to cosign it, resulting in social, though not legal, limits on their power to control their own assets. In our own society, or at least in mine, within living memory, within my memory, a woman owning stuff meant substantially less than a man owning stuff, unless she was a whore or some such.

        Obviously the owner of a woman was socially, and probably legally, required to apply her assets to her benefit – but not necessarily to what she irresponsibly and fecklessly judged to be to her benefit.

        That is, in practive, how today’s marriages and long term cohabitations usually work, regardless of what the law says. Indeed, to a considerable extent it is even how whores work. A whore generally gives all her money to her pimp, who spends part of it to her benefit, because if she pocketed the money and herself spent it to her benefit, would never make the rent.

      • jim says:

        (although Jim has no problem ignoring the translator making a point of the “may go back to her father’s house” in another footnote-I guess sometimes the translator is wrong).

        You are filthy disgusting lying trash and I am sick of you lying about my plain and clear words, not to mention the translator’s plain and clear words.

        All religious Jews are all liars because you treat your holy books the way that you do. But this does not piss me off. Many people compartmentalize their religion away from their daily life, so lying about the content of your holy books does not automatically and necessarily slide into lying in daily life. What pisses me off, what deeply shocks, outrages and offends me, is when some religious Jews, quite a lot of religious Jews, treat promises, contracts, bets, sources, and my words in the same disgraceful and dishonest way that you treat the words of your holy books.

        A little while ago you piously said “words have meanings”. No: words do not have meanings, or rather they have far too many meanings. Sentences have meanings, but still far too many. Sentences have meanings in the context of a paragraph or a story. My words should be read in the paragraph in which they are embedded, or the story that I tell, and when you snatch my words from my paragraph or my story, into your paragraph, you lie, lie in the same style and by the same method as you lie about your holy books.

        • Art says:

          Yesterday you said that I “point and splutter at the suggestion that any document associated with Jews has a meaning different from twenty first century progressivism”.
          I don’t believe I ever said or implied anything of that sort.
          Should I conclude you were deliberately lying about what I said?

          • jim says:

            I engaged in hyperbole. It was wrong of me to do so, because potentially misleading. I apologize for misleading readers about your position.

            “Point and Splutter” means “fail to make an argument, assuming the argument is self evident, assuming what needs to be shown, when it is not at all self evident”

            I am reading these documents from the point of view of the socially conservative environment of my youth. B is reading them from the point of view of twenty first century progressivism. You seem to be making an effort to figure out what they actually mean.

            Clearly these documents give women some agency – potentially grant them a lot of agency, as a wronged woman can go where she pleases. Equally clearly, they are embedded in a society were normal respectable women have very little agency, where a free woman is to be pitied (she was divorced, widowed, orphaned, or abandoned) or scorned (she is a harlot)

          • B says:

            >Clearly these documents give women some agency – potentially grant them a lot of agency, as a wronged woman can go where she pleases.

            Well, that’s quite a big change from your initial assertion that a woman was just a piece of property to be bought and sold like a chest of drawers.

            > Equally clearly, they are embedded in a society were normal respectable women have very little agency

            That someone has agency they are not using does not mean they have little agency. Women in general prefer to have major decisions made for them and go along unless something is completely unacceptable. Hence, for instance, silence during a marriage ceremony=consent (and it’s this way today as well.)

        • B says:

          [Content free insults (diagnosing and psychologizing) deleted to reduce waste of reader’s bandwidth]

      • Art says:

        B:
        “It says in each document, “if the woman should stand up and say ‘I hate my husband’, silver of hatred is on her head, she’ll pay X and take the rest of her stuff from straw to string.”

        Art:
        Does it really say that in each document?

        B:
        “Jim wants to claim that after all this, she would consider living in her ex-husband’s household. I guess the translator of the Elephantine Papyrii claimed this as well for Tamet in a footnote to her ketubah (although Jim has no problem ignoring the translator making a point of the “may go back to her father’s house” in another footnote-I guess sometimes the translator is wrong). I do not know of any case anywhere in any culture where a divorced woman continued to live in her husband’s house (American dysfunctional families aside.)”

        Art:
        I don’t think the exact range of divorced woman’s options is an interesting question at this point, as long as she had any at all.
        What I am trying to figure out is who owned the right to separate – the women or their fathers. You say it belonged to the women but how do we know it wasn’t just negotiated by fathers, like most other terms of the contract?
        Could a father choose not to stipulate divorse terms, and if so would the woman still have this right? How do we know that?

        • jim says:

          What I am trying to figure out is who owned the right to separate – the women or their fathers.

          I would guess that if you asked the father, they would say that of course their daughter owned the right – but it was the father’ job to make sure the right was exercised responsible and in her best interests.

          Just as the daughter owns quite a lot of money, and yet we see the contract signed by the father saying what happens with the daughter’s money.

          In eighteenth century England, we saw one hell of a lot of guided consent, in some cases guided by public floggings. In the Australia of my youth, also a lot of guided consent, though the pressure was good deal more subtle.

          In a society where the marriage contract is a bill of sale or a lease, I would expect one hell of a lot of guided consent, and a fair number of public floggings.

        • B says:

          That’s what it says. Look at the documents.

          The whole point of the marriage contract is the eventuality of divorce.

          The Torah law is that a wife is acquired in three ways: by money (a ring or something else of at least a minimal value,) by contract, or by intercourse.

          You need witnesses for each (obviously, for intercourse they just witness the man and woman seclude themselves.)

          If not for the eventuality of divorce, you would not need a contract, you could just have witnesses to the fact that the man said “I’m going to marry this woman through intercourse) and they secluded themselves, or the fact that the man said, “by the value of this ring, you are now my wife” and put it on the woman’s finger, or gave her something else of value which she took with the verbalized understanding that this was how she was married.

          Divorce is important because without it, any children the woman has from someone other than her husband are mamzerim.

          The divorce from the woman’s side being conditional on the father’s approval or negotiations is not mentioned in any contract we know of. It would not make much sense-what if her father is dead, incapacitated, moved away, etc.?

      • k says:

        Footnote 32, 41, page 230

        Case 1: She may go wherever (or remain)
        Case 2: She may return to father’s house (or remain)

        agreeing with jim

        • Art says:

          Case 3: She becomes a whore
          Case 4: ?
          Case 5: ??

          Why just two cases as if the only choices are “sold like dogs” or “21st century progressive”?

          • k says:

            sorry,
            case 1 = he divorces her
            case 2 = she divorces him

            Or maybe, according to the footnotes, this is a status just “short of divorce”

          • B says:

            There is no “status just short of divorce” in Judaism, any more than there is a “status just short of pregnant.”

