Trump accomplishments.

The invasion of illegals has largely stopped.  Though no wall yet, arrests of illegals have fallen to a tiny fraction of what they used to be – because now when they try to cross, they will likely be arrested, so they don’t even try.  The wall matters, but men with guns matter more, and if there is no wall yet, there are more men with guns with more authority to use them.

That is the big thing that we voted for and we got it.

We got it now.  It is effect and working right now today.  So even if he totally cucks out from here on in, we still won.  We got the number one big item we voted for.  The wall is just icing on the cake.  Further, if he is willing and able to deploy men with guns, he will be willing and able to deploy a wall.  If he can get away with deploying men with guns, he can get away with deploying a wall.  OK, we also voted for the eviction of the anchor babies, and he is not doing that, and maybe he will not do it ever, but the number one big problem, the number one thing we voted on, the flood of illegals, has largely stopped.

The invasion of legals is still in full swing, with large numbers of male military age Muslim Democratic party voters screaming for infidel blood and white pussy being dumped on marginal electorates in flyover country to live on crime and welfare, but now Gorsuch is in, Trump is preparing to do something about it.  He has not done anything about it yet, but he has done something about H1B.  Previously unenforced rules about applicants being specially talented in ways not not readily available in the US are now enforced.  Pretty sure absolutely zero existing H1B holders would qualify, since demand for H1Bs is 100% demand for cheap low status slave labor.  Partly H1B is about saving money, mostly it is about status.  The bean counters and the HRs are troubled by the status of engineers.  Notice the complete absence of H1Bs in HR and accounting.  If he can stop H1B, despite corporate interests screaming blue murder, he can stop the rapeugee invasion despite the courts.

OK, enormous numbers of Muslims still legally pouring across the border to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat in marginal electorates in flyover country, but the H1Bs are either be drastically cut, or else H1Bs are going to be radically higher quality people rather than cheap slave labor.  A radical cut in numbers being considerably more likely than a radical improvement in quality.

Jobs are back due to threats, promises, actual de-regulation, and promised de-regulation.  Not to mention a sudden scarcity of fresh H1Bs.

The Global Warming movement is dead in the water.  Now government is talking about cheap energy, so now if you want your grants, instead of applying for a grant on the effect of global warming on squirrel nut gathering, you apply for a grant on obtaining energy cost efficiently.  Government funding for the left, though still enormous, has suffered major cuts.  You want a grant, now you have to sing a right wing song (cheap energy good, because man’s mastery over nature is good) instead of a left wing song (humans are evil and deserve unending and severe punishment for despoiling the earth).

Tranny thor, tranny spiderman, and tranny wolverine have all bitten the dust.  Supposedly the the comics industry spontaneously saw the light, but that is a joke.  You don’t have free speech.  Do you think the comics have free speech?  They got told by Obama to do sex changes on their most distinctively manly heroes, and now they got told by Trump to sex change them back.  Television, however, is still a disgusting attack on maleness, men, and masculinity.  Television is all about manning up to be cuckolded and raise someone else’s child.  Biological fathers on television are horrible people, for example Homer Simpson, the only good men being cuckolds raising other men’s children, when it is not about counterstereotypical women, counterstereotypical gays, counterstereotypical blacks, and counterstereotypical black males fornicating with white women.  (Who are allowed to be feminine if and only if they have sex with black men)  There is no indication that the celebration of cuckoldry is going to stop, but FCC changes give me considerable hope. If Thor is a man again, maybe men on television will stop raising other men’s bastard spawn.  Maybe dads being dads will become as mandatory as non dads being dads is now.  Notice how salient it is that Trump is a father, whereas it was barely salient that Obama was a father.  If Trump signaling fatherhood, and kicking ass on the FCC, chances are that television will also be signaling fatherhood pretty soon.

OK, I hear you say, but what about war with Syria, which goes totally against everything he promised?

Well, to the progs he saying “War with Syria”, and to his base, he is saying “No war with Syria”.  Which is kind of what you expect from Trump.  And I rather think it will be no war with Syria, that he is lying to the deep state, not to us.

Nixon famously said “I am not a crook”, but in one of Trump’s speeches, Trump implied he was a crook, and he is, and all the better because of it.  We were voting for a president, not a pastor.  The left has no morals.  Politics is war within limits, which limits are constantly in danger of being trampled down, and I voted for Trump in part because I expect him to stomp right over those limits.

344 Responses to “Trump accomplishments.”

  1. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    Used to be firing missiles at someone was war. Also, it’s like you are trying to persuade yourself, not others. Eventually it will become obvious, if you don’t twist things to fit your hopes, that Trump had no idea what he was walking into, and now he is acting in line with his role.

    • jim says:

      That is the blundering idiot theory. We heard a lot that he was a blundering idiot in the primaries, and lot that he was a blundering idiot during the election.

      Maybe he will double cross his base and maybe he will not, but whatever he does, will not be because he did not know what he was walking into.

      • Rreactionaryfuture says:

        Winning elections has nothing to do with understanding how government works Absolutely nothing. What’s Trump’s theory of government? What’s Bannon’ s? Does anyone linked to Trump have an idea? I will bet it was to get into the presidency then give orders. I don’t see the cultivation of non-formal actors which tells me this is a waste of time. I also see the strike on Syria as him being briefed on the geopolitical nature of the situation.

        • jim says:

          Trump clearly believes that merely temporary government has not in recent times exercised much power. Bannon believes something similar to what neoreactionaries believe about the actual locus of power.

          • Rreactionaryfuture says:

            What I am seeing is a lot of pretty projection on to events to shore up support of Trump. If you don’t have a model which A) predicts what will happen roughly and then B) is backed up by events, you are just applying post-event rationalization.

            • jim says:

              How am I “projecting onto events” that illegal immigration is way down? Am I imagining it?

              • Reactionaryfuture says:

                How have you proven that? from arrest statistics? Seriously? As for the rest, I predicted Trump would get in, would be able to do the sum total of nothing, and have the entire system stifle him – which is pretty much what Moldbug already told us. I could have also told you he would turn on the Muslim issue, and the Syrian issue especially because frankly, the US and Jihad are BFFs. Trump is probably fully aware of this now.

                Also, I don’t know why you always provide the example of Australia, as I don’t see how they are not screwed. You seem absolutely set on talking everyone down from the conclusion that all the institutions that make up the current political setup need utterly destroying and replacing. Reading between the lines, you seem certain that the political system works as advertised – vote for X and person Y will step in and enact X. You also seem certain that political decisions are decided within the formal structure and enacted accordingly.

                • peppermint says:

                  I bet you’re the kind of person who would have taken seriously the legacy media’s pre-Dream Act claim that illegal migration was down due to Obama administration policy

                • pdimov says:

                  “As for the rest, I predicted Trump would get in, would be able to do the sum total of nothing, and have the entire system stifle him – which is pretty much what Moldbug already told us.”

                  That’s what we all predicted, the difference being to what extent we hoped this prediction would be wrong.

                  It’s still the null hypothesis and hasn’t been disproved so far.

                • peppermint says:

                  The #1 thing I wanted was no crackdown on Internet memes, the #2 thing I wanted was no military confrontation with Russia, and #3 was no trannies in the civil rights act. Trump will need to cuck much harder to save the left.

                • pdimov says:

                  So all you wanted was no X, no Y, no Z? This is consistent with “Trump gets in, does nothing.”

            • Learner says:

              Who wants to take a look at reality (where the rich cuck the poor, as it has always been) when you can delude yourself with comics.

        • peppermint says:

          To win the election he had to fight the legacy media, and to exercise power he needs to fight the legacy media. To survive in business he had to genuflect to progressive values and he knows what those values are and who comes up with that nonsense. Remember the moment he had to put his hand on Ivanka’s knee to get her to shut up and answer the question of whether she would be open to dating niggers for her, today he knows the school is trying to teach Barron that being gay and a tranny is the only good thing a FUCKING WHITE MALE can do. To survive in business he had to defend himself against the bureaucrats, the IRS and the courts and to exercise power he needs to fight the bureaucrats and the courts.

  2. EdensThaw says:

    Have to have to build the wall. No moral victories.

  3. Art says:

    In what sense are H1B holders “slave labor”? Do you mean something like “wage slavery” – contracting on terms that you disapprove of?

    • jim says:

      That job mobility is prevented – that they cannot stroll over to the company’s major competitor if they get pissed off, ensures low status. Not slaves, but definitely second class citizens and second class employees.

      OK, not slave labor – but hired at not far above the Indian prevaling wage for rather ordinary programmers, rather than at the American prevailing wage for rather ordinary programmers, and subject to dismissal back to India, which ensures that they are low status and have limited career prospects in America, since they cannot generally move from one American job to another.

      Their visa is effectively the property of their employer, not themselves. They have freely contracted to something rather like captivity, which diminishes their status.

      If they are not slave labor, they are definitely artificially low status labor.

      • B says:

        Weren’t you praising Dubai effusively for having exactly this kind of system?

        H1Bs have infinitely more rights than workers in Dubai.

        • jim says:

          Only menial workers in Dubai have H1B type visas, and they are still better off than American H1Bs because it is easier for them to raise their status.

          A Dubai worker doing a relatively high status job like software engineer would most likely have his visa directly from the government, rather than from his employer, which would mean that he, rather than his employer owned his visa, making it easy for him to go from one Dubai employer to another. Dubai visas work like H1B visas for low IQ low status workers that the government does not want to hang around too long.

          Low status job, low status visa in Dubai. High status job, high status visa in Dubai. Not always, but that is the way to bet.

          In America, H1B visa makes the job low status. Indeed, that is almost the point and purpose of the visa, to artificially make the job low status, while similar Dubai visas formalize and legally recognize natural status distinctions.

          • B says:

            Now you’re quibbling at particulars.

            I don’t think American H1Bs are working on highrises without safety gear and living in raw sewage. They have the same civil protections as an American citizen.

            Dubai is a shithole with awful weather and a terrible social climate. The locals can’t do anything useful. In order to attract the skilled workers they need to keep from drowning in their own shit, they have to offer high pay and good working conditions.

            America is, despite its rough spots, an awesome place to live on most fronts. It imports skilled workers because its oligarchs want to increase their profits and decrease uncertainty. So it can offer the skilled workers it imports lower pay and worse working conditions than the native ones it’s displacing.

            But these are particulars.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think American H1Bs are working on highrises without safety gear and living in raw sewage. They have the same civil protections as an American citizen.

