Punching unowned women in the face

The rule on hitting girls should be, “don’t hit someone else’s girl”. If a girl is misbehaving, you should call for the man who is in charge of her, ask him to take care of the problem, and if he does not, you should punch him out, not his girl.

Moldilocks went to the free speech rally in Berkeley declaring she was going to collect one hundred fascist scalps. She was wearing brass knuckle gloves, having watched too many Hollywood movies where action girl takes out five mooks while doing a backflip. She threw glass bottles at people.

A gentleman should never under any circumstances strike a lady, but Moldilocks was no lady.

If an unowned, unsupervised women, gets beaten by some male, your default presupposition, your prejudgment of the situation absent other evidence, should be that males are generally well behaved, unsupervised and uncontrolled women are frequently badly behaved, therefore chances are that she probably needed a beating.

Women are, of course, the precious sex, and men are the expendable sex. It is right that men should die for their women. Men have a duty to love and cherish their women, and women do not have a duty to love and cherish their men, but a duty to honor and obey. But not all women are precious. Unowned women frequently behave in ways that make them less valuable, and more expendable, than men. Observe that Moldilocks was beautiful, became a porngirl (her ranking is too low to qualify as pornstar) became unattractive with astonishing speed, her inner ugliness becoming externally manifest. Her inner ugliness made manifest revealed that this woman was worthless trash.

Some women are precious, not all women are precious. It is entirely OK to punch porngirls, especially unattractive porngirls. No punching cute porngirls in the face, but measures less likely to mar them are fine.

Women are precious because they can create life, whereas all a man can do is merely kill someone. A woman can make you immortal, whereas all a man can do is merely kill you. But porngirl Moldilocks is not going to make you immortal, so no great loss spoiling her face even further.

208 Responses to “Punching unowned women in the face”

  1. B says:

    This is your entertainment: deep ruminations on swine punching female swine in the face, while other swine cheer and boo.

    I don’t have any hope for anyone involved evolving into humans any time soon. Can’t unscramble these eggs.

    • jim says:

      That he punched this slut in the face is not an indication he is a swine. It is OK to punch thots.

      • B says:

        Everyone involved is a swine.

        • Alf says:

          Your superior holiness is noted.

          • B says:

            We’ve got a mandate for it: “I will make of you a holy people”.

            It really doesn’t take a very holy person, though, to look at someone running around the streets brawling with prostitutes with distaste.

            • pdimov says:

              How would you counter an antifa movement full of masked prostitutes in a tasteful manner?

                • peppermint says:

                  Firehoses are the best in non-lethal state weaponry against rioters. Rioters that get sprayed have to go home visibly humiliated to change their clothes.

                  Police today have to resort to pepper spray and pepper balls because they’re unable to use firehoses, because of the jewsmedia’s response to firehoses at the snivel rights riots, which were managed by jew communists.

                  The question remains as to what can non-state actors do. The only available action is punching rioters and using physical White bodies to create a safe space, counting on the System’s continued refusal to permit rioters to use lethal force.

                • B says:

                  Oh, come on.

                  With a modicum of inventiveness (isn’t the white race supposed to be inventive?) you could send the black bloc home drenched in water, or raw sewage, or other, more noxious substances.

                  Or you could, if you wanted to, make a few martyrs out of them.

                  That would definitely make them think twice before turning out the next time.

                  The former approach was demonstrated pretty well by the Russian group Voyna (pdimov can elaborate) which did things like welding the doors shut on a restaurant frequented by Russian police and secret police officers and spraypainting insulting slogans on them, or spray painting a giant penis on a retractable bridge facing the FSB headquarters in St. Petersburg seconds before it was raised.

                  The latter has no shortage of demonstrations over the last 200 years.

                  The issue is, you guys don’t have anyone willing to go to jail for a few years.

                  So you end up rolling around in the mud with pigs, both of you enjoying yourselves. LARPing.

                • jim says:

                  Police disarmed the trump supporters, failed to disarm the antifa, and then skipped out. So up comes a prostitute wearing knuckle dusters. What are you going to do?

                • Mackus says:

                  >The issue is, you guys don’t have anyone willing to go to jail for a few years.

                  How many antifas are currently in jail?

                • B says:

                  it’s not faaaaair!

                  the government is against us!!

                  well, yeah-you’re revolutionaries.

                  LARPing as such, anyway.

                • Stephen W says:

                  Obviously B continuously caries a firehose in his pocket for the contingent of being attacked by a feral women. And expects everyone else to do so bif defending yourself in any other way make you a pig. Such a holier than thou attitude is a clear sign of obnoxious pig.

                • peppermint says:

                  water guns and water balloons are weapons that could be used with NBC contaminants, and would thus be confiscated and the people carrying them charged with terrorism

                  this is not a circumstance where anything was available but White bodies, which were available because of the reluctance of the System to officially use force against free speech

                  since the situation itself is so uncomplicated, you’re reduced to bringing up cases where ((western))-funded NGO people used vandalism against Russian police

                • Anonymous says:

                  Notice a pattern yet, Jim? B is always more leftist than you are, unless Judaism explicitly tells him not to be. That’s the pharisaic mentality – seek holiness, and then more holiness, until you’re told in no uncertain terms to stop seeking it. Unless told explicitly, unequivocally, clearly to stop holiness spiraling, he won’t stop.

                • Mackus says:

                  >it’s not faaaaair!

                  Don’t project your kvetching on other people.

                  The point is that neither side has that many people willing to go to jail. If/when first antifas receive jail sentences, half of them will stop attending, other half will claim that antifa were _always_ into _peaceful_ protest, it was just few bad apples who threw rocks or punched people.

                  >So you end up rolling around in the mud with pigs, both of you enjoying yourselves.

                  Imagine non-ironic Nazi walks up to you and grabs you by the throat. Do you try to punch him back? If you do, be careful, you might end up rolling around together in the mud, and enjoying yourself very much. And you shouldn’t, because pigs are non-kosher.
                  Should have just let him choke you. Then its not you _both_ rolling in the mud, it’s just you _alone_ being rolled in the mud. And that’s completely different. That’s a way to show em.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Not only B, of course. Israeli Ashkenazim, including religious types, always defer to the sentiments of Mizrahim. That’s because Judaism doesn’t say anything about the issue, so it’s an opportunity for them to holiness spiral.

                  That’s the pattern – always holier than thou, on every issue, unless religiously compelled not to be.

                • Anonymous says:

                  White leftists are sometimes motivated by sincere empathy for the ostensibly oppressed, sometimes by self-interested holiness signalling. Jewish leftists are in 99.9% of cases motivated by self-interested holiness signalling.

                • B says:

                  >The point is that neither side has that many people willing to go to jail.

                  Right, but there’s no symmetry, because the alt-right are actual dissidents while the left is a wing of the govt. What else is new?

                  >Obviously B continuously caries a firehose in his pocket for the contingent of being attacked by a feral women.

                  Right, I carry a 1911, and don’t have a firehose.

                  I don’t carry a demonstration in my pocket either (do these guys not have jobs?)

                • B says:

                  >Imagine non-ironic Nazi walks up to you and grabs you by the throat.

                  Ahahahaha

                  oh, you guys are great.

                • Mackus says:

                  >Ahahahaha
                  >oh, you guys are great.

                  I knew Jews had mindcontrol beams, but I didn’t knew those can force violent people to not attack them. You learn something new every day.

                  I wonder why they didn’t use those in 1944.

                  >Right, I carry a 1911, and don’t have a firehose.

                  So you’re pig if you use fists for selfdefense, but guns are okay?

                  Is that Sabbath thing? Punching people is breaking sabbath, because you’re doing work, but if you shot someone, its gun which does work? Then why you cannot drive cars on Sabbath? You guys don’t make any sense.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The only available action is punching rioters…”

                  It’s not the only available action, but there’s nothing wrong with it and it should not be ruled out just because the enemy has set up a situation that attempts to rule it out. Plus, one must not assume a masked creature’s gender. That would be transphobic.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Killing sluts with guns rather than punching them is what the Avot tractate or whatever calls “tikkun olam”.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Hey B, you hypocrite, should I post pics of demonstrators in south tel aviv *really* behaving like swine?

                  Oy-vey-the-goyim-know-shut-it-down

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Come on yourself, B.

                  >you could send the black bloc home drenched in water, or raw sewage, or other, more noxious substances.

                  Imagine some Trumpist throws a waterballoon full of shit on a dreadlocked antifa girl. What would you say about that? What a clever use of unconventional means – these alt-righters sure are on the ball? Sure you would. You’d be right here, posting about what disgusting subhuman swine we are to stoop to throwing human waste on people.

                • B says:

                  >So you’re pig if you use fists for selfdefense, but guns are okay?

                  Sure. A gun is a proud, noble instrument. Rapiers are cooler, but those days are long past us.

                  Imagine some noble assaulted by a reeking, pig-faced peasant. Can you imagine him getting down and rolling around in the mud with his assailant?

                  >Imagine some Trumpist throws a waterballoon full of shit on a dreadlocked antifa girl.

                  That would be gross.

                  On the other hand, if they were to spray the antifa with a honey truck’s worth of pressurized sewage, that would be a pretty admirable gesture.

                  To switch gears for a second, consider that Hitler’s guys were street brawlers, and not coincidentally, were shopkeepers and such. The actual nobles on the right did things like killing Rathenau, which may or may not have been misguided, but was a pretty noble gesture. They didn’t stoop to rolling around in the mud with some Communists.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >On the other hand, if they were to spray the antifa with a honey truck’s worth of pressurized sewage, that would be a pretty admirable gesture.

                  Bullshit. You’d be right here, telling us how disgusting, ignoble, and low it was.

                • jim says:

                  I am pretty sure he would (rightly) find it twice as disgusting. Obviously brawling with shit is lower than brawling with your fists.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Imagine some noble assaulted by a reeking, pig-faced peasant. Can you imagine him getting down and rolling around in the mud with his assailant?