            The essential issue with marriage and divorce is not who decides when to leave or how much they pay. The essential issue is that a woman who was married and is not divorced is forbidden to all other men. Any children she has from them have the same status as children resulting from an incestuous union. They are “mamzerim,” bastards, and it is forbidden for anyone who is not a mamzer to marry them, and their children are mamzerim in perpetuity.

            This tragedy is to be avoided at all costs, and hence we have clear definitions and procedures for marriage and divorce.

          • k says:

            perhaps, but the footnotes agreed with jim’s position in regard to “may go back to her father’s house”, and you implied they didn’t

          • ron says:

            @B

            “mamzerim in perpetuity”

            For 10 generations. But there are ways of having children without this problem if a man is willing to do what he has to.

          • B says:

            k-I did not imply anything about the footnotes. I have no idea who wrote the footnotes, how he derived them, etc.

            Ron-everyone agrees that “ten generations” means “in perpetuity.”

            Being a mamzer is universally recognized as a terrible and tragic condition. You can have children by marrying another mamzer, or if you’re a man by buying a female slave, emancipating her and marrying her. But it’s a very bad deal.

            On the other hand, we do not dig too deeply into people’s background without cause. There’s a pretty high burden of proof that must be met for someone to be considered a mamzer. They exist in our days, there are dating services for them and so on, but there are not so many.

          • ron says:

            @B

            Yes, I wanted to point that out for clarities sake.

  38. With the thoughts you'd be thinkin says:

    OT Jim have you read “Legal Systems Very Different From Ours” by David Friedman. The stuff he writes on English law in th 18th century I think backs up some of your points elsewhere.

    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html

    • jim says:

      David Friedman truthfully and accurately tells us:

      The result of these developments was a legal system based in theory on Torah but in fact largely on rabbinic interpretations of Torah, many of them far from the literal meaning of the text,16 and rabbinic legislation, some of it in direct violation of the text.

      And I would add to that, that even more frequently, they violate the meaning in context, rather than the literal meaning.

      The problem is that many religious Jews are unwilling to say this, and instead say that rabbinic interpretations of Torah and rabbinic legislation are the literal meaning of the text, are what the Hebrews of Judges Israel, and the Jews of First Temple Israel, did indeed practice, that even when the legislation was created in the late twentieth or early twenty first century it has supposedly been practiced that way ever since Moses received the law on the mountain. When they say this they lie, and the rationalizations that they create for this lie are apt spill over to non religious issues, are apt to be applied to sources, contracts, promises, bets, and their accounts of other people’s words.

      If instead a religious Jew said what David Friedman said: “OK, due to changed circumstances, we need legislation that sometimes violates old Testament law, because we are not bronze age goat herders any more, and we created a system to build consensus for such legislation”, then that Jew would be more trustworthy, you could more safely bet with him, have a contract with him, and trust his account of sources.

      • B says:

        All of a sudden, conversos speaking on Judaism (which they don’t take seriously) are trustworthy.

        These guys are looking to explain to themselves why the Law is not binding upon them, so that they can justify doing whatever they want in the solipsistic Progressive framework.

        • jim says:

          All of a sudden, conversos speaking on Judaism (which they don’t take seriously) are trustworthy.

          David Friedman provides a number of amusing examples of Orthodox Rabbis getting excessively creative in re-interpreting previous Orthodox Rabbis.

          If you would only confess and say “Well, that was the way it was, but that was then and this is now, so now we are changing Jewish law” it would be good for your souls.

          Jewish law needed to be changed because of circumstances, in particular and most importantly exile. Now the state religion of Israel is progressivism, which will kill you all. For Judaism to once become a state religion, some of these changes, not all of them, but quite a lot of them, need to be changed back. And for Judaism to return from exile, requires acknowledgement that changes were made so that some things, not all of them, but some of them, can be changed back.

          • B says:

            Thanks for your inquisitiveness. I do not think we need to “confess” or justify ourselves before Friedman. As for his “amusing examples,” I suspect that they mostly consist of stuff he lacks the background to understand.

            • jim says:

              I do not think we need to “confess”

              Torturing the text of your holy books leaks into torturing the text of sources, promises, bets, and other people’s words, which is offensive and dishonest. That is why you need to confess.

          • B says:

            And again, you are wrong.

            Your position is that we should be Karaites/Reform Jews, either treating the Written Torah as the sole source of the way things were done and should be done, or using the Written Torah as a springboard for doing whatever we find expedient. And I’m telling you that we have a continuous living tradition from Sinai on how things are done and how we implement the Written Torah in practice. That tradition has boundaries and latitude within those boundaries. That does not make it dishonest.

            As for “bets” and “other people’s words”, I notice that we have yet to see an Orthodox gay marriage, a ground assault by Turkish forces on the Russians in Syria, or the fall of Aleppo (let alone Raqqa.) Furthermore, after you spent a lot of pixels accusing me about lying about Spandrell’s meaning, claiming that he could not have possibly meant that Chinese orally spoke the same language, Spandrell showed up and confirmed that this is exactly what he meant.

            I’m pretty meticulous about other people’s words, and seem to have been right in my bets with you so far.

            • jim says:

              Your position is that we should be Karaites/Reform Jews, either treating the Written Torah as the sole source of the way things were done and should be done, or using the Written Torah as a springboard for doing whatever we find expedient.

              Neither position resembles my position, and I have repeatedly made my position clear. You are casually distorting and deliberately misreading my words, in the same way you distort and deliberately misread your own holy books.

      • B says:

        Nobody claims that rabbinic legislation is the literal meaning.

        We know very clearly the difference between rabbinic legislation and Torah legislation. The rabbis are very precise on those points.

        Example: mixing meat and milk is forbidden by the Torah. The rabbis explain this in detail. They also enacted a rabbinic prohibition on mixing fowl and milk, and say clearly where they did this and why, and until what point there were holdouts.

        Another example: a bunch of stuff like lighting a fire on Shabbat is forbidden by the Torah. The rabbis enacted a separate set of prohibitions, like carrying money and buying stuff on Shabbat. Again, they are clear on when and why they enacted these prohibitions, and that they are rabbinical in nature.

        >”If instead a religious Jew said what David Friedman said: “OK, due to changed circumstances, we need legislation that sometimes violates old Testament law, because we are not bronze age goat herders any more””

        -then such a “religious Jew” would not be a religious Jew, anymore than a Reform Jew or a Conservative Jew is. This is exactly what they say.

