Republican party funds the sale of baby meat

As you may have heard:

Boehner’s announcement Friday that he will step down at the end of October came just after he persuaded conservatives not to threaten to shut down the government unless Congress cut off Planned Parenthood funding.

“Threaten to shut down the government” means “pass a budget forcing taxpayers to fund every single thing on the left wing wish list except funding for a particular corporation that sells baby meat.”

This would “shut down the government” because the Democrats would reject such a terribly extreme ultra far right budget.

Hang on a minute. If the Democrats reject the budget, are not they the ones shutting down the government?

As the Overton Window moves ever leftwards ever faster, the pretense that there is an opposition party to the permanent government becomes ever thinner.

298 Responses to “Republican party funds the sale of baby meat”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The implication is that the “liberals” (opposite of “conservatives”, in this paradigm) are not making any changes to the budget because the article’s writer is arguing that changes to the budget risk a civil government shut-down.

    A.J.P.

  2. Dave says:

    Much as Republicans are full of shit when they call for a Balanced Budget Amendment. It takes 2/3 in both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment, and it’s completely unnecessary when a simple majority in either house of Congress could just refuse to raise the debt limit.

    Assuming they aren’t outright traitors, the Republicans are like General McClellan who, “if he had a million men under his command, would insist that the enemy had two million, and wouldn’t move until he had three million!”

    • jim says:

      The most plausible understanding is that progressives subscribe to an ideology in which democracy is mandatory, and opposition is required for genuine democracy, but opposition is also evil and intolerable, since progressivism is simply what is obviously morally right, and any disagreement, or even doubt, can only be motivated by evil and hatred.

      Thus desire to defund the sale of baby meat can only be motivated by hatred of women, and desire to harm women, and in order to be decent and acceptable, Republicans have to agree, or at least pretend to agree that the desire to defund the sale of baby meat can only be motivated by hatred of women, and desire to harm women. Every single Republican absolutely without exception has to agree with this, at least when he is talking to decent respectable people, though he may be permitted to speak to his constituents in ambiguous terms that they might optimistically interpret as opposition to the sale of baby meat he is not allowed to say out loud in plain terms in front of respectable people that there is something troubling about the sale of baby meat.

      • peppermint says:

        the legitimate role of conservatives in the progressive mind is to whine about budgeting and demand that programs not be too expensive. Without conservatives, this carefully tuned machine to extract the maximum from White boomers and give it to niggers and jews in reparation for White privilege and the Holocaust would collapse.

        I know this one boomer with a very English name. He constantly posts communist stuff on facebook, which is liked by his other friends with English names, who have zero to one children. He married a Jew, either to atone for the Holocaust or because Jewesses were embedded in his environment as a young man or both, has one son who is a Jew, and his son is marrying a woman with an English name, who is the sole child of her parents.

        If the government were to collapse, he might be forced to confront the fact that he has given a lifetime of work to support the destruction of his nation.

        But he absolutely supports PP, arguing to his imaginary conservative opposition that no Federal money given to PP goes to abortions, which is the same kind of accounting retardation that he whines about the Bush administration having looted SS for. Conservatives, and the consensus, agree that selling baby meat to recoup abortion costs is an important way to make reproductive healthcare available to poor women.

        Reproductive healthcare doesn’t just mean abortion. It also includes treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases. We’re stuck with reproductive healthcare as the name for it until the progressives figure out what to call a person’s reproductive anatomy that isn’t heteronormative.

        I make fun of him on facebook, not just by demanding that he say he likes nigger rap or he’s racist, but by calling him an old White man with a parochial attitude. I want him and the rest of the boomer commies to die now, not in 20 years under the tender care of nigger nurses, either die or be forced into retirement by escalating diversity quotas, so they won’t be funding the destruction of this country for the last few years of their working lives.

        But the escalating diversity quotas will hit them last. The first to be hit by diversity quotas are the young White men who can’t get hired because the company needs its old White men and every job that doesn’t absolutely need an old White man is given to a diversity.

      • peppermint says:

        …if I didn’t know him personally, I wouldn’t know his son is a mischling.

        Speaking of which.

        Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore expressed sympathies with activists concerned about the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, wish some likening it to the death of Oscar Grant in New York City or Michael Brown in Ferguson.

        All of these people are of English-derived culture living in English style cities. Rule, Brittania, Brittania rules the waves, Britons never never will be slaves.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Doesn’t anyone want to discuss Talmudic Judaism in depth with the “Peppermint Papist”?

          I mean, it’s so much better than turning on “fellow Christian”, Vatican-Roman “Catholics” who only want to promote degeneracy and Marxism at the expense of the white population.

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            I knew you’d come and say something that might have been useful in the glory days of the Ku Klux Klan if I made fun of your people.

            Can you answer five simple questions? I bet a Klansman would have been able to answer these correctly.

            (1) do niggers have souls
            (2) is interracial marriage sacred in the eyes of the Lᴏʀᴅ
            (3) is homosexuality a cross to bear? Is pedosexuality a cross to bear? Should homosexuals and pedosexuals be accepted and lauded for bearing their crosses?
            (4) is it a sin for a man to look at a woman who isn’t his wife?
            (5) if a White couple has a 25% chance of a genetic problem with their child, should they (a) selectively abort (b) break up (c) adopt a White baby (d) adopt a black baby from Africa whose mother can’t take care of it properly

            (the correct answers are no, no, no, no, and abort)

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Unfortunately, “Peppermint Papist” your poorly-aimed insistence goes to the detriment of the white race in general. You might have even added something anti-white American to keep up with the latest pseudo-intellectual fashions!

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Regarding anti-white American statements, the Vatican-Roman pontiff is an anti-white screamer who shouts down anyone standing up against White Genocide.

            “Many people forced to emigrate suffer, and often, die tragically; many of their rights are violated, they are obliged to separate from their families and, unfortunately, continue to be the subject of racist and xenophobic attitudes”

            “Faced with this situation,” the pontiff continued, “I repeat what I have affirmed in this year’s Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees: ‘A change of attitude towards migrants and refugees is needed on the part of everyone.’”

            Pope Francis called the faithful to move “away from attitudes of defensiveness and fear, indifference and marginalization – all typical of a throwaway culture,”

            http://www.amren.com/news/2014/07/pope-denounces-racist-xenophobic-attitudes-toward-immigrants/

          • Wyrd says:

            Peppermint Pattie and A Jewish Pederast need to get a private room to spare the rest of us their shameful sodomy.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Wyrd”,

            Why don’t you tell me what sodomy means to you since you seem to see it hear? Freak…

            A.J.P.

          • Wyrd says:

            “A Jewish Pederast,

            Exactly. Enjoy your boy-toy-goy.”

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Can’t define the words that you throw at individuals in your drive-bys?

            You’re only drooling on your keyboard…Next!

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Jim,

            Remind me again how I’m bringing down the intellectual level of your comments?

            Right…

            • jim says:

              You are lying when you claim I accused you of bringing down the the intellectual level

              I accuse you of making up sources, of wasting reader bandwidth with talmudic quibbling, and of wasting reader bandwidth with endless repetition of arguments that have already been answered.

              The problem with talmudism is not its intellectual level. Its intellectual level is fine. The problem with talmudism is obfuscation, complexification, uglification, equivocation, distraction, derision, and evasion.

          • B says:

            >You are lying when you claim I accused you of bringing down the the intellectual level

            Obviously, one of us is a liar:

            http://blog.jim.com/war/putin-reads-neoreaction/
            jim says:
            October 8, 2015 at 6:58 am
            “You are lowering the intellectual level of this blog.”

            • jim says:

              I stand corrected. I did accuse you of lowering the intellectual level.

              But the your fault was not being stupid, but being willfully stupid – refusing to respond to arguments and merely repeating your assertions as if no rebuttal had been made, as if you had presented evidence rather than mere assertion.

          • B says:

            >as if you had presented evidence rather than mere assertion

            This is ironic, because you explicitly refused requests to provide sources on the pretext that I would argue with them and say they didn’t say what they said.

  3. spandrell says:

    Oh come on. Planned Parenthood funds the abortions of all manner of scum. They should double their budget and have them open branches in every ghetto and community college.

    I thought you were for parents having the right of infanticide.

    • jim says:

      I am in favor of the patriarch having the right to execute his dependents for cause, not the woman to unilaterally kill babies without the knowledge or consent of the father.

      And I am not in favor selling the resulting meat regardless of who makes the decision.

      • spandrell says:

        While unseemly, it’s a small price to pay for them killing millions of NAM babies every year.

        I’m positive all those men are quite happy that the women are aborting without their written consent. Why would anyone want a child with such a woman?

        How many married women abort without the husbands consent really? Any figures?

        I know of plenty of men who made their wives abort against the woman’s will.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Spandrell”,

          “Jim” has already written that he believes that Australian Aboriginals might not be considered the same species. So, with that knowledge you would do well to consider that he is referring to laws concerning Humans and Humans Only.

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

          • jim says:

            Incorrect.

            There were two species of Australian Aboriginals, which failed to blend despite the fact that they both occupied the mainland for forty thousand years. Crossbreeding was physically possible, though repugnant, but offspring were rare, had a very high death rate, and were infertile. It looks like offspring were conceived, but seldom if ever came to term. There is no trace of any genetic flow between the two mainland species, despite occupying the same continent for forty thousand years.

            One species can freely interbreed with whites without fertility depression. The other species could not. It is now extinct, partly because white males kept fucking all their females.

            The species that can interbreed with whites looks reasonably human. The species that could not, did not.Their skulls and skeletons are a political and academic embarrassment, so were hidden from sight, and have now all been systematically destroyed.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Ah, so then you were only using the term “sub-human” in your recent blogpost as a rhetorical flourish…

            I stand corrected.

            • jim says:

              People can be subhuman without being a biologically distinct species.

              Kinds that are different but can and do freely interbreed, for example California spotted owls, other spotted owls, and barred owls, should be classified as different races not different species.

              But some human races are incapable of modernity. Full blooded aboriginals of the surviving aboriginal species really belong in a zoo. If you put them in human style housing they will wreck it. They should not be allowed near normal humans except on a leash. “Aboriginal housing” is a charade, zoo style housing thinly disguised as human housing. Nonetheless, they undeniably can and do interbreed with regular humans.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            L.O.L., especially profound when we notice that human and humane have the same root.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Darwin said that crossbreeding between Euros and (I believe Tasmanian) Aborigines was thought to be a failure because of low interfertility, but then it just turned out that Aborigines would kill any mixed-breed babies.

            • jim says:

              That is the official story.

              Aboriginal women of the kind that look human suffer only moderate levels of infanticide of half breed children by aboriginal males – high, but far from total. Prostitution and promiscuity is rapidly abolishing the full bloods of that species, much as it exterminated the species that could not interbreed.

              Aboriginal women of the other species (the species that failed to blend in forty thousand years, the species that could not interbreed with whites) were frequently taken away from aboriginal males, and continued to have the same very low fertility even though owned by a particular white male with no other males having access. The very rare half breeds were usually embedded in white society (because usually produced by women owned by a particular white male), and like mules never reproduced. There are some white looking people who claim to be descended from a Tasmanian aboriginal woman, but those of them that have some evidence for the claim trace their descent from a woman whose photograph shows her to be of the other aboriginal species – the more human of the two mainland species, not the southern coastal species.

          • Red says:

            >Darwin said that crossbreeding between Euros and (I believe Tasmanian) Aborigines was thought to be a failure because of low interfertility, but then it just turned out that Aborigines would kill any mixed-breed babies.

            Whatever you say, Zhange He.

          • B says:

            >That is the official story.

            Whose official story, Darwin’s?

            >Aboriginal women of the other species (the species that failed to blend in forty thousand years, the species that could not interbreed with whites) were frequently taken away from aboriginal males, and continued to have the same very low fertility even though owned by a particular white male with no other males having access. The very rare half breeds were usually embedded in white society (because usually produced by women owned by a particular white male), and like mules never reproduced.

            Do you have a source for this assertion?

            >Whatever you say, Zhange He.

            Dear Red, you are not only an ignorant asshole, but you assume everyone else is as well.

            http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text

            Darwin says:

            Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his investigation, would next inquire whether the races of men, when crossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work of a cautious and philosophical observer, Professor Broca; and in this he would find good evidence that some races were quite fertile together; but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races. Thus it has been asserted that the native women of Australia and Tasmania rarely produce children to European men; the evidence, however, on this head has now been shewn to be almost valueless. The half-castes are killed by the pure blacks; and an account has lately been published of eleven half-caste youths murdered and burnt at the same time, whose remains were found by the police.

            • jim says:

              >That is the official story.

              Whose official story, Darwin’s?

              The Cathedral story is that the extremely low fertility of coastal aboriginals with whites, and with the more human type of aboriginal was merely the result of infanticide, but this story was made up long after the events, and is grossly inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence.

              Darwin argued for modest fertility depression between negroes and whites, and between Australian aboriginals and whites, but did not seem to notice that there were two non interbreeding aboriginal populations. It is not clear that there is fertility depression between whites and mainland aboriginals, but it is clear that there was extreme fertility depression between Tasmanian aboriginals and whites, and between their mainland relatives and whites, and between coastal aboriginals and whites, and between coastal aboriginals and the more human type of Australian aboriginal, generally known as mainland aboriginals.

          • B says:

            >did not seem to notice that there were two non interbreeding aboriginal populations

            Darwin doesn’t strike me as a guy who’d miss something like that.

            >but it is clear that there was extreme fertility depression between Tasmanian aboriginals and whites, and between their mainland relatives and whites, and between coastal aboriginals and whites, and between coastal aboriginals and the more human type of Australian aboriginal, generally known as mainland aboriginals.

            Could you link to a source for this?

      • Red says:

        Infanticide by slutty women apears to normal. The few cases of being banned hasn’t worked out well.

        That being said, PP is much more like the modern version of the cult of Moloch and should be razed to the ground to help improve birthrates umong married women.

  4. Mark Citadel says:

    I’m currently considering which punishment befits an abortion doctor. Currently I am leaning towards being burned alive, which is surprisingly medieval even for my tastes. Nobody has yet stopped to think and wonder what person goes to med school and says “I want to dissect babies for a living. I want to be an abortion doctor.” Out of all the kinds of doctors one could be.

    People deserving of the death penalty. As for their enablers, firing squad seems apt.

  5. Mackus says:

    Last time republicans shut down government (actually, democrats didn’t want a compromise which caused shutdown, but who cares about facts…), democrats called them bad names, so of course cuckservatives wont dare to do it again. How could they live with themselves, if Inner Party didn’t invite them to parties anymore? Give them a year or two, and they would gladly ate a sandwich with baby meat, rather than be called misogynists.

    I think japan has or had restrictions on married woman having abortions without permission of her husband. Seems like sensible solution, unless there is some hidden issues, like for example law failing to actually stop women from having abortions without permission of their husbands, and isn’t actually patriarchal, only called that by leftist because it doesn’t glorify women who abort as “empowered”.

    Single women like prostitutes or spinsters who never got married should probably be allowed to have abortions (at their own expense), because srsly, the less single moms, the better.
    I am undecided on whether bastards of unmarried women (bastards of married women should be free game to wronged husband) should be property of mother, or (if he is identifiable) father. In either case, full power and responsibility should belong to single person.
    If 20ish or 30ish slut screwed dozen of men and got pregnant, unluckiest of them shouldn’t be forced to marry her, but guy who seduced and impregnated 16-ish virgin would probably deserve shotgun wedding.

    • jim says:

      Single women like prostitutes or spinsters who never got married should probably be allowed to have abortions (at their own expense), because srsly, the less single moms, the better.

      Women of fertile age should remain under the authority of their husbands or the male head of household until married. Independent fertile age women should be rare exceptions, the result of misfortune or bad behavior, to be pitied or scorned depending on whose fault their independence is.

      • Mackus says:

        Sounds reasonable to me. There always were independent fertile age women (for most of history, prostitution was only way woman could be independent. At least nominally, I don’t know if there were pimps three thousand years ago), except those were usually exception rather than rule.

    • peppermint says:

      Right now, she can accuse the unluckiest guy who screws her of rape and destroy him that way. Strictly speaking, she has to prove she didn’t consent, which is a new burden on her that would not have existed prior to feminists destroying marriage in the name of empowering women, but in practice, that’s only a problem if he’s a nigger or maybe in some other privileged class.

      ((Emma Skulkowics)) accused that guy of rape to follow through on her threat to do so if he wouldn’t be in a relationship with her.

      Bastards of married women, husband gets to whip father with a bull whip in the public square, or, if he doesn’t want it to be known that he almost got cucked, gets to impose the cost of abortion at least and an NDA on the father.

      Bastards of unmarried women, if the father is unmarried the obvious solution is to force the marriage, but if the father is married we need the woman’s father or the town ealdermen to decide whether to simply force the abortion at the father’s cost, or bullwhip the father and impose the cost of the abortion.

      Marriage, of course, can only exist between people of the same race. Mixed babies are sold for dog meat and/or research, so they don’t grow up into Victor Flanagan, Eliot Rodgers, or Chris Harper-Mercer, and people who attempt to create mixed babies get bullwhipped.

      • Mackus says:

        I am reluctant to automatically force marriage of unmarried fathers with unmarried mothers, is that when prostitute decides she wants to have baby (lied about contraceptives, stolen his used condom, etc), her client would be unjustly punished by being forced to marry her.

        And if you banned prostitution completely, you’d get muslim-world situational homosexuality directed at little boys.
        A solution could be mandatory registration of prostitutes, so its clear when woman gets pregnant whether father would be forced to marry her or not.

        • jim says:

          To totally suppress sex outside marriage would require too much repression.

          But we want to suppress the defect defect equilibrium, where one party is expecting love, sex, affection, and mutual assistance, and to their surprise, the other party changes their mind. And we want to suppress hypergamy, so that productive and prosocial males get laid. Unrestrained female choice rewards antisocial male behavior. Marital contracts have to be enforced and enforceable, equally on both parties, and female sexual choice has to be restrained. The latter, the restriction of female choice, necessitates profound inequality and reduces the supply of casual no strings attached sex for men.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The Reverend Richard Hooker, likely the most notable of all Anglican Christian theologians, wrote in 1597, on inequality in marriage essentially that:

            Women were made to proportion rather than perfection because if a woman was indeed made equal in every ability to man, then she would definitely be competing with her husband for headship and the decision-making process. This “subalternate” situation is the way she was created to be a helper in the process of “having and bringing up of children”.

            Before the fall, woman was made after man was made, and she is likewise inferior in other ways.

            But this inferiority is something that is more easily perceived than something that is always easily apparent, especially since women can appear as so sweet and appropriate. The way that a man realises woman’s inferiority is not reliably subject to reason, in the same way that love, which is the best foundation or “ground of wedlock” in marriages, is also not liable to be reasonable.

            http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/922#Hooker_0172-02_693

            In things which some farther end doth cause to be desired choice seeketh rather proportion than absolute perfection of goodness. So that woman being created for man’s sake to be his helper in regard to the end before-mentioned, namely the having and the bringing up of children, whereunto it was not possible they could concur unless there were subalternation between them, which subalternation is naturally grounded upon inequality, because things equal in every respect are never willingly directed one by another: woman therefore was even in her first estate framed by nature not only after in time but inferior in excellency also unto man, howbeit in so due and sweet proportion as being presented before our eyes, might be sooner perceived than defined. And even herein doth lie the reason why that kind of love which is the perfectest ground of wedlock is seldom able to yield any reason of itself.

          • peppermint says:

            » some fag no one has ever heard of
            » three irrelevant paragraphs
            » subaltern
            » trying to talk about biological differences and the human understanding of biological differences with the ideological straitjacket of the souls and the Fall of Man narrative
            » inexcusably discussing male and female humans without reference to male and female eagles, ducks, and cats, all of which existed in 1597 England
            » literally saying the most notable Anglican theologian
            » taking cuckstains who can’t explain and likely don’t believe that marriage between humans and niggers is worse that marriage between humans and gorillas seriously

            Mohammed never fucked a pig. Prime Minister Pigfucker could only be elected in a cuckstain country.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The “Peppermint Papist” has nothing to say, so makes noises in the hopes that someone will take him seriously. Yawn…So boring.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Peppermint Papist makes vulgar simplistic, and repetitious noises because she purports to be the masses, or what the masses should be. The Dark Enlightenment is not as mass movement, never will be a mass movement, and has absolutely no intention of every becoming a mass movement, but if Peppermint Papist gets her vulgar noises consistent with the Dark Enlightenment, we are making progress.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Didn’t know she was a she, how did you? Not going to change my strategy in dealing with “Peppermint Papist” though, which is the way to deal with any anti-white, not take her seriously.

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Huh…Using that logic, “Cinnamon” would definitely be a girl’s name as well. Though “Basil” is a boy’s name in most cases…

            But I think that “Pepper” is a girl’s name.

        • peppermint says:

          How hard is it to not stick your dick in where you don’t want a baby to come out?

          Johns absolutely should be forced to marry whores.

          • jim says:

            Seems a bit rough.

          • Mackus says:

            Marrying man to a whore is about as much mockery of marriage as marrying man to a tranny.
            Should man who can’t help himself to keep tranny-c*** out of his mouth be forced to marry one?
            Because whores by very definition are not “marriageable” women.

            You can’t make housewife out of ho, trying to is pointless.
            Sure, it might work in one out of hundred cases, but any man sufficiently alpha to make his whore behave like a lady is being wasted on her.

          • Ron says:

            In a proper society, a whipping for both would be enough. But this is not a proper society, and so we should have mercy on men who can only satisfy their needs in this way.

            A pimp, however, could be punished more severely as he is actively wrecking the society. But again, this only would apply in a society that does not empower family court judges to actively destroy husbands.

            • jim says:

              A pimp, however, could be punished more severely as he is actively wrecking the society

              You are guilty of the Victorian error – that women are naturally virtuous, except men make them do bad things.