              Pretty sure Dubai workers are not living in raw sewage. I would not know about the safety gear. But working on a high rise without safety gear does not lower your status relative to your employer and to genuinely free workers, the way an H1B type visa does. Working on a high rise without safety gear might make you dead, but it will not make you any the less a man.

              • B says:

                Pretty sure Dubai workers live in raw sewage and get treated like crap.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabtec#Controversy

                http://al-bab.com/blog/2013/05/migrant-workers-dubai-face-deportation

                http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/labour-camps-to-get-sewage-system

                Obviously, it’s better than what they get at home, or they wouldn’t be in Dubai.

                Likewise, what Dubai engineers get is better than what they get at home.

                Likewise, what H1Bs in America have is better than what they get at home.

                • jim says:

                  Doubtless H1B visa holders have more money, and probably less sewage, in the US than in India. But they don’t have more status. They have less.

                • Lalit says:

                  Jim, this is correct. Software engineers in India are more high status relative to the general population at a fourth of the H1B pay than they are as h1bs in America. Ironically the H1B is higher status than a local engineer when said h1b visits India. But he still needs to visit India to feel his status. This is 2 weeks out of 52. So he is low status for 50 weeks and high status for 2.

                • B says:

                  H1B holders probably have even more of a hard time getting dates with American women or making American friends than regular American programmers, but for the same reasons-culture, personality, speech, physical appearance, lack of charm. All of these are at least somewhat possible to change.

                  Manual laborers in the Gulf States have a hard time getting dates with the local women or making friends with the local men for the same reason that people do not date or make friends with livestock.

                • B says:

                  Dalit, you didn’t answer my question about expiation in Hinduism. Is it true that expiating your sins involves drinking cow urine and eating cow dung?

                • peppermint says:

                  When those Indians come home rich because Trump kicked them out, will they still be high status? If so it’s a win/win, especially for the tall Brahmin I know who’s a bachelor and has to watch all the cute Indian girls in this country miscegenating with White men. Back when I wasn’t as racist I didn’t know why the cute Indian girl in our circle married this White dudebro. White privilege will always exist in the sexual marketplace except to the extent that liberals manage to make themselves unattractive.

                • lalit says:

                  B. B. B. Where do I begin. Let me see

                  First, my name is Lalit, not Dalit.

                  Second, poor people everywhere believe that sins can be expiated by doing simple things like going to confession, giving some priest a lot of money, reading passages from a religious scripture or in the case of poor Hindus, bathing in a holy river which is usually a local river.

                  Third, Hindus do not drink Cow Urine to expiate their sins. This is just propaganda. A few do drink cow Urine to cure certain diseases. Several more use it as an antiseptic for external application. But they mostly use cow urine as an ingredient in several traditional Ayurvedic medicinal preparations which work quite effectively, you will be surprised.

                  Fourth, Hindus do not believe in Sin. They believe in action and reaction. They believe in Cause and
                  effect. They believe that no action is good or bad, ti merely has consequences. An action whose consequence is awful is how Abrahamics would define sin. An action whose consequence is wonderful is how Abrahamics would define as virtue. Once a “sin” has been committed, there is no way to escape it’s awful consequences. The consequence will come as surely as night follows day. There is no forgiveness. No one has the power to forgive. This is a universal law which is supreme. Hence the law of Karma which even the Gods are subject to.

                  Finally, I have a question for you too!
                  Is it true that Jews have hooked noses, try to destroy the host societies by subverting them, lend money at usurious rates to suck the soul out of Gentiles and sacrifice Gentile White Babies to Moloch?

                • jim says:

                  Some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, have a distinctive appearance which is parodied as large hooked noses. Usury businesses used to be distinctively Jewish, but oddly, not so any more. Maybe there are Jews hidden behind them, but if there are, they are doing rather good job of hiding.

                  Subversives are disproportionately Jewish. Sophistry is very disproportionately Jewish. Clever silly sophistry, which supports positions that are blatantly wicked or foolish with clever slippery words, is almost entirely Jewish. According to Kevin McDonald in “culture of critique”, this reflects Jews acting collectively to advance the interests of Jews as a whole at the expense of non Jews as a whole, but I have noticed that when I see someone engaging in clever silly sophistry, it is one Jew arguing that he is much holier than some other Jew. Two Jews, three factions.

                  As in Scott Alexander’s latest where he argues he is way holier than Milo, because Scott supports freedom of speech by opposing it. This is a stereotypical clever silly Jewish argument, combining impressively clever verbal agility with amusing chutzpah.

                  In the recent ancestral environment, the male Jew who most cleverly argued he was holier than the other Jew got to reproduce more successfully. The Christian who most cleverly argued he was holier than the other Christian did not get to reproduce at all, whereas the Christian who claimed that he threw a better party than the other Christian did get to reproduce more successfully. Notice how scornful B is about non Jews claiming status by throwing good parties. He deems it obvious that such a status claim automatically makes you insufficiently holy.

                  Female Jews, just like female Christians, always argue that in a truly just and fair society they would be considered hot, rather than arguing that they would be considered holy.

                  Christian males who were high status for non holy reasons got to reproduce more successfully. Females who were considered hot, regardless of religion, got to reproduce more successfully. Jews who were considered holy got to reproduce successfully.

                  Thus, when two males of Christian descent discuss cooking, they each tell the other that they are higher status foodie than the other. I twice cook my meat by first cooking it sous vide, letting it cool of a bit, and then searing it on a very hot cast iron frypan. How do you you cook your meat?

                  See: My foodism is higher status than your foodism. But I am unlikely to tell you I am holier than you are. Hence Heartiste calls himself minion of Satan.

                  People of Jewish descent, unlike people of Christians descent are always demonstrating superior holiness. Hence double dishwashers. If they don’t have double dishwashers, better watch out because they care more about the oppressed than you do. Thus, if lacking double dishwashers, likely to be subversive.

                  B also continues to undermine the crusades and overthrow the Czar, enthusiastically engaging in subversion that has somewhat passed its use-by date. Because social justice warriors are extremely holy, social justice warriors tend to be disproportionately Jewish.

                • lalit says:

                  Peppermint, I don’t think Trump will kick out all the H1Bs despite the rhetoric. There are several reasons for this

                  1. He has bigger fish to fry for the moment, i.e. the mexican wall crossers and the Muslim Ban. This I believe will take up much of his time leaving very little time to focus on the H1Bs

                  2. By sending the H1B workers home, sure he helps American IT workers. But the questions is, why the hell should he help American IT workers? American IT workers are progressive to the bone (I should know, I worked with them) and detest trump with the same Venom that Progressive Indians detest Modi. And Trump being Trump Detests them back. And Trump being Trump will not lift a finger to help them. Why the hell should he? They will not vote for him anyway? Let the American IT working bastards continue with their proggery and compete with low cost Indian programmers. You face the consequences of your ideology. What can be fairer than that? It is one aspect of the Law of Karma, Baby!

                  3. I expect Trump to first do something for his constituency, which is Blue collar Americans. Thus the push to keep the mexicans out and to bring back manufacturing. And that is the way to Roll. Blue collar America loves Trump and Trump loves them back. Let the American programmers give up their ideology, apologize for their “sins” and perhaps Trump will then do something about the H1Bs

                  However, to humor you, let us do a simple thought experiment and assume that Trump does kick the H1Bs out. The answer then is that they will no longer be high status on their return to India inspite of their wealth, but will be mocked on their return. The mocking has to do a lot with jealousy and envy and relief on the part of Indians in India that they did not miss out on anything by not having worked in America. So, they should expect to be mocked and laughed at.

                  Regarding Win-Win, yes it could be win-win. In the sense that India’s IT industry is growing and the salaries in India are climbing. On a nominal basis I earn about a 1/3rd of what I used to earn in the US (after taxes in both cases). But on a PPP basis, I have the same standard of living since everything of comparable quality is available at 1/3rd the rate. Of course the air quality here sucks but that is made up by healthcare which is 1/40th the cost for care of comparable quality. And Oh yes, my status is way higher.

                • jim says:

                  An H1B visa has a limited time. Under the latest rules, no one who currently has an H1B is likely to qualify for renewal. I suspect that when the screams of pain start coming, Trump will go lenient and grandfather in renewals of existing H1B visas. But pretty sure that new H1B visas are going to be considerably harder to get.

                • jim says:

                  And Oh yes, my status is way higher.

                  Status will get you laid and get you a hot wife a whole lot better than money will get you laid and get you a hot wife.

                  Generally it is a lot more cost effective to blow an unreasonable amount of money on the hotel room to which you take the girl, or the car in which you take her there, than to blow an unreasonable amount of money on the girl.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Kevin MacDonald’s blog — TheOccidentalObserver — has redpilled me on the Jews (and I’ve read CoC also). KMac, Andrew Joyce, Guillaume Durocher, and a few others have done fantastic work. If you read them, and read Counter-Currents, Radix, Semitic Controversies, Daily Stormer, TRS, and MPC, and listen to Ramzpaul – all of your philo-Semitism will be flushed down the toilet.

                • jim says:

                  I am pretty sure that B does not think I am philosemitic.

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, tell me why should Trump do something nice (making H1Bs harder) for American Programmers considering that they are annoyingly progressive and will not vote for him anyway? He is not known to do nice things for his ill-wishers

                • jim says:

                  The annoying progressivism of American Programmers is largely fake. You get fired if you do not adequately emulate progressivism.

                  What happened is at some point progressives noticed that there were essentially zero female programmers. At which point everyone who employs programmers was kind of facing jail time. Employing fake female programmers only made things worse, for it would be discovered that they were not genuinely participating. So the only possible thing to do was to go more progressive than thou. If the employer is a social justice warrior and everyone he employs is a social justice warrior and/or claims to be a transexual, maybe the fact that all the real programming is done by males will be overlooked.

                • lalit says:

                  So these programmers are fake progressives? Oh, I’m sure they started off “faking it”. But have they inadvertently “made it”? You know how you Americans say it, “Fake it till you make it” though to my pagan ears it sounds like “Fake it till you break it.”

                  If they are faking Progressivism, they are mighty good actors each deserving of an Oscar or a Golden Globe at the very least. They sure fooled the hell out of me. If these are Trump voters, then I eat HRCs pussy. Pretending to be a progressive (for purposes of keeping employment) will lead to actual belief in progressivism over time. The only way you can pretend and still keep your integrity is if you are pretending with an intent to subvert. Now I ask you, how many would pretend to subvert? I tell you, These are Bonafide progressives. You had to see the look on their faces at the company party when I told them I was a Trump sympathizer since he was at least not an enemy of the Hindus unlike you know who. They mocked me as if I was some sort of ignorant Third World Uncle Tom. Condescending Bastards! I had half a mind to report them to HR and then I realized, D-Uh!