                  If has another choice immediately available, not likely to physically brawl. If no choice but fight with fists in self-defense, then fight with fists in self-defense.

                  Why do you burn olive trees of Palestinians? You do it because the zionist regime refuses to transfer the Palestinians into Jordan, furthermore, the Palestinians burn your own olive trees. See – everyone does what they can, not necessarily what others would call “high class”.

                • B says:

                  >If no choice but fight with fists in self-defense, then fight with fists in self-defense.

                  And would he run around all proud afterwards? “Did you see how I was rolling around in the mud with that peasant? Huh? Huh?”

                  Come on.

                • Anony-maus says:

                  Sheesh, the holiness of it all.

                  Call people pigs if you want, but raw physicality is a language that transfers well. And in this case, its an overall and solid positive.

                  Sorry holy dude.

            • jim says:

              > We’ve got a mandate for it: “I will make of you a holy people”.

              And you demonstrate that holiness with double dishwashers, today’s equivalent of making broad your phylacteries,

              • B says:

                Who are our allies?

                You?

                • Alf says:

                  The muslims are out to get you, the progs are out to get you, the unironic nazis are out to get you.

                  The neocons are cucks to the progs and the otherwise friendly Christians grow more irrelevant every day.

                  Jim on the other hand is clearly not out to get you, is patient, admits mistakes and wants Israel to survive. Seems obvious to me.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Who are our allies?

                  The “nationalism for all people” crowd. Also (((NRx))).

                • B says:

                  Jim is a pseudonymous guy I argue with on the internet, who has mild delusions of grandeur. He’s no more an ally of ours than I’m his accountant.

                  The European nationalists like Generation Identitaire and other far right guys are alright by me so far, I wish them all the best. I’d say they’re allies, or potential allies if/when they get into power. On the other hand, 50 years ago their predecessors hated us, and I have no idea what their policy will be in another 20 years.

                  NRx has entered its Eternal September phase, and I’m not sure there’s anything there beside the alt-light, the fashy larpers and Nick Land’s unreadable screeds.

                  There was that guy with the Roman pseudonym who wrote the Flight 97 Election thing and now works for the NSC. He seems cool. Ditto Bannon. To the degree they still have jobs.

                  On the other hand, President Camacho kept President Frothy Latte’s State Department and NSC crew in charge of dealing with Israel: http://www.independentsentinel.com/trump-admin-keeping-bringing-obama-retreads/

                  And is now engaged in designing us a Peace Deal: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/228318

                  In short, our only real, permanent ally is G-d, as usual.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Noone, and it’s all your fault.

                • jim says:

                  Your allies are those who want Israel to survive, and are not those who theoretically want Israel to survive, but with open borders and equal voting rights for Muslims.

                • B says:

                  An ally is someone who does something in a joint cause with you, potentially sacrificing something for the alliance.

                  Not someone who kind of, sort of, morally supports you.

                  That’s nice-but it’s not an alliance. Unless you mean the word in the prog sense, which I don’t.

                • jim says:

                  Supporting Israel’s right to be Jewish is at least as dangerous in the US as it is in Israel, and perhaps more dangerous.

                • B says:

                  Verbally supporting Israel’s right to exist is not physically dangerous either in Israel or the US. Unless you do it in the middle of Uhm Al Fahm or Dearborn, Michigan.

                  Career-wise, it depends on your career, I guess.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Verbally supporting Israel’s right to exist is not physically dangerous either in Israel or the US.

                  Zionists outside zion (very common) constantly whine about muh compus antisemism by the pro-Palestine antifas……Perhaps you should tell your unofficial hasbara chief, the blogger “elder of ziyon”, that his concerns are vastly exaggerated

                • Anonymous says:

                  Remember all the kvetching and kibbitzing about feminist antizionist arab SHARMOUTA named linda sarsour…? Why did you guys cry so many tears about her?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Times of israel + private zio bloggers published exactly 6 million “responses to linda sarsour”…….. she wasn’t even violent, mind you

            • Eli says:

              B, I hate to say it, but you’re wrong. The guy might or might not have been a swine, but in this case he was clearly attacked. Even the woman’s own posting clearly indicates she was “out for scalps.”

              Yes, it is an ugly scene. But the guy who hit her was clearly within bounds, and should not be disparaged for it.

              Let’s not forget Rambam’s own decree regarding treatment of misbehaving wives:
              http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952895/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Twenty-One.htm

              “Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod.”

              *Unless*, of course, you are into mystical interpretations (Chabad believes that women are on a higher spiritual plane… or at least that’s what they claim) and you/your community firmly believe that Rambam didn’t mean what he wrote.

              • Anonymous says:

                You know what B is like. He’ll tell you that a misbehaving wife is not at all similar to commie pornilocks, thereby entirely (deliberately) missing the point about misguided chivalry.

              • B says:

                All those guys turned out for a street brawl. Both left and right.

                And brawling in the streets is swinish. Especially brawling with prostitutes.

                A long time ago (10 years or so,) back before I got religion and when I would still go out drinking, I had a woman (not mine or that of anyone I knew) object to something I said and hit me. I slapped her and went back to my conversation with my friends. None of us would have thought of making a big deal of it. The idea of decking her, much less of being proud of it, would not have occurred to me.

                • jon dough says:

                  ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…smh…

                  “does this holiness make me look fat?”

                • jim says:

                  Untrue. We turned out to protect freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

                  The reason we turned out for the street brawl, is that the left had no platformed us by street brawling. The point and purpose was to protect a platform for free speech and freedom of assembly, which we successfully did, in that we successfully put an alt right speaker on a literal platform with a microphone and loud speakers to deliver a lecture on free speech and freedom of assembly. As we did so, police withdrew, and antifa attempted to shut us down by street brawling. And the speech was not interrupted, nor were people prevented from assembling to hear it, thanks to our street brawlers.

                • Stephen W says:

                  So lets see if I can make a summary of B’s rules of engagement. First avoid any public support of freedom whenever commie bullies threaten to show up, instead cower in your home like a pathetic little wimp. When such complicity leads to the government allowing commie thugs to become unavoidable, if a firehose is not immediately handy any confrontation not resolved by a dainty little bitchslap should immediately be escalated to the lethal force of spear or Colt .45 lest he scuff his pretty little knuckles, oh how uncouth. And if he has no weapons available he to save his delicate little hands he simply let the bottle throwing commie thug bitches stomp his teeth out in the gutter because that is so much more dignified than using his hands for anything greater than dainty bitchslaps.

                  No real logic or consistency here, he just pre determines that someone is a “swine” and then post facto justifies that by holding them to imposible standards, as the most degenerate virtue signalling hypocrite.

                • jim says:

                  Bottom line: If not a Jew, an enemy – hence the Jews started their revolution against the Romans by attacking people who were equally suffering from Roman predation. A rationalization of why the enemy is insufficiently holy will be discovered post hoc.

                • B says:

                  Oh, come on.

                  That’s like saying that the Communists kicking people’s teeth in in the streets are doing it to ensure the brotherhood of man, freedom from oppression, etc. Those are the slogans, consciously some of the Communists believe in them, but they’re out there kicking people’s teeth in for chimp reasons.

                  I like the slogans of the alt-right much better than those of the Communists, of course.

                • jim says:

                  If the police had not disarmed, us, then withdrawn, and then if antifa had not attacked us with bombs, bricks, and bear spray, nothing violent would have happened, and we would have been very glad that nothing violent happened, because that would have been victory.

                  Indeed, when it seemed the police were going to protect us, we thought we had won, and were celebrating.

                • B says:

                  >we would have been very glad that nothing violent happened, because that would have been victory.

                  Victory?

                  Victory is “to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”

                • jim says:

                  In a defensive victory, victory is keeping what is mine. If the police had upheld our right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, our enemies would have been quite crushed, though we would not have seen them driven before us nor heard the lamentations of their women.

                  As things turned out, we did in fact crush our enemies and drive them before us, but we did not get to enjoy nearly enough lamentations of their women.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >lamentations of their women

                  Oh my, how swinish! What kind of swine gets off on making women cry – even unpleasant enemy women? I don’t have any hope for anyone involved evolving into humans any time soon.

                • B says:

                  >What kind of swine gets off on making women cry – even unpleasant enemy women?

                  It’s not swinish to rejoice at the crying of enemy women:

                  1: The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?

                  Her wise ladies answered her, yea, she returned answer to herself,

                  Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?

                  So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.

                  2: And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

                • Ron says:

                  @B

                  There is a spoken tradition among certain groups of Jews that Samuel used only one stroke to cut him into 4 parts.

                  An interesting question is how.

            • JT91 says:

              And yet Phineas stabbed the Moabite woman through the chest

              • B says:

                He didn’t roll around in the dirt trading punches with her.

                • StringsofCoins says:

                  You will virtue signal your betterness when we do, and you will signal it when we don’t. Personally I don’t care about you in the slightest and you only remind me of the Orthodox Jewess I had a sweet four month “relationship” with WAY back when I was a college boy. Don’t worry her mommy found out and made her “dump” me so she could marry a nice ortho jew boy. And I mostly just put it up her ass so you’re all good my man.

                • B says:

                  What an accomplishment! What a superior man!

                  How many kids did you say you had with sluts? Is having children with sluts and then abandoning them one of the features of being a superior man, would you say, or just an inevitable cost that must be paid?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Don’t be so butthurt about your women being buttsluts, B. It is what it is.

            • R7_Rocket says:

              What a fine and holy Pharisee!

      • Ron says:

        I think its perfectly OK to punch the Queen of England in the face if she so much as picks her hands up for a fight, much less if she’s been throwing wine bottles at my friends and threatening to take home scalps after talking about revolution.

        Im actually more pissed at her for giving me a reason to like one of my enemies than I am for anything Domiga did.