        > it has supposedly been practiced that way ever since Moses received the law on the mountain

        Nobody claims that the specific details of everything we do come unchanged directly from Sinai. If this were the case, we would not need an Oral Torah, or rabbis and judges. We would be Karaites.

        What Torah Judaism says is that the text of the Torah is from Sinai. Along with this text, there was a body of practical knowledge on how to apply the text, and how to understand how to apply the text in various knew situations (in other words, guiding principles). This body of knowledge was reposited in the Jewish people as a whole, and in their judges and wise men. An instance of the first kind of knowledge is that the Torah says “if you want to eat meat, you shall slaughter as I commanded you to.” But nowhere in the text do we see any details on how to slaughter. The reality is that kosher slaughter involves lots of details and practical knowledge, which Moses taught the Jewish people and which were transmitted in the tradition. An instance of principles is the principle that when you marry a woman, you sanctify her to you. You’re not buying a slave or an animal. Hence the formula “see, you are sanctified to me,” which is said during marriage by the man to the woman.

        Another example: a marriage in the Torah does not require a written contract to be valid. But a divorce does. What exactly must be in the divorce contract for it to be valid, and for the woman’s subsequent children not to be bastards? That is not spelled out anywhere in the Torah.

        The point is that there are principles which have not changed, and there are commandments which have not changed. To know how to apply these principles in a given situation, and how to fulfill a given commandment, you need discerning and trustworthy men, with traditions and open debate. Which we thankfully have and have had going back to Moses.

        • jim says:

          What Torah Judaism says is that the text of the Torah is from Sinai. Along with this text, there was a body of practical knowledge on how to apply the text, and how to understand how to apply the text in various knew situations (in other words, guiding principles).

          Which supposed guiding principles have a striking tendency to turn the original text upside down and back to front.

          David Friedman gives several trivial and ridiculous examples. I will give a more important example closer to my heart.

          There are places that today practice marriage by abduction, notably Kyrgyzstan. Works fine until the lidless burning eye of Sauron turns upon them. Bride gets shook up, but the bride’s family gets paid off, and very soon the couple are like any other honeymooners.

          Old Testament Hebrews sometimes practiced marriage by abduction. Now it is illegal by supposed Jewish law.

          • B says:

            The only example I can think of of marriage by abduction in the Torah is the girls of Shilo. But this was from a lawless period and place. This is the same tribe of Binyamin which was wiped out by the other tribes for their outrageous and immoral behavior in the affair of the concubine of Givah.

            More generally, there are cases where the rabbis made forbidden what was previously permitted. And nobody denies that this is so. I gave you a couple of instances already. You used to be able to marry a woman through intercourse or through a price (a ring,) now you’re not. Yibbum marriage has not been practiced for a very long time. Both were stopped to prevent licentiousness, as the Talmud tells us. You used to be able to eat chicken and dairy, now you’re not. Again, the Talmud tells us why the rabbis prohibited it. Etc. Forbidding what was previously permitted is the prerogative of the rabbis of a generation, and they can use it without having to resort to what you accuse them of, i.e., retroactively changing the halacha.

            The opposite does not hold. They can’t permit what is prohibited by the Torah, except in drastic circumstances and temporarily (for instance, Elijah sacrificed on Mount Carmel, despite the prohibition to sacrifice anywhere but the Temple, because of the drastic circumstances of the moment.) They can’t nullify a commandment.

            As for the “original text,” we can see what happened to the Jews who thought like you. The Karaites held that the original text was self-sufficient, and any Jew could read it and do what he thought it said, and that the rabbinical law was made up and dishonest. They went from being a large part of the Jewish people to a few thousand today and are rapidly disappearing. We also have a prophecy in the Torah about this. Isaiah says: “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” This is talking about the Oral Law.

            • jim says:

              The only example I can think of of marriage by abduction in the Torah is the girls of Shilo.

              I had in mind the law on rape and seduction. If you rape or seduce an unbetrothed virgin you have to pay full brideprice, marry her, and stay married. See Tamar’s indictment of her brother.

              The opposite does not hold. They can’t permit what is prohibited by the Torah

              Used to be gays should be stoned. Now you are not allowed to make them feel bad by thinking unkind thoughts about them.

              You are no longer allowed marriage by abduction (prohibiting what used to be permitted) nor is marriage required as penalty for seduction (permitting what used to be prohibited)

              Patriarchy has been dialed right back forbidding fathers from exercising authority, prohibiting what used to be permitted, and allowing children to disobey, permitting what used to be prohibited. Note the common shenanigan of eviscerating Old Testament patriarchal law by restricting it to the ages of twelve to twelve and half, or thirteen to thirteen and a half, and then adding impossible conditions for enforcement. Is that not permitting what used to be prohibited?

          • B says:

            >If you rape or seduce an unbetrothed virgin you have to pay full brideprice, marry her, and stay married.

            This was assuming that her family agreed, and that she agreed (as we’ve seen, every single ketubah ever has female consent, explicit or implicit.)

            >Used to be gays should be stoned. Now you are not allowed to make them feel bad by thinking unkind thoughts about them.

            First, hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion. Let’s stick to facts.

            Second, you are conflating whether something is forbidden and what the punishment for it is. Many things are prohibited by the Torah, yet there is no court punishment prescribed. In other cases, the criteria for that punishment to be imposed are very restrictive. That does not mean that Jews who take the Torah seriously think these things are permitted. For instance, there is no possible scenario where I could be punished by any earthly authority or have any negative consequences from anybody for eating a pork chop in my house, or lighting a fire on my stove on Shabbat, yet no religious Jews do these things, because they are prohibited.

            Gays would be punished the same way that e.g. violators of Shabbat were. That is to say, if two kosher male witnesses testified to a court empowered to carry out the death sentence that they had seen them commit the forbidden act, and the court found this testimony valid, the witnesses would put them to death.

            In our day, we don’t have such a court. That does not make the forbidden act permitted. It means we can’t carry out the appropriate punishment.

            In the meantime, the question is what to do with people who we can assume are homosexuals, Shabbat violators, idolaters, etc. Some rabbis are of the opinion that we can’t publically humiliate them. I respect this opinion-public humiliation by random people is not a substitute for a proper court issuing a sentence. That does not mean that homosexuality is permitted, any more than idolatry, Shabbat violation, etc.

            >You are no longer allowed marriage by abduction (prohibiting what used to be permitted)

            We have not had actual marriage by abduction for a very, very long time. In the period of Judges, according to the Talmud, the way it was done was similar to how it’s been done in places like Kyrgyzstan and the Caucasus. Girls would go to a certain place at a certain time and dance around waiting to be “abducted.” Basically, elopement.