                • jim says:

                  Trying to estimate the number of sincere lefties among programmers is like trying to estimate the number of sincere lefties during Mao’s great leap forward. If you don’t hire women, it is illegal. If you do hire women, they will figure out that they are not genuinely programming, and that is illegal. And the only way to avoid lawsuits is political favor.

                • lalit says:

                  In that case, Trump ending H1Bs and sending all the Indian Engineers is probably what India’s Modi wants as the Indian IT industry has a shortage of people with the required skills.

                  The Indian Scientific Defense/Nuclear establishment comprising entities such as DRDO, ISRO, DRDL, IGCAR is also experiencing a shortage of Engineers and scientists. Modi being a Hindu nationalist most certainly wants them all here paying taxes here and building Fast Breeder reactors here, launching space rockets here and all that. And those autistic idiots might actually find higher status here

                • pdimov says:

                  Programmers seem genuinely and sincerely progressive to me, at least in their default state.

                • B says:

                  Dalit,

                  Are you calling Nirad Chaudhuri a liar?

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirad_C._Chaudhuri

                  Because in his book, he says the following:

                  A certain citizen of a small town of east Mymensingh…had the misfortune of having his cow strangled by means of the rope with which she was tied…the expiation (he) had to make was severe. To begin with, he had to go into sackcloth, drink half a glass of bovine urine, and fast for one day…

                  …my nephew, who is staying with me during the writing of this autobiography, is also serving as witness to the truth of my recollections and early impressions. I am checking all my assertions against his experiences, and in order to test my theory of the Hindu attitude towards morality, I asked him one day what wrong was. Without a moment’s hesitation, he replied that it was sin. Then I asked him how men could make amends for any wrong done by them. He replied, “by expiation.” “What is expiation?” I finally inquired, and got the expected, in fact, the inevitable reply, “Eating something.” What he had in mind was of course the eating of cow-dung, which forms an indispensable part of most Hindu expiatory rites.

                  Now, either Mr. Chaudhuri is a liar, or he didn’t know anything about Hinduism, or Hinduism has gone some sort of fundamental revolution in the last 70 years…or you are lying because you are embarrassed of your own people in front of the readers of this blog. Clowning for whitey!

                  As for your questions about the Jews, it is all true. We also have horns (little ones,) a tail, and massive powers of mind control over goyim. Look how 30 year old Jared Kushner has hypnotized The Donald and holds him in his thrall, like a sock puppet. Look and tremble, Babu!

                  I am off to impale a Christian baby on my massive, hooked proboscis, for dinner.

                • Lalit says:

                  I said my name was Lalit!

                • B says:

                  [*Deleted for being stupid and insulting. Clever insults will be allowed. Stupid insults waste reader bandwidth.

                  And I am going to delete any further suggestions that lalit is of an inferior caste.*]

                • Anonymous says:

                  The superstitions of Lalit’s ancestors are infinitely more benign than the superstitions favored by B and company. Lalit’s superstitions revolve around the Natural World, thus, they are excusable, insofar as practiced by primitives. B’s revolve around dead-letters, holiness spirals, and legalistic schemes – not excusable.

                  It’s better to eat cow-shit in order to expiate negative karma, than to maintain two dishwashers because (“because”) God commanded the wandering Hebrews to refrain from boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. The former doesn’t involve much holiness signalling – it takes humility to EAT SHIT. The latter is holiness signalling par excellence, and is the same arrogance criticized by Jesus 2,000 years ago, before there were dishwashers.

                  A Karaite joke goes:

                  “Rabbi, can I kiss the Torah book?”
                  “My tzaddik, why would you?”
                  “To convey reverence and affection for G-d.”
                  “Okay, but watch out: if you start kissing Torah books, you may just end-up kissing the mezuzot!”

                  (For those who don’t know, Orthodox Jews kiss mezuzot to demonstrate just how pious they are – what’s the point being pious if others can’t see it, right, B? The joke is funny because it accurately captures the ridiculousness of the Jewish pretension to piety, and the tendency of Jewish holiness rituals to “jump the shark” repeatedly)

                • B says:

                  It’s ok, I made my point.

                  Lalit, if you direct any more bullshit my way (I’m saying personally, not towards my arguments,) I’ll reply with quotes from Indian literature about the character of the Indian nation. Believe me, it’s a rich vein to mine.

                  I am still curious about the discrepancy between Chauduri’s words and yours. Maybe you’re a Brahmo, and this sort of thing isn’t practiced by them?

                • B says:

                  antisenonymous, you really want a conversation with me badly, don’t you?

                  I recommend you find some humility, in the sense you just described it.

                • Anonymous says:

                  On the contrary, B. I’m having a conversation with the readers, past you, utilizing you as a fine example of my point.

                  You can tell me to eat shit, but your kind invite pedophile mohels to orally suck blood straight out of freshly circumcised baby-dicks. Now, you see, I don’t eat shit, and presumably Lalit doesn’t eat shit. But your son’s dick has indeed been sucked “voraciously” by a pedophile, at your request.

                  You’ll mock the Hindi Bindi for the fact his ancestors ate cow dung. Well, he doesn’t do that anymore, but you still engage in perverted sexual mutilation. Similarly, you used to mock the Irish because their ancestors, in your words, “ran around naked howling at the moon”. But the Irish don’t do that anymore, if ever they did, while you have practices that any human would find abhorrent. Should I go over those practices, which you still practice?

                • B says:

                  [*Stupid anti christian insults will now be deleted also.

                  There are lots of valid criticisms of Christianity that can be made, and I frequently make them. Try to be a little clever.

                  It would be strange if I wind up purging an Ashkenazi Jew not for the stereotypical faults of Jews, but, for being stupid.*]

                • jim says:

                  If you are going to attack Christianity, which is entirely reasonable since the person you are debating has been attacking Judaism, you have two thousand years of very intelligent criticisms available. Try using them.

                  That Christianity is one more spawn from that father of religions, Judaism, is not going to come as big news to Christians. We could try to get the debate up to being about legalism, the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, and holiness signaling, rather than “kike on a stick”.

                  Jesus criticized the pharisees for holiness signaling, and his final action was to accept the repentance and confession of a thief. Maybe you could point out that Christianity today is making things rather easy for thieves, and anonymous could point out that Jews are still holiness signaling.

                  Even if you point out that Christianity’s excessive emphasis on forgiveness and generosity results in Christians being cucks, and anonymous points out that Jews are so quarrelsome that they are still trying to overthrow the Czar, that would still be a better debate than the stupid insulting childish crap that you dredged up.

                  Do try to conform to Ashkenazi stereotype. Jewish insults are supposed to be so clever that it takes the victim a while to figure out that he has been insulted. Telling Lalit that Hinduism is unclean was a clever insult. Suggesting he was of inferior caste was stupid.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >You do understand that you worship and deify a person who was circumcised, right?

                  Christ was circumcised and Christ was crucified. If his crucifixion isn’t condoned despite it being indispensable to the fulfilment of his mission, neither should anything else done to him by Jews be condoned. Your point is moot.

                  >He also referred to gentiles as dogs.

                  The troll answer is that Jesus was himself an Aryan, and as an Aryan, he was fond of dogs, so it must’ve been a compliment. The non-troll answer is that the Messiah disliked the goyim and preferred his own people, but as his own people rejected him, they have been afflicted with all the curses of the gentiles, while the gentiles have acquired all the blessings of Jews. Jesus turned you into a dog, in other words. Role reversal!

                  >Certainly, there has been nothing like the revelations of institutional child abuse and pedophilia in the Catholic Church in our community.

                  I don’t know which specific community you belong to. I do know that in the broader religious Jewish community, pedophilia is widespread, rampant really. Want a link to a Hebrew page? Got it:

                  https://m.youtube.com/#/user/9878987775

                  Plenty of pedophile videos (not actual pedo sex – this isn’t child porn) in that channel. Do I need to post specific videos from that channel, or are you going to admit that you’re not all that much holier than the canine-like goyim, that you’re just as fallen and sinful as they are, if not more so?

                  (B won’t admit that he’s a YUGE hypocrite, so I may as well post here the videos, so all the goyim will realize what’s going on. Let’s see…)

                • peppermint says:

                  The Catholic pedo scandal was actually a Catholic normal homosexual scandal. Everyone has always accused Catholic priests of either being homosexuals or cucking everyone or both. Like Jews, they claim that this fact establishes irrational hatred and their blamelessness.

                • B says:

                  Jim,

                  You are, characteristically, missing the point.

                  The point is not that Hinduism is “unclean”. That would be a stupid point, since in Hinduism’s system of reference, cow dung and urine are ritually clean and used for purification. What is absolutely unclean in Hinduism is mlechchas, non-Hindus, such as yourself and myself.

                  The point is that Lalit is supposedly a Hindu reactionary, but what kind of reactionary is so ashamed of his traditional system of beliefs and practices that he must lie about them to mlechchas because he’s concerned about how they see him? Of course, he himself is polluted, having crossed the black waters…

                  Likewise, the point with antisenonymous is NOT that I wish to engage in a disputation about Christianity and its problems. That’s been done to death over the last 2000 years, and at this point as pointless as explaining to a Hindu that eating cow dung is disgusting and accomplishes nothing in terms of purification. Christianity is not collapsing because outsiders convincingly point out how stupid and dishonest it inherently is. It is collapsing because its inherent flaws are reaching their logical expression in systemic failure.

                  The point is that while attacking Jews, antisenonymous is actually attacking the person whom he worships, as he actually existed, spoke and practiced. By pointing this out, I create cognitive dissonance, which forces him to tie himself into knots retconning, which is entertaining to watch.

                • jim says:

                  I know enough about Hinduism that I am fairly sure that your depiction of Hinduism is considerably less accurate, and considerably less well informed, than the Nazi account of Judaism.

                  When lalit apologetically explains that maybe that is one of the obscure branches of Hinduism that he is unfamiliar with, I have had more experience than he with the quality and reliability of your sources.

                • Lalit says:

                  First, my Thanks to Jim and anonymous.

                  Second, I really did not read B’s comment suggesting I was of an inferior caste. B., every caste in India thinks it is the best caste. A Vijayanagara inscription even says that Shudras are the best of the 4 castes since the Kshatriyas can’t fight, the Brahmins know nothing and the Vaishyas can’t turn a profit while the shudra can do it all. The Vijayanagara kings were mostly shudras since the Kshatriyas in the Andhra province were wiped out in the earlier Islamic invasions.