        The antifa had what was coming to them. As for the ridiculous dress and costumes of the alt-right, that was also a clear tactical decision. If they had worn conservative clothing they would have won the fight and lost the larger war.

    • Ironsides says:

      She went there to “get 100 Nazi scalps.” In short, she entered a combat area as a combatant.

      She was wearing a sap glove and she was throwing glass bottles at people, which could cause serious injury. She had a hat on and, prior to the immediate melee, a black mask covering most of her face. She looked like a spindly androgynous object hurling bottles in the middle of a melee where people are full of adrenaline.

      Someone moved in and counterattacked the threat. At this point, she could have fallen back, but she didn’t, and lunged forward in an effort to attack Damigo. In short, she continued acting as a combatant, and she got punched like one. (Though I think he pulled his last punch, because she didn’t suffer much damage from it, compared to the bloodied people I’ve seen in other footage.)

      People who enter combat are not excused from the consequences of that choice simply because they turn out to make lousy combatants. Only a sense of chivalry expanded to a grotesque, clownish caricature demands that in a combat situation, one refrain from counterattacking a person who is attacking you with glass bottles and then a sap glove with intent to cause bodily harm, simply because that person is female.

      The leftists even demand perfectly equal treatment for women, then squeal like stuck pigs when that’s actually applied. But even beyond that, there’s a simple equation:

      Enter a street fight as a combatant, be prepared to take your lumps. If she didn’t want a fist to the face, she had an extremely simple option: don’t enter combat. There’s nothing to even debate here.

    • C. says:

      That gentleman is anything but swine B. Stop ‘condemning the violence on both sides’ and realize that he is good and she is bad. She had it coming, and deserves worse.

      • B says:

        He is better than she is. He is brawling for a better cause than she is. But it’s still chimp stuff.

        • jim says:

          You love your fellow Jews even when they conspicuously fail to love you.

          He was engaged in self defense, and defense of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. She was throwing glass bottles at people and punched him with brass knuckle gloves.

          You are white knighting a slut. I don’t white knight sluts.

          • B says:

            You are strawmanning.

            None of the people involved are Jews. If they were, I’d find their behavior more swinish.

            • jim says:

              The porngirl you are white knighting is a Jew, and I figured that was the reason you are white knighting her.

              • B says:

                Is she Jewish? Based on what do you say that?

                I pointed out that she was a swine and a prostitute.

                If I call you a swine and a prostitute, will you take that as a complement?

              • Anonymous says:

                >The porngirl you are white knighting is a Jew,

                Wait, really? So she isn’t even an “Aryan Princess”, but another subversive kikess? And her “porn rank” just happens to be 14888?

                2017 is the best year yet. Kek is real. Checkmate atheists.

    • Anony-maus says:

      It was the appropriate action for the circumstance. Sometimes, measured violence is the answer. This is one of those times.

    • Thrasymachus says:

      The female in question- Emily Rose Nauert/Marshall- would appear to be of your tribe.

      • Ron says:

        Nauert might be Jewish, might not.

        Either way, she got what was coming to her. If she was a Gentile, better Domiga gave it to her than someone like me.

        Altho I have changed my mind regarded punches in general because of something B said above. A slap can work just as well, in this case its not so. The woman was there to kill and cause injury, not just give a light punch.

        This incident must be used without letup to hammer home the point of her total degradation as a result feminist lies and delusion. The comparison to what she is now to what she once was should be shown again and again. THIS is what feminism creates.

        Portrait her grandmother is said to have drawn of her as a child:
        https://m.imgur.com/trZDDeQ?r

        What she is now: any image you can find of her online.

        It must also be repeated ad nauseum to smash apart the culture wide delusion that women have the strength of men. This is less the result of female envy as it is the result of gamma male subversion of stronger males aided and abetted by stronger make greed for easy sex.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          These past few months have been an explosion of memetastic events.

        • Eli says:

          Great find, for the link. What a tragedy for her grandparents and her ancestors (if she is really Jewish). Every time I think how much such people must have sacrificed and how much they hoped for, only in return for that kind of a descendant, makes me quite sad.

          What they thought of as “empowering” turns out to be a dead end, and a degradation.

          • Ron says:

            I dont think it becomes less or more of a tragedy depending on what her ancestry is. The fact that we dont know for sure whether she is of Jewish or Germanic descent should hammer home that point.

            I think healthy behavior is good, and unhealthy behavior is a tragedy regardless of who it occurs with. Chaos brings about more chaos, and order tends to bring more order.

            Her natural beauty highlights the tragedy, but even if she had been plain or unattractive it would have been tragic, because we are talking about people, not animals.

            I read her parents divorced, no doubt that played into it.

    • Bill Jones says:

      Let me phrase it in a way you might understand: a little while ago a negro, bemused at the antics of an unaccompanied negress was heard to cry “Who Bitch be dat?”

      Politileness demands that ownership be determined before action be taken.

      Mot so hard, is it?

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        >Who Bitch be dat?

        Wew, lad. You need to brush up on your memes. Also, overuse of “be” is the quintessential mistake of non-speakers imitating AAVE. 3/10, made me reply.

      • jim says:

        The meme is “Who bitch this is?”

        Since we are white, we should say “Whose bitch is this?” Then if no one claims ownership, then you can punch her.

        The original meme does have a certain ring to it, but not enough ring to justify sounding like a whigger.

        • Pseudonymous says:

          To me, at least, it sounded as though the ebonobo was actually saying “is this” rather than “this is”, but admittedly I have trouble understanding foreign languages.

    • Bill Wallace says:

      Oh pooor widdle B. Are you not entertained while your pals attack people going about their legitimate activities? How rude it is to have some slut pummelled for her actions. Yes I am entertained.

      We wish to see more of your ilk humiliated and beaten upon. You started it.

      But make no mistake I do not wish these Stalinists to stop and obey the laws of civilization. I hope you continue till decency is so provoked that nno one will tolerate the tactics and lies of the Left. And by not tolerate I wish to indicAte that this is taken to the Weatherman level.

  2. Spph says:

    The problem with fighting the girl, is that it lowers the man’s status, and raises the girl’s. Giving wedgies to the male antifa’s does the opposite. Better to find some way to lower the status of the girl, like spanking?

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’m more extreme than Jim, in that I believe that women, owned or unowned, who initiate violence against men should be beaten severely or perhaps killed, doesn’t matter by whom, while men who initiate violence against women *may* be beaten severely or perhaps killed, and it matters a lot by whom.

    In other words, women never ever have an excuse to beat men who haven’t used violence against them, while men in some situations are allowed to initiate violence against women. If woman beats man, anyone can kill her. If man beats woman, only people related to woman — protectors — can kill him.

    When the stronger party beats the weaker party, it may not look good, but it’s understandable. When the weaker party beats the stronger party, it’s insolent, and impudent, like a child beating a parent. Furthermore, isn’t it “strange” and “curious” how weaker parties only initiate violence against stronger parties when they know the stronger party has its hands tied?

    There should be no violent women, period. Violence is the domain of men exclusively. A woman who assaults a man deserves the same beating that the weakest kids in class, in a moment of impulsive insolence, deserves if he attacks the strongest kid in class for no good reason. You don’t attack the strongest kid in class, unless he attacked you first. Women must not be allowed to attack men.

    It’s time to apply evolutionary selection to women. Exactly *because* they are more valuable biologically. Thus, time to kill violent women. No excuses.

    • Anonymous says:

      >inb4 muh chivalry

      (Somehow chivalry is never actually applied to weak people in general. It’s just a word white knights use to rationalize female privilege. They only ever apply chivalry to women, which means they’re not actually motivated by chivalry. Not that I care, I’m against chivalry)

      • StringsofCoins says:

        Women deeply love and respect a man who will beat them around when they deserve it, in his eyes, or when he wants to take them. A man who will full face slap a bitch during sex, before choking her near unconscious, is a man that a girl will go get a job to support while he fucks all her friends and she tells everyone. Just how much She. Loves. You.

        There’s a severe dearth of white men who will own that look of satisfaction around these days. But our women are begging us to put them in their place and own their body and soul, while they fight back, as was meant to be.

  4. Koanic says:

    B is just trying to ensure that there isn’t anyone left on the Internet who doesn’t hate Jews.

    He is dedicated to holiness, and since holiness is hating anti-Christ, he serves his cause well.

    • Anonymous says:

      As persuasive as many of us are when it comes to fostering anti-Semitism, no one tops a real, wild, ethnocentric, “chosen” Jew.

      Everyone should be exposed to these folks. Heck, I’m not a real nazi, just a particularly determined LARPer, but truth be told, I can’t avoid reflecting on the “unalloyed good” which may just ensue if there were no Jews.

      Obviously not all Jews are as obnoxious as B. The problem is that “Bs” are a recurrent — and preponderant — feature of the Jewish landscape. As they say: 99% give the other 1% a bad name!

      Right now, the Jews are murdering the white race by flooding white countries with Third Worlders. Perhaps if there were no Third Worlders for the Jews to use as pawns against the West — if the only hominids populating Earth were Whites, Jews, and Eastasians — the Jewish problem would be quite negligible. But alas, the kike-shitskin “alliance” (Jews ruling over coloreds) is all too real.

      The Zionist project could, potentially, change this state of affairs. As is plainly evident, it did not. Something something frog and scorpion. They can’t help themselves. That’s too bad, but what can you do, one doesn’t get to pick one’s battles.

      This battle must culminate in the undisputed triumph of Whites.

      • jim says:

        Every group has characteristics that are irritating, some more than others, and you are used to the characteristics of your own group, whereas the irritating characteristics of the outgroup are particularly offensive.

        I find the Jewish propensity to torture texts offensive, and Jewish holiness signaling ridiculous. Well, I find all holiness signaling ridiculous, and there is no shortage of hypocritical holiness signaling from non Jews, but most holiness signaling seems to come from people who are biologically Jewish, and most people who are biologically Jewish seem to do a remarkable amount of holiness signaling.