              You have doubtless noticed that poverty is only weakly related to income – that poor people that luck onto big money generally use it to destroy themselves. The major function a pimp performs for a prostitute is to prevent her from spending the rent money. Often a prostitute gives her pimp all the money she receives immediately and if she does not he beats her, which superficially looks like she is a slave, but in fact she voluntarily sticks with him because he is imposing order on the chaos of her life. Recall that Crystal Mangum murdered her boyfriend because he was hanging on to the rent money. He should have beaten her more. We don’t need to remove pimps. Rather, we need to restrain female choice so that they have sex with men who provide better forms of order. The problem with a prostitute is that all women have considerable difficulty managing independence, and prostitutes are commonly women who are particularly determined to be independent, and particularly incapable of managing independence. They need to be subjected to male authority, not protected from it. You cannot get more emancipated than Crystal Mangum.

              By and large, most of the time, a pimp is a man who is looking after a woman who is particularly uncontrollable, and particularly needs to be controlled. If he beats her it is because many women need to be beaten, and some women need to be beaten a lot.

          • Ron says:

            @Jim

            I recognize that Woman is less in control of her passions than a man, but by the same token, so is a horse. A horse that has a wicked master will be unruly, similarly while I beliece women have agency, I also believe that their agency is limited and that they are at the mercy of their emotions.

            In the case of the pimp, my concern is precisely that I understand the temptation and attractiveness that a dangerous man has, precisely one that validates her baser needs. My concern for preventing his action is to keep him from making a difficult situation for men and women worse. That is, the satisfied man has no need to go to a prostitute, the well managed women has no need to seek the validation and or easy money of the same. But becaue I understand the needs of people, I know that where appropriate, they must be prevented from destroying themselves for the sake of maintaining social order.

            But my standard for a “proper society” is not the one we currently live in or has even existed for some time. I would never look down on a man or woman who engaged in that trade because I know the circumstances we are putting one another through are intolerable.

            I had a close friend who was an ex prostitute, the abuse and torture she went through at home made prostitution look like a tremendous step up. I have met a good men with a large family who simply wanted a moment to feel like a man again. I cannot in good conscience condemn either of them for their actions. Recently there was an effective US naval captain who had his career destroyed for riding in a car looking for a prostitute, I regard what was done to him as a wicked sin by a people gone utterly mad. Similarly the former governor of New York whose career was destroyed for his indiscretion, in that case too I was ashamed of my fellow former State members for their hypocritical childishness.

          • Ron says:

            @Jim

            Basically I agree with you but with minor differences.

  6. B says:

    There are only two internally consistent positions I can see possible here.

    Either human life is inherently valuable, a fetus is either a human life or something close to it, and an abortion is a tragedy/crime. So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts.

    Or human life has no inherent value/a fetus is not a human life or anything close to it, abortion is just a medical procedure, fetal parts are medical waste, so why not make money selling them? This is the standard Western post-religious utilitarian view.

    Everything in between is internally inconsistent and will end up moving to one of the two poles.

    This blog has held up Russia and China as exemplars. Both have official systems of morality that are close to the second. Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world per capita. China has 13 million abortions per year. The first Russian biotech company to have an IPO deals in stem cells. China has fully legal stem cell sales:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in_China
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Stem_Cells_Institute

    The Talmud says that G-d keeps non-Jewish nations around as long as they don’t marry men to each other, sell human flesh in the market and respect the Torah (what this last bit means is unclear to me.)

    • jim says:

      Either human life is inherently valuable, a fetus is either a human life or something close to it, and an abortion is a tragedy/crime. So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts.

      At sixteen weeks, a fetus is obviously human. We have videos of twins fighting inside the womb, of boys masturbating. They are obviously people. So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts of near that age or later. Monkeys do not masturbate. Perhaps they lack the imagination.

      Which is why the setup to expose Planned Parenthood focused on getting them to promise to sell intact twenty week baby cadavers. Because selling ten week cadavers was not so obviously morally repugnant. Twenty weeks was chosen because quite unambiguously and undeniably human, because cute baby like appearance and cute baby like behavior. (And perhaps because saying “sixteen weeks” would have tipped them off that the buyer was setting them up.)

      Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world

      I have not opposed abortion as such. I have endorsed the patriarchal execution of dependents for cause. I have not opposed infanticide as such. In fact I have endorsed Spartan eugenic infanticide. I have opposed giving women, and not men, special authority over abortion and infanticide.

      It is not always wrong to kill people. Sometimes it is right to kill people. But we always have to treat killing people with due seriousness. Selling baby meat makes the killing of babies a great deal worse because it reveals an abhorrent attitude to baby killing.

      The Talmud says that G-d keeps non-Jewish nations around as long as they don’t marry men to each other, sell human flesh in the market and respect the Torah (what this last bit means is unclear to me.)

      Whether or not God exists, and whether or not talmudists have any insight into his plans, I am inclined to doubt that nations that marry men to each other and sell human flesh in the market are likely to be around for very long.

      • B says:

        >So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts of near that age or later.

        In a system where nothing is inherently sacred, and morality is contextual, the concepts of “sacrilege” and “moral repugnance” are not very meaningful.

        >Monkeys do not masturbate.

        You should probably spend more time in zoos. Or at least do a search in YouTube. Monkeys are infamous masturbators.

        Also review the Descent of Man where Darwin talks about monkeys’ moral capacity-the little capuccin that attacked the great and terrible baboon which was killing its beloved zookeeper, etc.

        >Selling baby meat makes the killing of babies a great deal worse because it reveals an abhorrent attitude to baby killing.

        I find it hard to imagine a non-abhorrent attitude to baby killing that says killing babies is ok sometimes. Anyway, what is “abhorrent” in a system where human life has no inherent value? At best we could say it’s non-rational, or destroys utility, or something along those lines.

        Again, China and Russia enjoy a brisk trade in fetal parts and nobody even thinks to question its morality.

        • pdimov says:

          “Again, China and Russia enjoy a brisk trade in fetal parts and nobody even thinks to question its morality.”

          This is an issue in the US because there the proponents of abortion claim the moral high ground.

          • jim says:

            Talmudism encourages weaseling.

            Rabbi A is very holy. Rabbi B demonstrates superior holiness to Rabbi A by interpreting religious law as ever stricter. Being more holy than Rabbi A, gains power and increases his congregation. Rabbi C claims equal holiness to Rabbi B, but discovers complicated and clever talmudic loopholes in these extremely strict religious laws, which means his congregation can be as holy as Rabbi B’s congregation without the inconveniences, so over time, observant Jews move over to Rabbi C’s congregation. Rabbi D then gets holier even than Rabbi C. Rabbi E then discovers loopholes to Rabbi D’s version. And so it goes. Holiness via loopholes.

            Thus Orthodox Jews like B can piously oppose abortion with great enthusiasm, but without the inconvenience of actually refraining from abortion. Provided the proper rules are observed, still holy.

          • B says:

            I actually refrain from abortion, believe it or not.

            So do other religious Jews.

            Israel has the second-lowest abortion rate in Europe (around 28% of Russia’s, per fertile aged female capita,) and that’s taking into account the large amount of secular Jews and non-Jews living here.

            Thanks for your engaging explanation of how my religion works. You should probably stick to masturbating monkeys.

            • jim says:

              I actually refrain from abortion, believe it or not.

              So do other religious Jews.

              Orthodox Jewish position is that a fetus is not a person till it is born. Orthodox Roman Catholic position used to be forty days. We now know that a fetus looks and acts very much like a person at sixteen weeks. And, indeed, this is why those doing the setup specified 20 week intact babies.

              So, strictly speaking, by Jewish standards, Planned Parenthood is not selling human meat. Or perhaps it is since some orthodox rabbis argue the forty day standard, but they don’t seem too popular.

              If you don’t like abortion, there is an orthodox rabbi for you. And if you need an abortion, there is also an orthodox rabbi for you.

            • jim says:

              Israel has the second-lowest abortion rate in Europe

              Does it? Does that include the theoretically illegal but in fact officially tolerated abortions?

              Which quiet toleration allows you to pretend that abortions are only given for cause, when in fact the great majority of abortions are given for no stated cause.

          • B says:

            >Orthodox Jewish position is that a fetus is not a person till it is born.

            The Orthodox Jewish position is that abortion is forbidden unless the fetus is endangering the mother’s life and has not yet emerged from the womb.

            >So, strictly speaking, by Jewish standards, Planned Parenthood is not selling human meat.

            Is there perhaps a horse fetus emerging from the womb?

            The Jewish position is that any loss of life, potential or actual, is a tragedy, that man is made in the image of G-d, and that selling fetal parts is horrible.

            >If you don’t like abortion, there is an orthodox rabbi for you. And if you need an abortion, there is also an orthodox rabbi for you.

            Every system’s overall morality rests on the moral uprightness of its members. But we can see that the vast, vast majority of Torah Jews do not go for abortions.

            >Does it? Does that include the theoretically illegal but in fact officially tolerated abortions?

            It compares oranges to oranges, i.e., legal abortions to legal abortions.

            If you wish to take into account illegal abortions, there are something like 6K per year in Israel, compared to 19K legal ones: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-abortion-rate-fell-10-from-2000-to-2008-1.260736

            So, instead of 10 per 1000 fertile age women, we might get up to 13.

            >Which quiet toleration allows you to pretend that abortions are only given for cause, when in fact the great majority of abortions are given for no stated cause.

            Yes, you just go down the street and see people popping in and out of what looks like a pizza joint-but it’s actually an abortion parlor, and everybody knows it. Very deep analysis, you’ve got us.

            • jim says:

              >If you don’t like abortion, there is an orthodox rabbi for you. And if you need an abortion, there is also an orthodox rabbi for you.

              Every system’s overall morality rests on the moral uprightness of its members. But we can see that the vast, vast majority of Torah Jews do not go for abortions.

              Do we see that?

              Does that include the theoretically illegal but in fact officially tolerated abortions?

              It compares oranges to oranges, i.e., legal abortions to legal abortions.

              “illegal” abortions in Israel are not in fact illegal. They are done by medical professionals at well known clinics that somehow have no problem continuing to operate. Israel has, in fact, pretty high levels of no questions asked, no strings attached, abortion, similar to Europe, perhaps worse, and if you want an abortion with a bit of string to salve your conscience, there is a quite adequate supply of rabbis to supply a rationale for any abortion you would like. “Illegality” allows Israeli society to simultaneously support right to life and right to choose, which doublethink policy reflects a similarly elastic doublethink position among rabbis, including orthodox rabbis.

              For the moment the Cathedral allows Israel to get away with failure to celebrate frivolous abortions, but it allows no country to get away with failure to conveniently provide frivolous abortions, and the Orthodox fall into line.

            • jim says:

              Yes, you just go down the street and see people popping in and out of what looks like a pizza joint-but it’s actually an abortion parlor

              No it looks like a medical clinic, is advertized as such, with code words implying full service for inconvenient pregnancies, sufficient coding so that the orthodox can avoid being scandalized, while still having abortions conveniently available.

          • B says:

            Again:

            Israel, while having a secular and anti-Torah government which makes cheap and legal abortions available for free or at subsidized rates, and unregulated/illegal abortions available to anyone who wants one, has the second lowest rate of legal abortion in Europe, with 19K per year, or 10 per 1000 fertile-aged women.

            Illegal abortions amount to about 6K per year.

            This gives us around 13 abortions per 1000 fertile-aged women. This is significantly below the European average: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

            That is despite the large proportion of secular Israelis; if you assume they abort at the European average, the abortion rate among Torah Jews is very low.

            If you consider abortions per pregnancy, the difference is even larger, since Israel has a much higher birthrate per capita.

            From which you conclude that Torah Judaism is wishy-washy and approves of abortions for anyone who wants one.

            OK.

            • jim says:

              Israel, while having a secular and anti-Torah government which makes cheap and legal abortions available for free or at subsidized rates, and unregulated/illegal abortions available to anyone who wants one, has the second lowest rate of legal abortion in Europe, with 19K per year, or 10 per 1000 fertile-aged women.

              Illegal abortions amount to about 6K per year.

              Wikipedia says that illegal abortions are about equal in number to legal rather than a much smaller number, so 40K, or 21 abortions per 1000 fertile age women.

              According to your link, Western Europe has 12 abortions per year per 1000 fertile aged women, so the Israeli rate is almost double the Western European rate.

          • B says:

            Either I’m banned or your blog is eating my comment due to some sort of link filter. Will try eliminating links:

            >According to your link, Western Europe has 12 abortions per year per 1000 fertile aged women, so the Israeli rate is almost double the Western European rate.

            Western Europe has 12 LEGAL abortions per year per 1000 fertile aged women. Let’s compare oranges to oranges.

            Are there illegal abortions in Western Europe? Sure. Croatia has a law very similar to that of Israel, however:

            “Malfeasances are not uncommon here, which is why in 2010 seven specialist physicians were
            detained due to performed terminations of uncomplicated, but unwanted pregnancies for which they
            charged a monetary amount of between 1000 and 2500HRK, retaining the fees for themselves. Later,
            they have counterfeited medical documentation for the performed procedures displaying them as justified
            due to alleged pathological pregnancies, invoicing them and charging the Croatian Institute for
            Health Insurance (CIHI), thus committing a financial fraud towards CIHI. A year later, doctors indicted
            for practicing illegal abortions were found guilty in the court in Varaždin, and in addition to prison sentences
            and monetary fines, they were also banned from practicing medicine”

            How many illegal abortions are there per year in Israel?

            Wikipedia says 20K per year. However, its source seems to be the average number of total abortions per year in Israel since the founding of the state, which is 40K. But Israel started off much more secular, and with much fewer contraceptive options and a Sovietized medical care system.

            Abortions have been falling steadily since its founding, 10% per decade in the 1990s and 2000s: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-abortion-rate-continues-to-fall-report-says/
            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-abortion-rate-fell-10-from-2000-to-2008-1.260736

            Haaretz says there are 2-6K illegal abortions per year.

            The Chief Rabbinate says 30K: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002145,00.html

            Obviously, they can’t all be right. We have to make a choice on whom to believe. All are biased, but I think Haaretz is right. My logic is that 98% of legal abortion requests are approved by the secular system, and these are subsidized/free. People do not typically pay money for something they can get for free, and abortion is a fungible service (within limits.) It does not stand to reason that an equal number of women prefer to pay out of pocket.

            • jim says:

              >According to your link, Western Europe has 12 abortions per year per 1000 fertile aged women, so the Israeli rate is almost double the Western European rate.

              Western Europe has 12 LEGAL abortions per year per 1000 fertile aged women. Let’s compare oranges to oranges.

              Western Europe has no “illegal” abortions, except for a few odd cases like Croatia where they practice the same hypocrisy as Israel and Israeli “illegal” abortions are not really illegal. It is just pious hypocrisy.

              People do not typically pay money for something they can get for free

              With a legal abortion you have to go before a committee and argue that you need the abortion. Now in practice they will accept any argument, not matter how stupid or frivolous, but the person making the argument knows the argument is stupid and frivolous, and feels judged. To avoid judgement, pay moneyu.

          • B says:

            Your blog apparently finds the following pdf link objectionable:

            http://bit.ly/1LJxTQf

            • jim says:

              Not only my blog finds it objectionable. I don’t know what the problem is. I outsource filtering to akismet, which has mysterious (and buggy) ways. But when hit that link in my browser, get told (uninformatively) it is a bad link.

          • B says:

            Do you have a source for this assertion?

          • peppermint says:

            the limit is 2 links per scheißpfost, more and you get moderated

          • peppermint says:

            (1) all lives matter implies black lives matter. black lives matter implies that police lives don’t matter. police lives don’t matter implies that property rights are whatever you can seize. property rights are whatever you can seize implies that taxation is theft. taxation is theft implies that black lives don’t matter. black lives don’t matter implies that all lives don’t matter. all lives don’t matter implies that i want a certified HIV and HepB free baby steak, but only if i don’t have to pay more than 20$ a pound

            (2) pedophiles are disgusting and you want to kill them or keep them far away from your kids. abortionists abort other people’s babies, so you want to… signal about how much you want to blow them up with bombs or whatever lol

            (3) i bet if i gave a woman baby meat for dinner, even on a plate of mom’s spaghetti, she would let me sleep with her without a condom

            (4) how much does PP sell baby meat for anyway? how can I buy some?

        • jim says:

          In a system where nothing is inherently sacred, and morality is contextual, the concepts of “sacrilege” and “moral repugnance” are not very meaningful.

          We had this argument before. If God had made Abraham sacrifice Isaac, you would be less confident that God gets to define morality and sacredness – which shows you have independent capacity to judge such things.

          Killer apes need to know what is beautiful and what is sacred for uncomplicated Darwinian reasons. Snakes are dangerous and evil is dangerous. That we inherently dislike evil requires no more explanation than that we inherently dislike snakes.

          • B says:

            >If God had made Abraham sacrifice Isaac, you would be less confident that God gets to define morality and sacredness – which shows you have independent capacity to judge such things.

            If grandma had balls, she’d be grandpa. I can’t really argue this counterfactual, except to say that the Muslims have no issue with the concept of a G-d that loves death and sacrificing one’s children. I have no idea what I would think had I grown up as a Muslim, or as an Aztec. There is obviously some sort of moral compass, but it is very easily outweighed in most people by all sort of contextual morality.

            >Killer apes need to know what is beautiful and what is sacred for uncomplicated Darwinian reasons.

            Based on the lack of inhibitions primitives have on infanticide, and their often very ugly standards of beauty, I doubt the veracity of this statement. They don’t seem to find infanticide morally repugnant, at least not to the point of concealing it from Darwin and his sources.

            Darwin had to come up with a convoluted theory of public vs. private desires balanced and then tipped towards the public by memory in order to explain morality. He also brought up all sorts of examples of noble behavior by animals (like the capucin monkey who fought the baboon) which don’t seem very conducive to survival, except in a very just-so stories way.

            • jim says:

              >Killer apes need to know what is beautiful and what is sacred for uncomplicated Darwinian reasons.

              Based on the lack of inhibitions primitives have on infanticide, and their often very ugly standards of beauty, I doubt the veracity of this statement. T

              We are better killer apes than they are. We can kill more people more efficiently, because we can cooperate better than they.

          • peppermint says:

            Q: why are you in Israel, speaking English?
            A: because WWI and WWII.

            Private moral compass + public taboos sounds right. If you ask people with IQs below 180, they will admit to having a desire to yell faggot at faggots engaging in faggotry in public, but being constrained by taboo, they’ll say that the know it’s wrong and gays can get married.

          • B says:

            I am in Israel speaking English because of a very long and complex chain of causally linked events. You can pull any major events in that chain at your discretion and claim that they are the main ones, but this is not very useful in telling us what to do/expect next.

            I find it more useful to think in a framework where I am in Israel speaking English because of a covenant between G-d, Abraham and the Land of Israel (renewed by Moses and the nation of Israel at Sinai,) the breaking of that covenant by the nation of Israel leading to our exile among the nations, and G-d’s ingathering of the exiles, as promised, which I am blessed enough to have a chance to participate in. From this perspective, I more or less know what to expect and how to behave.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        L.O.L., come on “Jim”.

        Talmudists don’t even believe in God. They have something called “Hashem” or “Hadonye” which is an evil spirit with origins from a certain Mahometan ,,jin,,, a word which is translated as daemon…

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

        • Eli says:

          Imbecile.

        • Ron says:

          “Hashem” is literally translated as “The Name” and is an abbreviation of “the Name of God”. We refer to Him as “The Name”, because we regard all names as containing the essential quality of what the name describes.

          In the case of God, His Name contains His Divine nature, and is therefore sacred, and so we prefer not to use His name outside of a sacred context. Instead we refer to that aspect of God as “The Name”.

          The second word you used comes from the Hebrew “adon” which is translated as “lord”. That is also referring to another more sacred name which refers to God’s compassion. And it is also the name we are specifically referring to when we say “Ha-Shem”

          Im oversimplifying, because He has other names which are also sacred but to a different degree. For example, the word in Hebrew for “peace” is also one of His names, and yet we see fit to use that name in greeting to fellow men. There are reasons for this which I won’t get into because I do not feel I am fit to explain these things.

          • peppermint says:

            If I spaypainted the word God on your door with a swastika inside the o Friday evening, would you be prohibited from painting over it, or just until Saturday evening?

            Does it hurt to know that you’re about to scroll the word Yahweh off your screen into oblivion, or do I have the vowels wrong?

            What is the relationship between the HaShem worshippers and the Hashashim refered to by Mycroft Jones upthread?

            • jim says:

              Peppermint, sometimes you say stuff that needs to be said, but is so vulgar that Dark Enlightenment types will not say it.

              And sometimes you are just being an ass

              When you ridicule Jewish beliefs because ritualism is suspiciously similar to superstition, you are just being an ass.

              Ritualism is indeed kind of stupid and ridiculous – but does not undermine social order. B argues that it upholds society and was commanded by God for that purpose. We should therefore politely pretend to treat ritualism respectfully.

              If you are going to flame on Judaism, flame on the propensities to progressivism that Christianity inherited from Judaism, not on ritualism.

              I respect ritual, and I ask you to do so also.

          • B says:

            You know, when your ancestors were raping goats and sacrificing people to idols in their miserable bogs, King Solomon wrote the Book of Proverbs, in which he repeatedly pointed out the association between fools and mockery, and the inevitable outcome which always comes as a surprise to the fool.

          • Ron says:

            I would be no more prohibited from that course of action than if, to use an understandable analogy, a Christian would be prohibited from destroying a painting that had a sacred image with a sacrilegious image written over it.

            But I’m surprised you would even ask me that. Enemy of mine you may be, but I recognize you have the ability to reason that out on your own. Perhaps you read my words as pompous and wanted to take the “air out of my sails” so to speak? If so, I agree with you.

            As for the hypothetical of scrolling The Name off the screen, that is an excellent question, and I have asked a similar one. I am embarassed to tell you that I only vaguely remember the answer, but it has to do with the light on the screen as not being a sufficiently material object to be considered as existing in the same sense as a written word.