                  Coming to Nirad C. , I never met the man and would like to cross examine him. Regardless of the weird practices he mentions in his village, I have never ever heard of cow dung being eaten to expiate a sin. Unlike the Abrahamics, the Hindus do not have a single book nor do they claim any of these books came from a God. Some of these books directly contradict each other. But in no Hindu scripture, be it the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Gita, the manusmriti or any other book is it ever mentioned that a sin may be expiate by eating cow dung. So there!

                  Finally, the fact that you pick some non entity called Nirad C over someone like Vivekananda or Schopenhauer to describe the Hindus and their religion exposes your deep rooted prejudices towards the polytheistic faiths.

                • Lalit says:

                  Doubtless, there are Hindus who judge non-Hindus as unclean. But there are also several who judge a man only by the level of virtue practiced by him regardless of where he comes from or what he looks like. The point is that Hindus do not have a single book. They do not claim any of their books are the word of God. There is no supreme authority for the Hindus. Therefore their beliefs are fluid and always evolving based on new information. In this, they are not different from the Shinto of Japan or the now extinct pagan religions of Europe.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The point is that while attacking Jews, antisenonymous is actually attacking the person whom he worships, as he actually existed, spoke and practiced. By pointing this out, I create cognitive dissonance, which forces him to tie himself into knots retconning, which is entertaining to watch.

                  Since you brought up Jesus’ circumcision, I pointed out that Jesus did not circumcise himself, just as he didn’t crucify himself. Real “knot trying retconning cognitive dissonance” on my part right here.

                  You’re getting desperate.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If you want to have a discussion about the larger issue of Jesus’ relation to Judaism, leave alone the issue of his circumcision, which is irrelevant, and address what he actually had to say about Judaism, or rather Phariseeism.

                  Oh, and if his father was a Roman soldier, one named Panderas, then he was genetically a Mischling. That would explain a lot, now, wouldn’t it?

                • B says:

                  Nirad Chaudhuri was a very prominent writer in 20th century India, and was close to the major literary and political figures of his time like the Bose brothers, Nehru, Gandhi, Bandyopadhyay… The fact that you don’t know who he is reflects on you, not on him.

                  What you are expounding here is Brahmoism or Reform Hinduism. Universalist Hinduism, or Hinduism retconned by parts of the Western-educated upper and middle classes of late 19th/early 20th centtury colonial India, in such a way that it would not be so embarrassing to its adherents. There is no point of ideology that I could imagine a Reform Hindu, a Reform Jew, a Quaker and an atheist-but-spiritual Berkeley professor getting into a fight about.

                  And, hey, whatever floats your boat! But it’s dishonest to suggest that this represents Hinduism as historically practiced, or as practiced by the great majority of its adherents.

                • B says:

                  Antisenonymous, I’ve told you about four times that I’m not interested in having a conversation with you, on any subject.

                  For the exact same reason that I’m not interested in a conversation with some inbred imam with a dent on his forehead who is obsessed with convincing me that Muhammad is the final prophet, that the Torah had him in mind all along, and that you can see it if you squint at the text properly, that the parts which contradict Islam were changed by the perfidious Jews, who are the descendants of pigs and apes, that they betrayed Muhammad, that Abraham, Isaac and Ya’akov were Muslims, that Ishmael is Abraham’s heir, etc. etc. etc.

                  What could I possible stand to gain from such a conversation? Am I likely to learn anything new, or teach anything new? No. Am I likely to be entertained? No.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I treated you very fairly throughout the conversation, and contrary to your paranoia, did not try to convert you, or to convince you of any metaphysical reality at all. You made a bunch of assertions, which were either absurd, or immaterial, and I merely goaded you to keep making a fool of yourself, seeing as you feel compelled to defend the indefensible – which is par for the course with your kind.

                  (eat shit, kikelet)

                • B says:

                  Thank you, my point precisely.

                • Lalit says:

                  First, I know who Nirad C is and I still maintain he is a non entity when compared to Vivekananda. However most Indians have no idea who he is while they all know Vivekananda.

                  Second, who made you ir Nirad C an expert on Hinduism? One definition of Hinduism is that it is a parliament of Indian religions. No Hindu alive today can recount all the strains practiced. As I mentioned earlier, there is no one reference point or Autthority for Hinduism.

                  Since 1948, The Israelis have disproved the misconception that Jews are cowards. If your comments are anything to go by, It seems now that they are now disproving the misconception that Jews are smart.

                • peppermint says:

                  if you say you’re like the civilized japs and pre-Abrahamic Whites instead of the Abrahamic cultists, that’s good, but saying Abrahamics aren’t unclean by definition but only according to their disgusting customs like mutilation of their own male children opens the door to mudslimes in a way that isn’t reciprocal. I wonder how much of the Indian rape crisis is mudslimes who can’t jerk off because they lack foreskins using the daughters of tolerant Hindus.

                  (sufficiently high verbal IQ individuals should know to insult lolit by comparison to a little girl to be raped)

                  (lalit says his religion doesn’t include sin and expiation, which would have been easily interpolated as crime and punishment by academics seeking syncretism, while judaism (due to bad karma, no special slur is needed for the first people of the book) includes sin as violation of divine command and the cuckstainty advocated by our confused anonymous friend includes expiation according to which if his priest cucks him and then receives absolution and anonymous dies killing the priest anonymous is tortured for eternity while the priest ascends to heaven to suck yahweh’s dick for eternity while on Earth anonymous’ family helps the wife raises the priest’s baby because all lives are actually equal in value to everyone)

                  (japs is read through a chink dialect as well as at least one other White language, but nips sounds like a female body part which draws attention to their effeminate appearance. Which is more insulting?)

                • Anonymous says:

                  >the cuckstainty advocated by our confused anonymous friend includes expiation according to which if his priest cucks him and then receives absolution and anonymous dies killing the priest anonymous is tortured for eternity while the priest ascends to heaven to suck yahweh’s dick for eternity while on Earth anonymous’ family helps the wife raises the priest’s baby because all lives are actually equal in value to everyone

                  This is cuckstianity – I absolutely disavow it.

                  Having no mind for muh abstract philosophy and/or muh abstract theology, what concerns me is what *works*. This is the world of cause-and-effect, the world of tangible results, not metaphysical results; this is the world which actually exists, the world where “spirits” are fake, and “free-will” is but an illusion; and in this word, the only religions whose advocacy has any merit to it are those maintained to the benefit, rather than to the detriment, of their practitioners.

                  The only question remains is whether or not there can be Christianity devoid of cuckstianity. You say: there can’t be. I say: too early to tell. But one thing is certain: if there ever emerges a replacement to Christianity, this replacement must be free to utilize those parts of Christianity expedient to it, just as Christianity utilized those parts of Judaism expedient to it. Remember: National Socialism came not to negate, but to *fulfill* Christianity. If John 8:44 is the “theory”, then Rumbula 1941 is the “praxis”.

                  Don’t be so pessimistic and negative, maaaan. We’ll commit the real (final) holocaust. The Jews will, in fact, be utterly defeated, and extirpated methodically. I’m quite excited right now, partly due to the beer, but also because it dawns on me that it’s not only likely that Schlomo will be gassed, it’s actually inevitable. Jewry will be expelled to Israel, and when all Jews are there, the nukes will rain down on them, and at last, humanity could sing the song of its redemption:

                  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven.
                  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven.
                  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven.
                  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven.
                  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven.

                • peppermint says:

                  Currently the biggest challenge to overcome is White apathy.

                  * gays and trannies are just expressing different and new but normal sexuality, where sexuality means two individuals using each others’ bodies to derive sexual pleasure
                  * it doesn’t matter because all our souls are going to be uploaded to the cloud
                  * it doesn’t matter because all our DNA is going to be recorded in the database and the best snippets will be assembled in test tubes
                  * it doesn’t matter because Western educated children are mostly Western in behavior

                  The solution to White apathy is to patiently inform them that biology is real. Boomercucks are quite good at arguing with the Bible in favor of gay Muslims and then going back to expecting the moral arc of the universe to bend towards africanization.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “Doubtless H1B visa holders have more money, and probably less sewage, in the US than in India. But they don’t have more status. They have less.”

                  And if a white male engineer can be replaced by one of these low-status people, then he’s low-status too now.

                  Of course he can’t be replaced really. Rather, he has to work even harder to pick up the slack. Even lower-status now.

                  If it wasn’t for you Jim I’d never have learned to see things through the Blog Jim Status Filter. Grade A.

                • Lalit says:

                  Peppermint, A simple google search will reveal that in 5/6 rapes, the perpetrator is Muslim while the victim is Hindu. If you parse thru the Orwell speak of Indian newspapers, if they decline to name the rapist, it’s a Muslim. Just like in Sweden. This is the root of my dislike of progressivism. The celebrated Nirbhaya rape case is what tagged India as a rape capital, remember that? Guess the religions of the perpetrators and the victim?

                  http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-nirbhaya-case-religious-juvenile-unwilling-to-leave-reform-home-2103589

                  If you read mainstream publica

                • Ron says:

                  “Similarly, you used to mock the Irish because their ancestors, in your words, “ran around naked howling at the moon”. But the Irish don’t do that anymore”

                  1. Depends on the Irishman and how much he’s had to drink.

                  2. Its why people have Irish friends

                • Anonymous says:

                  Ron, running around naked howling at the moon, unpalatable as it is to most people, is still orders of magnitude better than penile mutilation.

                  In fact, if we’re not going to kill all Jews, if some Jews are allowed to exist, then the one thing that must be expected of Jews is to not cut off parts of babydick. It may sound like a strange “litmus test”, yet, if you can’t give up the most barbaric practice of your people, you’re not fit to live around humanity. If you’re willing to give up the most barbaric practice of your people, then we can negotiate all the rest. About this issue there must not be any compromise.

                  Since 99% of Jews are unwilling to even consider the notion of not mutilating babydick, I think you know what comes next.

                • B says:

                  Scary, scary, scary stories.

                  Get in line, dummy, back behind the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Germans, Arabs, etc.

                  Notice how much more impressive they all are compared to you.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You survive and survive, until you don’t. Btw, none of the peoples you mentioned were serious about getting rid of you. In the entire Jewish history — contrary to whiney kike histrionics — only one nation was serious about getting rid of you. They’ve manage to wipe 1/3. Don’t try your luck.