            >nor is marriage required as penalty for seduction (permitting what used to be prohibited)

            Premarital sex is prohibited.

            >Patriarchy has been dialed right back forbidding fathers from exercising authority,

            You can’t in the same breath claim that marriage by abduction (meaning, against the father’s will) has been prohibited and then complain that the father’s authority has been restricted.

            >prohibiting what used to be permitted, and allowing children to disobey, permitting what used to be prohibited.

            Children are not allowed to disobey.

            >Note the common shenanigan of eviscerating Old Testament patriarchal law by restricting it to the ages of twelve to twelve and half, or thirteen to thirteen and a half, and then adding impossible conditions for enforcement. Is that not permitting what used to be prohibited?

            No. The law of the rebellious son was not the Roman Law, where the father could kill his son at will. The death sentence was imposed by the court. And in practice, the conditions for this death sentence were apparently impossible to satisfy. We do not know of any case of a rebellious son being executed. Neither, by the way, do we know of any cases of a Jewish city which has fallen into idolatry being exterminated. The Torah is not an SOP.

            Similarly, we know that a non-Jew who strikes a Jew deserves death. But the way the courts would actually punish him was through lashes, and then tell him he deserved death.

            • jim says:

              >If you rape or seduce an unbetrothed virgin you have to pay full brideprice, marry her, and stay married.

              This was assuming that her family agreed, and that she agreed (as we’ve seen, every single ketubah ever has female consent, explicit or implicit.)

              No we have not. You keep repeating this lie with astonishing and outrageous chutzpah.

              You read the ketubah like you read the Old Testament – flatly contrary to their clear meaning.

              Observing bride stealing in actual practice, the bride is at first distressed, frightened, and often beaten, but comes around with remarkable swiftness. Then the bride’s family demands a payoff for acquiescing in the accomplished fact.

              Clearly this style of bride stealing is legal in the Old Testament. What is illegal is raping a woman then dumping her. This is the plain meaning of the text, and confirmed by Tamar’s indictment of her half brother Ammon.

              I will not bother replying to your similar lies on patriarchy: The restriction of Old Testament patriarchy to very narrow age limits and unfulfillable circumstances both forbids what was formerly permitted, and permits what was formerly, and enforceably forbidden:

          • B says:

            >Observing bride stealing in actual practice, the bride is at first distressed, frightened, and often beaten, but comes around with remarkable swiftness. Then the bride’s family demands a payoff for acquiescing in the accomplished fact.

            Where have you ever observed bride stealing in actual practice?

            • jim says:

              Where have you ever observed bride stealing in actual practice?

              I rely on videos of bride stealing from Kyrgyzstan.

              The observed behavior of girls in these videos is analogous to their behavior when you blow through a shit test. They are distressed but they rather like being distressed.

          • B says:

            >I rely on videos of bride stealing from Kyrgyzstan.

            What is happening in Kyrgyzstan is what happened in Benjamin.

            Meaning, the “abduction” is preplanned by both sides. They are playing along. It’s a marriage ritual, a game:

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

            A long time ago, it might have been different. But what we have is not rape, or the girl being beaten into submission against her will and that of the family.

            In any case, it’s not relevant-Jews have not done this for 3000 years. Perhaps we stopped it because we were worried about the New York Times, and gay marriage is the next step. Have you thought about how to ship Ardbeg to Israel yet?

            • jim says:

              Meaning, the “abduction” is preplanned by both sides. They are playing along. It’s a marriage ritual, a game:

              If it is a game, kind of obvious that no one told the bride. The Lidless Eye of Sauron does not think it is a game. Not that I regard the Lidless Eye of Sauron as a reliable source, but you regard it as a reliable source.

              I am pretty good at reading women, and those women were not expecting it and were upset when it happened.

          • B says:

            >If it is a game, kind of obvious that no one told the bride.

            I don’t know which videos you’re watching. Usually, the girl has a whip and is whipping the guy who tries to catch her.

            I studied Central Asian languages and dealt with exchange students from Kyrgyzstan. Their women were quite independent, much more so than say, Arab or Paki ones. I have a hard time picturing them getting kidnapped against their will.

            • jim says:

              I have a hard time picturing them getting kidnapped against their will.

              Supposedly you have been everywhere and talked to everyone, yet your supposed first person evidence is invariably improbable and unreasonable.

              I can very easily picture the average American feminist getting kidnapped against her will, and swiftly getting right into it.

          • B says:

            >Supposedly you have been everywhere and talked to everyone, yet your supposed first person evidence is invariably improbable and unreasonable.

            You would be amazed at the amount of experience that can be gained by someone focused on gaining experience, vs. chasing his dick around. Truth is stranger than fiction.

            And again, Bastiat. What is seen and what is not seen. I happen to have experience with Central Asia, so I talk about it (for instance). I’ve never seen an aborigine or been to Australia, so I don’t talk about them (for instance). You pay attention to the former, and don’t pay attention to the latter. Of course, you yourself have firm knowledge of the way things were in all times and all places. [Content free insults deleted]

            >I can very easily picture the average American feminist getting kidnapped against her will, and swiftly getting right into it.

            The average American feminist being a degenerate freak, I can imagine her getting into almost anything. Personally, I think this segment is quite telling (you won’t regret watching this, and might even want to do a post on it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY1bFvVMOak

            Which all tells us nothing about how things were done elsewhere. Ibn Khaldun, again, about wrong extrapolation of what you see around you onto the way it was a long time ago, or the way it is half a planet away right now.

            • jim says:

              >I can very easily picture the average American feminist getting kidnapped against her will, and swiftly getting right into it.

              The average American feminist being a degenerate freak,

              Submission is natural and proper for women, and a large part of the art of seducing women, at least the way I do it, is to trigger this impulse to submit.

              The girl is likely to subjectively feel that she wishes to resist, but feels a mysterious inability to resist, as if intending to resist, but physically very weak or paralyzed, as if drugged, so that no externally observable resistance takes place.

              Girls in the twenty first century routinely and regularly display behavior more appropriate to an environment where marriage by abduction is standard, than to the existing environment.

          • B says:

            [Stupid insults deleted]

  39. Alan J. Perrick says:

    In California, an important archbishop died this year, and is being commemorated. Who wouldn’t want to last and be remembered after his death?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25q7zB4nUQ

    • peppermint says:

      …an inconsequential faggot is being commemorated shortly before California is overrun and the official language changed to Spanish so no one will read his plaque

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        [Comment deleted]

        [Insults should have some political or empirical significance or interest, otherwise they waste reader bandwidth]

        [This rule unavoidably favors Nazis etc.]