        Jews, notoriously, are disinclined to reach out to potential allies, and are disloyal to actual allies, as for example the Lebanese Christians, which is a major factor in the bad things that keep happening to them. For example, the Greeks were just as much oppressed by the Romans as the Jews were, and there were revolts against the Romans breaking out all over the place, but the Jews were as apt or more apt to attack the Greeks than the Romans, so when the Jews revolted against the Romans, the Greeks saw their chance and jumped for it – not their chance to get rid of the Romans, but their chance to get rid of the Jews.

        Clearly B is offended by the lack of respect for holiness characteristic of white people who are biologically descended from Christians.

        I would be interested to hear Ron giving us a list of bad characteristics typical of people of biological descent from Christians.

        B tends to accuse everyone non Jewish of being insufficiently cleanly, though I am pretty sure this accusation is obsolete, now that everyone learns scientific hygiene and germ theory.

        • Ron says:

          No, Im not enough of a man to give an answer to that. Id be ashamed of myself if I answered a question as serious as that one. If it was too light I would be disgusted with myself, and if it was too harsh I wouldnt be able to look anyone in the eye. You deserve better than what I could give.

          But you have B. He’s a real treasure.

          Also, if we’re thinking of the same revolt, then the Greeks were lying. And the proof is that their lesders were brought to Rome and executed after the revolt. But youd have to check on it, because I don’t remember the incident well and Ill admit I didnt study it thoroughly and my knowledge is based on other peoples summaries of it.

          As far as the Lebanese go, this is speculation, but I believe that it was a two part result of Leftist treason coupled with US pressure. The Left could not tolerate a victory from the Right and so they did what they always do and began a campaign to sabotage the entire thing. I am basing this on Ariel Sharons memoir “Warrior” where he discusses the roots of the Leftist hysteria when they realized that the Right wing were about to crush the PLO.

          In regard to your general frustration regarding Jews and allies. There are two things to note. The people of the friendly nation and their leaders are not the same things. And the Jews and their leaders are not the same thing.

          This following link is an important RIGOROUS (ie non-speculative) account of how the Jews and their genuine allies both inside Germany and without nearly ended the Nazi regime via a boycott, and how the JEWISH LEADERSHIP successfully killed the boycott PRECISELY WHEN IT WAS ABOUT TO SUCCEED.

          http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders0.htm

          Im going to repeat what I said, the leadership killed that boycott and as a result tens of millions of gentiles and a full third of European Jewry died. If you want to discuss Jewish inability to determine friend from foe, this is the starting point, and in my opinion the only serious one. Lomg read, but I cant stress enough how crucial it is, and how frustrating that no one knows the history or what happened.

          • pdimov says:

            > http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders0.htm

            “When Hitler came to power in 1933 outrages against the German Jews began immediately. This provoked a storm of protest all over the world.”

            Really? A storm of protest all over the world?

            And no, I didn’t stop reading here. But as Jim says, one lie, all lies.

            • ron says:

              “Really? A storm of protest all over the world?”

              Well, we would have to take the time to look at the newspaper headlines and see if it did cause a “storm of protest”.

              I am reading a book by Edwin Black called “British Petroleum and the Redline Agreement”, and in one of the chapters he discusses the history of the Armenian genocide and that it caused a great deal of protest. Part of the reason he got into it was to explain to a modern reader how Western countries viewed Turkey. And it struck me hard because until I read that chapter I had no idea that any of it was known to anyone. He insisted that it wasn’t known it was talked about regularly and was considered a major outrage among the European and American countries.

              My point is not that Gil-White is telling the truth or lying when he says it “caused a storm of protest”, but that he can very well be telling the truth, and we should actually look into it honestly to see if he was.

              • Anonymous says:

                There were no “outrages” in 1933 and there certainly was no global protest-storm about those non-existent “outrages”. (there was a lot of kvetching by international Jewry in general, but that’s something else)

                Fake history!

                • ron says:

                  You didn’t even read my comment. You have no idea what I was even talking about. I was referring to European outrage to the Ottoman government assaults against Christians in Armenia and in Eastern Europe. Pre-1916.

                  You are completely blind. You see “Jew” and you immediately go on the attack, you don’t even know what you are attacking anymore.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I read your comment. I referred to the line (lie) quoted by Pdimov above your comment, and I addressed my comment to you and not to him, because I disagree with you and agree with him, about that line being, indeed, a lie.

          • jim says:

            That is a very interesting article.

            I would interpret it as follows: Jewish converso to progressivism tend to be the worst progressives, because they tend to have the most extreme holiness signals. Perhaps in some sense, tend to be actually holier, and thus actually more self destructive when they become progressives. Thus, for example, the civil rights movement was Jewish, not because Jews were plotting to weaponize blacks against whites, but because they proudly took the theoretical equality of blacks and whites seriously, while puritan descended progressives were comfortable with double think and hypocrisy.

            The overwhelmingly Jewish civil rights movement not only signaled superior holiness with alarming intensity, it actually was holier as progressives measure holiness.

            The unironic nazis, of which I have quite a few among my commenters, interpret this disproportionately Jewish progressivism as an evil plot against whites, that these Jews are telling non Jews to do stupid wicked things, which they would never tell Jews to do.

            But on the contrary, progressive Jews are primarily harming themselves and their fellow Jews, and their harmful effects on non Jews is almost an accident. Progressivism is bad for Christians, but worse for Jews, because Christians have built up some immunity. Far from Jews “forcing poison down our throats”, Jews are drinking poison enthusiastically and saying that it tastes delicious.

            And never was the harm done by progressive Jews to Jews greater than in Hitler’s Germany.

            • pdimov says:

              “But on the contrary, progressive Jews are primarily harming themselves and their fellow Jews, and their harmful effects on non Jews is almost an accident.”

              Muslim suicide bombers are primarily harming themselves and their fellow Muslims.

              • ron says:

                @pdimov

                You are looking at it from the wrong angle. Think of genetics in terms of information transfer.

                Imagine you are an uncle with many nieces and nephews but have no children of your own. If you sacrifice your life, then those neices and nephews can have a better shot. If they have a better shot, then the genetic information that you share with them has a better shot at continuing to propogate.

                Then again, maybe you meant in terms of God’s anger they are harming themselves? In which case, I completely agree.

            • Koanic says:

              We do not need to decide exactly how harmful Jews are, or what is the most appropriate way to describe the harm they do.

              They have been involved in fostering Western mass immigration since 1965. Therefore they are an existential threat.

              More relevantly to the immediate situation, by attacking the Jews first we also target all their hardcore Communist and anti-white elite fellow travelers.

              This faction must be eliminated first. Many redeemable white progressives may then repent.

              Similarly, we can attack the holy status of blacks, and bring down their champions with them. But this can only work by neutralizing the Jew faction first, who are at the top of the priestly food chain.

              If we fail to defeat Jew and nigger holiness, then we fail to defeat pozz. So it costs nothing extra to attack those targets first.

              The anti-Semitic political program will go through this time, just as it did last time, because it is grounded in dialectical truth and armed with effective rhetoric.

              It has not hit mass popular consciousness yet, but the wave is visible in the ocean, heading inexorably for the beach.

              The Alt-Lite is surfing on the beach for the photographers. We with the longboards are waiting for the Big One.

            • Koanic says:

              Jim, perhaps you do not understand precisely why Jews are so objectionable to Anglo-Germanics because you are not one. IIRC you come from a Communist-bloc country east of the Hajnal line. You do not suffer from pathological altruism, and thus Jewish behavior is not too far different from your own. But it is very different than ours, and the altruist’s response to predation is ruthless.

            • ron says:

              I’m glad you like it!

              But in reference to “jews drinking poison..” in our case, I think it’s more a result of two things:

              1. short sighted, r-selected traitors taking advantage of a difficult situation to be the boss.

              2. the honest party not doing what they should have done. If you understand what I’m saying good, if you don’t, then ask yourself what it is I’d be afraid to write down on a public blog and you should be able to figure it out from there.

        • pdimov says:

          “Well, I find all holiness signaling ridiculous, and there is no shortage of hypocritical holiness signaling from non Jews…”

          One of my personal favorites is atheists who consider themselves holier than people who are less atheist than they are.

          Although “chosen people” is good too.

          – we haven’t been exterminated yet, therefore we’re God’s chosen!
          – uhh… you do realize that there’s only one way to disprove this claim?
          – GENETIC ANTISEMITE!!!~1

        • Ba says:

          I never accused Europeans or Americans of not being cleanly.

          Your main issues are all caused by idolatry. Setting your desires as primary, projecting them onto a statue or an ideology or science, then worshipping it.

          • jim says:

            Idolatory is to inappropriately treat something as holy. Literally it means that some artist creates an image that bronze age shepherds find impressive, his patron tells them the art work has magical powers, and they worship it. In Roman times, Jews reasonably argued that this included what we would call cult of personality, in particular treating the emperor as a God. Sacrifices for the emperor are OK, sacrifices to the emperor are idolatory and today it is generally interpreted as inappropriately treating anything as holy, since not many people are pulling that art scam any more.

            Not seeing that Christian descended people are more likely to engage in inappropriate worship than Jews, and the alt right is particularly and especially allergic to holiness. Your “holy people” shtick does not go over too well here, but neither does progressive deep caring for far away strangers.

            • B says:

              Idolatry is projecting one’s primal desires externally, and then worshiping the thing upon which you projected them. In other words, self-worship with a proxy.

              People were never idiots, ok? “His patron tells him the art work has magical powers” is the Communist version of religion. Why you assume that this is more accurate than the Communist version of history, economics or anything else is beyond me.

              12The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint. 13The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. 14He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it. 15Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. 16He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: 17And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

              18They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. 19And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? 20He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

              • jim says:

                > Idolatry is projecting one’s primal desires externally, and then worshiping the thing upon which you projected them. In other words, self-worship with a proxy.