                  But many peoples have expelled you — it happened more than 110 times — so one should bet that you’ll be expelled again, it’s not like you’re going to change your conduct anytime soon, right?

                • jim says:

                  Just as anti semites tend to interpret Jews shilling for poison as “pouring poison down our throats”, Jews tend to interpret cultures that are attractive and apt to absorb Jews as “Another Shoah”

                  The incident with Greeks was primarily slightly less hellenized Jews quarreling with slightly more Hellenized Jews. The incident with Rome followed a long period of Romans bending over backwards to accommodate crazy fanatics, as depicted in “Life of Brian”

                  For example, there was a lot of drama about graven images when Pontius Pilate had texts of the words of the emperor worshipfully displayed in his palace. If he had been worshipfully displaying them in the Jewish temple, or was forcing Jews to acts worshipfully towards those texts, or even worshipfully displaying them in the public square, they would have had a point.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Now I see you did mention the Germans. 1/3 is risky territory.

                  If someone gasses 7/8 of you, and those left are all Moroccan-Ethiopian hybrids, that’s good enough.

                • B says:

                  Jim, you need to re-read your Josephus.

                  Antisenonymous, good luck. “In every generation they rise up against us,” etc. I look forward to seeing you join the line of failures.

                • jim says:

                  The business with Pilate displaying the words of the emperor in his palace, and the business with the Greeks sacrificing chickens near a synagogue but on their own land in their own city, was Jews going right out of their way to look for trouble with a nine hundred pound gorilla.

                  The Romans were infamous for rapacious tax demands, but famous for religious tolerance. It really took some conspicuously over the top effort to cook up a war with them on the basis of religion. But Jews just did not find revolting against the Romans over taxes sufficiently holy. So they revolted against the Romans over some chickens Greeks were sacrificing on their own land in their own city. Romans, like the centurions at the stoning in “Life of Brian”, wondered what the **** was going on.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I look forward to seeing you join the line of failures.

                  Where’s your reading comprehension? There is no “line of failures”. It’s a bullshit talking point. There is *one* case only of people attempting to extirpate you, and while 1/3 is not my definition of success, it’s not too much of a failure either.

                  1 attempt. 1. And it resulted in 1/3 of Jews gone. Don’t try your luck.

                • B says:

                  You: “I’m going to shoot meth. It will make me more productive.”

                  Me: “Meth will wreck your life and then kill you. Look at all these examples.”

                  You: “No, no, no! Nobody’s ever tried to shoot meth the RIGHT way. This one guy came close, and he had a very successful drywall business, right until he overdosed on meth. Because he wasn’t using it properly. The way I will.”

                  Knock yourself out.

                  I was always skeptical of the guys who said that antisemitism was a mental disease not subject to reason, but I’m starting to come around.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You: “all those who approached the alligator died, and the alligator is alive and well.”

                  Me: “not true. Only one guy approached it, and while he didn’t quite kill the gator, he wounded it severely.”

                  You: “ALLIGATOR IS INVINCIBLE! INVINCIBLE!”

                  B is insane.

                • B says:

                  Hitler killed a third of us.

                  Less than a century down the road, we have our own country whose population has grown by an order of magnitude in 70 years, have replaced our population losses globally, and are on track to have more children per year than the Germans in a couple of decades. Meanwhile the Germans have decided they no longer wish to exist and are importing Syrians and various other refuse from the Muslim world.

                  That’s your “almost success” story.

                  It’s obvious whose side G-d is on.

                  You can double down, or you can re-evaluate. I assume that you’ve gotten to the point where you’re repugnant to G-d, and so He’s removed your ability to re-evaluate, as He did with the Pharaoh.

                • jim says:

                  By that reasoning, God is on the side of atheist socialists.

                  Israel is doing well because the Ashkenazi minority remain furtively in charge. If the mud Jews notice, and do a Venezuela, it will turn into another middle eastern hell hole. Of course left to themselves, the mud Jews would never notice, but you have your prog Ashkenazi wanting to use mud Jews to destroy the non prog Ashkenazi.

                  To get to where you want to go, you need Orthodox Ashkenazi to take over from prog Ashkenazi, without the mud Jews noticing that it is all Ashkenazi and doing a Venezuela.

                  Tricky.

                • B says:

                  Jim, again, re-read Josephus, especially the parts immediately leading up to the revolt.

                  “On their own property”-this was not the main event leading up to the revolt. Since you bring it up, though, let’s imagine a church where the local gays have bought up the opposite building and are having orgies on the lawn every day. If you know nothing else about the church, how would the following two scenarios affect your predictions on its longevity?

                  1. The worshipers hang their heads and try to ignore the orgies.

                  2. The worshipers start pelting the gays with bricks and trash, and throw down when the gays come after them.

                • jim says:

                  The synagogue was in a rental building. If you don’t like the neighborhood and the neighbors, move. Don’t start a war with a nine hundred pound gorilla.

                  The governor came to give the Jews what they were, quite unreasonably, demanding, and they would not take “yes” for answer, and instead killed him. Of course the Romans got pissed.

                • Anonymous says:

                  One nation in all of history attempted to get rid of you, and 1/3 of you were wiped off during a few short years. 1 attempt, vicious result.

                  70 years later, the situation has changed. Has it “turned upside down”? Not quite, but even if the German race is obliterated, that’s irrelevant – to go back to my analogy, it’s possible for the alligator to kill a bunch of guys and go away unscathed, before someone finally kills the alligator.

                  The alligator still hasn’t killed anyone, although it’s getting pretty voracious. And just because the wounded animal has inflicted great pains on its prey, it doesn’t mean that God is on the side of the animal.

                  It means the alligator was lucky that the hunter, whatever happened to him later on, had only managed to wound it severely, but not to kill it. The next hunter could kill it. Alligator not invincible.

                  If you barely survive 1 single assassination attempt, and your assassin gets in great trouble, it doesn’t mean God is on your side. The next assassin, assassin no. 2, may succeed. Assassination target not invincible.

                  Stop playing with fire, dipshit.

                • Anonymous says:

                  So what we had so far is:

                  EVIL NAZI: “hey Jew, if you continue on this path, something very bad may happen to you. Perhaps death.”

                  Jew: “I am immortal. You see, someone tried to kill me, but he only managed to cut off my legs, so now I have bionic legs, which are supreme. That someone is still alive, but faces difficulties. It means, surely, that if anyone else tries to kill me, the same thing will happen. Can’t you see that God made me immortal, and I can harass the goyim howerver I want, and all my assassins will fail, because assassin no. 1 only cut off my legs but didn’t kill me?”

                  One of us surely is pathological.

                • B says:

                  You are taking one episode out of a series and twisting it.

                  Reread Josephus.

                  1 NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle’s kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews’ ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones, and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations.

                  2. Now there followed after this another calamity, which arose from a tumult made by robbers; for at the public road at Beth-boron, one Stephen, a servant of Caesar, carried some furniture, which the robbers fell upon and seized. Upon this Cureanus sent men to go round about to the neighboring villages, and to bring their inhabitants to him bound, as laying it to their charge that they had not pursued after the thieves, and caught them. Now here it was that a certain soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire. (14) Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as if their whole country were in a flame, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine, and ran together with united clamor to Cesarea, to Cumanus, and made supplication to him that he would not overlook this man, who had offered such an affront to God, and to his law; but punish him for what he had done. Accordingly, he, perceiving that the multitude would not be quiet unless they had a comfortable answer from him, gave order that the soldier should be brought, and drawn through those that required to have him punished, to execution, which being done, the Jews went their ways.

                  1. NOW it was that Festus succeeded Felix as procurator, and made it his business to correct those that made disturbances in the country. So he caught the greatest part of the robbers, and destroyed a great many of them. But then Albinus, who succeeded Festus, did not execute his office as the other had done; nor was there any sort of wickedness that could be named but he had a hand in it. Accordingly, he did not only, in his political capacity, steal and plunder every one’s substance, nor did he only burden the whole nation with taxes, but he permitted the relations of such as were in prison for robbery, and had been laid there, either by the senate of every city, or by the former procurators, to redeem them for money; and no body remained in the prisons as a malefactor but he who gave him nothing. At this time it was that the enterprises of the seditious at Jerusalem were very formidable; the principal men among them purchasing leave of Albinus to go on with their seditious practices; while that part of the people who delighted in disturbances joined themselves to such as had fellowship with Albinus; and every one of these wicked wretches were encompassed with his own band of robbers, while he himself, like an arch-robber, or a tyrant, made a figure among his company, and abused his authority over those about him, in order to plunder those that lived quietly. The effect of which was this, that those who lost their goods were forced to hold their peace, when they had reason to show great indignation at what they had suffered; but those who had escaped were forced to flatter him that deserved to be punished, out of the fear they were in of suffering equally with the others. Upon the Whole, nobody durst speak their minds, but tyranny was generally tolerated; and at this time were those seeds sown which brought the city to destruction.

                  2. And although such was the character of Albinus, yet did Gessius Florus (18) who succeeded him, demonstrate him to have been a most excellent person, upon the comparison; for the former did the greatest part of his rogueries in private, and with a sort of dissimulation; but Gessius did his unjust actions to the harm of the nation after a pompons manner; and as though he had been sent as an executioner to punish condemned malefactors, he omitted no sort of rapine, or of vexation; where the case was really pitiable, he was most barbarous, and in things of the greatest turpitude he was most impudent. Nor could any one outdo him in disguising the truth; nor could any one contrive more subtle ways of deceit than he did. He indeed thought it but a petty offense to get money out of single persons; so he spoiled whole cities, and ruined entire bodies of men at once, and did almost publicly proclaim it all the country over, that they had liberty given them to turn robbers, upon this condition, that he might go shares with them in the spoils they got. Accordingly, this his greediness of gain was the occasion that entire toparchies were brought to desolation, and a great many of the people left their own country, and fled into foreign provinces.

                  …6. Moreover, as to the citizens of Jerusalem, although they took this matter very ill, yet did they restrain their passion; but Florus acted herein as if he had been hired, and blew up the war into a flame, and sent some to take seventeen talents out of the sacred treasure, and pretended that Caesar wanted them. At this the people were in confusion immediately, and ran together to the temple, with prodigious clamors, and called upon Caesar by name, and besought him to free them from the tyranny of Florus. Some also of the seditious cried out upon Florus, and cast the greatest reproaches upon him, and carried a basket about, and begged some spills of money for him, as for one that was destitute of possessions, and in a miserable condition. Yet was not he made ashamed hereby of his love of money, but was more enraged, and provoked to get still more; and instead of coming to Cesarea, as he ought to have done, and quenching the flame of war, which was beginning thence, and so taking away the occasion of any disturbances, on which account it was that he had received a reward [of eight talents], he marched hastily with an army of horsemen and footmen against Jerusalem, that he might gain his will by the arms of the Romans, and might, by his terror, and by his threatenings, bring the city into subjection.