            The words are not magic, while they have symbolic meaning the intention and heart put into their creation as objects have far more to do with it than just an intellectual exercise. I apologize for my lack of clarity. This may seem sentimental to you, but I regard the act of a true craftsmen in making a proper saddle to be holy and sacred act, and his creation to be of far more value than a typical saddle mass produced by a factory.

            As for your third query, I do not know much about the Hashashim, but I remember hearing that they were murderers for hire that used drugs to stupor themselves in place of the difficult task of self introspection and the theological inquiries that all true men must exert their efforts towards in understanding the will of our Maker.

          • Ron says:

            To drive home the point, if I had two books, one written by a righteous man, and one hand written by a wicked man, and both books had the exact same words written in them, and both books were copies of a work I held to be sacred, I would respectfully bury the second and have great joy in the first.

          • Ron says:

            I should also add that I would regard it as honorable behavior if any man offered such insult would seek out and kill the man who did that to him. While I would not have either the courage or knowledge to do so, I would admire those men who could.

            I apologize if I offend the commenters here with my extreme views and I certainly mean no disrespect. I also do not speak for my coreligionists on this matter, this is only my own personal view which could very well be completely incorrect.

        • Ron says:

          I could also be getting some of the details wrong, so please double check everything I said for accuracy before you rely on that information. The topic is a complicated one, and this is why I did not feel fit to continue it.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      “Either human life is inherently valuable, a fetus is either a human life or something close to it, and an abortion is a tragedy/crime. So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts.

      Or human life has no inherent value/a fetus is not a human life or anything close to it, abortion is just a medical procedure, fetal parts are medical waste, so why not make money selling them? This is the standard Western post-religious utilitarian view.”

      Something we agree on B. But I’d say China and Russia are very different, since one actively pursues abortion as a means of population control, while the other retains as a form of women’s liberation in a society becoming increasingly hostile to that notion. The main lobbying groups in Russia for abortion are the clinics who make money off of it. The main lobbying groups in America for abortion are women who love abortions, feminists. And there is an outcry against abortion in Russia. Several loud lawmakers are against it, but are muzzled by the still strong oligarchic interest. The Russian Orthodox Church is also surprisingly vocal in its opposition

      https://www.rt.com/politics/225087-russia-church-abortions-ban/

      Greek group Golden Dawn is anti-abortion as well, which surprised me since it differs from many ‘far right’ European organizations.

      I think eventually, given time, Occidental countries will gradually come to reject infanticide in all forms. It’s such a demographic threat that those who don’t will be absorbed by alien populations.

      • B says:

        I suspect that China started off with abortion as population control and now has a massive industry with its own lobby etc. As I understand, nowadays birth control is not such a strong governmental policy there; birth rates are low for largely the same reason as they’re low in Singapore. People who really want kids can, typically, find a loophole.

        Russia had ubiquitous abortions long before oligarchs and for-profit clinics. Stalin cranked down on it after WW2, then they loosened up restrictions.

        The Russian Orthodox Church and co. pushed a bill that was destined to fail, if for no other reason then because it put IUDs in the same category as abortions, which suggests to me that the whole thing was a publicity ploy.

        In general, the Russians prefer their priests saying blessings and sprinkling holy water over their new BMWs but don’t tend to take them seriously as moral arbiters and providers of lifestyle guidance. This was the case before the revolution, too.

        • spandrell says:

          Massive industry? Abortion is not exactly a cash cow for hospitals.

          There is rent seeking in abortion, just not by the doctors. China charges fines for overbreeding. The local departments of Planned Reproduction must fund themselves with the proceedings of these fines, so they have a mysterious tendency to become larger according to the necessities of the department in any given location. Large cities have lots of bureaucrats who check on each other, but in rural areas the bureaucrats are known to take women to abort by force because of not coming up with the money.

          I suspect some bureaucrats deliberately scam sluts into getting pregnant in the first place so that they can charge them a fine.

          There are no loopholes, besides foreign citizenship.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          I guess it depends on whether you have a cynical view or not. I’d be interested to know if you felt the rabbis of Israel had ever acted cynically with regards to abortion. There are parties who oppose the legality of the practice.

          • Jack says:

            Israeli rabbinate is as cynical, self-interested bureaucracy as any, and expectedly, women have as much abortions as they like unhindered; there’s a legal loophole in there that the fat-bellied rabbis are reluctant to touch. They need those establishment perks. There’s exactly zero debate in the Jewish state regarding the issue. As they say, Christians occasionally cheat on Satan, but Jews will out-maneuver God.

          • B says:

            I am not sure about the history of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and abortion, but generally hold a very dim view of the institution.

            The difference is that our religion is not hierarchical. The Rabbinate does not set the religious standard. It sets the governmental standard in those areas of the government’s functions where the government has decided there should be a religious standard.

            If this sounds loopy, it is. But basically it means that no individual refers to the Chief Rabbinate as such to find out whether something is permissible. Everyone has their own authorities.

        • spandrell says:

          Those are not loopholes, they are provisions written into the law, that at most allow one children extra.

          The fine depends on income and locality. It’s set up to be about 4 times your annual income, so not a small sum. In a big city it’s USD35k+.

          • B says:

            And I suspect your annual income can be fudged, and you can move to the boonies and get written down as a poor goat breeder/downhole oil worker if you hit the right people with a bit of money.

            Please don’t tell me that in a Communist capitalist system, there are no officials willing to see the light for a price.

            • jim says:

              Communist China is arguably substantially less corrupt than the west, though this depends very much on how you define and measure corruption.

              Further, you are quibbling and making up sources. Spandrel knows China. You don’t. If he claims that the one child policy is effectively enforced, you should not reply unless you have a source better than your preconceptions of how the world works, which preconceptions I have seldom found reliable in the past.

          • Eli says:

            Not that long ago, it appeared that spandrell didn’t know one very basic fact about China: that people speak different languages there, and it is only the Chinese script that is common. B enlightened him.

            • jim says:

              B is fond of discovering imaginary mistakes in other other people’s words by cleverly reading unlikely meanings into them, and then “correcting” them.

          • Eli says:

            The thing is, I am not being sarcastic (I almost never am). I’ve checked spandrell’s blog, and he does appear to be knowledgeable about many things about China. Nonetheless, I am not convinced how deep his knowledge really is. And even then: it appears both that China is corrupt enough and that people (in cities) concern themselves with materialistic pursuits to make B’s point that the primary reason for the Chinese having low TFR post-2010 is simply lack of will as opposed to any draconian enforcement by their government(s).

          • Eli says:

            Plus, I personally know some young Chinese women, straight from China. They never made an impression on me as wanting large families, albeit they do tend to have a more sane approach in that they *do* want to get married and have a child; even when said women go to elite universities. Plus, unlike American trash, they tend to stay feminine.

            Nonetheless, I, alas, don’t enjoy yellow fever. Otherwise, I’d be already married to one.

            • jim says:

              I find it hard to believe that women interested in getting married and willing to get married in a timely fashion would, if allowed to reproduce, have a tfr as low as that of that women who regard marriage and motherhood as an indignity, and leave it to the last possible minute, and frequently till well after the last possible minute.

              If a woman gets married at thirty, there is a high probability that she will not be able to have as many children as she intends.

              Cathedral sex education teaches women all about putting a condom on a banana, but neglects to teach them about rapidly declining fertility and attractiveness.

              While it is terribly important for them to focus on developing their careers, marriage and children is just going to spontaneously happen by itself without any effort or thought while they are advancing their careers and fucking Jeremy Meeks. They urgently need to think about their careers and work on developing their careers, but don’t need to think about getting married and having children because that will just happen spontaneously.

          • Eli says:

            @jim: alas, this disease has infiltrated the whole Western world (I care more about the Western world than China, because the chicks are more attractive + a lot of good things came out of it).

            In Germany, where I’m visiting, apparently, having sex is, as my friend puts it, like phys ed: nothing special. Actually, more than that: I’ve never seen so many smoking (not smoking hot) women like in Germany. Obviously, they care more about their career than about bearing healthy babies and staying pretty (though German chicks don’t tend to be the hottest anyway, unlike Slavs/Celts).

          • B says:

            Eli-

            Order is boundaries.

            By putting boundaries on human desires, a functional civilization can channel them productively. Of course, when you do this, there’s a constant tension in your society and in every person.

            It’s like a dam with water pooled up behind it.

            Breaking down boundaries is tremendously fun, and provides a massive release of energy. Very exciting and titillating, and who can really prove that we need all those old superstitions? Only afterwards do people slowly realize that there are irreversible consequences.

            Germans and the rest of the West broke down the barriers of modesty and sexual continence, systematically and slowly, first through the cult of romantic love, then by decoupling modesty from sexuality, then by decoupling sex from reproduction, then by decoupling sex from love:

            http://departmentofwandering.com/german-spa-experience/

            What do you expect from a culture that went from physical modesty to family nudism?

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

            Unwin says that moving from sexual continence to incontinence is the characteristic of a culture circling the drain.

            • jim says:

              Order is boundaries.

              By putting boundaries on human desires, a functional civilization can channel them productively. Of course, when you do this, there’s a constant tension in your society and in every person.

              It’s like a dam with water pooled up behind it.

              Breaking down boundaries is tremendously fun, and provides a massive release of energy. Very exciting and titillating, and who can really prove that we need all those old superstitions? Only afterwards do people slowly realize that there are irreversible consequences.

              Exactly so. You say it better than I did.

          • B says:

            Unwin says this applies to male sexual behavior as much as to female.o

          • B says:

            He does, and this is the entire crux of his argument; that chastity/continence/monogamy creates a surplus of energy (in men) in direct relation to its degree, and this energy is what allows civilizations to be built (by men); the second chastity/continence disappear, the energy starts dissipating, with predictable results for the civilization.

            For instance:

            https://archive.org/stream/b20442580/b20442580_djvu.txt

            “By the end of the fifth century, however, the old customs had dis-
            appeared, the sexual opportunity of both sexes being extended. There was no compulsory continence; sexual desires could be satisfied in a direct manner Divorce became easy and common; paederasty appeared; the men possessed mistresses as well as wives; the women broke bounds, consoling themselves with both wine and clandestine love-affairs. The energy of the Athenians declined. Three generations later the once vigorous city,
            torn by dissension, was subject to a foreign master.”

            Unwin makes no distinction between the sexes’ sexual incontinence here, putting married men having mistresses, pederasty and female unfaithfulness in the same line.

            “Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it.”

            Sound familiar?

            “It is difficult to express any opinion with complete confidence, but as, at the end of my task, I look back along the stream of time, it seems to me that it was the unequal fate of the women, not the compulsory continence, that caused the downfall of absolute monogamy. No society has yet succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period. The inference I draw from the historical evidence is that, if ever such a result should be desired, the sexes must first be placed on a footing of complete legal equality.”

            !

            “From a superficial study of the available data it might be thought that the questions of female subjection and parental power are indissolubly allied to that of female continence ; but actually their alliance in the past has been due to the chance factor that sexual opportunity has never been reduced to a minimum except by depriving women and children of their legal status. It is historically true to say that in the past social energy has been purchased
            at the price of individual freedom, for it has never been displayed unless the female of the species has sacrificed her rights as an individual and unless children have been treated as mere appendages to the estate of the male parent; but it would be rash to conclude that sexual opportunity cannot be reduced to a minimum under any other conditions. The evidence is that the subjection of women and children is intolerable and therefore temporary ; but we should go beyond the evidence if we were to conclude from this fact that compulsory continence also is intolerable and therefore temporary.”

            In other words, Unwin sees female subjection not as a good thing unto itself-it’s actually a self-sabotaging institution-but only as a good thing insofar as it leads to reduction of sexual opportunity and increase in continence, and the corresponding increase in social energy.

            • jim says:

              He does, and this is the entire crux of his argument; that chastity/continence/monogamy creates a surplus of energy (in men) in direct relation to its degree, and this energy is what allows civilizations to be built (by men)

              You are correct.

              And Unwin is wrong.

              For all the societies he cites as examples controlled the sexual behavior of women, not men, imposed chastity on women, not men. The supreme example of Greek energy and vigor were Xenophon’s ten thousand, who impregnated every concave surface from the middle of Asia to Greece.

          • B says:

            Unwin’s entire argument is that the reason that those societies controlled the sexual behavior of women was to control the sexual behavior of men in order to harness their energy for civilization building instead of whoring around, and there is an almost exact quote to this effect in the source, which I can’t be bothered to look up just now.

            >The supreme example of Greek energy and vigor were Xenophon’s ten thousand, who impregnated every concave surface from the middle of Asia to Greece.

            Unwin specifically says that when you see a sexually uninhibited society with great energy and accomplishment, it is universally the case that the energy and accomplishment are a trailing indicator of sexual restraint, that they are eating the seed corn, that 1) not too long ago, they had severe sexual inhibition, 2) pretty soon, they will tank. Arab conquest is the example he uses, and polygamy is the culprit for the collapse of Arab achievement in his eyes.*

            Now, as for Xenophon:
            1) Why were the 10K in Mesopotamia? Because Cyrus hired them.
            2) Why were these Athenians hiring themselves out to Persians to fight in the worst place in the world in battles that did not concern them? Because Athens had lost a 30 year long world war with Sparta.
            3) Why did Athens start a world war with Sparta and then get its ass kicked? Because Athenian social mores collapsed, resulting in the post-Pericles generation not being able to produce and listen to men of his caliber, in the Alcibiades fiasco, in the Trial of the Generals, etc. etc. etc.
            4) Why did Athenian social mores collapse? Because, as Unwin says, the men became free to whore around, bang catamites, and the women correspondingly became drunken sluts. And the Bible, btw, has a parallel passage in Hosea where G-d says that He won’t punish unfaithful wives because their husbands are also sleeping around.

            *Unwin on the Arabs:

            The history of the Arabs affords the best illustration of these complica-
            tions. The Arabs are an authenticated instance of a society which, after
            permitting pre-nuptial intercourse, instituted pre-nuptial chastity, reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum, displayed some expansive energy, faltered under the influence of absolute polygamy, and then, by marrying women of other societies, increased its energy again and again.

            Among the early Arabs women were not compelled to be pre-nuptially
            chaste; but, in the generations that immediately preceded the birth of
            Mohammed, they began to replace mot’ a marriage by baal marriage.
            Pre-nuptial chastity being introduced, the Arabs necessarily became deistic. Moreover, the effect of baal marriage was to create some expansive energy, for at first baal marriage reduced the post-nuptial opportunity of the males to a minimum ; but, when this marital authority became part of the inherited tradition of a new generation, the question arose, Of how many women could a man be baal? It is clear that the problem was being discussed when the Prophet was alive, for he published an explicit answer to the question. After charging his followers to ‘reverence the wombs’ that bore them, he said, ‘And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly . . . marry but two, or three, or four; and if ye still fear that ye shall
            not deal fairly, then but one only.’ The energy created by baal marriage carried the Arabs to Egypt, but they were unable to proceed farther. They stayed in Egypt for more than a generation, and there married Christian women, who had not only been reared in an atmosphere of intense continence but also encouraged, perhaps commanded, to adopt a life-long virginity. The sons of these women conquered North Africa. Then Berber men under Berber leaders led the way to Spain ; and there once more the Arabs married Christian women, and Jewish women too. Soon an incipient rationalism began to appear, and flourished spasmodically for two, perhaps for three, centuries. It failed to mature greatly, however, for soon there
            were no more women who had been reared in an atmosphere of intense sexual continence.

            • jim says:

              Unwin specifically says that when you see a sexually uninhibited society with great energy and accomplishment, it is universally the case that the energy and accomplishment are a trailing indicator of sexual restraint, that they are eating the seed corn, that 1) not too long ago, they had severe sexual inhibition, 2) pretty soon, they will tank. Arab conquest is the example he uses, and polygamy is the culprit for the collapse of Arab achievement in his eyes.*

              At the time of Mohammed and his successors, very few sexual restraints on men, severe sexual restraints on women, and according to the Koran and the Hadiths, before Mohammed, considerably greater sexual immorality. And the incidents described in the Hadiths are consistent with this story – that Mohammed was tempted by licentious female behavior which was considered normal and went unpunished, then, embarrassed by his own bad behavior, introduced rules to stop both bad male behavior similar to his own, and to restrain women from tempting men into such bad behavior.

              I don’t see any evidence that Greeks ever had any restraints on male behavior towards unmarried women and slaves – just a stern requirement to engage in reproductive sex with one’s wife – and of course extremely tight control on respectable upper class women.

              no more women who had been reared in an atmosphere of intense sexual continence.

              Exactly so. What is required is not chaste behavior among men, but chaste behavior among wives and mothers. Which gives men the incentive to build for posterity.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim

            From my understanding of medieval Christianity, men who had sex with prostitutes were barely condemned. But men who had sex with virgins were severely condemned (obviously, except on their wedding night). And even more so, men who had sex with a married woman.

            The idea that you can control female sexuality, without controlling male sexuality is rather silly. Sex involves two people, and a significant part of controlling a daughter’s sexuality is controlling what type of males she interacts with. In other words, not letting her hang around with PUAs or Jim.

            Do you think mistresses are as sexually chaste as wives? A lot of them are basically prostitutes, who accumulate a lot of sexual partners over their lifetime as the “other woman”. Not very many mistresses lose their virginity to the same man than they grow old with.

            • jim says:

              The idea that you can control female sexuality, without controlling male sexuality is rather silly.

              Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Should we set a guard on what is cheap or what is dear?

              Also there is the white knighting problem. Because of white knighting, if you theoretically have a rule that when improper sex takes place, the man is as much to blame as the woman, it will in practice always be implemented as the man is totally to blame and the woman is not in any way whatsoever to blame.

              In order to get any discipline at all imposed on women, you have to have a rule that unless the man was literally holding a knife to her throat, it is totally her fault and she is absolutely no good worthless horrible trash.

              In Australia, late eighteenth century, sexual immorality by women was theoretically punished by public flogging. This law was defied so frequently and publicly that I conclude that they were reluctant to actually flog women.

              The pious Victorian myth is that public immorality in Australia was because the women were forced into prostitution by economic need.

              In fact the government had a policy of shotgun marriage – of assigning women to men who were able and willing to look after them – or could be forced to look after them. These marriages were frequently voluntary on the part of the man, but often involved the application of extreme pressure on the woman. If women prostituted themselves, it was not because they were forced to by economics, but rather were reluctant to marry.

              There was famous incident where the man in charge of the female factory demanded of a bunch of pregnant women that they name the fathers of the children – with intention of forcing the offenders to marry the fathers of their children – or whichever unfortunate might be the father. They refused to answer, removed their clothing, and bent over presenting their genitals to him, in a mass display of female genitals.

              All the primary sources that I could find accused the women of fucking around because they enjoyed fucking around, not because they wanted economic benefits. If they wanted economic benefits, should have gotten married.

          • B says:

            This is your spin but not what Unwin says, and I find his case more convincing.

            His case is that when you assign women as property, a man can’t easily find unassigned women to have casual sex with. If you also keep him from having sex with boys, sheep and trees, he gets all crazy and starts running around conquering America and building Sistine chapels and such. The second you let the men have prostitutes, catamites, sheep, they start losing their drive and energy.

            The reason Unwin uses Arabs is because of polygamy. Even when you give men of status the option to keep having sex with hot young women by marrying more of them, apparently the longterm outcome is not good.

            But, says Unwin, if you have extreme unequality between the sexes, this arrangement is inherently unstable and degenerates quickly.

            • jim says:

              His case is that when you assign women as property, a man can’t easily find unassigned women to have casual sex with. If you also keep him from having sex with boys, sheep and trees, he gets all crazy and starts running around conquering America and building Sistine chapels and such

              But elite males can find unassigned women. In Classic Greece, elite women were absolutely restricted to the home. But of course, working class women had to work, so …

              And you don’t even have to be all that elite. If one wife per male, and poor males frequently face late marriage or no marriage, then there is a large pool of poor, unmarried, women whose dads cannot supervise them, so lower class women are assumed to not comply to upper class mores.

              Classic Greek households, anybody who was anybody had household slaves.

              The correlation he observes does not fit with his theory. Energetic peoples correspond to chaste wives and mothers, not chaste men.

          • B says:

            You may wish to lie to yourself and say that promiscuity is OK when men like yourself engage in it, as long as your women are restrained. That you should be free to indulge your base desires, because it hurts nobody. It’s those OTHER people who destroy society when they indulge their base desires, but you are smart enough to indulge responsibly.

            Again, Unwin:

            “Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it.”

            Like the Rebbe of Kotsk says, whoever lies to others is committing a sin, but whoever lies to himself is committing a crime.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            >Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Should we set a guard on what is cheap or what is dear?
            But you’re evading my point. Guarding eggs, will necessarily mean guarding sperm. I.e. medieval Christianity’s treatment of men who sleep with virgins and other men’s wives.

            If you raise your daughter around the Amish, or Mormons, she’s more likely to remain a virgin. Why? Because Mormon and Amish men are expected to behave a certain way, and those who are sexually aggressive with virgins or other men’s wives, are usually excommunicated.

            Controlling your daughter’s environment, means controlling the men in her environment.

            >if you theoretically have a rule that when improper sex takes place, the man is as much to blame as the woman
            The primary blame probably rests on the father. If a child misbehaves, who bears the economic and social responsibility for the misbehavior? The parents. Why? Because they’re supposed to keep the child in line. We don’t expect proper behavior from young children, we expect their parents to force them to behave, through punishment and cultivation of virtue. Something similar is true of women, I suspect.

            • jim says:

              >Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Should we set a guard on what is cheap or what is dear?

              But you’re evading my point. Guarding eggs, will necessarily mean guarding sperm.

              Not really. The traditional system was to keep the better class of girls literally locked up from age ten till their coming out parties – and very shortly after their coming out parties, engaged to be married, which meant that there was an eligible male committed to keeping them out of mischief and marrying them if they became pregnant.