                You are torturing the text. Which is stereotypical Jewish behavior, though with a heretic pope, I am seeing a whole lot of text torture by Roman Catholic priests these days.

                Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

                Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

                Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

                Which in context clearly means, and has usually been interpreted to mean, not no images at all, but no image, or metal statues for the purpose of claiming them to be divine, or representations of gods, and worshiping them. Also “images” has reasonably been interpreted to treating mortal texts as holy, “Thoughts of Chairman Mao” style. Treating written representations of the thoughts of the emperor as divine was correctly deemed idolatory. But there is simply no historical basis for calling high status things that are not holiness “idolatory”.

                That I sometimes cook in high status ways, and arrange for other people to eat and notice, does not constitute worshiping food.

                • B says:

                  I am telling you what we believe the root of idolatry is.

                  It does not have to do with images per se.

                • jim says:

                  And I am telling you that you are not torturing the text, but blowing it off entirely and making up your own text – You are holier than Moses, and very shortly will be holier than God.

                • B says:

                  Well, thank you, rabbi!

                  http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/the-path-to-dark-enlightenment.html

                  “(I also except those, several of of whom I know, who grew up as rationalists but have made a rational decision to convert to orthodox religions, the mustier and more arbitrary the better – generally because the alternative more and more proclaims itself, per Chesterton, not nothing, still less Reason, but the Whore of Babylon in full professional attire. To these friends, Babylon-worship, essentially idolatrous (and speaking to Maimonides’ point that idol-worship is self-worship) seems unsatisfying for a grownup, but utterly unacceptable for his children. But still – these people are not genuinely religious, though their kids will be.)”

                  But don’t take Moldbug for a spiritual guide, or me, for that matter. That idolatry is worship of one’s own desires isn’t an insight unique to Judaism.

                  http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/idolatry-as-veneration-of-self.html

                  Or, here:

                  https://philsphil.wordpress.com/tag/idolatry/

                  “Narcissism is about submitting to- and revering a presumed sacred image of the self; it is worship of an (inflated, distorted, idealized, etc.) image of the self, or worship of a self-image, or self-image worship, which is: self-idolatry.”

    • Ron says:

      B has the courage to speak his mind honestly. I dont always agree with him, but I respect his fearlessness and integrity. If that engenders world hatred, then far better honor to be hated by such a miserable weak species, then to be cursed with the love of it.

    • Ron says:

      And honestly Koanic, Im surprised that you of all people wouldnt see it my way. I used to read your blog and I got the distinct impression that you also despised the shambling bumbling cowardice of the herd.

      • Koanic says:

        You appear to be under the mistaken impression that anti-Semitism is the dominant position of my culture, the dominant one on Earth.

        It is not, and therefore the bumbling herder is you.

        • Ron says:

          So Im now part of a “bumbling herd” that agrees with no one and goes its own way? That doesnt make sense.

          • Koanic says:

            Yes, your opinion on Jews is unfounded groupthink.

            • Ron says:

              My opinion of Jews is founded on being one!

              But I think we misunderstand each other. I did not think of you as anti semite or mean to imply it.

              • Koanic says:

                I am anti-semitic. Judaism is an evil religion and Jews are an evil tribe. Inb4 NAXALT.

                • Ron says:

                  Well thank you for clearing that up!

                • Koanic says:

                  I made some incorrect assumptions about you and what you were trying to say. I assumed you were just a goy having an adverse reaction to my disrespect for the Holy Jew.

                  To answer your original question:
                  Jim has explained why and how B is dishonest. I despise dishonesty. So I despise B.

                  All the bluster and blowhard and toughguy in service of dishonesty just makes it all the worse.

                  Maybe you can’t see how B is dishonest because you’re also a Jew. He might be a mensch to you. You guys might tolerate each other fine living together. But you appear to be more honest than him so far. Maybe you’re just hero-worshipping.

                • Ron says:

                  Well, Im glad you wrote back to me and said that. That was kind of you and you should know I am moved by it.

                  You might be right, Ive been wondering the same thing.

                • Ron says:

                  Although I disagree with you about Bs honesty, i have no questions about his integrity.

                • Ron says:

                  When i said “ive been wondering the same thing” i meant regarding hero worship.

                  Just to clear it up. Sorry.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      There’s a certain kind of vindictive perniciousness that gets cultivated out of a persecution complex. A jew, perhaps our jew in question even, looks at history, sees jews kicked out of every place in the world they’ve ever put their feet up, and concludes it’s the world that has a problem. For all his chutzpah (and isn’t it telling of a folk to even have a special word for such a phenomena), somewhere still in his heart, he’s offended, *hurt*, that noone else seems to be on his board.

      But there is really no call to afflict oneself with that kind of spleen, because at the end of the day *no* one race can ever really be the ally of any other race beyond contingencies of convenience.

      Humanoids and dogs can get along famously because they occupy different niches. There is no fear or danger because they don’t compete for the same things, except in the broadest senses at the limit. They don’t take up the same ‘space’ conceptually; meshing like ships, passing unseen in the night. So close by, yet never *intersecting*.

      But put two different human species together in the same location, then they are both trying to jam into the same slots, and someone or another is going to end up superfluous. For one to expand, the other must contract. For one to be an ally of the other, means the other is sacrificing its future for it.

      “Mighty racial tides flow from the most elemental of vital urges: self-expansion and self-preservation. To condemn the former as ‘criminal’ and the latter as ‘selfish’ is either silly or hypocritical and tends to envenom with unnecessary rancor what objective fairness might keep a candid struggle, inevitable yet alleviated by mutual comprehension and respect.”
      – Lothrop Stoddard

      • B says:

        Exile is not meant to be nice.

        The remarkable thing is not that we were persecuted in many places. Market dominant minorities are generally persecuted. The remarkable thing is that we survived with our character, beliefs and practices intact.

        It is obvious that the world has a problem. Not just the parts of it where we were persecuted. The parts of it where we were not persecuted (Latin America, China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan) and the parts where we never lived (Southeast and Northeast Asia, Africa) are not any less screwed up.

        We are historically intended to occupy a different niche from the Nations of the World. G-d’s promise to us is “I will make of you a holy nation and a kingdom of priests.” “Holy” means “set apart for G-d.” Priests are a bridge between G-d and others. He also promised us that all the nations will connect to G-d through us: “Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

        We are not meant to compete with the Nations, we are meant to serve a crucial function for them.

        • Rick Sean says:

          The fact that you survived with your character, beliefs and practice intact, is not as remarkable as the deeply confused way you understand it.

          There is a reason why God took human form as a Jew among the Jews. It is to teach that every human, no matter how far from god, if they repent, can still be forgiven and raise their soul to heaven. The story of the new testament is of the ones who repent, and of the ones who don’t and try to kill God because they cannot bear his sight (or write his name)

          All around the world, in the cities and the jungles, man and women, young and old, read the new testament, and are instantly struck by how evil are the actions of the Jews, and start to believe.

          God’s plan for the Jews is to serve as a living reminder of what evil is, and ultimately unite the world against them.

          That is the nature of your crucial function for the nations.

          • B says:

            Well, you can believe G-d is a man and goes back on His promises, and I’ll believe what it says in the Bible:

            “G-d is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

            • Anonymous says:

              He regretted the flood (in Genesis), and regretted having chosen you (in Jeremiah). Pentateuch more authoritative than prophetic allegories, and pentateuch says God can regret his own decisions. Prophetic allegory 1 says God doesn’t regret stuff. Prophetic testimony 1 says God regrets the covenant with the Hebrews. Testimony trumps allegory. Check mate, rabbi.

            • Anonymous says:

              Btw, the Talmud says God regrets 4 things He created:

              the Chaldeans,
              the Ishmaelites,
              the Exile,
              and Yetzer Ha-Ra (evil inclination).

              You must be fairly acquainted with this stuff, don’t you

              • B says:

                Moreh Nevuhim (Guide To The Perplexed) says that when the Bible speaks of G-d as, e.g., having feelings (like regret,) it is a homonym.

                The Bible also tells us that we can know a false prophet by the fact that what he promises does not come true (and the Talmud specifies that this is when He promises something Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

                They are vanity, the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

                The portion of Jacob is not like them; for He is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of His inheritance: the LORD of hosts is His name.

                • B says:

                  Moreh Nevuhim (Guide To The Perplexed) says that when the Bible speaks of G-d as, e.g., having feelings (like regret,) it is a homonym.

                  The Bible also tells us that we can know a false prophet by the fact that what he promises does not come true. The Talmud specifies that this is when He promises something good, because it may be that G-d promised something bad through him, the people repented and G-d did not punish them, like in the Book of Jonah.

                  So, G-d does not go back on His good promises.

                  G-d promised us punishments through Jeremiah. We suffered them, for our sins. G-d also promised us other things through Jeremiah, which are coming true in our day. And if you want to quote Jeremiah, quote the relevant parts:

                  Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

                  They are vanity, the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

                  The portion of Jacob is not like them; for He is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of His inheritance: the LORD of hosts is His name.

                  In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Aniconism is a cladistically Hellenic meme, adopted by Muslims via al-Kindi, then accepted by Karaites, and finally embraced by Saadia Gaon, who spread it to Rabbinics, Maimonides among them.

                  Pharisees are the REAL Hellenizers!

                • B says:

                  >Aniconism is a cladistically Hellenic meme

                  Tell that to Moses and Isaiah.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Moses said don’t make images, nothing more. Didn’t say God is formless or emotionless. Isaiah, by which you mean deutero Isaiah, not the original Isaiah who wrote till chapter 39, but the one of chapters 40 to 66, was influenced by Greek philosophy. At any rate, the Greek philosophers came up with it before the Jews.

                • B says:

                  >Didn’t say God is formless or emotionless.