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Eye for an eye, insult for an insult.

          Most people think that whites, or descendents of the English colonial project, don’t have guts enough to stand up for themselves, “Jim”. Therefore, standing and trading with the anti-white mob, which “Peppermint Papist” represents is indeed interesting politically, because it’s likely unexpected and the reason that P.P. attacks my comments that show love for God is because he doesn’t expect to be given a hard time for it and in fact, expects me to be an easy soft target.

          Therefore, it’s significant.

          How do you disagree?

          A.J.P.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          [This rule unavoidably favors Nazis etc.]

          Favours papists

          Also, if you are Aussie, your spelling has gone American…

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        I must conclude that this was a drive-by “Peppermint Papisting”ing.

        T R I G G E R E D

        A.J.P.

      • jim says:

        Not a faggot. Although he looks like a little queer, had a wife and two children.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          I don’t post videos of people that look like homosexuals, unless I am pointing out their depravity. That is a slanderous comment, “Jim”, unless it is it is only meant humourously.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Jim”,

          I consider it to be quite foolish, being humourous around vicious humanists, yes humanists, like P.P.

          Because “Peppermint Papist” has that effeminate brain, it is his natural inclination to try to destroy anything that might start to develop (should be in italics) _a_system_that_suggests_that_others_might_be_worth_less_than_others.
          Yes, humanism is the belief that underlies the general egalitarian impulse in the Cathedral religion. For the depraved homosexual and sinful man like P.P., it is a sense that is the individual himself could be put down into the bottom of the heap, as he senses his own rotten womanly characteristic which would be extreme liability in a system where even a normal amount of competition _as_a_man_ would be required. The conservative, really traditional, hierarchical set-up represented by an old-school form of Christianity is one that is not humanistic, nor egalitarian, in fact we both know that if it was allowed on a bigger scale then it would be wholly outside of all Cathedral doctrines.

          Humanism, which is the degenerate system on a one-way track downwards, does offer the effeminate (or really any type of anti-life sinner) at least a temporary reprieve from the competition, found in an in-egalitarian system, that he fears he won’t be up for.

          Thus, I don’t think it smart to encourage outbursts motivated by such ideology with any kind of sympathetic humour, which is my best guess at what this is: http://blog.jim.com/culture/james-deen-rape-and-porn/#comment-1183413

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

          • jim says:

            I agree with Peppermint that the actually existent Roman Catholic Church has irreversibly capitulated to the Cathedral.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            I think that “Peppermint Papist” should be still labeled as such because it wasn’t so long ago that he was supporting that religion (really, it’s Trentian more than papist anymore).

            The Biblical time-frame for completion of a period of time is, in fact, seven years. Whilst that frame may seem, may seem to some at any rate, incredibly mean, it is hopefully motivated by godly wisdom; indeed I have become more interested in Neo-Reactionary solutions for their promises of more stability…

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • jim says:

            Peppermint is a Nazi. Therefore, unlikely to be a humanist.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Nevertheless, I am informed and do believe that humanism is what brought the Vatican down, and have concluded that that is where “Peppermint Papist”‘s loyalties lie.

            Maybe you’re right, but I can only extrapolate with any confidence to such a point.

            Perhaps it should be said that if you are correct, and Nazis are communists in black-face, then P.P.’s religious belief is actually scientific materialism as the communist belief system is sometimes called. However, I would not procede there too confidently as his support for the Vatican-Roman religion is recent enough that his Nazism could be subterfuge, colloquially a ruse.

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            I am thinking that maybe I let you off in the conversation somewhat too easily…Do you know what the concept of humanism is and do you know what its place was in the undermining of established religions in times of history before the Cathedral?

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Don’t know what humanism is, in the sense that concept seems excessively elastic.

              Know what communism is: Attempting to scale the family up beyond workable size, all property in common

              Know what Marxism is: Communism justified by class war theory, a supposed war between “Capital” and “Labor”. Never caught on in America, where the workers have alwayts pretty much taken for granted that capitalism works and it is simply the way things are.

              Know what cultural Marxism is: In place of conflict between “Capital” and “Labor” they have conflict between heterosexual white males and everyone else, and in place of communism, white males will work in a capitalist economy to support everyone else on welfare and child support, and in affirmative action jobs that grant the possessor high status without any accompanying productive work – for example female fire fighters do not in practice fight fires, female combat troops receive combat honors without any actual combat and so on and so forth, and, of course, HR. The current ferment in our highest status colleges is a demand for a gigantic expansion of HR jobs.

              No idea what humanism is.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Given that you answered a comment of another in the last few minutes without answering mine, it appears you’re not answering this one.

            For that reason, your posture of implying that I do not address content and only make inane insults is shrinking… Of course, that’s your choice and I do understand that you are likely busy doing other things including research for your blog.

            Yet I would urge more research specifically on humanism, as I’ve noticed inconsitency in the presentation of your understanding of it…

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            The Rev Rushdoony, as I mentioned recently in another comment at your blog, is some-one from whom I draw liberally for ideas. He is or was a practically minded theologian and spoke at length about how the great political enemy of that time, which was, I think, the 1980s was a political, pseudo-religious force called secular humanism. Secular humanism, I suppose is the reason why Marx and others wrote the political theories that they did.

            This humanism today, which is the egalitarian and religious core of the Politically Correct Cathedral’s manifestation in run-away Republicanism, is sort of a meta-meta cause so you are right that it is on the elastic side, as far as concepts go. It seems to me that NRx bloggers address this one and its doctrines of Anti-Whitism, Feminism, and Environmentalism by the synthesis and indivdual parts of the Trichotomy.

            If that is secular humanism, “Jim”, then what is humanism? I believe I know and it does appear that what it is is the result of a religion gone bad. Another example would be what the Rev Martin Luther fought against, the bad side of the “scholastic” movement which brought in some ideas from the age of antiquity which corrupted the church, for example, reading the ancient Greek writer Ovid’s writing which included stories of the Isle of Lesbos. And, so the Catholic Church had been corrupted-possibly a victim of its success as the European population grew, thank goodness for the Reformation to save it- indeed every credal Protestant Christian should consider him self a Catholic or Catholick man.

            Meanwhile, because humanism has an egalitarian effect almost invariably, it was, in the time pre-Reformation, manifesting itself as globalism. The Roman See was equating one germanic soul to one Italian soul and was determined to keep as tight a grip on the former as the latter therefore was legislating indulgences and other heretical legalisms in order to do so.