              Males, on the other hand, not locked up.

              And lower class females, also known as sluts, not locked up either. Expected to start screwing all and sundry at age ten.

              If you raise your daughter around the Amish, or Mormons, she’s more likely to remain a virgin.

              I don’t think so, unless you raise your daughter as Amish or Mormon.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I don’t think so, unless you raise your daughter as Amish or Mormon.
            Difficult to raise them Amish, if they spend time in the company of non-Amish men.

            And I doubt they literally “locked-up” 10 year-olds. They probably didn’t let them socialize in unsupervised circumstances, which is pretty similar to how most parents treat 10 year-olds today. The difference is that 17 year-old girls are now given freedom, while 100 years ago, they would have been supervised like a 10 year-old.

          • B says:

            >The traditional system was to keep the better class of girls literally locked up from age ten till their coming out parties – and very shortly after their coming out parties, engaged to be married, which meant that there was an eligible male committed to keeping them out of mischief and marrying them if they became pregnant.

            I do not think so.

            For instance, Albion’s Seed quotes average age at first marriage for women in large parts of England 300+ years ago as mid-20s. I can’t imagine Puritan coming out parties-what kind of quinceanera would that be? Average male age at first marriage was higher. And it’s not like those Puritan bros would head down to London for a rager and to pick up Cockney hos on a weekend.

            I vaguely recall, from Carlo Cipolla’s books, that this was a common pattern across Northern Europe.

            You know, sexual restraint isn’t that hard, if it’s a social standard, if the society supports it, and if someone bragging about his sexual activities is looked at with the same sort of contempt with which we currently look at a krokodil addict.

            • jim says:

              >The traditional system was to keep the better class of girls literally locked up from age ten till their coming out parties – and very shortly after their coming out parties, engaged to be married, which meant that there was an eligible male committed to keeping them out of mischief and marrying them if they became pregnant.

              I do not think so.

              That is because you do not read old books and instead rely on secondary and derived sources.

              In “Pride and Prejudice” the protagonist (Elizabeth Bennet) argues with the Duchess over the social system for keeping women under control.

              Duchess (Lady Catherine de Bourgh) condemns the protagonist and her family for allowing the protagonist and her sisters out for a dangerously long time – implying that the protagonist and her sisters, having the opportunity to engage in sexual misconduct, probably are engaging in sexual misconduct. Protagonist argues that the traditional system of keeping daughters in is oppressive, implying or complaining that it is to some extent literal imprisonment. Shortly afterwards her younger sister elopes with a cad.

              It is not clear to what extent the system argued by the Duchess was actually practiced, but it is clear that it was normative, that the protagonist and her family are rebelling against it, that it was expected to be practiced, that the protagonist’s deviation from this system is abnormal, lower class, not expected by the Duchess, and a factor in the family pressure on Darcy to refrain from marrying the protagonist.

              The protagonist complains that late marriage requires alarmingly lengthy imprisonment.

          • B says:

            Pride and Prejudice is a work of fiction and not a primary source.

            A primary source is a collection of marriage records kept by local parishes.

            Which sources Cipolla uses for his data.

            Obviously I could take the next six months off and travel Northern Europe, collecting parish records from the 17th century and transcribing them, then doing a historical analysis-but I have no reason to distrust Cipolla, or the Albions Seed guy.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Albion’s Seed” is a meme spread by white ethnics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnic to divide Anglo-Americans.

            Ashkenazis count as white ethnic, “B”.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Is that what it is?

            The Hebes, the Micks, the Dagos, the Pollocks, the Scandis, the Bohemians, the Spics and the Frogs got together in a smoky backroom and conspired against the innocent anglosaxon Protestants, and our conspiracy included publishing Albion’s Seed to subvert the mushy innocent brains of our dreaded cracker enemies…

            Tell me, what does it feel like, being so stupid that even your fellow white nationalists here think you’re an idiot? It’s quite an achievement, you know, a Triumph of the Will!

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            It’s time to divide the Talmudic Jewish population, once in a while, methinks. So what categories do we have which could be used to play off against each other (at least from time to time, and especially when a white ethnic is doing what he can to divide the Anglo-Saxon population).

            Let’s see. There are:

            +Ashkenazi – pale complexion, some Eastern European genetics, wears a hat from Eastern Europe, and eats stereotypically bland food, speaks Yiddish

            +Sephardic – beige complexion, speaks Spanish-derived language, wears a turban, and eats spicier food. Swarthy and low-class.

            +Ethiopian – black ancestry that is often a new arrival in the Asian continent, curly hair and African garb, enjoys welfare but is sometimes the subject of sterilisation efforts from other of his Talmudic brothers

            My goodness, “B”, Diversity really is a strength! Jewish Palestine will never fall, I mean, how could it?

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Dummy, you forgot the Russians, the Yemenites, the Mountain Jews, the Bukharis, the Georgians, the Italians, the Cochin Indians and the Persians.

            Also we have the Bnei Menashe, straight outta NE India, and the Pashtuns who will probably show up in the next 30 years.

            Anyway, please continue with your fascinating exposition-you’ve got our number as well as that of the Papists and the other assorted ethnic whites.

            • jim says:

              Because Jews in Israel are right up against a threatening enemy, Sephardic Jews don’t much care that Ashkenazi Jews rule. And are unlikely to start caring.

              The Jewish ruling elite is also less treacherous and hostile to the Jews than our ruling elite is to us, though B will give you a quite lengthy litany of complaints about how treacherous and hostile it is.

          • B says:

            The intermarriage rate between Sepharadim, Yemenites and Ashkenazim is very high.

            In my small settlement, I think almost every family is intermarried.

            Nobody gives a shit.

            And I don’t particularly see much of a regression to the mean. People tend to marry assortatively, more or less, by interests, meaning intelligence.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            You state that the difference is that the Talmudic Jews are up against threatening enemies in comparison to Anglo-Americans, but Mexican immigration has been very high over the last dozen or so years, and now whites (Anglos) are forbidden to display the United States flag during certain times of the year because it would aggravate tension with Mexicans. There are also riots when Mexicans aren’t allowed to cross the southern border uninterrupted.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Check today’s news from Israel. Muslims are a much bigger problem than Mexicans.

              Of course the old religion is enjoying a revival among Mexicans, and if it gets substantial support, Mexicans will make Arabs look like Amish. But as yet, Mexicans in the United States are pretty much all Roman Catholic. The old religion has no traction yet in the United States.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            It would be very wrong to overlook the few permitted, reported news articles on the conflict with Mexico in order to spend more time focused on the Talmudic-Mahometan conflict in the Middle East.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              The reason you are not getting white unity against Mexicans, while the Jews are getting Jew unity against Muslims, is not entirely due to press manipulation of the news.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            No, but the news media should be working in synergy with popular opinion and expert knowledge, administrative offices, etc. Right now, the media has gone off-base and it’s become the job of individuals to correct that, not wait for the media to figure it out on its own, of course.

            A.J.P.

        • spandrell says:

          You can grease bureaucrats to make you a deal, but not to have a child.

          Who the hell would you bribe anyone to have a child? That’s just weird. Bureaucrats can’t relate to that. If you bribe them to make money, hey that’s something they can understand, and they actually seek you as a friend. Good things might come out of that. But for having extra children? Not worth it.

          Note how not even a single top bureaucrat has extra children. Communist Party members don’t get fines, they get expelled from the party for having extra children. They’re quite serious about it.

          Zhang Yimou, by far the most famous movie director in China, got fined 1 million dollars for having 3 children.

          • B says:

            If child restrictions were lifted tomorrow, would many Chinese have more children?

            Or would they pull a Singapore?

            According to these Chinese people on Quora, the facts on the ground are not as cut and dry as you make it seem:
            http://qr.ae/RPEzLK
            http://qr.ae/RPEzBd
            http://qr.ae/RPEzmu

            • jim says:

              Your links say that punishment for violating the one child policy is draconian and difficult to avoid. They support Spandrel’s account, not yours. The suggested evasion method is to give birth overseas, and bring the child back to China on a foreign passport, which is unlikely to be practical for most chinese.

          • B says:

            >Your links say that punishment for violating the one child policy is draconian and difficult to avoid

            Is that what they say?

            “usually, a fine. How big, it really depends on the mood of the people in charge and where/who you are. If you are in the countryside, you might get away by paying tens of thousands of RMB (my ex-helper paid that amount after her 4th child. Oh, it also gets easier if you “sort things”out with the officials privately”

            That is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

            “Don’t think for a second this is universally enforced and that villages are full of single child crying their eyes out. Still plenty of families with multiple kids (whether they are registered with the officials or not is another question).”

            That is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

            “Born and raised in a city and being the only child of my parents, I was very surprised to see in my university that all my classmates from rural areas have siblings, and in most cases more than one. One of my roomates was the youngest son with 4 elder sisters…In 1998 the flood, worst in the past 100 years, wreaked havoc in my province. Pai Zhou Wan 簰洲湾, a small town was completed destroyed. When the rescue team from the international red cross arrived there with more than enough supplies for the displaced 58,000 people registered as residents with the local government, they were shocked to find out that the actual population was 72,000.”

            That is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

            “My parents played with the loopholes in the policy and registered my sister as my aunt’s daughter and avoided the punishment.”

            This is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

            “Couples have to pay a fine of 20% of their annual income for a certain number of years for every extra child. Zhang Yimou, a famous director in China, was fined for 7 million yuan just last year. As you can see, this is not really binding as long as you really want to have more than one kid. Most of my parents’ siblings and cousins have more than one child.”

            This is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

            “People, especially in cities, are not willing to have many children because raising them is expensive. Our government is gradually deactivating limitations on births.”

            As I said, “nowadays birth control is not such a strong governmental policy there; birth rates are low for largely the same reason as they’re low in Singapore. People who really want kids can, typically, find a loophole.”

            >The suggested evasion method is to give birth overseas, and bring the child back to China on a foreign passport, which is unlikely to be practical for most chinese.

            This is the suggested evasion method for a very specific group of people: “Gov’t officials and State’s company employees shouldn’t have more than one, except when they fit the criteria of the new ruling; hence they have kids outside of China and bring them back with foreign passports.”

            This is likely to be practical for that group of people.

            • jim says:

              “usually, a fine. How big, it really depends on the mood of the people in charge and where/who you are. If you are in the countryside, you might get away by paying tens of thousands of RMB (my ex-helper paid that amount after her 4th child. Oh, it also gets easier if you “sort things”out with the officials privately”

              That is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

              For a “helper” that is serious money. So yes, is draconian, and the helper was unable to avoid it.

              “My parents played with the loopholes in the policy and registered my sister as my aunt’s daughter and avoided the punishment.”

              This is “draconian and difficult to avoid”?

              The supply of fertile age woman who have given up hope of having a child of their own is pretty small.

              So yes. Is draconian and difficult to avoid.

              This is typical of your arguments. You spin up as down and black as white. You spin sources that say one thing as saying the opposite thing.

              And you will go on and on and on and on. You will never concede, no matter how ridiculous, outrageous, and unreasonable your position.

          • B says:

            The Chinese people I quoted mentioned numerous ways of skirting the law, including writing the kid off as someone else’s. Any one of these ways might not apply in a particular situation-not everyone has a sister/aunt with no kids, not everyone can afford to fly their wife overseas for a week to give birth, etc. Given the resourcefulness of the Chinese, I have no doubt that those who seek, find.

            As the guy said, Pai Zhou Wan was officially supposed to have 58K people, turned out to have 72K, a 24% difference.

            • jim says:

              A harsh policy is resisted and defied a fair bit, particularly far away from the cities. Such resistance and defiance is also punished severely. You are quibbling over how severe something has to be to be “draconian and difficult to avoid”. You are always quibbling. It is tedious, repetitious, and boring.

          • B says:

            Your style of argument is that of a typical progressive:
            1) Make a bunch of assertions with no sources/extrapolate what does not follow from actual sources/quote out of context.
            2) Ignore requests for sources. Ignore or dismiss quotes from your own sources which say the opposite of what you claim the say.
            3) When presented with information that contradicts your assertions, claim that it actually supports them, in a dialectical fashion. I.e., the widespread flaunting of a policy’s violation is evidence that this policy is draconian and universal. This is the same method used by progs when they argue that blacks failing despite getting privileged treatment is evidence of systemic racism, or whatever.
            4) Black is white, war is peace, up is down.
            5) Readership is busy arguing about rat kikes, papists, the Algerian-infiltrated cryptomuslim royal family and different flavors of paint and glue fumes to notice. Nobody has read primary sources (ctrl+f doesn’t count.)

            So you can, for instance, quote JD Unwin one day and then say men should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want outside marriage the next day.

          • red says:

            @B, that’s some major league projecting on your part.

        • spandrell says:

          I also met once a girl who claimed to have 6 sisters. That the law is unevenly enforced, i.e. that the bureaucracy is increasingly inept as distance from the center increases, is hardly surprising. Doesn’t mean there are widely used loopholes. It’s pretty rare.

          Most people now live in cities, increasingly so, and the trend looks more like Singapore than to people insisting in having children and registering them as auntie spinster’s own.

    • Art says:

      B:
      “There are only two internally consistent positions I can see possible here.

      Either human life is inherently valuable, a fetus is either a human life or something close to it, and an abortion is a tragedy/crime. So it’s sacrilegious and morally repugnant to sell fetal parts.
      Or human life has no inherent value/a fetus is not a human life or anything close to it, abortion is just a medical procedure, fetal parts are medical waste, so why not make money selling them? This is the standard Western post-religious utilitarian view.”
      [snip]
      “The Talmud says that G-d keeps non-Jewish nations around as long as they don’t marry men to each other, sell human flesh in the market and respect the Torah (what this last bit means is unclear to me.)”

      Doesn’t your Talmudic reference suggest that there are more than two? That selling body parts falls into a separate category, more evil than murder?

      • B says:

        This is a corollary of the first position, I think. You might kill somebody for all kinds of reasons, some understandable and even excusable, some even praiseworthy. Selling human meat, though, doesn’t seem understandable or excusable (organ donation aside.)

        Likewise, Sodom, which wasn’t just destroyed for the eponymous sin but for their monstrous perversion of human mores and values.

        • A pint thereof says:

          Strange that the first person in the U.S. to be convicted of illegal body-part trafficking was an Israeli Jew.

          I won’t provide a link, but his name was Levy Izhak Rosenbaum if anyone wants to verify the details.

          • B says:

            Organ trafficking is a crime (as you can see by Rosenbaum’s arrest and conviction.) Furthermore, it’s a highly sophisticated crime requiring talent and initiative as well as organizational ability. Matchmaking between people willing to sell a kidney (Israeli Jews in Rosenbaum’s case) and people dying from lack of a kidney, in a forbidding legal environment, internationally, is a difficult enterprise with lots of variables, high risks, etc. Obviously, you’d expect to see more Jews represented in this criminal field than in, say, inner-city ATM muggings or meth distribution networks.

            On the other hand, convincing large numbers of women to have abortions at your licensed chain of abortariums, then selling the fetal tissue is NOT a crime but a perfectly safe, legal, government-subsidized activity. Obviously, you’d expect to see middle-class whites engaged in this work. And you do. See the videos.

            Art-I am not saying that. I’m saying they saw this, as well as gay marriage, as a benchmark of depravity.

          • A pint thereof says:

            @B

            It’s both sad, and indeed revealing, to see you try and make a moral case for the illegal sale and trafficking of human body parts.

          • B says:

            It’s both sad and revealing that you read what I said and took it as me trying to make a case for illegal trafficking of human body parts.

          • peppermint says:

            Whites have this belief that only stupid or desperate people would do these sorts of criminal and creepy semi-criminal things. B is reminding us that Jews don’t have the same sense of ethics as Whites, so intelligent Jews are perfectly willing to do this stuff.

          • Eli says:

            @B: this “pint of idiocy” guy is a troll. I’ve seen his other comments before. Peppermint is, of course, happy to lick his balls just to get to you.

          • A pint thereof says:

            @Eli,

            I’m not sure why it’s trolling to point out that Jews are egregiously involved in the ignoble and seedy business of buying and selling human body parts.

            In fact, up until Levy Izhak Rosenbaum’s conviction, any suggestion that they were involved in this sort of criminal activity was met with the ancient defense of “blood libel!!”

            Well, turns out this “blood libel” just happened to be true.

          • Eli says:

            @pint: dude, you know B is not defending this guy. He does say that committing this crime requires quite the brains, which most don’t have or have much of. It’s kind of like the general public admiring Al Capone for the influential criminal he was. Still a criminal, of course.

            • jim says:

              B is arguing that Jewish overrepresentation in various undesirable activities, such as financial shenanigans, immoral political activities, organ trafficing etc, reflects Ashkenazi IQ. Jews are underrepresented in other undesirable activities like pick pocketing, mugging, harassing drivers for payoffs, etc.

              On the whole, much better to live near Jews than near dindus. Would you prefer to live next door to an organ trafficer, or next door to someone who when he has a flat battery, will open your car with a jack handle and steal your battery?

              Jews are overrepresented in undesirable activities that require high IQ, under represented in undesirable activities that do not require high IQ.

          • A pint thereof says:

            @Eli

            Being the middle-man in an organ trafficking operation doesn’t require any brains whatsoever. All it requires is the willingness to make money of off a desperate person, put at risk of infection and death, just for the sake of taking your 10%.

            But I think the case of Levy Izhak Rosenbaum is important; up until his conviction, mouthpieces for worldwide Jewry claimed that any suggestion the Jews were involved in organized illegal flesh-trading was just another “blood libel”. The ADL were heavily involved in pushing this line.

            Unfortunately, the “pound of flesh” motif in Western culture has its roots well and firmly ground in reality.

          • Eli says:

            @pint: you *seriously* think that being a middleman for an organ trading enterprise doesn’t take much brains?!

            How about this: try to research what it takes to find a way to store and safely transport an organ, to find a doctor willing to extract one without needing to know where it will go, then (potentially) another doctor willing to accept said organ for the needy patient in the wealthy country (with typically a lot of bureacratic paperwork to make it all seem legit and have his ass covered), then a whole slew of other things I have no clue about whatsoever. Actually, the fact that he got caught shows that he made at least one oversight somewhere. I’m sure there are other, ongoing endeavors at this very moment, by other smart(er) folks who know how to cover their tracks better. Some of them may be Jews, some of them may be Russians, and some may be Chinese or whatever. Likely not idiots/trolls like you.

            My problem since teen years has been giving the benefit of doubt to pips like you. No more of that: you are either a troll or a moron or both.

          • Jack says:

            Jews have a diminished sense of empathy compared to Whites. Thus, circumcision. (note: Jews and Muslims in the West cooperate to preserve the status quo regarding circumcision, which Whites would rather ban. Typically, Jews sob exactly 6 trillion tears about the purported “anti-Semitism” behind the issue. An “anti-Semite” used to be someone who hates Jews; now it’s someone hated by them) Consequently, Jews lack trust, are low-trust, similarly to other Asiatic races. Jews also lack a healthy sense of disgust. Recently, Scott Alexander mused:

            “As best I can tell fetuses have less personhood than cows, and I had a cheeseburger for dinner last night. If someone wants to abort a fetus because their pregnancy was an accident, because they don’t feel ready to have a child, because there’s some kind of problem in the family – all of those seem to me like a decision that a mother is perfectly within her rights to make, becauses fetuses are not very important moral agents… if a mother wanted an autistic child, and she was somehow sure that she could support that child and help him or her flourish, I would be okay with her aborting however many neurotypical fetuses it took.”

            How can anyone, including Jews, read such words and not yearn – if only for a fleeting moment — for Saint Adolf Hitler to return to Earth from his heavenly abode to purify it of every single Jew? And I’m not even a real Nazi. Notice, however, how the Jews in this thread, really in this entire blog, actually in all NRx blogs, actually all over the internet (and beyond), are neurotically obsessed with defending the honor and reputation of their people; certainly, White commenters don’t exhibit this insane level of ethno-centrism. No criticism, however justified, shall go unanswered. Jews and Muslims deserve one another.

            • jim says:

              Are you worried that Scott Alexander is emitting mind control rays?

              As B correctly tells us, those Jews will soon be gone.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            @Jack – hence why I am unsure why anyone continues to have respect for Scott Alexander. He is a blight.

          • B says:

            >Jews have a diminished sense of empathy compared to Whites.

            1) Haredim make up a fraction of a percent of the American population and 17% of kidney donors to strangers.

            2) The vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are performed by non-Jews upon one another.

            3) Whites have traditionally given very little care about their children, as seen by the English tradition of sending their boys off to public school to get buggered into adulthood, the French epidemic of child abandonment, the massive trade in white orphan slaves to North America, the majority being worked to death by their Puritan, Quaker and Cavalier masters…

          • B says:

            >Jews in this thread, really in this entire blog, actually in all NRx blogs, actually all over the internet (and beyond), are neurotically obsessed with defending the honor and reputation of their people

            You’ve got us-we’re very ashamed. We should be more like Western whites, who not only don’t defend their ethnic group’s reputation and honor, but actively compete over who can signal their status harder by talking about how terrible white people are, how guilty they are of various crimes, how lacking in moral character, etc. Besmirching your people’s honor and reputation is the way to go.

            Then you would look at us and say, “those are the good Jews. Look how nice and honest they are when they make a full confession of their national sins! We know the Jews are good because they are very forthcoming in admitting how bad they are!”

            Some Jews are learning from you people-for instance, a lot of the BDS leadership in the US, Noam Chomsky, the NYT Sulzberger family, etc. Soon, they will be gone too.

            • jim says:

              We [Jews] should be more like Western whites, who not only don’t defend their ethnic group’s reputation and honor, but actively compete over who can signal their status harder by talking about how terrible white people are, how guilty they are of various crimes, how lacking in moral character, etc.

              You know B, it is because of great stuff like this that I don’t ban you.