                  “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire”

                  “”To whom then will you liken Me That I would be his equal?” says the Holy One.”

                  >by which you mean deutero Isaiah

                  Deutero-what? Is this deutero antisenonymous I’m speaking with?

                  As much as I am fascinated by what our Lutheran friends have to tell us about our scripture, I don’t think I subscribe to this theory.

                  >the Greek philosophers came up with it before the Jews

                  Which ones and when?

                • Anonymous says:

                  >“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire”

                  Hey fellow Jews, when I went up the mountain, I nearly saw the face of God, and actually saw the backside of God, but you didn’t see any of that, rather, you could only see clouds and thunders and stuff, from a safe distance. Only myself and my 70 elders could approach God, and only I could see his backside for a moment.

                  >“”To whom then will you liken Me That I would be his equal?” says the Holy One.”

                  Hey there humans, guess what? I’m great, in fact, so great, like you couldn’t even imagine, definitely greater than those other deities you worship, so worship me, and not them, because the difference between me and them is so YUGE as to be qualitative rather than quantitative. [doesn’t mean anything more than that]

                  >As much as I am fascinated by what our Lutheran friends have to tell us about our scripture, I don’t think I subscribe to this theory.

                  Abraham ibn Ezra was such a devout Lutheran, no doubt.

                  >Which ones and when?

                  “Xenophanes (c. 570 – c. 475 BC) noted that the knowledge of the Divine forms is restrained by the human imagination, and Greek philosophers realized that this knowledge can only be mediated through myth and visual representations, which are culture-dependent.[7]”

                  >Deutero-what?

                  Post exilic.

                • B says:

                  You know, repeating something in a snarky tone is not disproving it.

                  Right from the beginning, the idea that G-d has no form, no real comparison, etc. is there, explicitly.

                  >Abraham ibn Ezra was such a devout Lutheran, no doubt.

                  Ibn Ezra talked about a deutero-Isaiah and how guys in the Babylonian Exile just slapped half a book onto the prophecy and nobody noticed? Where?

                  (please don’t try to confound the discussion with Ibn Ezra’s assertion that the last part of the Tanach was written by Joshua after Moses’ death, it’s not germane)

                  >Greek philosophers realized that this knowledge can only be mediated through myth and visual representations, which are culture-dependent.

                  So, Xenophanes, who lived after the Jews’ return from the Babylonian Exile, where they supposedly added deutero-Isaiah to the real Isaiah without anyone noticing, pointed out that we can’t fully understand what G-d is like. Which means that deutero-Isaiah, who supposedly wrote in Babylon before the return from the exile, stole the idea from Xenophanes. And also inserted it into the Tanach.

                  Makes perfect sense.

          • oogenhand says:

            No, the Jew is right. The Golden Rule of Christianity is nonsense. Why? Simple. Abortion is killing an innocent child, not acceptable under the Golden Rule. However, if you don’t practice abortion, and you have a normal sex drive, you will marry young and have a lot of children. So you will have to invade another country and exterminate its inhabitants. Think of the Germans genociding the Namibians. At the very least you will be tempted to do so, and leading yourself into temptation is wrong as well. Invading other countries is of course unacceptable under the Golden Rule.

            • B says:

              Germans had relatively low birthrates when they genocided the Namibians, and they never got many people to colonize Namibia. It was not a very crowded place, for obvious reasons.

        • pdimov says:

          “The remarkable thing is that we survived with our character, beliefs and practices intact.”

          Without a homeland, at that.

          Then again, so did Gypsies.

          • B says:

            There are Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox and all kinds of other Gypsies. There are not Muslim, Catholic etc. Jews.

            They’ve existed as a nation for what, 800 years?

            • pdimov says:

              The Gypsy character, beliefs and practices are alive and well, which is what matters. Whether some Gypsy-descended populations turned Muslim is immaterial. I’m sure that some Jewish-descended populations also did.

              And the way the remarkable accomplishment of surviving with character, beliefs and practices intact is performed is by having an extremely racist religion that declares your race chosen and everyone else unclean, so as to discourage assimilation into the host society.

              • B says:

                Nope, those Gypsies are not any less or more Gypsy for converting to Islam/Christianity (they converted to Islam earlier, having come from India.) The Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam are no longer Jews.

                • pdimov says:

                  Based on what criteria?

                • B says:

                  Based on the criteria that 1) their descendants no longer consider themselves Jews, 2) Jews don’t consider their descendants Jews.

                  A couple of generations is all it takes.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam are no longer Jews.

                  Heresy. And the reason B spreads this heresy is that he knows that the implication of “you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish” is that there are millions of goyim whose strictly maternal great-great-great * 50 grandmother was a Jewess, and who therefore should be entitled to make aliyah and join his synagogue.

                • B says:

                  You know what I mean. Within a couple of generations, there are very few of their descendants who have Jewish matrilineal descent, and within a couple more, practically none of them know they have such descent. Those descendants they manage to have dissolve.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Within a couple of generations, there are very few of their descendants who have Jewish matrilineal descent, and within a couple more, practically none of them know they have such descent.

                  “Know they have.” How quaint!

                  If these descendants of Jewsesses *do*, in fact, have such maternal Jewish descent if you follow the strictly female line and completely disregard the male lines, then that makes them halachic Jews. You’re a halachic Jew if your mother is Jewish (whether she was born a Jewess or became one by conversion), and she is Jewish if her mother was Jewish, and on it goes:

                  Which means that all over the world there are people who, if you follow their strictly maternal line of descent while entirely excluding their paternal lines of descent from consideration, have a Jewess in there somewhere, which makes them halachic Jews – it’s 100% irrelevant that they don’t “know they have” her in there, the only relevant thing is that she is, in fact, there.

                  That means that in the Middle East and in the Iberian peninsula, to name two focal regions of Jewish biological dissemination, there exist multitudes — millions — of people who are technically Jews. It’s enough that there is one single Jewess along one’s strictly female line of descent for one to be considered as Jewish as any Cohen or Levi, according to the Orthodox Halacha rules.

                  You’re lucky those millions of people have no way of knowing that they had a Jewish great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-mother along the exclusively maternal line. Or else, to quote anti-racist Hitler, you’d discover that “Diversity is good! Diversity is a strength!” [1]

                  [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=XihlS9aPgMc
                  (You must watch it, Jim, if you haven’t already)

                • jim says:

                  Anti racist Hitler unironically supports OpenBordersForIsrael.

                  I ironically support OpenBordersForIsrael – meaning I vehemently oppose it, and ridicule the holiness of those who unironically support it and who support granting Israeli citizenship to non Jews. And I have from time to time told B that he, or at least the political movements he supports, are soft on Israeli citizenship for Muslims.

                  There is a state Department push to grant citizenship to the Palestinians, and Trump has said contradictory things on this question, but then he infamously says one thing to one faction, and the opposite thing to the other faction. No one should find this surprising. If we look at his deeds he is OK.

                • peppermint says:

                  Conversely, many Jews who are mostly White (Ashkenazi + two dilutions = 85%, just below the Anglin threshold) will quietly switch their allegiance when Jews become officially oppressed in White countries instead of Whites. Subsequently they will accept genetic repair for future offspring, and there will be no more Jews in White countries a hundred years later.

                • Eli says:

                  That’s the point, Anonymous:

                  1) Such people don’t know they’re Jewish.
                  2) Even if they suspected or even knew they were, they have almost zero chance of proof. And for overwhelming majority, there is no point to it whatsoever, anyway.

                  The situation might change when WW3 comes and Israel is the last country standing or if all white countries Brazilify (see links below, and you can find more stuff online). Then some might seriously decide to claim Jewishness, but it’s quite doubtful whether it would mean anything to Jews in Israel, other than Jews sending some reading and video material, dreidels for Hanukkah and matzah for Pesakh, to help with conversion.

                  Of course, if some do convert, it would become a pertinent issue whether they have legal right to immigrate/settle into Israel. From what I understand, Anonymous/Jack’s father is Jewish, but a converted Amerindian has no Israelite ancestry. Therefore, if Anonymous’s children decide to properly convert to Judaism, do they have more right to reside to Israel than an Afro man who went through proper giur?

                  More interestingly, if a whole tribe in, say, Peru decides to convert en masse (http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/.premium-1.762617 or http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167714541/lost-jews-of-colombia-say-theyve-found-their-roots) should the King or recognized Jewish authority grant them permit to reside in Israel? Or should they, instead, provide them remote assistance, diplomatically and (possibly) militarily? That is an open, but fascinating set of questions.

                • peppermint says:

                  Fascinating questions? Recent history has answered them. People not of the race can’t possibly join the nation. You’re nuts and your “nation” of miscegenation (and, ironically, inbreeding) isn’t long for this world.

                • Eli says:

                  I certainly am not advocating miscegenation in a prog sense. On the other hand, if you have no rules on the books, your fellow co-racer might turn out to be worse than someone with whom you’re not genetically related. “Righteousness” and “Brotherhood”: those two identities can be in tension. It behooves one to create sane criteria for purging those “brothers” who are not righteous (i.e. would gladly stab you in the back/front for gain) and those “righteous” who are like brothers (i.e. those who observe principles of behavior and want to contribute to success of your nation).

                  If you don’t see this dynamic as an issue, you’re dumb.

                  I am after bringing up this tension as a salient point and the need for setting criteria.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Even if they suspected or even knew they were, they have almost zero chance of proof.

                  That’s beside the point. The point is that B’s claim regarding descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity/Islam no longer being Jews, is incompatible with the position of Halacha. When you say “yes, but no proof”, you are looking for a post-hoc loophole. Likewise, saying “they don’t know they’re Jews” is a post-hoc loophole. According to simple, plain Halachic definition, these people have not ceased being Jewish.

                  >From what I understand

                  Oh, I love the speculations; you see, B decided that my father must be a Jew, because throughout one of my antisemitic diatribes, I complained about Jewish food being garbage, which is not a complaint that “real” antisemites are apt to make. Left unaddressed is the issue itself – whether or not Jewish food is garbage.