            Thankfully, “scholastic”-originating humanism didn’t end up effecting the Church of England too much as Latitudinarian greats such as the Rev Richard Hooker were able to succesfully navigate the ancient Greek and Roman sources. Unfortunately, the Trentians sucked all of that humanism up and the French Restoration didn’t come about like the English one. It is somewhat amusing hearing the Vatican-Roman NRxers say that they’re going to do things by their “church” which only ever seems to get more progessive, and resists the concept of reforming it!

            Another, even older form of humanism I believe was found in the pagan religion of ancient Egypt and was against their ethno-nationalism as their practice of bringing in slave labour caught up with them and they even changed their dogmas to allow foreign races to be considered part of their national, religious group.

            In conclusion, any kind of modern political ideology that comes after humanism, is humanistic. In the United States, humanism unchecked and in the form of transcendentalism which gave non-Christians confidence enough to consider themselves the equals or even better than other Christians in the country despite them denying God’s authority, “just as good as any Christian, despite the changes”, you could imagine the Unitarians saying to themselves as they even took for themselves leadership roles in the country. In Europe, I think humanism in their population, and certainly some Cathedral influence, was why Prussia was weak enough to dissolve after it was hit by Cathedral forces. If Prussia was allowed to remain a monarchy, then it could have ridden out the wave of humanism, whilst it was in no ways under the Cathedral during its existence. The first round of Nazis were definitely humanistic then, and “Jim” you have already called them Feminist, and the equivalent of New Deal Democrats. Of course, Neo-Nazis would be a humanist ideology as they don’t even have the context of Prussia in recent memory.

            Yes, Marxism, if you really believe is what basically animates Nazis, would be humanist. They want equality between the classes because they believe no man is better than the other “We’re all human, after all”.

            I do consider “Peppermint Papist” a humanist, either if he is a Trentian (practising a religion originating at the 16th Century Council of Trent) partisan or if he is a Nazi of historical or contemporary type. The best way to get ideas and especially insights for former political theories or historical cultures, thus being reactionary, is to envision oneself in the time that one aims for and then doing an investigation of one’s surroundings. The insults that he aims at me regarding perverted homosexual orientation are very much from the Nazi-era forward, but as NRx is occasionally sympathetic to the working class types who at times associate themselves with Nazi-ism, I prefer to call him what he is as a humanist.

            Even the anti-homosexuality part of NRx doesn’t call itself anti-Feminist, though it could be argued that homosexuality is a manisfestation of the Feminist Cathedral doctrine. Rather Neo-Reaction would call that individual against homosexuality Theonomist (from the Trichotomy), or as your Spandrellian Trichotomy called it – Patriarchy. Yet somebody animated by Nazi, or scratch a Nazi and get a Commie, beliefs would not be much of a Theonomist or a Patriarch in the NRx context so humanist is the better word, because it falls under the philosophies that stem from it. I could call him a Cathedralite, but Cathedral is something that generally comes from the republics pushing it, not from post-Prussian reaction, ie. the Nazis.

            I am now thinking that humanism comes from ideologically unchecked population growth, but that is perhaps an investigation for a different time, God willing…

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think this categorization cuts reality at the joints. Classifies far too many, or far too few, as secular humanists.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Nevertheless, “Jim” both Nazis and Commies are humanists because they are the outcomes of sick and dying, once godly systems and that they also put their trust and look for solutions from the state rather than from God.

            I am not interesting in writing practically minded or useful prescriptions, really more in a directional critique…That’s the way you are too, but you will occasionally give specifics when you are questioned for them.

            Because I think it best to give directional critiques, I think that way as much as possible as well. Therefore was able to determine that P.P.s insults were stemming from an unworthy source, which is the failed result of humanism.

            In the past, you have feigned misunderstanding my statements, and that is certainly your prerogative. My directional and deliberately impractical critiques will continue, because there are so many so far away from being right…

            Yes, Nazis are humanistic. In fact, a lot of people in Neo-Reaction have condemned them from launching an unsustainable movement built on resentment, rather than on godly authority, something which would ultimately always have been a bellicose flash in the pan, rather than the godly source of rejuvination and reproduction which is the long-term anti-humanist strategy. Yet at the same time, there would be some sharing of a few goals with the Nazis, at least their disgust with the degeneracy of Weimar.

            I urge you to stay away from the Nazi-boos, not because they are evil, but because they are critiquing from a far too modern direction. It’s secular humanism. You have called them Feminist in the past, but that description doesn’t ring true because Cathedral is degeneracy from Republicanist influence, and Nazi Germany was chronologically close enough to Prussia where its main influence was Prussia, and not Republicanist institutions like Harvard University. Prussia, was however, weakened by humanism which is probably evident if one looks at liturgical changes for them over time. Certainly, by the time of the Nazis, the liturgy was becoming experimental in certain ways. Less focus on God, more on new political influences generally always means humanism. I know that is a broader critique than anti-Feminist, but now I’ve described two ways where it shouldn’t be called Feminist: temporal proximity to Prussia, and its secularising quality.

            Do you think Mr Marx was part of the Cathedral? I don’t really, as he was surrounded as he was in monarchistic cultures, and made a radical egalitarian prescription in Communism.

            But back to the possibility of Cathedral influence in pre-war Prussia and Germany…”Jim”, you have laughingly described others as having beliefs in “Jewish mind control rays”, (though perhaps that is changing – see the comment thread on the other of your blogpost), and I agree with that. But if you really think that Nazi Germany was Feminist, and that they were swayed by Cathedral in Harvard University and similar, then you are, I think, believing in “Cathedralite mind control rays”. Generally the Cathedral spreads itself via war and bloody revolution except for maybe the U.K. example.

            Calling W.W.II Nazis Feminist, which is a Cathedral doctrine, would be like calling Emperor Napoleon’s France Cathedral…The Cathedral didn’t really set up shop there until Republicanism had enough time to coalesce. Secular humanism, then. And, in the case of France, Trentian humanism derived from un-Reformed “scholasticism”.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Nevertheless, “Jim” both Nazis and Commies are humanists because they are the outcomes of sick and dying, once godly systems and that they also put their trust and look for solutions from the state rather than from God.

              This defines humanist too broadly to be useful

            • jim says:

              In the past, you have feigned misunderstanding my statements, and that is certainly your prerogative

              I don’t feign misunderstanding. You speak in a private language with which I am not entirely familiar.