                • jim says:

                  You are taking one episode out of a series and twisting it.

                  Reread Josephus.

                  The incidents that you quote did not lead to the war. Revolting against harsh taxes was not holy enough for the Jews.

                  What led to war was some some Jews attacking Greeks for sacrificing chickens on their own land in their own city, and then murdering the Roman governor for intervening to give the Jews what they wanted.

                  You are giving examples of Jews acting reasonably by modern standards of reasonableness, and there are plenty of such incidents. But there are also plenty of incidents where the Jews acted in ways that are by our and Roman standards, obstinately crazy.

                • Anonymous says:

                  This is what Jews believe: “each and every generation, the evil inferior goyim rise against us to kill us for no fault of our own, but God performs miracles to make us immortal and invincible.”

                  Reality: each and every generation, the evil Jews manage to piss someone off, often many different peoples, and receive a backlash, which backlash varies in severity each time, but usually amounts to local troubles, and sometimes expulsions, which the Jews never stop whining about. Late in history, however, the Jews pissed someone off so much, that this someone decided to get rid of them, resulting in 1/3 of them disappearing. The narcissistic (really solipsistic) Jews have concluded that they need to double down on those behaviors that got them local troubles, expulsions, and eventually the great lampshading of the 40s.

                  It’s not the goyim who lack introspection.

                • B says:

                  I wonder why Josephus bothered putting all those incidents of the Romans exposing their genitals in the Temple, destroying Torah scrolls and robbing the Temple treasury as well as the Jewish people in his book about the Great Revolt.

                  I mean, I have your assurance that they had absolutely nothing to do with the revolt, so it seems like a bunch of non sequiturs.

                  Maybe he was getting paid by the word, like Bram Stoker or something?

                • jim says:

                  We have both read the source. I know what it says, and I know you pay no attention to what your sources actually say.

                  The Romans did bad things, and the Jews did bad things – but the difference is the Romans were the nine hundred pound gorilla, and it is a poor idea to do bad things to a nine hundred pound gorilla.

                  The bad things the Romans did were either accidents that they corrected, or just the Romans raising money they needed to fund their empire. The bad things the Jews did were crazy shit whereby Jews demonstrated superior holiness to each other by doing stuff likely to get Jews exterminated.

                  “Life of Brian” accurately parodies this in the “No blackmail” scene.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “Oy vey stupid goyim! Don’t you realize that the greater the calamity afflicting us, the more it shows us that God is on our side, because we keep surviving? If during the future lampshading, 4/5 of Jews are soap’d, that would only show the greatness of God’s miracle!”

                  Basically, what Jews like B are saying is that as long as a single Jewish female exists in the world, that only goes to show that God is on the Jewish side, and Jews should continue their shenanigans, because “they failed to exterminate us”. Literally that’s what he says right here.

                  Madness.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If all Jews share B’s mentality, or have the potential to espouse such lunacy, then indeed it logically follows that to avoid inevitable troubles caused by Jews, every single Jew in the world must be killed.

                  “As long as you fail to kill us, rather than succeed, we’ll continue with the scheming. You can only stop us if we’re dead and can’t recover. Until you kill us all, we’ll be convinced that God is supporting us, and the more you kill us, the more we’ll believe it, because at least a remnant survives, which we deem a miracle. You can’t disabuse us of this cooky notion – the only definite proof there is that God is not on our side, would come once you kill us all.”

                  One must marvel at the truly unfathomable depths of this narcissism.

                • jim says:

                  B is irritating, but he is not planning to kill me, not planning to kill people like me, and his idea system does not logically lead to him killing people like me regardless of his intentions.

                  His idea system logically entails people like him coming to rule a good chunk of the middle east, but that is fine with me. I would much rather Jews ruled the middle east than Muslims, and I have urged him to get on with what is necessary to accomplish that outcome rather than waiting for God to do the heavy lifting.

                  How do your reason that B’s bad characteristics, such as creatively interpreting citations, necessitate killing Jews. Seems an overly drastic response to poor use of sources.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >How do your reason that B’s bad characteristics, such as creatively interpreting citations, necessitate killing Jews.

                  That’s not my reasoning. My reasoning is that B is a globalist in nationalist clothing, because he supports American leftist Jews (despite disagreeing with them on a few issues) vis-a-vis American whites, even though they’re on different continents and lead radically divergent lifestyles.

                  A Jew who sees all other Jews on the globe as “brethren”, and takes their side whenever there is a conflict between them and their host societies, even though it’s plain as day that the Jews are in the wrong throughout those conflicts, is a Judeo-globalist. He blindly, automatically sides with Jews all over the globe.

                  And this Judeo-globalist in nationalist clothing is particularly dangerous, because he’s convinced that God made his people invincible, thus, they should never change their subversive ways in the diaspora.

                  If B said “American leftists Jews are not my brothers, and American whites have every right to treat them as they wish”, then B wouldn’t pose much of a problem, because that would be disavowal of Judeo-globalism. But B the individual, and B the mass phenomena, believe that Jews are entitled to treat gentiles as badly as they like, and gentiles must never react against them.

                  I’m against all forms of globalism: Judeo-globalism, Islamo-globalism, puritan-globalism, you name it. As an obstinate Judeo-globalist, B is my enemy. If all Jews are like B, or may one day become like B, then it’s not far off to suggest killing them all. To dispose of Judeo-globalism, that is.

                • B says:

                  >The Romans did bad things, and the Jews did bad things – but the difference is the Romans were the nine hundred pound gorilla, and it is a poor idea to do bad things to a nine hundred pound gorilla.

                  You, in retrospect, know the Romans won.

                  However, the Jews did not have the benefit of your hindsight.

                  They decided that the regime under which they lived was intolerable. They looked back on the Maccabees and saw that with determination, it is possible to defeat an empire the size of the Roman one.

                  Had things gone differently, had Roman political unrest (the Year of the Four Emperors) not settled the way it did, had the Jews been unified (meaning, had a leader of Maccabee caliber emerged,) had the Parthians intervened, had a wave of rebellions broken out across the Roman periphery, we’d see the rebels as brilliant and heroic.

                  Fighting against overwhelming force always seems a brilliant or idiotic decision in hindsight. At the time, it is not obvious.

                  Ditto Bar Kochba, btw.

                  You, today, would like to threaten the established order, but are not willing to ante up. You point at people who were and say “you don’t mess with the 900 lb gorilla.” Well, guess what? Those guys had what it took to wipe out a legion. That’s like killing the whole 82nd Airborne Division, something beyond the reach of any rebellious movement imaginable in today’s world. You don’t even have what it takes to take on your local county SWAT team successfully. At some point, you will either have to ante up or shut up. At that point, let’s see you talk about the 900 lb gorilla.

                  As for why antisenonymous makes the conclusion that we should all be murdered-that conclusion precedes his reasoning. It’s genetic. “In every generation,” etc.

                  Some people just need to learn the hard way.

                • jim says:

                  > You, in retrospect, know the Romans won.
                  > However, the Jews did not have the benefit of your hindsight.

                  OK, you have a point. So I will change my argument.

                  Romans were trying to avoid trouble as far as they could while shaking down the Jews for money. When a Roman willfully committed an act of sacrilege, they punished him.

                  Jews, as in the incident with texts in the palace, and the incident with chickens being sacrificed near the synagogue, were looking for trouble.

                  > They decided that the regime under which they lived was intolerable.

                  And why did they decide it was intolerable? Not because of onerous taxes, but because they were not free to massacre neighbors who were probably unaware that they were doing something the Jews deemed horrid, because the Roman ruler had stuff in his palace that arguably treated the Emperor as a deity.

                  It was intolerable, because for one Jew to find it intolerable was to be holier than some other Jew that did not find it intolerable. Which behavior is still characteristic of Jews today.

                  People descended biologically from Christians do not signal holiness nearly as much as people descended biologically from Jews, and people whose belief system is memetically descended from Christianity signal holiness by being cucked, by raising black children, by castrating their sons and claiming that their sons are daughters. People whose belief system is descended from Judaism signal holiness by giving other people a hard time, as represented by your argument that poking a nine hundred pound gorilla with a stick signals that people like you are braver and more virtuous than people like me.

                  And the Jews of Israel were giving the Romans a hard time. They also gave their Greek neighbors a hard time for sacrificing chickens. It was a rental synagogue.

                  Question: Should we negotiate a new lease with a new landlord, or murder the existing landlord and massacre his tenants. Obviously the most holy thing to do is to murder the landlord, his horribly pagan tenants and the ******* Roman governor. People with a Christian descended belief system would not have signalled holiness in such a horrific manner. People biologically descended from Christians would not have gone to such alarming lengths to signal holiness.

                • Anonymous says:

                  My comment is serious tl;dr. Hopefully, those with ears, will hear it.

                  >that conclusion precedes his reasoning. It’s genetic. “In every generation,” etc.

                  Already addressed this very quote. My conclusion is very logical, and the fact many people reach the same conclusion, and make the exact same observations, points to it likely simply being objectively correct.

                  Your inability for introspection is genetic, though. No matter how much, and as reasonably as possible, people (be they Greeks or Ukrainians, Germans or Americans) explain to you how your actions, attitudes, practices, belief-systems, and operations are harmful to them, you remain deaf to persuasion, and keep blaming those other people, and never ever yourself[1].

                  And *that’s* exactly why your kind should disappear – because you are immune to understanding, and this immunity to understanding the problem, rather than the ability to notice the problem on the part of goyim, is genetic.

                  [1]You can try to foolishly make the same claim about your adversaries, but if you read carefully, you can notice no one here claims “it’s all the Jews”, while you claim “it’s all the goyim”.

                  >Some people just need to learn the hard way.

                  I’d say the same thing to you, but actually you’re hopless, genetically hopeless, because you’ll never ever ever ever accept any blame for why the goyim dislike you and want to be rid of you – until the moment you die, you’ll believe that “they were born to hate us for no reason”, and as I explained above, if all Jews are as deaf as you are to criticism, and will forever persist in the conduct that infuriates the goyim, then, as a logical, non-emotional consequence, all Jews should be killed.