                  >More interestingly, if a whole tribe in, say, Peru decides to convert en masse… should the King or recognized Jewish authority grant them permit to reside in Israel?

                  No, but then again, they’ll hardly be worse than the brown, dumb, and belligerent riffraff so prevalent among the Mizrahi population.

                • peppermint says:

                  I fucking hate matzo ball soup and all the other passover crap. Shabbos goyim exist because people feel sorry for jews.

                  The direct matrilineal descendants should be detectable with mitochondrial DNA

                • Anonymous says:

                  >You’re nuts and your “nation” of miscegenation (and, ironically, inbreeding) isn’t long for this world.

                  This is very very true, Peppermint. Leftisraelis are now encouraging Ashkenazi women to get “vaginal widening” from nigger kikes. It’s time, grrrl, to elope with the magical Ethiop!

                  http://www.timesofisrael.com/groundbreaking-tv-comedy-introduces-israelis-to-their-ethiopian-neighbors/

                • Eli says:

                  Difficult to say whether will be detected by mtDNA tests if enough generations pass. Ashkenazi mothers are converted S European women. This makes it hard to distinguish matrilineal Jews from Italian non-Jews, except when focusing on immediate relatives (where there is only a couple or so mutations per generation).

                  So, mtDNA continues to mutate. Hence, after sufficient number of generations, Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA and “maternally-derived Ashkenazi non-Jewish” mtDNA will diverge enough to make said testing very difficult, especially, considering that the Jews would have to maintain a database of all mtDNA from all proper Jews, to make such analyses possible with (obviously) supercomputers. The earlier we create such a databases, the more likely we can get right results. Somehow, I don’t see anyone being in a rush to create it, diminishing the likelihood of such a project being a reality.

                  For actual example: I think it’s practically hard to prove that a particular (possibly maternally Jewish) Spaniard is actually maternally descended Jew. The branching of Sephardi mothers took place in 1500 to 2000 years ago, with divergence of morranos hundreds of years ago. All differences in mtDNA are scorable to some margin, but it will unlikely be satisfactory, especially, if rabbis are involved. Of course, it’s an open question. But that will be more likely the longer the wait.

                  Further, I envision that even if maternal DNA does prove Jewishness, by this time sane heads will prevail and such “Jews” will be declared as, effectively, mamzers (a Jewish outcaste, which is worse than European concept of bastard). Why?

                  After reading Qiddushin in the Yerushalmi, I arrived at the conclusion that the real reason why the offspring between a Jewish woman and a gentile man is deemed to be Jewish is because the union between the two is deemed to be invalid. As such, although Mishna declares the union between an Israelite mother and a non-Israelite father to follow the national identity of mother (thus, a Jew) while the child has the social/tribal status of the father (who is a gentile), meaning the child is a mamzer (again, according to Mishna), Yerushalmi Qiddushin argues differently.

                  Yerushalmi Qiddushin argues that contracting such marriage or sexual union was *illegal*, henceforth applying the “illegal” criteria (“flag” in comp sci speak). This criteria makes the potentially mamzer offspring, into a non-mamzer Jew, since the union (and thus, the associated mamzerhood criteria) is illegal. By virtue of declaring such union illegal (this is different from Mishnaic *invalid*/abomination criteria) the Torah/Mishna invalidity is negated. In other words, it’s as if child budded off from the Israelite mother, Avraham being the virtual father. It’s a really interesting viewpoint!

                  The discussion above pertains to those who parents are known. But there are some interesting discussions about foundlings, those whose ancestry is in doubt. The status of them as Jewish might not be under further dispute, but their status vis-a-vis their caste ranking is open to discussion. Most gentiles are clueless when it comes to knowing who their ancestors, beyond great-grandparents, were. As such, many of these “newfound Jews” whose status was determined by DNA testing, would have the status of shetukhi due to the fact that the marriage of their mothers have been for generations illegal. The shetuqi (quiet) status translates into the caste of close-to-mamzer. Effectively, they can enter the congregation of the Lord, but not permitted to marry into an Israelite (regular caste) or the Priestly caste/lineage:

                  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6255-foundling

                  Going from that logic, I think it’s better to just convert.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >After reading Qiddushin in the Yerushalmi, I arrived at the conclusion that the real reason why the offspring between a Jewish woman and a gentile man is deemed to be Jewish is because the union between the two is deemed to be invalid.

                  More likely, it’s because motherhood is always certain, unlike fatherhood. There’s cuckoldry and promiscuity. Furthermore, could be rape. If a Jewish woman is raped, or has drunken orgy, or cucks her husband, and we can’t tell whether the father is a Jew or not, there’s a problem – rabbis didn’t want to reject a possibly Jewish child. So, decided “if mother Jewish, child is Jewish”, and retconned the historical account to agree with them.

                  Furthermore, women almost always have access to their kids, unlike men. If you give Jewish men practical license to fuck Gentile women, and consider the offspring Jewish, the offspring could be separated from their Jewish father – thus, a Jew is lost to the tribe. If you give Jewish women practical license to fuck Gentile men, and consider the offspring Jewish, the offspring is likely to not be separated from the Jewish mother – so the loss of a Jew is minimized.

                  Since Biblical period, Jews have thought that women influence the religion of men. Various Biblical stories about men following women in religion, women they have sex with. So in Jewish logic, better let women be responsible for the religion.

                  Also, Jews used to desire the increase of Jewish numbers regardless of quality – hence mass proselytism (circumcision was forced upon the Edomites by Hasmoneans). As such, they decided that not losing any potential Jews could be best achieved by matrilineality, for the aforementioned reasons. Only after bitterly losing to Christianity and Islam, Jews calmed down with the proselytism. By that time, as discussed in the other thread, plenty of groups were Judaized.

                  Patrilineality is obviously superior in terms of preserving the family cult – Japanese Shinto is the prime example. But Jews don’t have a family cult, but an ethno-religion formerly ruled by Temple Priests and later ruled by Rabbis (not the paterfamilias), thus, if you seek blood-assurance, and if you seek numerical increase, if you’ve lost whatever family cult there was due to centralization of religion by Monarchy, assisted by holier-than-thou prophets who all mysteriously agree with the Monarchical propaganda regarding centralization of religion, then matrilineality makes some sense.

                  Jews don’t have family cult, don’t have paterfamilias as family “priest”. Ended up matrilineal.

                • Eli says:

                  Nope. Chassids aside, Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism is still very paternalistic and patriarchal, despite being matrilineal. I’ve explained this in “Not the Jews”

                • Eli says:

                  I agree with you on one point. Notably, that Jews used to be much more proselytizing.

                  However, patrilineality did not work for Karaites. Karaites turned out to be much less robust as community. This is fact. The rabbinic approach is superior. Mishnah and Talmud are truth.

                  What you’re saying about offspring and separation is not true:

                  1. Custody of all children under the age of six is to be given to the mother;
                  2. Custody of boys over the age of six is to be given to the father;
                  3. Custody of girls over the age of six is to be given to the mother.

                  Again, Jewish woman who belongs in the household of her father or husband is not going to stray away. The rabbinical rules are clear. What we have today is anomalous and unsustainable situation. By virtue of “luck” (bad luck), these women might be getting away with it, but to some extent, with each generation, their children get further and further away from caring about their identity. As B rightly notes, they too are eventually lost. I’ve outlined the mechanism by which, even if their genetics “proves” their Jewishness, within a few generations, they can at most hope to be considered to be an abomination among other Jews, unless they convert like every other proselyte.

            • Antipas says:

              I dont buy this beliefs and practices are still intact line. They have fragmented into different sects, many have chosen atheism and buddhism as well..

              Judaism is obsolete. Nobody who isn’t jewish is going to buy your story about connecting to God through the jews while simultaneusly rejecting the notion that Christ is the Messiah.

              A religion that doesnt take converts is a dead religion.

              • B says:

                I know dozens of converts. Your info is dated.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Mischlings who have always considered themselves as Jews are not, from outsider perspective, “converts”. An actual convert would be someone who doesn’t match with Jews on 23andme accepting Judaism. Do you really know many of those?

                • Anonymous says:

                  In short, the case of the 1/4 Jewish Slav — not to say 3/4 Jewish Slav — doesn’t really count.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  From where I am standing, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Amish are the only >100IQ groups likely to survive the 21st century as intact nations, and only the Orthodox Jews don’t reject violence. So conversion is an option I am seriously considering – 100% Aryan according to 23andme. On the other hand, their positioning is poor, and I’m a bit skeptical that converts to any extreme sect are really given access to the women.

                • Antipas says:

                  So what you are saying is Judaism is now seeking converts?
                  Anyways, “dozens” is far too small to have any civilizational implications. How many of these conversions were done in a legitimate Orthodox congregation?

                • peppermint says:

                  Hey cromwell, current trends don’t project that easily. Also the original cromwell was a traitor who was paid by Jews to get Jews allowed in England again, and the traitor who surrendered to william of orange was named churchill. In the future, the English are just going to avoid the letter c in their last names.

                • Eli says:

                  Oliver Cromwell: you will unlikely be matched with daughters of rabbis or young daughters of most respected men of community, unless you, after/during conversion, go to a yeshiva and, furthermore, show yourself as a talented and pious student. Again, far from given.

                  However, I personally know Jewish Orthodox converts who married Jewish Orthodox women. They’re more successful than I am in that regard (much more).

                  So, from my observation, “to love the convert” (a true convert) is a dictum taken seriously.

                  My question is whether you can take the life (performing the obligations). It’s not quite as elementary as one might imagine. Especially, the higher one’s intellectual capacity and station in life are, and the more one is used to their freedom and personal comfort.

                • B says:

                  >Of course, if some do convert, it would become a pertinent issue whether they have legal right to immigrate/settle into Israel.