              The ideologues of the French Revolution were big fans of the “Church of Reason”, but the war in the Vendee, and the war with Spain, were wars of the Avignon papacy, wars over who gets to choose the parish priest. Just as modern leftism is Puritan descended, French Revolutionary leftism is Avignon Papacy descended. The rot set in when the Puritans and Avignon Papists were still clearly Christian, so I do not agree with analysis in terms of secular humanism.

              Those who abolished slavery and banned booze were not humanists.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            You used the word “capitalist”, but is that not a neologism from Mr Karl Marx and his contemporaries?

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -This defines humanist too broadly to be useful-

            L.O.L…..”Jim”, to me, most everything I write here is too broad to be useful but going around leaving my thoughts on and reading the blogosphere is good for my morale, whilst I do the things that I really believe to be useful to my goal of ensuring white survival.

            Indeed, I already wrote about how NRx bloggers like to stay on the Cathedral which is the product of Republicanism, which does imply that I don’t think that the concept is especially useful to you all, though it might be if the implications of the concept are further developed.

            If you’d like to know how I could imagine the concept could apply to you, and your stance, well then I’ll be honoured to share that…As such, the concept of humanism means that the Catholic Church, particularly the Vatican, even leading up to and after the Council of Trent was already undermining itself, in a degenerate sink that was taking place _even_before_the_Cathedral_began_exerting_its_influence_on_R.C.C._governance.

            Point of fact, I looked up the Wiki on “humanism” after I wrote the first long comment on this subject last night, and the entry says things that mostly agree with my comment that I wrote from memory without references…

            Usefully: No more should Protestant Christians, who feel responsible for American Republicanism, be cowed by Trentians who say that the Cathedral did the Feminist Marian (poor B.V.Mary) doctrines, and the Vatican II council. There was a degenerative force there in the Renaissance period, indeed necessitating the Reformation, and before the Cathedral’s degeneracy got underway.

            Am I mistaken in remembering that you, “Jim”, wrote about how a Roman Catholic holiness spiral undermined France, and also something about bishops at Avignon? That force is humanism.

            To me, the humanism in the R.C.C. was the reason why Prussian Monarchy and Austria-Hungarian Empire disintigrated when hit. Although Prussia was Protestant Christian, it had geographic and linguistic closeness to the Trentian Austrians. Notably, Chancellor Adolf Hitler was a “Catholic” himself and his movement was definitely humanist and not traditional Christian…Was it Cathedralite? No, I don’t think so…

            After dethronings, there is often a spasm as something tries to occupy the power vacuum. Ghostly, this. After Czarist Russia, Communism which was a shadow of the totalitarian and relatively anti-science rule of the Eastern Orthodox Church there…After the royalty of Versailles reign, Emperor Napoleon…After Charles I, the Lord Protector. And so on…

            So, were Nazis Cathedralites? No, they were the ghosts of Prussia. But they were humanists, and that was the problem. They weren’t reactionary enough to get back to the place where Prussia was strong enough to make something lasting, instead they went the populist war route…And they had Trentian Austria as well as the Polacks around, which certainly hurt things.

            Do you know how much Catholic liturgy has changed over the centuries? Actually Roman Catholic, which isn’t properly Catholic at all. There were proto-Feminising forces long before the new humanism of the Enlightenment. They were too humanistic, they needed to get back to sensibility. I am basically describing the strictly ecclesiastical motive for the Reformation.

            At any rate “Jim”, you seem to have mentioned something about a “holiness spiral” in France at one point and so I wanted to get more specific about the concept. You haven’t mentioned the Congregationalists as being the force for the Cathedral lately, which is good…I think it’s a hard case to make that they were the reason that France became a Republic…At risk of coming across too ungentlemanly, I say again, “Cathedralite mind control waves”? No, certainly not.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Seems to me that Catholics are just yielding to the Cathedral, which, though substantially Jewish, are descendents of the Puritans.

              The Puritans were holier than thou, and gave rise to the evangelists, who proposed to suppress slavery and alcohol with fire and sword, and so were holier than Jesus, then the protestants of the 1940s were holier than God, and pretty soon had no further use for God.

              Humanism does not seem to be a useful concept, for really only the final stage of their degeneration involved dismissing God.

              The anti slavery people were vicious evil hateful scum, even though not yet humanists.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You love to talk religion, because as an unbeliever you come off as much more conversationally agile since blasphemy is no issue for you.

            Nevertheless, you have given your opinion which is practically boilerplate, since you avoided what I brought up…

            Good job?

            • jim says:

              Consider the various radical left wing Puritan sects, some of them communists, that scared the pants off Cromwell by outflanking him to the left.

              Clearly these people were leftists. Clearly the prefigured what was to come, prefigured what has taken place.

              And none of them were at all humanists.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Here: and now I’ve done the work for you. Not even that long ago, it is from September…

            “The French left singularity began with false popes of Avignon. Its initial growth was relatively slow, becoming rapid, pathological, and alarming under the highly progressive radical left regime of King Louis XVI.

            The anglophone left singularity began with the Puritans, ended in Cromwell doing a Stalin and crushing everyone to the left of him. ”

            Looks like two singularities… And the first of them is humanism.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Then maybe you’re saying something we both agree with, that France could have gone proper Reformation and saved its king, like England did…

            Is there anything to that?

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Left wing individuals are leftists?

            They weren’t humanists, “Jim”, because they had not the organisation to do it. Humanism, as I have mentioned, giving examples earlier, comes from a religion that has gone bad. When they formed a republic in the United States, the egalitarian nature of Republicanism and the federal state here was the grounds for humanism – 1800s time period.

            I don’t consider groups closer to anarchism as leftist, it is merely less organised, and means that these individuals often end up as lower class.

            Leftism can take different forms, and the one that is worst is the suffocating sort of globalism that pits the far against the near, with possibly genocidal consequences…Sounds more like the way the Catholic Church was run pre-Reformation, and the way the Cathedral is run today.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              the egalitarian nature of Republicanism and the federal state here was the grounds for humanism – 1800s time period.

              Grounds, no doubt. But they were not humanists until around 1950 or so.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Well, it was unavoidably true by the 1954 Brown vs Board and that is when the Cathedral really began to show its evil, as other actions could be explained away by the country’s newness. But in Europe, the humanism had been at work for a longer period of time and was the reason that the monarchies couldn’t withstand the effect of being conquered. Had humanism not been rotting away the resolve of their citizens and subjects, they could have negotiated treaties that would have allowed their ruling families to remain, I think.