                  If every Jew is a potential B, someone who’ll vex the goyim, or side with “fellow Jews” when those Jews vex the goyim, and never take any blame for it all, no matter how patiently (even gently) people explain to him the problems caused by his conduct, then yeah, there I said it: all Jews must die.

                  B sides with American leftist kikes in their conflict with White Americans. He can claim to love whites in flyover country, but he sides with those who want to genocide them, his loyalty is to those who want to genocide them, and even as it’s meticulously explained to him how American kikes are in the wrong, and American whites are in the right, he sides with “brethren”.

                  He’ll never say “it’s our fault that whites suffer, it’s our fault marxism both classic and cultural is killing the west”. He’ll never accept blame, collective Jewish blame. Pointing this out is met with “oy vey, your antisemism must be genetic”.

                  He can in a second project unto to Poles, Lartvians, Italians, Spaniards, and Russians that if and when they notice that Jews are trouble, it’s actually they who project their own problems unto Jews – it’s standard Jew thought pattern to claim that the problems Jews are accused of creating, the conduct Jews are accused of engaging in, the attitudes Jews are accused of possessing, are all actually projections by dumb evil goyim unto the dindu-nuffin Jews.

                  The Jew projects his own guilt into Englishmen and Germanans *while* accusing the Englishmen and the Germans of projecting their own problems unto him. In his mind, everyone is constantly projecting their problems to him, never mind how absurd it is to go around the entire world and whining “it’s everyone’s fault but my own, everyone is projecting except me, I’m always the projected, but never the projector.”

                  The Jew will never admit it’s his behavior, not the reaction to it or observation to it, that is the problem – thus, the Jew in his obstinace escalates the problem, and if the Jews as a collective are this obstinate, then the inevitable conclusion is that the Jews as a collective must be removed.

                  Again: none, simply zero, introspection by the people everyone eventually hates – “if people again and again conclude we are bad, it’s their fault, and if upon collectively and individually rejecting all criticism by goyim, the goyim want to bash our collective and individual skulls until we’re gone completely, obviously it must be a genetic goy flaw driving goy thinking and behavior, rather than our own thinking, and our own behavior, our own imperviousness to criticism, our own lack of intention to change the course of our subversive, ethnocentric conduct. Nopey nope, must be that the evil goyim are at it again”.

                  He just repeats dumb slogans (“kol dor va-dor…”, Esau hates Jacob, God hardened you like Pharaoh, and so on and so forth). After dealing with tons of Jews exactly like B, and hearing and reading about encounters of others with such Jews, and about the deafness to criticism Jews exhibit for centuries upon centuries, and thinking “damn, are all Jews like that?”, how can one not contemplate getting rid of all Jews?

                  If all Jews are Bs or potential Bs, then for the reasons explained in this comment, in previous comments, and by other people as well, all Jews must die.

                • B says:

                  It’s getting difficult to hold this conversation on this thread, in part because of the idiotic interface, where in order to reply to a comment, I have to hit ‘reply’ on a comment 20 comments above it, and in part because your comments section is infested with LARPing Nazis fantasizing about killing me and mine.

                  I’ll throw my two cents in here, after which if you prefer we can continue elsewhere.

                  >Romans were trying to avoid trouble as far as they could while shaking down the Jews for money. When a Roman willfully committed an act of sacrilege, they punished him.

                  Romans sent one governor after the next.

                  The saying was that, during his tenure, a governor had to raise three fortunes: one to pay back the amount they’d borrowed to secure their appointment, one to bribe the authorities to avoid prosecution, and one for themselves.

                  Classical rent-seeking behavior.

                  Obviously, outbreaks of rebellion could be costly and mess up this great plan, so the governors had to balance their despoliation with concessions and repressions. Since some of them were stupid, fanatical or misinformed, they occasionally messed up in this balancing act.

                  >And why did they decide it was intolerable? Not because of onerous taxes, but because they were not free to massacre neighbors who were probably unaware that they were doing something the Jews deemed horrid, because the Roman ruler had stuff in his palace that arguably treated the Emperor as a deity.

                  You are reading what you want into Josephus’ text. Josephus does not give the whole background because he’s getting paid by the word. If you spend years stealing my gardening tools out of my shed, poisoning my dogs, harassing my wife and kids and doing voodoo rituals on your lawn while staring at me menacingly, and then one day, you bump me on the street and I proceed to split your head open, you can’t say “I dindu nuffin, it was just an accidental bump!”

                  The Greeks knew quite well how the Jews felt about idolatry, from long-standing experience (see: Maccabees, and then several centuries of co-existence). The Jews had tried to buy the specific shop multiple times, precisely to avoid this situation. The guy didn’t want to sell, because he was getting a great kick out of pissing off his neighbors. Again, read Josephus.

                • jim says:

                  Here is what Josephus gives as the start of the Revolt against the Romans.

                  The occasion of this war was by no means proportionable to those heavy calamities which it brought upon us. For the Jews that dwelt at Caesarea had a synagogue near the place, whose owner was a certain Cesarean Greek: the Jews had endeavored frequently to have purchased the possession of the place, and had offered many times its value for its price; but as the owner overlooked their offers, so did he put up other buildings on the place, in way of affront to them, and made working-shops of them, and left but a narrow passage, and such as was very troublesome for the Jews to go along to their synagogue. Whereupon the warmer part of the Jewish youth went hastily to the workmen, and forbade them to build there…

                  Now on the next day, which was the seventh day of the week, when the Jews were crowding apace to their synagogue, a certain man of Caesarea, of a seditious temper, got an earthen vessel, and set it with the bottom upward, at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds. This thing provoked the Jews to an incurable degree, because their laws were affronted, and the place was polluted.

                  Whereupon the sober and moderate part of the Jews thought it proper to have recourse to their governors again, while the seditious part, and such as were in the fervor of their youth, were vehemently inflamed to fight.

                  In this, the Jews were quite clearly in the wrong. If they did not like the deal that the Greek landlord of their synagogue in a Greek city gave them, they should have moved their synagogue.

                  Looks to me that the Jews started that incident, by forbidding their landlord from building on his own land that he had not rented to the Jews, thereby pissing off him and their neighbors.

                  And there are a bunch of other incidents that Josephus reports where the Jews were being obstinate, aggressive, and unreasonable. But this Synagogue incident is the incident that started the rebellion, according to Josephus.

                  Menahem seized Masada from the Romans and proclaimed himself King of the Jews, and proceeds to prove it by defeating Agrippa, burning Agrippa’s palace, and occupying Herod’s palace. Then Eleazar tortures Menahem to death, on the grounds that he is holier than Menahem – classic holiness spiral. The Revolution is then in the hands of a crazy man who tortured the greatest Jewish revolutionary of his time, who tortured the man who took Masada and defeated Agrippa. We see each Jew proclaiming himself holier than the other Jew, and proving it by behaving in a way more evil and cruel than the other Jew.

                  I regularly say that the abolitionists and prohibitionists were holier than Jesus, and the Unitarians holier than God. Well Eleazar was holier than David, and you are holier than Moses.

                • B says:

                  You keep changing your argument, but not your conclusion. Meaning, you’re not arguing in good faith.

                  First you say that the Jews should have known better than to mess with the Romans.

                  I say, the Romans were no different than the Greeks, and kicking the Greeks out had worked ok.

                  Then you say:

                  >Question: Should we negotiate a new lease with a new landlord, or murder the existing landlord and massacre his tenants.

                  And you accuse me of not reading the text!

                  “For the Jews that dwelt at Cesarea had a synagogue near the place, whose owner was a certain Cesarean Greek”

                  “The place” is not the synagogue.

                  The Jews owned the synagogue. There was a guy who owned a plot of land across the way, which they had to cross to get to the synagogue. The guy purposely built on his plot in order to make it difficult for the Jews to get through. The Jews repeatedly tried to buy the plot of land, but the guy wouldn’t sell. The actual war was kicked off by a different Greek, who went into the entrance of the synagogue and sacrificed birds there, defiling the place.

                  Nobody killed the landlord. Nobody tried to kill his tenants. There was a fight (pre-arranged by the Greeks) and the Jews left:

                  The seditions also among the Gentiles of Cesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand [as ready to support him;] so that it soon came to blows. Hereupon Jucundus, the master of the horse, who was ordered to prevent the fight, came thither, and took away the earthen vessel, and endeavored to put a stop to the sedition; but when694 he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea, the Jews caught up their books of the law, and retired to Narbata, which was a place to them belonging, distant from Cesarea sixty furlongs. But John, and twelve of the principal men with him, went to Florus, to Sebaste, and made a lamentable complaint of their case, and besought him to help them; and with all possible decency, put him in mind of the eight talents they had given him; but he had the men seized upon, and put in prison, and accused them for carrying the books of the law out of Cesarea.

                  Yes, obviously these religious fanatics were just hellbent on murder!

                  By the way, you can send that bottle of whiskey now, Pesach is over. Thanks.

                • jim says:

                  You keep changing your argument, but not your conclusion. Meaning, you’re not arguing in good faith.

                  First you say that the Jews should have known better than to mess with the Romans.

                  You are ignoring the unchanging main thrust of my argument, that the Jews were engaged in a holiness spiral, where one Jew demonstrated he was holier than the other Jew by being a bigger asshole than the other Jew.

                  I said the Jews were looking for trouble. Wrong of them to look for trouble with anyone, but wrong and foolish for them to have looked for trouble with the Romans. You proceeded to spin that argument as me being a coward etc, so I changed my argument to more clearly emphasize the Jews looking for trouble.

                  “The place” is not the synagogue.

                  I stand corrected. I misread Josephus. But still, the Jews are walking over this man’s land, and forbidding him the use of his land. Your correction does not make the Jews look any better. Did his land surround the synagogue like a donut? Josephus does not say it did. Josephus says it was “near” the synagogue. Jews were able to access their synagogue without walking over his land, and should have done so. If it was inconvenient to access the synagogue without walking over his land, it was likely a lot more inconvenient for him to have Jews walking over his land.

                • B says:

                  >so I changed my argument to more clearly emphasize the Jews looking for trouble.

                  Oh, come on.

                  >But still, the Jews are walking over this man’s land, and forbidding him the use of his land. Your correction does not make the Jews look any better. Did his land surround the synagogue like a donut? Josephus does not say it did. Josephus says it was “near” the synagogue. Jews were able to access their synagogue without walking over his land, and should have done so.

                  Now you’re just making stuff up, reading the text creatively (of which you routinely accuse me).