                  Anyone who converts has that right. I see Bnei Menashe (from NE India) everywhere I go in Israel.

                  >So conversion is an option I am seriously considering – 100% Aryan according to 23andme.

                  I am not sure that this is a good reason to convert to any religion. It’s a good reason to look closely at the religion and its tenets.

                  >On the other hand, their positioning is poor, and I’m a bit skeptical that converts to any extreme sect are really given access to the women.

                  Every convert I know (of a marriageable age) is married. Some to other converts, some to born Jews. I do not know what the reality is in Haredi society; as far as I’m aware, if you’re not from an elite family (meaning, scholars or wealthy,) you might have to prove your bona fides to marry into one. In general, women in our society are not disbursed by the Central Marriage Fund.

                  >How many of these conversions were done in a legitimate Orthodox congregation?

                  When I say converts, that’s what I mean. Not some guy who bought a certificate from the local Reform “Rabbi.”

                  >Anyways, “dozens” is far too small to have any civilizational implications.

                  I am one person, with a limited sample size-I don’t work in religion.

                  >Especially, the higher one’s intellectual capacity and station in life are, and the more one is used to their freedom and personal comfort.

                  I rather see it as the opposite. I see Anglo Jews working in white collar jobs and living more or less their old middle class lifestyle in Modiin, and other people fighting it out in Hevron or whatever. It’s a big society with lots of niches.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Hitler complained that Jews guarded their blood more jealously than any other race. If he were to see the universalistic suicide cult of Judaism today he would die laughing.

                • jim says:

                  Anti racist Hitler is winning.

  5. oogenhand says:

    I will tell you the Secret of the Jews. You do not have to be circumcised. You do not even have to learn Hebrew. Simply believe that Jesus was a demon possessed sorceror who burns eternally in Hell. His “miracles” don’t prove anything, because the Antichrist could do them as well.

    Believe that Jesus burns in Hell, and you will become powerful beyond your wildest dreams. Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal….

  6. Ben Gunn says:

    Men create life, not women. Women nurture life. Unless you are imaging spontaneous generation.

  7. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >your fellow co-racer might turn out to be worse than someone with whom you’re not genetically related.

    Similarly, it is also true that there is a chance you might get run over by a truck tomorrow.

    The standard deracinated meritocratic boilerplate.

    It’s not simply a question of righteousness, its also a question of whether they *intuit righteousness the same way you do*, in the first place. Whether its possible to even *converse with the same level of meaning*, on the same wavelength, on the same subject.

    Since everyone loves computer analogies for everything, lets use one here; consider traditions as programs running on a given operating system; the code is simply incompatible when attempting to apply it to different architectures.

    A peoples cultural technology, more than than just an expression of their characteristics, are also things that arise over time as a *reaction* to their characteristics. Their particular strengths, weaknesses, and blindspots; phenomena that happen often enough to create noticeable stereotypes in turn accrue social superstructures around them that serve to ‘patch’ the tendency; enhancing it, mitigating it, or highlighting it.

    ‘Unstated understanding’ is an expression of the magic of asabiyyah; people similar to themselves, can be better modeled by themselves, using themselves. They can cooperate more easily, more efficiently, more meaningfully. Where between aliens whole speeches might need be drafted, to the gills with nested contingencies, modulations, and expositions, to forge a common understanding in one matter or another, between coethnics but a passage will do.

    It takes multi-generational experience for such delicate, yet absolutely essential, adaptive structures to build up over time, and the easiest way to destroy them is the introduction of alien elements.

    That is the true cost of diversity; individual merit is merely scratching the surface.

    • peppermint says:

      The public transit here opens all doors at outside stations pretty often and people are supposed to go up to the front to pay their fares.

      The other day I boarded alongside another human, a female rice nigger, and a curry nigger. Only myself and the other human paid our fares.

      The driver was White and didn’t think it was worth yelling at diversity about. Nigger drivers take non-payment as a personal affront and will yell at anyone.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Lmao. I’ve worked with white people for most of my life. Haven’t noticed this telekinesis between them. Care to explain? I would think if you guys understood each other so well you wouldn’t be ethnically cleansing each other from your own cities.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        As an asian you can remand comments to the subject of the asian insectoid hive-minds instead.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Firstlly, if you were not a prog out of date and actually understood HBD, you would not use a term that put two races with 20 IQ point difference together, which is only slightly more right wing than Black lives matter.

          Secondly, considering your race invented communism and imposed it on us, I would think it is you guys who are the hive minds. The defining characteristic of the white race is gullibility, which is why you worshipped a kike on a stick for 2000 years instead of your own ancestors, and worshipped adultery (“romantic love”) as holy even back in the 1200s. It is quite rich for the people who adopt African babies once they see it on TV to call me an insectoid.

          • jim says:

            The defining characteristic of the white race is not gullibility – we sold communism, but Asians bought it. Rather, we deploy weaponized state religions. Russia is aware it is under attack. China fails to notice or respond effectively.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              When did Asians buy it?

              Communism was forced upon both China and Japan by the Blue Empire. Indigenous leftist movements like the Taiping were crushed mercilessly. Chinese communists cannot deal with cathedral, because they are stray children of the Cathedral.

              What other word would you refer to someone who adopts children of an alien race because Angelina Jolie tells them to. Even my most anglicized Chinese girlfriend was nowhere near the religious zeal of that white girl who told me that.

              • jim says:

                When did Asians buy it?

                Communism was forced upon both China and Japan by the Blue Empire

                True, but they are buying it now.

                Recall when a bunch of Bangladeshi and Burmese Bangladeshi Muslims were swarming Thailand. The Thais were embarrassed to stop their boats in international waters, embarrassed to use the threat of deadly force, because the Cathedral told them this was a nono.

                There was an international conference on the Burmese Bangladeshis, and Obama’s ambassadors told the pacific nations to take the Muslims. The Asians gave the Americans the “yes” that means no. The Australian Ambassador for People Smuggling affairs gave the Americans the “Hell No” that means hell no and called on the Asian nations to cooperate with Australia in stopping people smuggling, and he got the yes that actually means yes. Like most Pacific conferences, this ended with the Asians agreeing with the Americans and the Australians.

                Seems to me that the Thais needed a white priest to bless them before they could go medieval on the illegal immigrant’s asses.

                • Turtle says:

                  Doesn’t buying communism currently mean seeking out refugees, not just accepting them? I think you’re saying an insufficient defense against communism is communism, which is why rightists are nazis, if they do not fight against nazis. This is arguable.

                  In other news, I looked at some law firm websites’ photo albums, and they do look like bagmen (and bagwomen). They strike me as fools who will not understand why suing the helicopter ride company for a rough ride to go deep sea diving does not work. The rides are free already… pro bono.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  When was this? Based on my last visit to Bangkok they’ve let in a lot of Arabs and Bangladeshis.

                  Chinese have a higher chance of surviving the left singularity because hopefully the CPC will be less cucked as China’s GDP goes up and there are still a lot of rural areas where girls are married at 20 and regularly sacrifice a chicken in front of the altar. The urban areas are hopelessly infected with Western leftism, however. China is pretty similar to the west in that they are ruled by an elite who hates the traditional culture.

          • Turtle says:

            “two races with 20 IQ point difference together”

            What two Asian races are there? I have no idea what you’re referring to. Everyone thinks there’s only one ‘mongoloid’ race. What else could there be among Asians?

            Relatedly, how close together are the Sino-Tibetan languages?

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              IQ of Thais, Malaysians, Indonesians, Flipinos, Cambodians, etc is around 85. They can be all categorized as a separate Malay race.

              IQ of China, Japan, HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea is around 105 (arguably inflated by something like 2-3 points due to test taking ability), basically everywhere that were inhabited by ethnic Chinese or ruled by a Sinicized elite.

              Vietnam is in between because they are a mulatto population formed by Chinese / Malay admixture.

              • B says:

                That’s not far different from the spread between Switzerland and Ireland/Albania.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  10 point IQ gap is not the same as 15-20 IQ point gap. Even then, Hajnal whites are clearly a different race from Eastern Euros / Southern Italians / Irish. People in US do not attack someone giving out free bread for stealing from putin.

                • B says:

                  Taiwan and China have average IQs of 104-105. Italy and Iceland are at 101-102. Greece and Ireland are at 92, along with Cambodia and Malaysia.

                  I am skeptical about the correlation of IQ and national achievement except in a general sense.

                  I mean, it’s obvious that Guinea and the Dominican Republic won’t be tech empires any time soon.

                  On the other hand, 2000 years ago, the Romans saw the North Europeans as idiot barbarians.

                  Scotland in 1500 was considered a desolate wasteland populated by impoverished savages living on haggis and oats-exactly as we see Afghanistan today.

                  Scotland in 1750 was an intellectual powerhouse.

                  Scotland today, well…

                  Similarly, nobody ever considered the Chinese of Singapore a class of geniuses, until LKY made them such (created conditions where they could express their potential.)

                • jim says:

                  IQs evolve substantially within historical time.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  You are making the mistake of assuming these countries are ethnostates. Malaysia is 25% Chinese, Thailand is around 15%. The iq of an unmixed Malay is 85. Doesn’t mean they are bad people, just like Dominicans aren’t, but without guidance they are not going to sustain industrial society.

                  Obviously iq is not a sufficient condition of having a good society but it is a necessary one. For the ruling elite, anyways. Belgian Congo functioned fine.

                  Source of Cambodia having 92 IQ? Pretty sure they are 85-87 last time I checked.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  2000 years ago German iq was substantially lower than now. Both the Romans and your observation can make sense. For Scotland probably more due to war and migration.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Related, SE Asians do not speak Sino Tibetan. They speak an australoid language.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >alien in working in diversisystopia reports lack of social cohesion

    >alien advocates pro-alien socio-political policies.

    News at eleven.

Leave a Reply