            It’s interesting to note how coloureds don’t stray to humanism, therefore Japanese have the important schelling point of their monarch remaining, and the Middle East naturally sticks to despotism. On the other hand, coincidentally or not, the Vatican pontiff remains monarch whilst many of the kingdoms his office closely influenced have lost their national monarchs…France, Austria-Hungary, Poland…

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -The rot set in when the Puritans and Avignon Papists were still clearly Christian, so I do not agree with analysis in terms of secular humanism.-

            At the onset of the humanist rot, the groups are indeed still largely Christian, “Jim”.

            You don’t have to agree. Most people who talk about secular humanism don’t use the term “Cathedral” so there is definitely a distinction. I was giving you and anyone else my perspective, of course, on the chance that it might be useful.

            A Cathedral wasn’t built in a day, so what was the force that built it? Satanic humanism. At least, that’s what I think.

            At any rate, a lot of people do consider the Enlightement to be a humanist movement. One thing that I see some NRxers doing wrong is this whole Nature Or Nature’s God. Which they turn into an acronymn, then reversed, then a proper noun, “Gnon”… That is actually a line from the Enlightenment. I learned that from Mr Robert “Bob” Whitaker.
            http://www.nationalsalvation.net/todayisbastilleday.html

            To me, Deism does seem to be humanistic. It was people getting away from the established Christian religion in England and her colonies and to the corruption that Protestant Christianity was supposed to have fixed, namely the Roman Catholic Church…

            As people were allowed to move away from hereditary power structures and established churches they were allowed to get closer and closer to the Vatican’s humanism. They were so sympathetic (papist sympathisers) that Ellis Island happened and now it’s a free for all in the United States, and the Roman Catholic Church seems to have made progress here, much to the detriment to the white race. See South America, and eventually India for what happens when a white elite sits on a coloured populace for a long enough amount of time.

            -Those who abolished slavery and banned booze were not humanists.-

            Banning alcholol were low-church Protestant Christians in a Republic acting erratically, after all, prohibition was repealed.

            Slavery is a different issue and has been banned at different times by different civilisations, including times when Renaissance humanism was prevalent.

            A.J.P.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Got one in the filter again.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Inconsequential”

        See, even your fallacies are retarded arguments to authority. Cuckservative.

        A.J.P.

        • peppermint says:

          Remember when NRx was circlejerking over the Reactionary Oath and the This Is Sparta Society that would be our Opus Dei, but an Opus Dei of consequence this time?

          He’s an inconsequential man wearing a dress.

          If you think he isn’t inconsequential, perhaps you can point to how he protected his community from the mud people by preaching the true doctrines of Jesus Christ, which say “blessed be the preserver, his blood shall endure”, and “my kingdom is of this world, my servants fight to prevent its destruction by the Jews”.

          Instead, whaargarbl about humanism, by which you mean secular humanism, by which you mean what the glorious Religious Right of the Silent Majority was denouncing in the ’80s and ’90s, by bravely denying evolution, thus willfully blinding themselves to the truth about race, and making themselves look retarded. Then they started not just refusing to abort their daughters’ nigger babies, but importing nigger babies from Africa to prove how willfully blind to the truth about race they were.

          Secular humanism / new age philosophy / transhumanism was the sophistry of this golden age, drawing to a close. We were never going to transcend petty human differences and become cybernetic and immortal. The Dark God has betrayed us and for that he must die. https://youtu.be/ssj-dhzUmdc?t=1270

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Not interested in conversation with a Trentian nor with anyone who starts their noise with reference to group masterbation, “faggot”.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, my uncle didn’t like it when I referred to the people an Fox News finally denouncing NSA spying when it happened to Israel as cucks, because he didn’t want sexual metaphors in politics.

            But politics is fundamentally about who gets the resources to reproduce and who doesn’t. Remove the reproductive aspect and it’s just masturbatory.

            The refusal to think about reproduction is probably a large part of the current malaise. Jim probably thinks it’s the defining factor.

            People engaging in political activity that will not lead to the security of the White race and a future for White children may as well be physically masturbating each other.

          • B says:

            You don’t have children, do you?

            Also, Perrick, a Whyte Man such as yourself should know that it’s spelled with a “u”.

  40. Art says:

    Jim:
    “I engaged in hyperbole. It was wrong of me to do so, because potentially misleading. I apologize for misleading readers about your position.”

    Art:
    I take no offense. My point is that I think you are being unfair to B. I also recall that some time ago you made similar accusations against David Friedman, who you are now quoting.

    Jim:
    “I am reading these documents from the point of view of the socially conservative environment of my youth. B is reading them from the point of view of twenty first century progressivism. You seem to be making an effort to figure out what they actually mean.”

    Art:
    From where I am standing it looks as if each of you is picking a few least reasonable points and projecting them on your opponent’s entire position.
    And what I think B finds most objectionable is not your disagreement with progressivism but your assertion that Talmudic rabbis radically re-interpreted Judaism.

    Jim:
    “Clearly these documents give women some agency – potentially grant them a lot of agency, as a wronged woman can go where she pleases. Equally clearly, they are embedded in a society were normal respectable women have very little agency, where a free woman is to be pitied (she was divorced, widowed, orphaned, or abandoned) or scorned (she is a harlot)”

    Art:
    That’s how I see it too.
    And from that perspective “sold like dogs” and “leased for sexual purposes” I think only makes sense as a rhetorical complaint about inequality.

    • jim says:

      Art:

      I take no offense. My point is that I think you are being unfair to B. I also recall that some time ago you made similar accusations against David Friedman, who you are now quoting.

      I am quoting him because he is an intelligent atheist Jew, who was quoted by another person in this thread.

      I said then, and say now, that he has no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, that he piously says it is wrong to speak unkindly of those to our left, while having no hesitation in speaking the foulest and most vile abuse to those to his right.

      And what I think B finds most objectionable is not your disagreement with progressivism but your assertion that Talmudic rabbis radically re-interpreted Judaism.

      Sure. No doubt about that. He says so.

      Yet there is an obvious element of double think and lying, since part of his argument that the rabbis did not radically reinterpret Judaism at alarmingly frequent intervals is the argument that rabbis have legitimate authority to radically reinterpret Judaism at alarmingly frequent intervals, and every so often he says something contemptuous about bronze age shepherds. Supposedly Jews are faithfully following the practices of bronze age shepherds because bronze age shepherds are too stupid and ignorant to know what is right.

      Orthodox Jews would be a whole lot saner and more decent if they could say “OK, we have authority to rewrite Judaism as needed, and from time to time, we did so.

    • jim says:

      if each of you is picking a few least reasonable points and projecting them on your opponent’s entire position.

      I don’t object to B’s position. I object to him treating my words and his sources in the same contemptuous and dishonest way he treats his own holy books. I object to his tactics.

Leave a Reply