          • Jack says:

            @B: sure, B, be exactly like the Arabs, fiercely deny all your problems to preserve your image and your ego. Not a recipe for disaster; history proves that much. “Yo Jews, why won’t you cease agitating or otherwise inciting the authorities (king, Cathedral, etc) against the host society?” “We dindu nothin. Muh anti-Semitism.” *Pogrom occurs* “We dindu nothin. Muh anti-Semitism.” Wow what a brilliant strategy. Actually no, it’s not brilliant, it’s idiotic and paves the way to dysfunction and anti-Semitism. Perhaps that’s what the rabbis desire, to prevent intermingling with non-Jews. But you can’t say you don’t bring it upon yourself.

            @Jim: even if in a few decades the likes of Scott Alexander will be gone, right now they are a problem, because they have power and influence. If you believe they shouldn’t have power and influence – then we fully agree. They should be promptly removed, maybe sent to their homeland Israel. Why should the Goyim deal with them?

            • jim says:

              Forcible removal of market dominant minorities tends to screw up the host economy, since most of them are engaged in perfectly innocent economic activities.

              The major harm done by Jews is their ideological and cultural influence, and worrying about their ideological can cultural influence is worrying about evil mind control rays. We should have enough memetic sovereignty to ignore alien shit, and if we don’t we have bigger problems than the Jews. And we do have bigger problems than the Jews. Most of this crap was visible in the Divorce Queen Caroline, female emancipation, and the Civil War, none of which you can blame on the Jews.

              Cathedral Jews are conversos, converting, or pretending to convert, to progressivism, which is the heretical spawn of Christianity. Our vulnerability, and our problem, is that Cathedral ideology is not alien shit.

              Scott Alexander is a victim of Cathedral ideology, not a secret member of the Zionist Occupation Government. If he was a secret member of the Zionist Occupation Government, he would get laid. If you remove him, you are attacking the matador’s cape, not the matador.

              Similarly, Margaret Mead was not Jewish, and if Boaz was the secret power behind Margaret Mead she would have fucked him, instead of fucking all the numerours not at all Jewish powerful people that she did fuck. If Scott Alexander was part of the Zionist Occupation Government he would get laid, and if the Zionist Occupation government was responsible for Margaret Mead, she would have fucked them all, male and female.

            • jim says:

              Who is poisoning our culture more: Scott Alexander or Pope Francis?

          • B says:

            >be exactly like the Arabs, fiercely deny all your problems to preserve your image and your ego.

            I do not deny our problems. I deny false accusations of using mind control rays to get the innocent trusting goyim to do bad things, when it is obvious that they did those bad things without Jews, do those bad things with Jews around (worse on average than Jews do them,) and keep doing those bad things when the Jews have moved on. I.e., the Italian mafia did not take an organizational vow of chastity and move into monasteries when Meyer Lansky left.

            Your rhetorical argument is basically “you beat your wives. Look, here’s a Jew that beat his wife. Here’s another one! Admit you people beat your wives, or your refusal to admit it will be evidence of the fact that you’re the kind of bad people who beat their wives.” The only reasonable rejoinder is to refer you to your own orifice.

            The problems we have are not that we hurt the poor goyim; the opposite is true. The problems we have come from the fact that we want the non-Jews to like us, to tell us “you’re the GOOD Jews.” We should not be focused on what non-Jews want of us, but on what G-d wants of us.

            • jim says:

              The problems we [Jews] have come from the fact that we want the non-Jews to like us, to tell us “you’re the GOOD Jews.”

              And also from the fact that when a goyim hires a propagandist to spread a lie, he will probably hire a Jew, and the Jew will do the job so well he winds up believing it himself.

          • B says:

            “Goyim” is plural for “goy” (literally, “nation”/”nations”.) For instance, the Hebrews are referred to as a “goy kadosh”, a “holy nation.”

            I personally prefer “non-Jew” because of the pejorative associations that have grown around the word “goy”, unless I am talking to an idiot antisemite and trolling him a bit.

            When a non-Jew wants to hire a propagandist, he will pay a non-Jewish English grad from Vassar, i.e., HuffPo/Jezebel/Margaret Sanger.

            The great Jewish propagandists, like Marx and Chomsky, or Cathedralites like Kissinger and Soros, became conversos BEFORE getting paid anything. The causality is backwards. See Rubin’s great Assimilation and Its Discontents.

          • Jack says:

            @B:

            >I deny false accusations of using mind control rays to get the innocent trusting goyim to do bad things

            Right, Jewish dominated Hollywood has not influenced the Goyim negatively whatsoever. Of course, you’re strawmaning my argument. The contention is not that “Whites lived in Utopia until the Jews moved in”. Rather, Whites had ups and downs, and the Jews are more of a “down” and less of an “up”. Jewish actual scientists have contributed significantly to humanity, but Jewish “social scientists” and social activists have exacerbated social ills to such an extent so as to render their actual scientific contributions almost irrelevant. Autistic people tend to disregard societal conditions and praise the Jews for all the good science, but non-spergs occasionally notice that what Jews have done to the actual society in which actual humans live is horrible. Had Jews had less verbal IQ and more performance IQ, or simply more performance IQ, their overall influence would have been much more positive, see: East-Asians. Alas, groundless sophistry goes hand in hand with insane ideologies, and people whose performance IQ is much lower than their verbal IQ are natural sophists, natural Leftists, natural insane ideologues.

            >Your rhetorical argument is basically “you beat your wives.

            What rhetorical argument? I’m not a Talmudist like you. I make a factual argument about Jews being a negative influence over society. This contention is either supported by facts, or it isn’t. Of course, there are facts and then there is interpretation. When you see another German-sounding-surname attached to yet another article calling for the Goyim to abolish themselves, and then another one, and then another one, and you realize that almost all such articles are written by people with German-sounding-surnames, you either interpret this as a total coincidence, as completely random and meaningless data, or you notice a strange pattern begging for explanation. There’s a pattern, and there’s nothing wrong with debating and inquiring as to why we keep seeing that same pattern again and again, and reaching conclusions that those people with those German-sounding-surnames are less then absolutely comfortable with.

            >The problems we have are not that we hurt the poor goyim; the opposite is true.

            Heh. Let me remark that I’ve become disillusioned with capital-N Nationalism after realizing that Jewish Nationalists, White Nationalists, and really all Nationalists, make the exact same talking point, namely: “our problem, brothers, is not that we are wrong here or wrong there. No! Our real problem is that we’re just too good towards other peoples. We’re too nice. Too forgiving of offences against us, too merciful for our own good. If only we were less merciful, and more like them – like those cruel people over there, who don’t act according to some misguided and lofty morality, but according to pure self-interest – we’d be in paradise by now. So enough apologizing, let’s do what works for us and not be ashamed!” Literally, word for word, the exact same thing that goes through the minds of Jewish, Arab, Black, White, and Asian Nationalists. That said, some races really are more merciful than others. Clannish Jews are merciful towards one another and harsh towards outsiders (Koran 48:29 springs to mind here). This may or may not be a positive trait, but it’s undeniable. We know this is true because Jews, such as yourself, never get tired of denouncing ostensible Jewish self-hatred, whereas Whites are not that concerned about racial loyalties. Again, this may or may not be a positive trait, but evidently it accurately describes your mindset.

            @Jim:

            >Forcible removal of market dominant minorities tends to screw up the host economy, since most of them are engaged in perfectly innocent economic activities.

            If their assets are distributed among responsible parties and not among greedy plebes, and the removal is gradual rather than abrupt, then it should work out just fine.

            >The major harm done by Jews is their ideological and cultural influence, and worrying about their ideological can cultural influence is worrying about evil mind control rays. We should have enough memetic sovereignty to ignore alien shit, and if we don’t we have bigger problems than the Jews. And we do have bigger problems than the Jews.

            I don’t really disagree with any of this, but like B you’re strawmaning my argument, which is not that “everything bad is Jewish, everything Jewish is bad”, but that overall Jewish mind control rays have not swayed host societies to any positive direction, scientific discoveries notwithstanding, but have acted negatively upon the Goyim. Should the Goyim do nothing about those mind control rays? Why? If your hand is itching, and also you’re indebted to the mafia, should you refuse to scratch your hand because you’ve got bigger problems? Makes no sense.

            >Cathedral Jews are conversos, converting, or pretending to convert, to progressivism, which is the heretical spawn of Christianity.

            Jews have agency. No one forced Jews to convert to the most radical interpretation of the heretical Christian sect that is Progressivism (assuming Moldbug’s theory is legit), and no one forced them to radicalize this already insanely radical ideology thousandfold to arrive at modern Progressivism, which no longer bears any semblance to whatever originally spawned it. Jews may not have invented Progressivism, but they joined it with fanatical enthusiasm, zealous enthusiasm, and then radicalized it beyond all recognition. Sorry, Jim, but conversos may end up fundamentally altering the religion they converted to, especially if they willingly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically converted to said religion, as is the case with Jews and Progressivism. Jews willingly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically converted to Progressivism, and injected their DNA into it until it became what it is today. You can’t absolve them of responsibility just because they didn’t come up with it themselves – which is itself arguable, since, if Progressivism is heretical Christianity, then Christianity may as well be heretical Judaism, etcetra till Animism and beyond.

            >Scott Alexander is a victim of Cathedral ideology

            Yes, he’s a poor victim. We all remember that dreary day in which crypto-Calvinists bursted open the Synagogue in which he was piously praying to Yahweh, the God of his ancestors, dragged him by his tassels and peyos, beat him unconscious with sharp metal objects, and upon waking up, forced him to memorize and embrace the tenets of modern Progressivism, all against his will and using immense, severe torture. That really happened.

            Alternatively, Jews are not victims, Scott Alexander is not a victim, but rather, Jews were glad to convert to Progressivism, did so willingly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically, and once converted to Progressivism, proceeded to take over the already-radical religion, and radicalized it beyond anything its originators would imagine, and voila: modern Progressivism.

            One of these accounts is true, the other is not.

            >If you remove him, you are attacking the matador’s cape, not the matador.

            The matador-cape analogy implies complete passivity on the side of Jews, complete lack of agency, like they can’t move without being moved. In reality, the cape seems to have taken ahold of the matador, to the extent they’re no longer separable beings. It’s alive!

            Seriously though, Jews have made their own decisions, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t pay for their crimes against humanity, which they committed and commit willingly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically, just because the radical ideology they warmly embraced and thereafter utterly and ardently radicalized is a heresy of a heresy of a heresy of a heresy of a heresy of something which they may or may not have invented themselves.

            The conversos have become the converters.

          • Jack says:

            >Who is poisoning our culture more: Scott Alexander or Pope Francis?

            The likes of Scott Alexander hold more material power than the Catholic Church. “The Cathedral” is materially stronger than any other organization on Earth. That should answer your question.

            • jim says:

              >Who is poisoning our culture more: Scott Alexander or Pope Francis?

              The likes of Scott Alexander hold more material power than the Catholic Church.

              If the likes of Scott Alexander had more material power than the Catholic Church, Scott would get laid.

              You can tell who has the power by who Margaret Mead and Florence Nightingale screwed.

              Hint: Boaz was one of the few people Mead did not screw. Boaz and her husband. So you cannot blame Mead on Boaz.

              Jews stand in the same relationship to the Cathedral as the matador’s cape does to the matador.

        • Art says:

          Are you saying that when Talmud talks about selling human flesh the rabbis did not mean that in particular but rather wrongful killing or murder in general?

          • Ron says:

            I think it means exactly what it says. The selling of dead human flesh as a consumable in the market place. Although I personally never imagined the abomination that the so called Planned Parenthood has committed.

            Their actions are in the category of Crimes Against Humanity and go far beyond simple murder. Every single man and woman working there, regardless of ethnicity or creed who does not immediately walk away from that organization must be tried and convicted of a capital crime. Would to God the righteous men in America could succeed in bringing Justice to those monsters.

        • B says:

          >Right, Jewish dominated Hollywood has not influenced the Goyim negatively whatsoever.

          I don’t understand your argument. The US was full of pornography in the post-Civil War era; was that the Jooz, too?

          Given that the population of the US demands degenerate entertainment, if you remove the high-IQ people supplying it, you will get worse-quality degenerate entertainment. Notice Nigeria’s massive movie industry, with not a Jew in site.

          > I make a factual argument about Jews being a negative influence over society.

          You don’t have a counterfactual to point to, meaning, a Jew-free society comparable to that of the West. Being an idiot, you think that pointing to a list of bad things done by people with Jewish last names proves something. Would a list of bad things done by Irishmen, Brits, Japanese, etc. prove something?

          >Clannish Jews are merciful towards one another and harsh towards outsiders

          It is natural and healthy for people to treat their family members better than strangers. It is sick and unnatural for the reverse to be the case.

          >If their assets are distributed among responsible parties and not among greedy plebes, and the removal is gradual rather than abrupt, then it should work out just fine.

          Not only are you an idiot, but you are a small-c communist. There is a reason that “thou shall not covet” is a commandment.

          > but that overall Jewish mind control rays have not swayed host societies to any positive direction, scientific discoveries notwithstanding, but have acted negatively upon the Goyim.

          Your society has not gone in a positive direction because your society does not want to go in a positive direction, having decided that up is down and black is white a long time ago. The same way that Rome and Greece decided that hedonism, epicureanism, etc. were the way to go, and anyone who said different should be shouted down by the mob. In such a climate, naturally you will find unscrupulous people willing to provide dope and catamites, and some of those people will be Jewish. So what?

          >Jews have agency

          Indeed.

          >Alternatively, Jews are not victims, Scott Alexander is not a victim, but rather, Jews were glad to convert to Progressivism, did so willingly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically, and once converted to Progressivism, proceeded to take over the already-radical religion, and radicalized it beyond anything its originators would imagine, and voila: modern Progressivism.

          Scott Alexander is the descendant of conversos, and is indeed a victim.

          Jews who converted to Progressivism did so as a result of an extensive stick-and-carrot campaign aimed at getting them to do so. See Assimilation And Its Discontents.

          >Seriously though, Jews have made their own decisions, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t pay for their crimes against humanity

          Everybody pays for their sins against G-d unless they repent. Us, you people, the Mbuti pygmy. But you are not the impartial arbiter here. Rather, you’re just an asshole demagogue driven by envy of more talented people and hoping to rally a mob to rob them under the pretext that they are less moral than the source population from which you wish to draw a mob.

          • pdimov says:

            “I don’t understand your argument.”

            His argument is simple: white societies are better off without Jews.

            “Given that the population of the US demands degenerate entertainment, if you remove the high-IQ people supplying it, you will get worse-quality degenerate entertainment.”

            And your argument is that Jews are like a catalyzer: they don’t cause degradation ex nihilo, they only make it faster and more efficient.

            Which contradicts his point how?

          • B says:

            A great way to keep from dying in a car accident is to pour sugar in your gas tank. Problem solved.

          • Jack says:

            >I don’t understand your argument.

            Removing Jews from White society is better than not doing so.

            >The US was full of pornography in the post-Civil War era

            Smut =/= porn. Pornography is a Jewish-dominated business, and is infinitely more corrosive than smut.

            >Given that the population of the US demands degenerate entertainment,

            Yeah, the Jews are just giving the puritanical, err, degenerate Goyim what they want. How benevolent. The war on Christmas, for instance, is definitely something Gentiles “demand” to be included in their entertainment, and has nothing to do with any Jewish agenda. Likewise, the Goyim just enjoy humor that incessantly undermines paternal authority, because… reasons. No Jewish agenda in sight; move along, folks.

            >if you remove the high-IQ people supplying it, you will get worse-quality degenerate entertainment. Notice Nigeria’s massive movie industry, with not a Jew in site.

            You’ve heard it, Whites: you’re basically Nigerians. The idea that perhaps if those “high-IQ people” who coincidentally happen to be Jewish were removed from society, they would be replaced with high-IQ Whites who are actually capable of producing non-garbage, is literally a logical impossibility, so B assures us. And why won’t we all trust him? It’s not like he displays extreme kikery, does he?

            >Being an idiot, you think that pointing to a list of bad things done by people with Jewish last names proves something.

            That’s rich coming from a Jew, considering you’re the nation most obsessed with every single slight, misdemeanor, and wrong done to you (in real life or in your wild imagination) by outsiders throughout all of history. Never forgive, never forget! If you ask a Jew about any nation whose territory Jews ever occupied, he could give you the exact date and location on which something bad happened to his brethren. But if you dare point out some bad things done by Jews (for instance, the Frankfurt School), that’s just “idiotic”, you see. Only Jews are allowed to hold any grudges. What we see here is typical Jewish projection, and typical Jewish “one rule for me, another rule for thee”.

            Jews are overrepresented among well-poisoners (metaphorical, if not literal) just as Blacks are overrepresented among criminals. B here doesn’t mind if bad traits of Gentiles are pointed out, but once you tackle Jewish behavior, well, why would you even go into that, Comrade? Some patterns were just not meant to be noticed.

            >Would a list of bad things done by Irishmen, Brits, Japanese, etc. prove something?

            Would a list of bad things done by Gentiles to Jews prove something? Would a list of bad things done by Jews to Gentiles prove something? Are you an astronomical hypocrite, like the rest of Jewry? It’s a real difficult puzzle on our hands here.

            And to answer those questions: a list of bad things done by Gentiles to Jews is nothing out of the ordinary. Plenty of those are circulated and propagated among Jewish groups, and also pushed down everyone’s throats. In contrast, a list of bad things done by Jews to Gentiles cannot serve any purpose whatsoever according to B; it’s really just a distraction, so it’s irrelevant.

            >It is natural and healthy for people to treat their family members better than strangers. It is sick and unnatural for the reverse to be the case.

            Agree. For instance, if a White Gentile doctor sees a White Goy and a Chosennite both lying injured on the ground, bleeding their guts out, it is natural and healthy for him to save the Goy first and foremost, and only then, maybe, treat the Jew. Glad it’s all clear and Talmudical in here.

            >Not only are you an idiot, but you are a small-c communist. There is a reason that “thou shall not covet” is a commandment.

            Gentiles should treat their family members better than they treat the Chosennite strangers in their midst; it’s natural and healthy according to one frequent commenter here. What’s wrong with doing to the Jews that which, according to the Old Testament, they’ve done to the nations of Canaan, for instance? I think Gentiles should learn from the Old Testament accounts of Joshua and the war against Amalek, and treat the Jews accordingly.

            Again, what we see here is typical Jewish projection and typical Jewish “one rule for me, another rule for thee”. When Jews covet that which belongs to the Goyim, it’s sanctioned to take it away by force. If Gentiles retaliate in kind, B cries exactly 6 million tears about the horrible oppression, and calls it “communism”, as if the communists invented the division of war spoils. Today we learned that the ancient Hebrews were low-c communists. In addition to being idiots, that is.

            >In such a climate, naturally you will find unscrupulous people willing to provide dope and catamites, and some of those people will be Jewish. So what?

            “Some.” Pattern recognition faculty status: deactivated.

            >Scott Alexander is the descendant of conversos, and is indeed a victim.

            Oh, I see. Jews theoretically have agency, but in practice are VICTIMS of evil mind control rays emitted by those crypto-Calvinists. In similar fashion, all “anti-Semitic” deeds committed against Jews were committed by VICTIMS who dindu nothin and were merely brainwashed by this or that propaganda into doing what they’ve done. No?

            “One rule for me, another rule for thee.” If Jews opt for Progressivism, they’re actually victims. (They always are, apparently) This standard is to never be applied to non-Jews: if Gentiles take on the yoke of Progressivism, they’re fully responsible, unlike the Jews, who are passive victims, and had absolutely no influence of their own on the development of Progressivism. Right.

            If an “anti-Semite” claims that Jews are encouraging Gentiles to abolish themselves, and presents facts indicating that Jews really are encouraging Gentiles to abolish themselves, and thus Gentiles are victims of harmful Jewish influence, then he’s just a “White dindu” and probably a conspiracy kook as well.

            If, on the other hand, a Jew claims that Gentiles (of the Crypto-Calvinist variety, no less, who happen to be so common these days) are emitting evil minds control rays and thereby compelling Jews, really forcing them, into Progressivism – then that’s fine and no indication of Jewish victimology, whining, and denial of agency.

            >Jews who converted to Progressivism did so as a result of an extensive stick-and-carrot campaign aimed at getting them to do so.

            Any Gentile making a similar claim about Jews… but I repeat myself. Jews obviously have no sticks, no carrots, and most certainly no “campaigns” aimed at getting Gentiles to do things which are detrimental to their society. Nah, only Gentiles engage in propaganda; Jews are completely passive agents.

            You see, Jews are victims of Gentile propaganda, and this is never called “mind control rays”. But Jewish propaganda is definitely a non-existent fiction.

            Then these brazen leeches wonder why they’re hated.

            >But you are not the impartial arbiter here.

            You are in no position to tell anyone what he is or isn’t.

            >Rather, you’re just an asshole demagogue driven by envy of more talented people

            Admittedly, propaganda is a talent. It’s just so happens that your people are allowed to spread your memetic garbage and poison all you like, and the Gentiles must not be allowed to resist. And when they do resist, it’s denigrated as “envy” rather than basic survival instinct directed against a bloodsucking parasite. You’ve got me though, what I really desire is your shekels. That’s definitely not yet another typical Jewish projection.

            >and hoping to rally a mob to rob them under the pretext that they are less moral

            Jewish immorality is fiction. You’re passive victims, after all. By definition, you can do no wrong. You’ll forever be essentially less wrong (pun totally intended) than the Goyim.

            >than the source population from which you wish to draw a mob.

            Well, I’ve already sent 1,500 pure Aryan warriors dedicated to my demagoguery into your settlement in Israel, to hunt you down, so beware. What a hysterical Yid, lol.

            • jim says:

              Yeah, the Jews are just giving the puritanical, err, degenerate Goyim what they want. How benevolent. The war on Christmas, for instance, is definitely something Gentiles “demand” to be included in their entertainment, and has nothing to do with any Jewish agenda.

              War on Christmas is a puritan obsession. Orthodox Jews don’t give a shit about other people celebrating Christmas, any more than Muslims, animists, or Confucians do. It is converso Jews, converts to progressivism, who use their supposed Jewishness as a battering ram against Christmas, though they care nothing for their supposed Jewishness in other aspects of their lives.

            • jim says:

              >It is natural and healthy for people to treat their family members better than strangers. It is sick and unnatural for the reverse to be the case.

              Agree. For instance, if a White Gentile doctor sees a White Goy and a Chosennite both lying injured on the ground, bleeding their guts out, it is natural and healthy for him to save the Goy first and foremost, and only then, maybe, treat the Jew. Glad it’s all clear and Talmudical in here.

              On this, B is right and you are wrong. You complain about Universalism, and you complain that Jews are insufficiently universalist. You cannot have it both ways.

              If the Jews are doing this to us with their evil mind control rays, then Universalism is an evil Jewish plot. If, on the other hand, Jews are wicked for being insufficiently universalist, then obviously we are doing this to ourselves. As soon as you condemn B for insufficient universalism, you reveal that we are doing this to ourselves.

              You, not B, and not Scott Alexander, are telling people to be universalist.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            A “Puritan”, which is an anti-white slur for a Congregationalist or Dissenter, is some-one who goes to an often deliberately non-liturgical church. But they go, or went, to Church and were quite devout to the point where they would travel many miles to find a place to practice their beliefs.

            So using the word “Puritan” as all encompassing bogeyman is a lazy way to attack the low church tradition, unless you are aiming your critique at people who do regularly attend on Sundays, and yet make a big show of tearing down Christmas decorations, something that I doubt exists in 2015. It is also anti-white and probably an indication of papist sympathies…

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Look at the history of the Puritans. They overthrow the Bishops. They overthrow the King. They execute the King. They attack marriage. They attack Christmas. They attack private property. At which point Cromwell decides that things have gone too far and cracks down on those lefter than himself. Pure essence of leftism. What did the Jews do?

              Then the dissenters. Again, undermine the Church of England, oppose slavery, infiltrate the Africa society. Again, essence of leftism.

              Consider the case of the Hottentot Venus Not a Jew in sight.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Very good that you are using the past-tense again. But it’s very bad, inexecusably so, to say that the war on Christmas is Puritan (present tense, so if that’s your assertion then where are the Puritans, no wait they’re actually committed atheists now). This sort of laziness is the favoured excuse of numerous anti-whites, especially in the New World, to justify endless attacks against the founding white population of the country that would become the United States.

            It’s time to forgive the regicidal actions of the Dissenters, too. It’s simply un-Christian to hold such a grudge for that many centuries and history is never as easily interpreted as one might assert in order to make political hay out of it.

            Yes, the anti-“Puritan” argument is battle cry of the Vatican-Roman “Catholic” and the brown hordes that he brings from South of the border. It’s evil as Hell.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              so if that’s your assertion then where are the Puritans, no wait they’re actually committed atheists now.

              They may be committed atheists, but somehow they are still nonetheless holier than thou.

              They opposed Christmas when they were Puritans and were holier than thou

              They opposed Christmas when they were Transcendentalists and were holier than Jesus

              They opposed Christmas when they were Unitarians and were holier than the risen Christ.

              And now they are holier than God, and still oppose Christmas.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            If you want to talk Talmudic Jews, they’re not anything special. Merely another parasite that uses demotism to get what they came for. Pirates, parasites. Like the Irishman, the Pollock, the Somalian, the Guatemalan, the Chinaman. They take advantage of the demotist sytem’s lack of immune response to take for their own and not give back.

            In Anglosphere lands, they (the assorted alien groups) take from the Cathedral made out of the founding Anglo-Saxon population. In French Cathedral areas, they take from the founding population of Frenchmen. In Germany, they take from the Cathedral made out of the German population that is native there.

            It’s quite simple. And, no the Talmudic Jew is not special except perhaps for his long-term presence as one of the first alien groups to live parasitically and ability to camouflage as a white, or white ethnic in papist or Greek Orthodox lands.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            You’re making the same argument as do the papists who want North Mexico in place of the United States, and that’s not acceptable. Historical revisionism to blame people who lived hundreds of years ago is not going to go un-checked when it undermines the legitimacy of whites who’s ancestors you’re in fact attacking.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            Why, heaven-o, neighbor!

            Today’s puritans aren’t fighting the War on Christmas, they’re concentrating on the War on Halloween. Halloween is an extremely high social trust holiday in which unrelated White adults give candy to White children who show off their costumes. It’s the most definitively White holiday in America.

            So they attack it for insufficient focus on worshipping that leftist rabbi on a stick who told his followers that they are saved not by doing positive things for their community but by signaling their faith alone. They take a principled stand and do not buy candy to give to strangers’ children.

            Have a blessed day.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            L.O.L….”Peppermint Papist”, you are being anti-white.

          • Jack says:

            I absolutely do not condemn B for insufficient universalism. He is condemned for hypocritically whining about Goyim taking care of their own first and foremost and treating Jews unfaaaaaaaairly, while advocating for Jews to do just that. I’m all for anti-universalism if everyone, not just Chosennites, are allowed to engage in it.

            Scott Alexander actually has more integrity than B and other typical Jews. Scott is a consistent universalist. Other Jews either follow Scott’s example and practice the universalism they preach, or follow the Culture of Critique and condemn the Goyim for insufficient universalism while themselves not practising any. Rarely do you find Jews who accept that Gentiles are allowed non-universalism. I can hardly think of any Jew at all who accepts that Gentiles have legitimate ethnic interests and are not at fault for pursuing them.

            As for whether the culture war is fought on behalf of Jewry or on behalf of the puritans, I suspect you haven’t read your fair share of TheOccidentalObserver.

            • jim says:

              I absolutely do not condemn B for insufficient universalism. He is condemned for hypocritically whining about Goyim taking care of their own first and foremost and treating Jews unfaaaaaaaairly,

              He does not condemn the Goyim for “taking care of their own first and foremost”, in substantial part because we quite obviously do not.

              People get overly agitated about the crimes of the Jews, not because those offenses are particularly bad, but out of envy and covetousness.

              For example, everyone is very much aware of the sins of Goldman Sachs, but no one is particularly aware of vastly larger crimes of Countrywide and Angelo Mozillo.

              Indeed, in so far as Goldman Sachs did bad things, they did them because Angelo Mozilo, a “Hispanic” affirmative actioned into control of Countrywide, manipulated them and suckered them.

              Angelo Mozilo, himself white Hispanic if he is Hispanic at all, made huge loans to mestizo and and indio deadbeats who had no income, no job, and no assets. He then unloaded these loans on various suckers, among them Goldman Sachs. After 2005 November, Goldman Sachs realized they had been had, and attempted to unload these toxic assets on to their customers and on to the government. And everyone says “Ah, is that not absolutely typical of Jews, to sell their customers a dud financial asset”. Well yes, it is typical of Jews, but if you focus on Goldman Sachs, as pretty much everyone does, you are missing the elephant in the living room.

              Your main complaint against the Jews is that Jewish directed porn is fairly good. Oh the horror. Jewish mind control rays are making you masturbate. What a terrible crime. Doubtless you would be a fine upstanding citizen if they produced crappier porn.

          • Jack says:

            Pornography direction: another job White Americans won’t do.

            Actually in the case of porn, it’s not a Jewish conspiracy as much as lecherous amoral Jews simply being themselves. Of course they gloat over how pornography is used to debauch Gentile Christian culture, but even without this wonderful side-effect, they’d still get involved in the business because Jewish sexuality is incontinent (everything about Jews is crass and incontinent) and the Jewish senses of morality: guilt, shame, and empathy, are diminished and constrained. The same thing can be said of Jewish atrocities against art: while they utilize their odious “art” against society, they couldn’t produce great paintings, architecture, or music even if they wanted to, because of profound biological inferiority. Have you ever tasted Ashkenazi cuisine? It’s like a culinary Holocaust perpetrated against the epicurean sense. Their vile fruits reflect their vile nature.

            • jim says:

              Jews are overrepresented in pornography production to about the same extent as they are over-represented in other video production. So it seems unlikely that this is reflective of Jewish sexual propensities.

              People pay disproportionate attention when they notice Jews doing something bad. This is indicative of envy and covetousness. It is unhealthy to pay so much attention to Jews.

          • pdimov says:

            “People pay disproportionate attention when they notice Jews doing something bad. This is indicative of envy and covetousness.”

            This kind of vulgar anti-Semitism (evil Jewish bankers are robbing us) is still alive and well in backward parts of the world such as for example Eastern Europe, but I don’t observe it that much in the West. Most westerners seem to earn the anti-Semite label for the crime of noticing Jews on the front lines of the culture war against them. That’s not envy.

            • jim says:

              This kind of vulgar anti-Semitism (evil Jewish bankers are robbing us) is still alive and well in backward parts of the world such as for example Eastern Europe, but I don’t observe it that much in the West.

              I observe that Goldman Sachs got ten times the attention that Countrywide did. That is vulgar anti semitism, based on envy and covetousness.

              If they give Jews a hundred times the attention they deserve when they notice Jews robbing us, they give Jews a hundred times the attention they deserve when Jews show up on the front lines of the culture war. For example, why are not more people paying attention to Anil Dash, who is a bigger villain in the culture wars than any Jew?

          • peppermint says:

            Anil Dash was created and exists because of snivel rights.

            Snivel rights is an expression of the common aspirations of cuckstains and kikes.

            • jim says:

              It is certainly true that civil rights was largely a Jewish creation. But they were simply giving effect to the ideology that everyone hypocritically pretended to believe after the civil war. They were converts to progressivism, noticed a great big unprincipled exception, and proceeded to dismantle that unprincipled exception.

              Similarly, the ideology and laws that led to the dismantling of marriage came into effect in the middle of the nineteenth century, but everyone piously and hypocritically ignored it until the nineteen sixties – and you really cannot blame the dismantling of that unprincipled exception on the Jews.

              It is the nature of leftism that first they get everyone to agree to a suicidally disastrous belief system. This is not at first disastrous, because of ad hoc unprincipled exceptions. Then the unprincipled exceptions get taken away.

              But all that is ancient history. Right now Anil Dash is a more objectionable cultural warrior than any Jew, yet Jews get more attention.

          • pdimov says:

            “Right now Anil Dash is a more objectionable cultural warrior than any Jew, yet Jews get more attention.”

            Anil Dash is singular, Jews are plural. If (when) we get more Dashes, people will start making generalizations about them, too.

          • peppermint says:

            In the ’90s, Newt Gingrich and a Republican majority in Congress was elected on the promise to kill affirmative action.

            He was then convinced to do the cuckstain thing and leave it in place.

            Affirmative action, and snivel rights, were and are a reflection of the common aspirations of cuckstains and kikes. Kikes want to see diversity loved and Whites degraded because they are kikes. Cuckstains want to see niggers rape their mothers, sisters, and daughters, take their jobs and destroy their economy, while they refuse to say the word nigger, because they need to carry that cross, to create a better world for everyone.

            You don’t need to believe in Jesus to be a cuckstain, but it helps. You just need to not believe in biology.

            Cuckstain morality has reached its telos in the defense of child molesting pervert Todd Nickerson (Todd is middle English for fox; nickers means panties. A typically degenerate English name for a degenerate people whose prime minister is a pig fucker) by an avowed atheist in a cuckservative paper.

          • B says:

            I suspect that the amount of Jews at Goldman Sachs is less than what you’d expect if you normalized for IQ.

            For instance, Jamie Dimon is of Greek descent (although his wife is a non-Orthodox Jew).

            Jack, please feel free to post a 6000 word rebuttal on the perfidy of the Jooos.

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Bureaucratic” Christianity:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI3SWKVioI8

    Trigger warning: harpies

  8. Mycroft Jones says:

    Jim, did you write a post about the Battle of Navarino, and how the Brits tried to screw the Greeks and admiral Codrington was hounded out of the Navy? I’m sure I read about it in the NRx-sphere, but it is like Google has put a blackout on the ‘sphere. I was sure it was you that wrote about it.

    • jim says:

      Did not write about it.

      It was, however, a disaster for the western monarchies, who abandoned their stand in favor of stability in favor of democracy and nationalism, creating an “Independent” Greece that has never been able to stand on its own legs and destabilizing the Ottoman empire, and thus, eventually, themselves.

      If monarchies support democracy and nationalism, why should any sane man support monarchy?

      • peppermint says:

        In the 19th century, Europe faced the Jewish Question on the same terms that America faced the Negro Question in the 20th. By now it is clear to everyone but a few cucks whose grandparents appeared intellectually serious if mushy headed Christians that the correct answer to both questions was and is segregation. The way Stein Bergwitz got his name is, of course, the same integration policy that named Freddy Gray and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

        There was also the German Question, and the Greek Question. The German Question was answered by handing all the land that had ever had any subjects on it to those subjects, but retaining the two-state condition. The Greek Question was answered by removing kebab from Europe, removing gyro from Anatolia, letting the Hajjia Sophia remain a mosque, and inviting the muzzies back in to build the first mosque in Athens less than a hundred years later.

        I’m sure Jim wants to say that these solutions are proof that nationalism doesn’t work. After all, the best I can do is say that nationalism hasn’t really been tried, and point to the same success stories that Jim attributes to capitalism and AJP attributes to Anglicanism.

        Meanwhile, the Chinese communist party that forces imams to dance strictly observes 1child but lets minorities have several.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Reason I’m looking for the article; it showed the evidence that Britain was allied with the Ottoman empire, calling it her “oldest ally” and supporting Muslim rulership over a Christian majority. England won Navarino, but it was against orders and the entire crew was frozen out of the benefits normally given to men who take part in a great victory. And Codrington hounded out of the Navy and not given any honors for his victory.

        So, taking that fact, and now Prince Charles calling himself “Defender of Faith” and all the rumors about him being a secret Muslim… I’m seeing a pattern.

        The Anglo elites are ditching Christianity for Islam. But why? Is it because of those long centuries where Muslims were kidnapping the Christian elites, converting them to Islam, then sending them home as crypto-Muslims once the ransom arrived?

        • peppermint says:

          » take a White man
          » kidnap him
          » brainwashing or whatever
          » trade him for cash
          » he’s not mad at you now, he loves you and will destroy his people for you

          Englishmen are women and have been for several hundred years?

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Yeah. Where have YOU been?

            Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

            Until 180 years ago, Muslim raiders came up as far as the coasts of Ireland to capture slaves. When Muslims can send strike teams in to kidnap at a moments notice, when you think you are safe at home in Europe, then think again.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Add a couple more items to the mix:

            We already mentioned Stockholm Syndrome.

            Also mentioned that Muslims could send in strike teams and do strategic kidnappings around the coasts of Europe. And did do so until the Battle of Tripoli.

            DNA tests showed that I have maternal relatives near Tripoli. My mother is as pure British as it gets. This means one of her ancestress sisters was kidnapped and sold into Middle Eastern slavery between 400-800 years ago.

            So, add this to the mix:

            While captive, the Muslims pump them for information. Maps of towns. Who owns what. Who are the players, what are their names, where do they live. When you have someone captive for a bunch of years, you can pump a lot of information out of them. And what does this information do? Yep, tells you exactly who to target for your next kidnapping. Or blackmail, etc.

            Islam allows a Muslim to hide and pretend to be some other religion, if it is for his own survival. So the returned captives come back as crypto-Muslims, not respecting Christianity, hiding their Islamic conversion as Islam allows. Then whenever there is a chance, they undermine Christianity.

            Next, look at the Assassins. They had a “garden of heaven” experience they used to recruit people and make them extraordinarily loyal. You don’t think they used this on Christian elite captives? Give them the whole love bombing, three wives. Suddenly they are ransomed, leaving behind a bunch of children. If they misbehave and don’t follow their programming, their family in Islamistan goes bye-bye. Which do you choose, an aboveboard harem with children, or one official wife and a few mistresses and whores that like as not give you some disease?

            Then they get back to dreary Christian land, where they have to hide their mistresses… think they wouldn’t like things to be a little bit more like Islamistan, where a ruler was really a ruler, and sexual scandal doesn’t topple regimes?

            So:
            they can come get you any time
            they know everything they need to blackmail you
            they can kidnap or blackmail your whole clan also
            their way of life is more open and aboveboard in matters of sex, whereas “Christian” elites are hypocrites at odds with nature.
            Stockholm Syndrome
            Hashasheem “Garden of Paradise”

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Why is it that in 1828, Britain called Ottoman Turkey her “oldest ally”. What the fuck? My crypto-Muslim kidnap/ransom scenario makes the most sense. Must have been going on since the Crusades.

          • A pint thereof says:

            All males born to the British Royal Family are circumcised by the UK’s Chief Rabbi. The current 3rd in line to the throne (William’s son Albert), is a Jew according to the rules of matrilineal descent.

            It is far more likely that my country has sold out to the musselman because of Jewish complicity, rather than Prince Charles being a crypto-Mohammedean.

          • peppermint says:

            the assassins would brainwash people into doing these things, and they assassins had a special, hidden creed, that prevented them from ever telling anyone – not that anyone would ever believe, or merely write as novels, their stories; anyone who tried would be hunted down by trained assassins. They could do all this because they possessed the Holy Grail, which is to say, the lineage of Jesus Christ by Mary Magdalene, who had been protected by the Knights Templar until the Templars were excommunicated by a jealous Pope, upon which the Holy Family was kidnapped by the decaying Caliphate, the Caliph attempting to set up his daughter with the scion of the Holy Family to breathe life into his empire, but she had a rough time escaping during the slave uprising of Baghdad, and miscarried. The miscarriage is kept in a secret sepulchre and the Assassins show it to priests and bishops that they capture. Martin Luther returned from a trip ostensibly to Rome with some new ideas about the Deposit of Faith…

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            This process has been going on more than 1000 years; don’t blame Prince Charles. He is a tell-tale symptom of what is really going on.

            Anyway, since 136AD Christianity was a complete corruption of the teachings of Jesus, so who cares. It is time for a sane ideology to take over. Like the Egyptian and Babylonian religions, Christianity will be replaced. Islam is stronger than Christianity, but it also tends to implode much quicker, much less stable.

            The survival of humanity depends on a few centuries of chaos; woe to us who have to live through it.

          • peppermint says:

            » 135 ad
            » romans slaughter 40,000,000 jews in a holocaust of biblical proportions in bethar
            » 136 ad
            » …
            » and that’s why christianity is weak
            » its not that it was a retard tier cult of a bastard who gave up his adoptive father’s career of carpentry to become a nazirite faith healer and preach about salvation through faith alone to all the lazy faggots who didn’t have anything better to do during the day than listen to a faith healer tell them they don’t have to do stuff for their community and in fact rich people go to hell
            » its because some people were killed and the scriptures must be incomplete or need special knowledge to interpret that died with those millions of jews

        • Mark Citadel says:

          I remain, perhaps biased by my Orthodoxy, disgusted with Britain for its stunning betrayal when it sided with the Ottomans.

          • peppermint says:

            I thought it was disgusting how the Germans not only sided with the Ottomans but helped the Ottomans murder the Armenians, prior to the exploits of Robert Kardashian and his daughters.

            When Charles V had the French king imprisoned, the French king started negotiating with the Ottomans.

            Charles V only released him upon extracting an oath of fealty. Which was immediately brought before the Pope, upon which the Pope released France of its conquest, asserting that an oath made under duress whatever lol.

            Charles V then didn’t violate Luther’s civil rights or desecrate his corpse.

            Are Whites just always cucks and traitors? Is being too broad-minded to take one’s own side a White thing? Or is it a Christian thing?

          • B says:

            The French and Byzantines also sided with the Ottomans, and the remainder of Russian Orthodox nobility fled the Revolution through Istanbul. Life is not a comic book.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      One of the best parts about being pro-Anglo is that it causes triggers among so many of the cliquish Alt. Righters. Big fun, but only for the biggest boys on the block.

      A.J.P.

      • peppermint says:

        speaking of triggers, are you going to take a position on whether niggers have souls and whether interracial marriages are sacred? I’m sure you can find support for your position from the most notable Anglican theologians.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    Thank you for this.

    You have a great skill at boiling down a “complex” situation to What’s Really Happening. Or at the very least, a more-plausible simplification of W.R.H. than any other on public offer.

    Also, it’s frankly embarrassing because it shows how dumb and cowardly I actually am. I just hope I can someday build up the necessary muscles to walk around without crutches. But fuck it takes a while, man. I guess that’s just how Actual Learning feels in the moment, as opposed to ego-stroking dildo-taking.

    I’m so glad there’s an internet. Without it I’d be my Dad today, agitating for Black Lives Matter in between taking real estate losses from moving further and further outside of town to be among whites again.

  10. […] in to State Department phone calls”? Perhaps it is both. And, in disheartening news, the Republican party funds the sale of baby meat. Well they were forced to. Otherwise they would have been responsible for “shutting […]

  11. spandrell says:

    “Not that long ago, it appeared that spandrell didn’t know one very basic fact about China: that people speak different languages there, and it is only the Chinese script that is common. B enlightened him.”

    What the hell? That’s insulting. When did I ever make such a retarded mistake? I speak two Chinese languages myself, I don’t need anybody to teach me about languages in China.

    • jim says:

      That is just B applying the Talmudic method. Words mean whatever he says they mean. So he finds some stupid meaning in your words and scolds you for it.

      If he keeps doing that kind of stuff I am going to ban him. First ban ever. Which would be a pity, because he sometimes says important things.

      • B says:

        I don’t remember the particular argument about Chinese dialects in detail, and can’t be bothered to look it up right now, so won’t weigh in.

        More generally, taking sources seriously and looking at them closely is not a “Talmudic” method but basic intellectual honesty. See Unwin/Darwin above, or the Chinese on Quora listing about five ways you can get around the one child limit, ranging from whether you’re working a menial job in some remote province or are a party official in Beijing.

        You can disagree with Darwin, Unwin or the Chinese, but you can’t change the meaning of their words. And unlike the Torah, which is divine instruction for all time and context and intended to be read on multiple levels at once, we can take Darwin, Unwin and the Chinese at face value at the very least.

        You can ban anyone you’d like, including myself. It will not be a great loss to me-I will find some other place to argue online when I am bored at work. However, it will be a significant loss to your blog and its level of discourse, as you will be left with largely yes-men and paint-huffing pseudo-neo Nazis, incapable of saying anything original or reading the sources you (mis)reference.

        Remember-depth perception relies on different perspectives.

        • jim says:

          More generally, taking sources seriously and looking at them closely is not a “Talmudic” method but basic intellectual honesty.

          You don’t take sources seriously. When you are right about what a source says I instantly concede. When you are wrong about what a source says you do not care and you never concede.

          And this is a chronic fault of the entire Jewish community, because the Talmud tortures the Torah until it confesses.

          • B says:

            You “instantly concede” when I quote extensively from a source…sometimes.

            Or you ignore the source, without producing sources for your counterassertions, which are absolute proclamations of total conviction. For instance, you repeatedly say Tasmanian aborigines were not interfertile with Europeans. No “maybe,” no “I think,” no nothing. I quote Darwin saying they are, that the hybrids were murdered by abos, with sources. You ignore Darwin and produce no countersource.

            Or you say the source does not say what it says. For instance, a list of Chinese explanations on how people get around birth control laws to the point that a town has a quarter more people than it’s officially supposed to have is…proof that the laws are draconian and difficult to avoid.

            Since you are completely ignorant of both the Talmud and the Torah, as shown by multiple extensive discussions (ctrl+f’ing your way through to find something you can take out of context doesn’t count,) I don’t really take your opinion on either seriously. We can productively discuss Darwin or Unwin or the Chinese…maybe.

            • jim says:

              You are at it again, B, stretching the truth beyond recognition. I regard that as lying, and I regard you as a habitual liar, and I don’t waste time debating lies supported by further lies.

          • B says:

            That’s probably your best out

          • red says:

            >Since you are completely ignorant of both the Talmud and the Torah, as shown by multiple extensive discussions (ctrl+f’ing your way through to find something you can take out of context doesn’t count,) I don’t really take your opinion on either seriously. We can productively discuss Darwin or Unwin or the Chinese…maybe.

            Whatever you say, Zhange He B. How’s discovering America going for you? Have you found a way to make the that huge fleet of unwieldy treasure ships sail to Seattle?

            You have about as much credibility as a standard SJW. You always disqualify, double down when your wrong, and lie constantly.

          • B says:

            You just go ahead and keep banging on about Zheng He, it’s very interesting.

            Have you ever contributed anything original or of interest to any discussion on this blog? Besides “durrrr, da Joooz?”

            How about in your life? Anything original or interesting there?

            Read any good books lately?

            …anything?

          • red says:

            >You just go ahead and keep banging on about Zheng He, it’s very interesting.

            It’s Zhange He, not Zheng He. Zheng He was a general under Cao Cao during the Waring states period. But then you’d know that if you’d ever read Romance of the 3 kingdoms, something I read at age 12. I bet you were to busy glowing about your self righteousness and unwilling to bother reading works outside of your narrow Jewish focus. Your lies about history makes you seem quite the idiot.

            I mock you because you refuse to admit you acted the fool and you attack me and others when called upon your foolishness. A man of good faith would own up to his mistake and learn, but are a man of mala fide. What does proverbs say about people like you?
            “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. ”

            >Have you ever contributed anything original or of interest to any discussion on this blog? Besides “durrrr, da Joooz?”

            I have indeed. My analysis of the 3 great forms of propaganda that came out of the 20th century is right on the money. However, I suffer from dyslexia that was never diagnosed as a child and remains uncorrected. I am and will always be a shit writer. My writing will never be as good as yours, but then again you’ll never write anything but lies and half truths. I’ll take my handicap over your bigotry and skills in lying.

            You a walking, talking, shitting example of why Europeans should have done more than just exile your shitty people. Every time you open your mouth to insult those who have shown you hospitality and kindness causes me to wonder why someone hasn’t shut your mouth with a fist for your lack of basic respect and civilized behavior. Such behavior in such bad faith should never be tolerated.

            It’s possible to be a middle man minority that lives in symbiosis with it’s host but you and yours have always taken the road of the parasite and when confronted about the suicidal nature of your parasitism you just double down like the niggers you are. The Parsi are the kind of middleman minorities I want in my midst, not a bunch of jewish niggers. Middleman minorities may be needed, but there’s no reason to form a 1 sided symbiosis with a race of parasites.

          • xue says:

            Sorry red, but you’re either wrong, or made a rather embarrassing typography error that made you state the opposite of what you meant.

            Zhang He 張郃 (Wade-Giles: Chang Ho) was one of Cao Cao’s famed generals.

            Zheng He 鄭和 (Wade-Giles: Cheng Ho) was the commander of the Ming era tribute fleets.

            Zhange (Zhan-ge?) is probably not a surname.

            Also, boasting about your historical knowledge by claiming you’ve read a fictional novel is not very good for your credibility. As someone with great personal interest in the Three States era of history, I find such attempts to treat the fictional Sanguo Yanyi as a historical source quite disturbing.

          • B says:

            Must have touched a nerve.

            >However, I suffer from dyslexia that was never diagnosed as a child and remains uncorrected.

            So you have a disorder which is society’s fault?

            Do you also suffer from self-diagnosed assburgers?

            >My analysis of the 3 great forms of propaganda that came out of the 20th century is right on the money.

            I don’t remember-must not have been that great.

            >Every time you open your mouth to insult those who have shown you hospitality and kindness causes me to wonder why someone hasn’t shut your mouth with a fist for your lack of basic respect and civilized behavior.

            You’re not the first to wonder. The answer: kicking my ass IRL is an involved project. Generally, I get along OK with people who might be willing to take it on.

            >The Parsi are the kind of middleman minorities I want in my midst

            So move to India-what are you crying about?

    • spandrell says:

      While I find your fights with Jim to be quite puerile, I have to defend my intellectual honor.

      I’m obviously not an expert in how the one child policy is applied, but I know dozens of Chinese, I’ve been around, and my impression is that the law is quite effectively applied, loopholes are minor and by no means universally available, and most people seem quite unmotivated to even try to avoid it. Of course my impression can be inaccurate, and indeed I’ve heard people tell me that the actual population of China is closer to 1.8 billion. But Chinese people tend to find it amusing to overemphasize the ineptness of their bureaucracy, and your quotes were in large part hearsay, which I believe might be biased. But I can’t prove that, nor can you, so let’s leave it at that.

      And no way in hell I was “enlightened” by anyone saying that under a mutual comprehension standard Chinese is divided in several languages. That’s quite insulting, not knowing that is like not knowing where the capital of England is.

      The point about China having a unique “script” is inaccurate, by the way. There is a national writing standard based on educated Beijing speech. It’s not a “common script”, it’s a national standard, like any other. Classical Chinese was indeed a common written language not based in any particular spoken dialect, but that’s not been the standard for 100 years.

  12. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The Trentian “Catholics”, whom some call papists and others call R.C.C.ers, can’t even go against fetal abortion anymore. They’re very much a Leftist demographic since so much about politics, really all the significant parts of it, is about White Genocide and that makes the biggest permitted interpretations to be libertarian (against White Genocide) to neo-commie, liberation theology and distributism, etc. (for committing White Genocide). So the Trentian “Catholics” side with their Vatican pontiff and brown Latinos, left-wards.

    A.J.P.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >can’t even go against fetal abortion anymore
      Since the 1960s, was Rome ever actually opposed to abortion? You’d think that Roman Catholic countries (i.e. Italy, Spain) would have prohibited abortion.

      In general, modern “pro-life” advocates promote various leftist causes, under the guise of opposing abortion. And the “pro-life” movement was pretty much started by Roman Catholics.

      From the largest “pro-life” website, the second result when you search “black” on their website:
      >http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2003/NRL05/black_genocide.htm
      >The genocide threat to African-Americans continues to be one of the most significant problems facing Black Americans. Tragically, black women have an abortion rate three times higher than white women and many abortion clinics are located in predominately black areas. Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been aborted, which is equal to the combined populations of eight mid-western states. (See shaded states in map below.)

      From their mission statement:
      >National Right to Life carries out its lifesaving mission by promoting respect for the worth and dignity of every individual human being, born or unborn

      In other words, they are leftists. Obviously, some people are of very little “worth”, especially violent criminals with IQs of 75.

      • B says:

        >Obviously, some people are of very little “worth”, especially violent criminals with IQs of 75.

        1) Are you of less worth than someone with an IQ of 200? Why, or why not?
        2) Is a violent criminal with an IQ of 75 or more or less worth than a violent criminal with an IQ of 125 or 175?
        3) Assuming that IQ is more or less fixed and that someone’s worth varies based on whether he is a criminal or a responsible member of society, which society optimizes for the latter: a) one which sees humans as inherently having worth and dignity, or b) one that has a utilitarian morality?

        • spandrell says:

          Now you’re being an ass.

          1) IQ tests aren’t reliably at that scale. But am I less worth than say Von Neumann in his prime? Well I know a lot of people who’d think so. I guess my family and close friends prefer to have me around, but about everyone else would rather be friends with Von Neumann.

          2) The proportion of violent criminals is substantially higher among the IQ 75, but to the extent that the IQ 125 can’t be made to behave, they are both worthless.

          3) The thing is, the only society that claims that all humans have inherent worth and dignity is the same society that has a utilitarian morality, i.e. progressive society. It is progressives who have abolished capital punishment in most of the developed world, because oh humans have inherent dignity no matter what they do, and it is progressives who spend millions in preventing Africans from starving because oh humans have dignity we can’t allow them to die, and it’s progressive society which sends millions of barbarians across the world because oh all humans have dignity we must secure for them a better life.

          Societies which don’t function under an abstract utilitarian morality are those who kill criminals, burn witches, vanquish foreigners and give priority to the ingroup’s interest. Yes indeed they don’t have a bureaucratic apparatus to appraise the “worth” of every individual. But they let society purge itself.

          • B says:

            No, most people would not “rather be friends with Von Neumann.” People prefer friends who are around their own intellectual level.

            And anyway the value of human lives is not determined through a popularity contest.

            There is a difference between saying that all humans have inherent worth and dignity, and demanding equal treatment/outcomes. It is obvious that loyalty should be concentric. Killing criminals makes sense in a non-utilitarian framework only if you think those criminals trespassed against something with real value, i.e., human life.

          • peppermint says:

            » There is a difference between saying that all humans have inherent worth and dignity, and demanding equal treatment/outcomes.

            specifically, a difference of 30-60 years

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >There is a difference between saying that all humans have inherent worth and dignity, and demanding equal treatment/outcomes.
            Those two statements mean pretty much the same thing.

            Firstly, no mainstream leftist demands totally equal outcomes. They just want more equal outcomes, to be achieved by status/wealth redistribution. And that’s the same thing the “all humans have inherent worth and dignity” types want.

            Secondly, values are not something floating in the sky. Each person has their own set of values. Some people value “all humans”. Most don’t. Most people don’t care (much) about whether a stranger lives or dies.

            So, the idea that “all humans have inherent worth and dignity”, if expressed in a political context, means that society should be ruled by a small minority. The most “universalist” portion of the population.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >Are you of less worth than someone with an IQ of 200? Why, or why not?
          In general, I’m worth considerably less than them. Of course, IQ is a single figure, and humans are complex, so it’s only one factor in someone’s value. And different people value different things. Some people might find me charming, others might find me repulsive.

          >Is a violent criminal with an IQ of 75 or more or less worth than a violent criminal with an IQ of 125 or 175?
          Less? I’m not sure. Violent criminals are usually of negative worth because they cost a lot of money to jail, and kill or hurt people. While not generating anything of value.

          >utilitarian morality?
          I’m not sure that’s a coherent concept. To be a utilitarian, you need to find some way to measure pain and pleasure. And scientists can’t even figure out if lobsters can feel pain.

          >one which sees humans as inherently having worth and dignity
          That’s not quite the same thing the pro-life website said. Humans could inherently have worth and dignity, and lose both when they start acting like criminals. I’m don’t think I’d endorse this perspective, but it wouldn’t be leftist.

          • peppermint says:

            It is leftist to say

            1) humans have inherent value
            2) niggers are human

            If you agree to these propositions, you will feed, clothe, and house niggers so they can do their nigging.

            • jim says:

              If you agree to these propositions, you will feed, clothe, and house niggers so they can do their nigging

              Not quite true. In the west indies they held, I think correctly, that blacks are humans and humans have inherent value. If they caught a black with no visible means of support, they would put him in the workhouse and try and find an owner for him. The workhouse functioned like a no kill dog pound. You could roll up and get a few slaves, usually problem slaves that no one very much wanted. So they did feed, clothe, and house niggers, but restrained them from nigging.

          • B says:

            I’m going to consolidate your two responses here for convenience:

            >They just want more equal outcomes, to be achieved by status/wealth redistribution. And that’s the same thing the “all humans have inherent worth and dignity” types want.

            No. Saying all humans have some inherent worth and dignity doesn’t mean that they all have an equal amount, or that this should translate into social status or wealth. Judaism, for instance, says that on one hand we are all created in G-d’s image, but on the other hand, different people have different levels of obligations due them, and some of these obligations are inherent (for instance, a Cohen, a priest, is a hereditary status,) but others are earned (for instance, the Talmud says that a learned mamzer, someone who was born as a result of a forbidden relationship, whose descendants can’t marry Jews forever, is better than an ignorant priest.) Interestingly, though, a human life has inherent worth beyond all this: if the holiest person in Judaism, the High Priest, is chasing someone down the street with a knife, we are commanded to kill the High Priest to keep him from murdering the pursued.

            >Secondly, values are not something floating in the sky. Each person has their own set of values.

            This is solipsistic nonsense. Values are not like ice cream preferences. Each person no more has his own set of values than he has his own geometry. I am not entitled to my own sum of internal angles in a triangle.

            Of course, one society might have a system of values that is different than that of another, and one person might grasp/internalize that system worse than another.

            >In general, I’m worth considerably less than them. Of course, IQ is a single figure, and humans are complex, so it’s only one factor in someone’s value. And different people value different things. Some people might find me charming, others might find me repulsive.

            The inherent value of your life is not subjective.

            >Violent criminals are usually of negative worth because they cost a lot of money to jail, and kill or hurt people. While not generating anything of value.

            Violent criminals might have a contextual negative worth, and you might have to enslave them to compensate for the damages they cause, or kill them because they destroyed someone’s life. Nonetheless, they also have an inherent value that doesn’t depend on context.

            >I’m not sure that’s a coherent concept. To be a utilitarian, you need to find some way to measure pain and pleasure. And scientists can’t even figure out if lobsters can feel pain.

            But we can figure out if people feel pain quite easily. And anyway, utility and pain/pleasure aren’t the same thing. Lots of people choose to forego pleasure and suffer pain for whatever reason, and utilitarians would explain this in their way. I can tell my kid sees little utility in a bath, but I find great utility in him not having impetigo, so in the bath he goes.

            >That’s not quite the same thing the pro-life website said. Humans could inherently have worth and dignity, and lose both when they start acting like criminals. I’m don’t think I’d endorse this perspective, but it wouldn’t be leftist.

            That’s more or less my perspective, except that I think that even violent criminals have a certain inherent worth and dignity. The Torah agrees with me, and thus for instance forbids us to hang someone who was executed for overly long; even though what he did was terrible enough to merit this punishment, even here the Torah is concerned with his dignity.

            As for abortions, they are forbidden except to save the mother’s life, even to non-Jews.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Saying all humans have some inherent worth and dignity doesn’t mean that … this should translate into social status or wealth.
            It pretty much always means that.

            >if the holiest person in Judaism, the High Priest, is chasing someone down the street with a knife, we are commanded to kill the High Priest to keep him from murdering the pursued
            What if he were pursuing a chimpanzee, with intent to kill it? Or a lion?

            Obviously, you think human are entitled to certain rights, and chimpanzees are not. Now, who is going to pay for those rights? Protection from murder can be costly. And if the person has no money…

            >This is solipsistic nonsense. Values are not like ice cream preferences.
            Sure, because ice cream preferences are considerably more arbitrary.

            >But we can figure out if people feel pain quite easily.
            Firstly, medical professionals have difficulty discerning how much pain a person is feeling. Secondly, people lie a lot. Especially when money is concerned.

            > And anyway, utility and pain/pleasure aren’t the same thing.
            Sure, and “utility” is even more subjective than pain/pleasure. Which makes it worse.

            >Violent criminals might have a contextual negative worth
            >Nonetheless, they also have an inherent value that doesn’t depend on context.
            How can you have both “negative worth” and “inherrent value”? This sounds contradictory.

            • jim says:

              Obviously, you think human are entitled to certain rights, and chimpanzees are not. Now, who is going to pay for those rights? Protection from murder can be costly. And if the person has no money…

              Again, I am impressed by the system applied by the British in the West Indies, where blacks were considered human, and all humans of inherent value, which did not however stop them from doing what was necessary to prevent black people from creating problems – they would enslave or re-enslave free blacks for having no visible means of support, and slavery came with an obligation on the owner to look after the slave.

              You can believe that all humans are of inherent value, without believing them equal, and without it stopping you from killing people in order to impose justice.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            Since slaves don’t have many rights, you don’t have to worry about who pays for their rights.

            Of course, if you are willing to enslave someone, purely for being poor, then you are probably not a good Christian. The New Testament condemns people who enslave others (1 Timothy 1:10). Though not slave-owners.

            • jim says:

              “Man stealing” refers to wrongful enslavement of free men, or to stealing someone else’s slaves. It does not imply that enslavement is never legitimate. The old Testament also prohibits man stealing, Exodus 21:16

              And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

              But the old testament allowed enslavement for lots of reasons.

          • peppermint says:

            in other words, to the British, blacks lives did have value, since they had the infrastructure to extract value from them

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”‘s right on the money with this one. As smarter men than I have said, The New Testament is the best commentary on the Old Testament and the Old the best commentary on the New.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >It pretty much always means that.

            Not in Judaism. We have “the poor you shall always have with you,” and other indications that poverty is an ineradicable condition, along with specific instructions on how you must treat the poor, indicating that they have inherent worth and dignity. For instance, if you take a poor person’s cloak as surety on a loan, you must return it to him every night so he can sleep in it.

            >Obviously, you think human are entitled to certain rights, and chimpanzees are not. Now, who is going to pay for those rights?

            These are not “rights” in the sense of free beer. Everyone who sees a rodef, a pursuer, has the obligation to stop him. So you could say that his rights are an obligation on every other Jew.

            >>This is solipsistic nonsense. Values are not like ice cream preferences.
            >Sure, because ice cream preferences are considerably more arbitrary.

            Ice cream preferences are arbitrary, period. But values are not. If they are, they are not values but preferences. The whole point of utilitarianism is that values are in fact developed and abstracted preferences.

            For instance, let’s say that I come across an invalid dying of hunger. I have a sandwich. Should I give him the sandwich?

            Judaism says, yes, unless he’s an idolater (maybe-this is a debate. His life has value, but if what he will do with that life is to worship idols, then he is destroying something of greater value than his life. For the same reason, I can transgress any commandment to save my life except three, and one of those three is idolatry.) So, we have absolute value here.

            But if values are just preferences, then I have to start thinking-what is my preference for this person’s life? I might not like him at all.

            For sure the sandwich has some utility to me.

            Maybe society will be improved and people will act in less violent and vile ways if they are influenced by my example in giving him a sandwich…but if nobody will know, say, we’re in some secluded location, then it’s irrelevant. Now I have to figure out the odds that my action will become known.

            I might say that there is utility to me in being the kind of guy that gives a sandwich to a starving man, but this is completely a matter of personal preference; maybe I find utility in torturing him to death, being an asshole. Peppermint would probably decide based on the guy’s race.

            And every decision you have to make has some measure of this extreme scenario in it. Another decision, much more mundane-should a woman wear revealing clothes? Again in Judaism it’s a simple answer-we are commanded to be modest, and a minimum of modesty in clothing is clearly defined. But in a utilitarian framework, the woman has to weigh the utility she gets from attractive male admirers vs. the negative utility from unattractive male admirers/disapproving looks and comments/the marginal increase in the probability of groping or rape/the long-term effect of the tragedy of the commons caused by immodest dress and behavior and the ensuing sexual arms race, etc.

            Since the amount of decisions a person/society have to make constantly is very large, the calculations involved above are a pain to go through and involve lots of uncertainty in the best case, people just end up doing whatever pleases them individually. Then you get a prisoner’s dilemma/tragedy of the commons (I can walk you through it for the above scenarios, but am sure you get what I mean.)

            >>But we can figure out if people feel pain quite easily.
            >Firstly, medical professionals have difficulty discerning how much pain a person is feeling. Secondly, people lie a lot. Especially when money is concerned.

            But we all know what pain is, and when I tell the doctor on a scale of one through ten that my back pain is an eight, he knows to be much more concerned than if I say my back pain is a one.

            Likewise, we know that certain things are humiliating to others, we know that hunger is very unpleasant, that meat and wine tend to be delicious, etc.

            Obviously, there are exceptions, but the Torah (including the Oral Torah, the Talmud,) deal with the typical case (although exceptions may be used to delineate the majority of cases.)

            > And anyway, utility and pain/pleasure aren’t the same thing.
            Sure, and “utility” is even more subjective than pain/pleasure. Which makes it worse.

            The problem is not with utility as a concept, the problem is with optimizing for utility. Aristotle pointed this out-he said that if you want a happy life, don’t pursue happiness.

            >How can you have both “negative worth” and “inherrent value”? This sounds contradictory.

            Very simple. A kilo of gold has large positive market value. However, you’d probably pay much more than its market value to keep it from falling on you from 10 stories up.

            A person has inherent value, being created in the image of G-d, and having the potential to do good deeds, charity, etc. But he can, through his choices, destroy value as well. He can always repent, but at a certain point, his crimes are so severe that he can only repent through being put to death by a court, or by heaven.

            >Since slaves don’t have many rights, you don’t have to worry about who pays for their rights.

            In Judaism, slaves have fairly extensive and well-defined rights (a Jewish slave more so.)

            But Judaism notwithstanding, even in developed pagan societies slaves have rights.

            For instance, in Euthyphro, where Socrates interrogates Euthyphro on piety, Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for manslaughter. His father allowed a slave to die through exposure.

  13. spandrell says:

    Von Neumann was reputedly also a very charming and talkative fellow, who would light up any party or conversation. I’m not very charming myself, although I have other talents.

    If the value of human lives isn’t determined through the opinions of other humans, then it can’t be quantified at all. So it’s meaningless to speak of value, or worth, or anything really. I’m cool with that.

    Might as well stop making up crap, and just say that cruelty is bad because it tends to spill out into daily life, so as a matter of principle humans shall not be harmed unless they are obviously hostile, in which chase they shall be removed if they’re foreigners and killed if they’re not.

    Saying that all humans are worthy of respect and shall not be harmed no matter what is what has led us to the Camp of Saints and our feeding Africans for free to see them multiply for no good reason. Loyalty is not just concentric, it stops after at most 3 degrees of separation. It doesn’t go on forever.

    • B says:

      Von Neumann may have been charming but most people would not have wanted him for a close friend.

      >Might as well stop making up crap, and just say that cruelty is bad because it tends to spill out into daily life

      This is just utilitarianism-Carlyle’s “pig philosophy.”

      • peppermint says:

        Anything but religion,say B and Carlyle, is ‘more slop’, the universalist version of which is and may as well be some kind of utilitarianism.

        This is the ontological argument: can you imagine a perfect morality not based on human interests? It would be more perfect if it existed, and HaShem hu Yahweh, amen.

        • B says:

          >Anything but religion,say B and Carlyle, is ‘more slop’

          Correct. Also, most kinds of religion.

          >can you imagine a perfect morality not based on human interests? It would be more perfect if it existed

          What does “exist” mean?

          Obviously, morality does not “exist” in the same sense as, say, a given table exists.

          On the other hand, it exists in the same sense as “zero,” “pi” or “triangularity” exist.

          Obviously, anyone who claims that the value of “pi” should be 3.1, 3.5 or 4 in order to produce the desired result (your 14 words, or whatever other slop optimization parameter you’d like to use) is morally dishonest and we should treat him as such.

  14. Alan J. Perrick says:

    TEST [checking time-stamp]

    • Curious says:

      Alan, Peppermint “Papist” has said numerous times that he wants to rape and kill christians of all kinds, including Roman Catholics. I’m curious, why do you call him a papist all the time.

      • Mackus says:

        If peppermint really said that he wants to “rape and kill christians of all kinds”, I guess AJP will take it as proof he is papists, since “Catholics aren’t real christians”, or something to that effect.

        • peppermint says:

          Well, I do have this copypasta:

          — here are some games to play with a cuckstain:

          — (1) offer him some tzatziki sauce to go with the agnus dei at church, which is always served dry

          — (2) ask him what a soul is. Brew yourself some coffee while he responds. When he finishes, throw the coffee in his face, call him a heretic, and insist on an incompatible description.

          — (3) Ask him, if God exists, why do niggers happen? While he’s busy explaining with a mixture of retarded bullshit and heresy, rape his wife and impregnate her. He will tell her not to abort, because according to Aristotle and Aquinas, every blastocyst has a soul. Instead, he will ensure that your rapebaby is raised as well as if it was his own son, because, after all, it is his brother in Christ. But he might get sad. Perhaps he will go do missionary work for the Lᴏʀᴅ, and help his brothers in Christ in Nigeria build a sewer system for Lagos. Maybe he can even hook up with one of his equals there. Then he can go to a priest to clean his slate, if not his dick of herpes, and take his lovechild home to his wife, and teach it to read and write and hate the White man, and get a job as an educator, and a White wife, and a family of quadroons, who are all brothers in Christ and equal before the Lᴏʀᴅ. Amen.

          To which Nick B Steve’s replied, good luck getting near my wife.

          I don’t have a problem with Nick B Steves’ religion. I just don’t like the qabbalic lies about Jesus. Supposedly he said welcome the stranger; any competent scholar understands through holistically reading entire texts that he meant the stranger of one’s own nation, but lazy protestants and their Talmudic Jew leaders twisted those words and others. The only thing Christ left behind when He left was the institutional Church, and, since the See of St. Peter is in open heresy, it’s clear that the Orthodox were right all along, and soon Nick B Steves will kneel at the Eucharist rail next to Mark Citadel as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that they should have been in the first place, and I’ll seek absolution for my sins of condomistic sex acts with women I had no intention of marrying and kneel next to them.

          It’s a lazy protestant lie that the man who said “I am come not to bring peace, but the sword” is the price of peace and thus pacifism. In obvious fact, the peace Christ brings is peace through victory, both over one’s own passions, and over His enemies, thus the Orthodox priests blessing fighter jets.

          Martin Luther was wrong. The Bible needs to be carefully interpreted by trained professionals, since it was written by Jews who are of their father the Devil and can easily confuse the Christian. In fact, Christianity does not contradict biology in any way – far from it, genetics was discovered by a priest, who was inspired by a Biblical story about eugenics in goats.

          Now let’s have a happy Halloween and a blessed All Souls Day, then start singing Christmas carols.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          No, no, “Curious” is the one heading in the righ direction. I’m simply creating a strawman argument with which to smear the Vatican congregations.

          It’s in no way related to the Anti-Whitism and desire for White Genocide seen among the Trentian ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent) organisation, and this linked quote below would be an horrible example of it, if it were, because getting rid of those awful, nasty “Puritan” Englishmen is really someting everyone should wish for, at least once or twice every day, of course:

          “Nativism rears its big-haired head: Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is a sad return to a terrible American tradition” by clerygman Timothy Dolan

          -I spent a chunk of time in class on the ugly phenomenon called nativism, defined by the scholar and author Ray Allen Billington as, “organized, white, Protestant antagonism toward the Catholic immigrant.”

          …nativists believed the immigrant to be dangerous, and that America was better off without them. All these poor degenerates did, according to the nativists, was to dilute the clean, virtuous, upright citizenry of God-fearing true Americans.

          …they would say, “there’s no denying that this bigotry was there in our past. But, come on! Who could ever believe now that immigrants are dirty, drunken, irresponsible, dangerous threats to clean, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America! Those days are gone.”

          I wish I were in the college classroom again, so I could roll out my “Trump card” to show the students that I was right. Nativism is alive, well — and apparently popular!-

          http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/timothy-dolan-nativism-rears-big-haired-head-article-1.2307111

          A.J.P.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        The only prudent thing to do when asked this question by an indiviual using this kind of handle, is to return a question for a question and ask:

        Do you not like me and others going after papist “Christians”?

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

        • peppermint says:

          When is the head of the Anglican church going to call for the resignation of Minister Pigfucker?

        • Mackus says:

          I admit, I am somehow curious why catholics aren’t regarded as Christians by some ultra-Protestants, when probably the most significant difference between the two is that one have guy with funny hat.
          Popehat envy?
          I am not religious in any way, except for social reasons, when family invites me for baptism of their kids or whatever.
          I cannot speak for “indiviual using this kind of handle”, but why exactly very specific denomination you follow is correct, pious christians, but “papists” are not? Because they have pretty pictures (icons)? Eastern Orthodox have icons too, does that means they are closet papists?

          Do I dislike when you go after papists? Not really, but they fact that you assume your religion is any less false or ridiculous that catholicism, is making fool of yourself.

          Also, if someone raped your wife, would you tell her to abort, or forbid her from aborting?
          This is not personal, I am genuinely curious whether your denomination permits abortion.

          • B says:

            >why catholics aren’t regarded as Christians by some ultra-Protestants

            Being a heretical offshoot of Catholicism, Protestantism has to delegitimize it in order to have a leg to stand on.

            In exactly the same way, Islam has to delegitimize Christianity and Judaism to have a leg to stand on (“they made everything up and changed it!”)

            And Christianity has to delegitimize Judaism (“you see, the best explanation for the “Old Testament” is the “New Testament,” and it is actually we uncircumcised Germans, Mexicans and Koreans who are now the Jews/Israel!”)

            And Progressivism has to delegitimize Protestantism (“Jesus was the first community organizer!”)

            Anything built on a lie as its foundation stone is bound to fall, though.

          • Jack says:

            And the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem had to delegitimize the Canaanite religion, etc.

          • B says:

            No, dummy.

            Judaism never said “you know, those Canaanites were worshiping G-d the wrong way, we have the right version. We are the real Canaanites, actually.”

            It said “these guys are worshiping idols, stone and wood, the work of their hands, sacrificing children to false gods, which have no existence. This is completely wrong and bad, and we should drive them out and kill the ones that won’t leave.”

          • Mackus says:

            “these guys are worshiping idols, stone and wood, the work of their hands, sacrificing children to false gods, which have no existence. This is completely wrong and bad, and we should drive them out and kill the ones that won’t leave.”
            How is it not delegitimising canaaites, by try to argue they worship wrong gods?

          • Mackus says:

            God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, to test him.
            But if children sacrifice was wrong, then Abraham would have failed the test by trying to sacrifice Izaak just because his god told him so.
            Obviously, according to Judaism, sacrificing children is okay as long as its done to the correct god, if correct god wants such sacrifice.

          • Jack says:

            You know nothing about the development of ancient Judaism, B. It’s an obvious offshoot of Canaanite Paganism that only later turned exclusively monotheistic. Yahweh was the Judeans’ national deity, one of the children of El known as the Elohim. Later the Jews conflated both the deities and the host of heaven as one deity, but it took a few centuries to completely divest from Canaanism. Then they had to delegitimize those who still worshipped Yahweh (Yaho) as part of a pantheon alongside Ba’al etc, which is what the Bible documents. That they don’t admit as such is irrelevant, much as Muslims won’t admit their own plagiarism.

            • jim says:

              The elephantine scrolls show that in the fifth century BC, not long after the second temple was built, Jews were still substantially polytheistic, the God of Abraham and Israel being one God among many.

              It looks that in the time of the patriarchs, every patriarch had his own personal collection of Gods and was high priest of his own religion, with more gods than people.

          • B says:

            >Obviously, according to Judaism, sacrificing children is okay as long as its done to the correct god, if correct god wants such sacrifice.

            Obviously, according to Judaism, there is only one G-d and He explicitly does not want child sacrifice.

            >How is it not delegitimising canaaites, by try to argue they worship wrong gods?

            There’s a difference between pointing to someone else’s designs/practice and saying they’re wrong, and appropriating those designs/practice, saying they were yours in the first place and the guys you appropriated them from had gotten them wrong.

            >It’s an obvious offshoot of Canaanite Paganism that only later turned exclusively monotheistic.

            The only thing we know about Canaanite paganism, dummy, is what’s recorded in the Torah/our traditions.

          • Mackus says:

            “Obviously, according to Judaism, there is only one G-d and He explicitly does not want child sacrifice. ”
            So child sacrifice is wrong only because God doesn’t want any.
            If child sacrifice was wrong in general, God would have chastised Abraham for being willing to sacrifice his son.
            Instead, God essentially said Abraham is awesome for willing to do child sacrifice, said he doesn’t want any, and at no point told Abraham that it is wrong period.
            According to bible, child sacrifice isn’t wrong per-se, its just only deity who is real according to it, doesn’t want any.

          • Mackus says:

            “There’s a difference between pointing to someone else’s designs/practice and saying they’re wrong, and appropriating those designs/practice, saying they were yours in the first place and the guys you appropriated them from had gotten them wrong. ”

            Yeah, but both are “your religion is wrong, our is correct, don’t do this incorrect thing! If you do, you are either idiot or liar, since our religion is perfectly valid, and your is not”

          • B says:

            >According to bible, child sacrifice isn’t wrong per-se, its just only deity who is real according to it, doesn’t want any.

            According to Judaism, wrong=G-d doesn’t want it.

            I recommend reading Euthyphro and then the Jewish response to the central question raised therein (actually, Judaism preemptively answered that question several centuries earlier.)

            >Yeah, but both are “your religion is wrong, our is correct, don’t do this incorrect thing!

            Well, yes. Also, human and mouse DNA is largely similar. What is your point?

            If we didn’t think their religions were wrong, we would be following their religions, not ours.

            The difference is that we say “the Canaanite religion is completely wrong and crazy, here is the truth,” while Christians and Muslims say “the religion of our predecessors is right but they’ve perverted it/don’t know what it actually means/we have the software update, and when they say X, they actually mean Y.”

            We don’t say “we are the actual Canaanites, the right way to worship Ba’al, Chemosh and/or Astarte is by keeping Shabbat and kashrut.”

            Whereas Muslims say “the right way to worship the G-d of the Hebrews is by eating camel, keeping Ramadan, and bowing to Mecca,” and Christians say “the right way to worship the G-d of the Hebrews is by eating whatever you want including things explicitly prohibited in the scripture we claim to be following, ignoring Shabbat and worshiping a guy on a cross.”

          • B says:

            >The elephantine scrolls show that in the fifth century BC, not long after the second temple was built, Jews were still substantially polytheistic, the God of Abraham and Israel being one God among many.

            The equivalent of the Elephantine Scrolls today would have Orthodox Jewish marriage contracts, civil marriage contracts between secular Jews down at city hall, Reform Temple gay marriage contracts, marriage contracts signed by Jews who’d converted to Catholicism and their priest, and receipts for organic yogurt from Whole Foods. None of which tells us much about Judaism today.

            >It looks that in the time of the patriarchs, every patriarch had his own personal collection of Gods and was high priest of his own religion, with more gods than people.

            Source?

          • peppermint says:

            Wrong means that G⊕d doesn’t want it, anything else is utilitarianism. Fortunately, since G⊕d is the order of the universe, what G⊕d wants is for the order of the universe to be upheld, which is in line with our moral reasoning, which G⊕d created.

            However, He also gave a list of rules to Talmud over; taking the ‘order of the universe’ theory of right and wrong too seriously is Jesusism. These rules are correct because they correctly predict the severe social consequences of eating bacon for breakfast in cotton/poly blend underwear.

            Avoid false doctrines. G⊕d wanted Avraham to be willing to sacrifice Izhaakh, but He did not want Avraham to be willing to sacrifice Izhaakh. If you need it explained to you, you’re probably a concern trolling closet Jesusist or utilitarian.

          • peppermint says:

            the traditional response of Protestants to Catholics is that Catholics willfully misinterpret the Bible and refuse to let people read it.

            Unfortunately, the Bible is full of Jew nonsense and Jesus communism, like “welcome the stranger… what you do to the least of these, you do also to me; what you do not do for the least of these, you do not do for me” (Matthew 25), according to which Europe invites unlimited numbers of niggers.

            Was Catholicism good for Whites? It doesn’t matter, it’s not coming back, you can’t tell people that a book is sacred and its contents need to be widely disseminated and then systematically refuse them access to it anymore.

          • B says:

            >the severe social consequences of eating bacon for breakfast in cotton/poly blend underwear

            Those consequences don’t apply to you and yours, so what are you worried about?

            >welcome the stranger

            On one hand, the Talmud is bad because it tells us how to read the Torah, which anyone can just open on up and know what it means, because it’s obvious (to Peppermint).

            On the other hand, the Torah is bad because what it obviously (to Peppermint) means is stupid and suicidal.

            Hmmm…Is there perhaps something missing here?

            >you can’t tell people that a book is sacred and its contents need to be widely disseminated and then systematically refuse them access to it anymore

            Of course-who could possibly be expected to make the gargantuan effort to learn another language besides that spoken in the marketplace in order to read their own holy book?

            Aside from Jews, of course, but they’re bad and we don’t like them.

            >G⊕d wanted Avraham to be willing to sacrifice Izhaakh, but He did not want Avraham to be willing to sacrifice Izhaakh

            The question of whether “good” is separate from what G-d wants is obviously a silly one. The people who spent a lot of time thinking about it, from Amos to Socrates and on down the line were dumb.

            They talked funny, too, said words we all know how to say the wrong way. Socrates didn’t even know how to pronounce his own stupid name. They all talked like fags and had fag names!

            https://youtu.be/HNTTf-qmERc

            Other stupid questions which we shouldn’t think about unless we’re fags:

            If G-d is good and all-powerful, why do bad things happen?

            If G-d knows everything, does He know what we’re going to do, and if so, what is free choice?

            Why does G-d tell us to do stuff that goes against the natural urges He created us with?

            See? Just asking these questions in a normal person type voice makes you sound like a fag. And if you ask them like the fags who wrote whole books about them asked them, like that fag Leibniz, that makes you sound like an uber-fag. A gheylord or something! You’d get laughed right off the chans, and it would serve you right for fagging, you fag.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            So far as child sacrifice goes, I recall the story of Jephthah from the book of Judges. I’m told that the Rabbis and Church Fathers are split on whether he actually sacrificed his daughter.

            Presumably, B is on the no-human-sacrifice side.

          • B says:

            If the rabbis can’t agree, who am I to make a decision?

            Certainly, some of the judges did things that were not praiseworthy. For instance, Samson. The Torah (whose name means “instruction”) is given to us to learn from, and the reason it discusses mistakes and sins of great people is also so that we can learn from them.

  15. Crow T. Robot says:

    “The only prudent thing to do when asked this question by an indiviual using this kind of handle, is to return a question for a question and ask:

    Do you not like me and others going after papist “Christians”?

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.”

    A Jewish Pederast loves the cock.

  16. Zach says:

    Don’t call someone a liar, then get raped.

    Jim, I know of your illnesses from your writing. Don’t pat me on the back…. but brah, it’s curtains.

  17. Jack says:

    Freudian Theory, second wave Feminism, race denialism, and Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism are not some sort of “logical end-goals” of Puritan Progressivism. Their Jewish masterminds have used the Egalitarian meme as background, but being typical Jewish zealots, radicalized the meme far beyond its logical destination, and being Jewish, perverted Progressivism into an ideology obsessed with eradicating Western Civilization, which it originally was not, and arguably wouldn’t have become without Jews bringing their own ideas into the religion they have chosen voluntarily and enthusiastically to convert to.

    Jim maintains that Jews converted to Progressivism and being new converts, lacked the hypocrisy of the original Progressives. I maintain that rather than lack of hypocrisy, Jews initially embraced Progressivism and Socialism because it served their immediate interests, then influenced the ideology to reflect their psyche rather than that of Puritans, utilizing Egalitarianism as a springboard to decidedly anti-White Critical Theories.

    Either Jews voluntarily and enthusiastically converted to Progressivism and thus repudiated their own DNA, or Jews voluntarily and enthusiastically converted to Progressivism and proceeded to inject their own DNA into it, proceeded to carry the heresy beyond its original end-goal by introducing new end-goals such as abolishing the family and abolishing the White race.

    If Progressivism is a Puritan heresy, then Cultural Marxism is a Marxist heresy, Tumblr Feminism is a Feminist heresy, and Freudianism is an Enlightenment heresy. Who instigated those heresies of heresies? Who perverted an already radical heresy into an even more radical heresy of a heresy? Since the 20th century, it’s mostly Jews.

    Inb4 ad hominems about how I’m just a loser who’s jealous of wonderful Jews and wants to rob them: when Jews are sent back to their homeland, for all I know they can take their stuff with them. But they have to go.

    • jim says:

      Either Jews voluntarily and enthusiastically converted to Progressivism and thus repudiated their own DNA, or Jews voluntarily and enthusiastically converted to Progressivism and proceeded to inject their own DNA into it, proceeded to carry the heresy beyond its original end-goal by introducing new end-goals such as abolishing the family and abolishing the White race.

      The end goals of abolishing the family are visible in the opposition to the Divorce of Queen Caroline, and the end goal of abolishing the white race visible in the incident of the Hottentot Venus, both of which long precede Jewish involvement in progressivism.

      And war on Christmas goes all the way back.

      The poison was present in progressivism from the beginning, and when Jews started to convert to it, they were poisoned more than anyone. Jews are the biggest victims of progressivism, and thus the biggest victims of Jews.

    • jim says:

      Freudian Theory, second wave Feminism, race denialism, and Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism are not some sort of “logical end-goals” of Puritan Progressivism. Their Jewish masterminds have used the Egalitarian meme as background, but being typical Jewish zealots, radicalized the meme far beyond its logical destination, and being Jewish, perverted Progressivism into an ideology obsessed with eradicating Western Civilization

      The inability to divorce queen Caroline (1820) was the triumph of a femcentric moral order that redefined old style marriage as immoral. The Matrimonial causes act of 1859 made old style marriage illegal. The fact that old style marriage continued to survive pretty well up the 1960s was a pile of unprincipled exceptions and small hypocrisies. The Jews were not taking feminism “far beyond the logical destination” of the Matrimonial Causes act, but rather were identifying and exposing hypocrisies – applying the moral code that everyone theoretically applauded in 1820, and demanding that we actually live according to it.

      It is of course impossible and suicidal to actually live according to it, because blacks and women need to be coercively subordinated.

      • BobbyBrigs says:

        >The fact that old style marriage continued to survive pretty well up the 1960s was a pile of unprincipled exceptions and small hypocrisies. The Jews were not taking feminism “far beyond the logical destination” of the Matrimonial Causes act, but rather were identifying and exposing hypocrisies – applying the moral code that everyone theoretically applauded in 1820, and demanding that we actually live according to it.

        Yes and actually forcing people to do harmful things instead of lying about them is the difference between believing in Nongqawuse and cutting your own throught’s to prove her right.

  18. namae nanka says:

    RL Dabney diagnosed the malaise a century ago.

    “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/robert-lewis-dabney-on-conservatism/

  19. […] inability of the American government to overthrow Castro resembles the inability of the House and Senate Republicans to pass a budget that denies the left a single ite… and violently […]

Leave a Reply