                  Josephus says: “the Jews had endeavored frequently to have purchased the possession of the place, and had offered many times its value for its price; but as the owner overlooked their offers, so did he raise other buildings upon the place, in way of affront to them, and made working-shops of them, and left them but a narrow passage, and such as was very troublesome for them to go along to their synagogue.”

                  If they could just go around the other way, would it make sense for them to keep trying to buy the place at many times its price? Are Jews famous for just throwing money away?

                  If Josephus says that the owner built the lot up “in way of affront” and “left them but a narrow passage, and such as was very troublesome for them to go along to their synagogue”, does this make any sense if they could have just gone around the other way?

                  Have you ever been in the old quarter of a Middle Eastern city? Stuff is built on top of itself, it’s quite cramped, and it’s quite normal for there to be, for instance, a blind alley with only one way in and out.

                  Have you walked back the bloodcurdling story of them wanting to massacre the landlord and all the Greeks in the city yet? Just wanted to keep track.

                • jim says:

                  Now you’re just making stuff up, reading the text creatively (of which you routinely accuse me).

                  That this Greek building stuff on his own land in a Greek city obstructed the Jew’s access to the Synagogue implies that Jews were walking over his land.

                  That Jews intimidated his workmen building stuff on his own land implies Jews were on his land.

                  Unless his land completely surrounded the synagogue, Jews did not need to walk over his land.

                  Now I am sure that walking over his land was convenient, and his refusal to sell the land was inconvenient. But hard biscuit. When one Jew set one foot on his land, they were the aggressors, they were looking for trouble, no matter how convenient it was to walk over his land, or how inconvenient it was to go around it. Doing a chicken sacrifice on his own land was not looking for trouble. It was a non violent way of getting Jews off his land, to which the Jews responded with lethal violence.

                  Which incident resembles a lot of other incidents, except that this incident escalated into war with the Romans, due to the master of horse getting killed, and Florus responding to this act of aggression by the Jews with his characteristic rapacity and brutality.

                  I am sure Josephus’ indictment of the greed and brutality of Florus is accurate. But the brutality that inflamed the rebellion was not Florus being brutal in response to the Jews reasonably resisting his greed. He was brutal because the Jews engaged in irrational and crazy violence against their neighbors.

                  The rebellion was started not by one Jew resisting the demands of Florus for his wealth, but by one Jew being holier than another Jew, and as the rebellion got going, the leadership got holier and holier, until Eleazar demonstrated his superior holiness by torturing and murdering the hero of the revolution.

                  Eleazar was holier than David, as the abolitionists were holier than Jesus.

                • B says:

                  >That this Greek building stuff on his own land in a Greek city obstructed the Jew’s access to the Synagogue implies that Jews were walking over his land.

                  It was NOT a “Greek city”. It was a Jewish city, built by a Jewish king, where Greeks had been settled by the Romans.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Maritima#Foundation

                  “Now at this time it happened that the Grecians at Cesarea had been too hard for the Jews, and had obtained of Nero the government of the city, and had brought the judicial determination.” Meaning that it was a mixed city in the Land of Israel, and the Greeks had bribed the Romans to let them run it.

                  The Jews were walking through the guy’s plot because it was the only way they could get to the synagogue. Had it been the other way, they would have just gone around and not “endeavored frequently to have purchased the possession of the place, and had offered many times its value for its price”.

                  That Jews intimidated his workmen building stuff on his own land implies Jews were on his land.

                  Unless his land completely surrounded the synagogue, Jews did not need to walk over his land.

                  >Doing a chicken sacrifice on his own land was not looking for trouble. It was a non violent way of getting Jews off his land, to which the Jews responded with lethal violence.

                  He did not do a chicken sacrifice on his land. A Greek third party went into the entrance of the synagogue and sacrificed his chickens there, as it plainly says: “a certain man of Cesarea, of a seditious temper, got an earthen vessel, and set it with the bottom upward, at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds. This thing provoked the Jews to an incurable degree, because their laws were affronted, and the place was polluted.”

                  I mean, this is the text to which you’ve been referring all this time, I at least thought you’d read it?

                  >Which incident resembles a lot of other incidents, except that this incident escalated into war with the Romans, due to the master of horse getting killed, and Florus responding to this act of aggression by the Jews with his characteristic rapacity and brutality.

                  The master of horse was killed by the local GREEKS:

                  “Hereupon Jucundus, the master of the horse, who was ordered to prevent the fight, came thither, and took away the earthen vessel, and endeavored to put a stop to the sedition; but when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea…”

                  At which point the Jews picked up their stuff and left:

                  …”the Jews caught up their books of the law, and retired to Narbata, which was a place to them belonging, distant from Cesarea sixty furlongs. ”

                  They then went to Florus to complain, and Florus threw them in prison for taking their own Torah scrolls out of Cesarea without authorization:

                  ” but he had the men seized upon, and put in prison, and accused them for carrying the books of the law out of Cesarea.”

                  >But the brutality that inflamed the rebellion was not Florus being brutal in response to the Jews reasonably resisting his greed. He was brutal because the Jews engaged in irrational and crazy violence against their neighbors.

                  What violence against their neighbors? Picking up and leaving the city?

                  I’m really starting to suspect you have reading disabilities. No joke, not trying to insult you, but the passage you refer to says, plain text, the exact opposite of what you claim it says.

                  And that’s after you spent a day trying to get it right! Your original assertion was:

                  “What led to war was some some Jews attacking Greeks for sacrificing chickens on their own land in their own city, and then murdering the Roman governor for intervening to give the Jews what they wanted.”

                  As we see above, the Greeks sacrificed chickens in the Jewish synagogue, not on their own land (” at the entrance of that synagogue”), the Roman was a master of horse, not a governor , and he was murdered by the Greeks when he took away their earthen sacrificing vessel (” Jucundus, the master of the horse, who was ordered to prevent the fight, came thither, and took away the earthen vessel and endeavored to put a stop to the sedition; but when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea”)…

                  You have aspirations of being some sort of Inquisitor, but you have difficulties understanding a short passage written in plain English, and literally manage to get every single sentence wrong. Why is that?

                  Do you have a disability, or are you just arguing in bad faith?

                • jim says:

                  > It was NOT a “Greek city”. It was a Jewish city, built by a Jewish king, where Greeks had been settled by the Romans.

                  Caesarea, as you might guess from the name was adjacent to but outside the traditional boundary of second temple Israel and the priests did not consider it part of Israel subject to Jewish ritual law.

                  > The Jews were walking through the guy’s plot because it was the only way they could get to the synagogue

                  Unless the Greek owned plot completely surrounded the Jewish owned plot, and Josephus makes no such claim, that is not true. He says it was near the Jewish plot – does not even say it was adjacent though in context he likely means adjacent. He nowhere claims that the Greek owned plot was the only access.

                  I interpreted the Greek as the landlord because I could not imagine the Jews walking over his land unless he was renting it to them.

                  As we see above, the Greeks sacrificed chickens in the Jewish synagogue,

                  No they did not. Not what Josephus says.

                  Josephus says “at the entrance” – which, given that Jews were entering by trespassing over someone else’s land, is at least consistent with my interpretation that the chickens were sacrificed on the land they were entering through. It is ambiguous – but the ambiguity does not stretch all the way to “in” the synagogue, does not stretch as far as you would like to stretch it.

                  He was murdered by the Greeks when he took away their earthen sacrificing vessel

                  You are, as usual, just making shit up. Josephus declines to tell us which side killed him, which in context implies Jews killed him.

                  Whenever Josephus conspicuously omits some detail, when he neglects to specify something, you mentally fill in the missing data with whatever is most favorable to Jews, but given that Josephus is trying to argue to Romans that the Jews were fine, when Josephus conspicuously leaves out some fact, like which side killed the master of Horse, you should fill in the missing item with whatever would most piss off the Romans

                  Josephus does not tell us that the only access to the synagogue was through the Greek man’s property. Therefore the Jews had other access.

                  Josephus does not tell us that the sacrifice was done on Jewish land. Therefore it was done on the Greek man’s property.

                  Josephus does not tell us which side killed the Master of Horse. Therefore Jewish rioters killed him.

                • B says:

                  You can’t pollute a synagogue by sacrificing a chicken down the alley.

                  1. He fails to say that the synagogue was polluted. He says the place was polluted that is the path over which the Jews walked was polluted.
                  2. Holiness escalation. The Jews were, as in the incident with shields in the palace, getting holier and holier.

                  If the chicken had been sacrificed in the synagogue, or even on Jewish land, he would have plainly and unambiguously said so, and indeed made a great song and dance about it.

                  Josephus also goes on about how the guy built on the right of way

                  Untrue. Josephus makes no claim that Jews possessed right of way, simply describing the land as belonging to the Greek.

                  Josephus says that he took away the Greeks’ earthen vessel for sacrificing, and “the people of Ceasarea killed him”,

                  The rioting Jews are people of Ceasarea. Every reference to action by the Greeks up to that point, Josephus says “Greeks”. Why is it now suddenly “People of Ceasarea”?

                  It is stereotypically in character for Jews to not take yes for an answer, to attack their friends because they see enemies everywhere, it is stereotypically in character for Jews to kill the master of horse as he tries to give them what they want. Indeed, it is a demonstration of superior holiness. As Eleazar demonstrated his superior holiness to other Jews by torturing and murdering Menahem, whoever killed the master of horse similarly demonstrated superior holiness. The war was started by a holiness spiral, and during the war the holiness just kept on escalating. A jew shows he is more holy than another Jew by not taking yes for an answer, by never treating non Jews as allies. Reflect on Israel’s treatment of Lebanese Christians.

                  Eleazar tortures Menahem because Jews should have no King but God. But that issue had been settled a while back, when God ordained Kings for sinful men. Claiming no King but God makes Eleazar holier than David.

                • B says:

                  I’d ask you to make your comments as a separate comment instead of editing them into mine.

                  >He fails to say that the synagogue was polluted. He says the place was polluted that is the path over which the Jews walked was polluted.

                  Everywhere the Greeks lived was full of idolatry and pollution. The Jews did not get upset because a public walkway was polluted. They got upset because the guy went to the entrance of their synagogue and did his thing.

                  >Holiness escalation. The Jews were, as in the incident with shields in the palace, getting holier and holier.

                  You are assuming your conclusion.

                  >If the chicken had been sacrificed in the synagogue, or even on Jewish land, he would have plainly and unambiguously said so

                  He did. “…at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds. This thing provoked the Jews to an incurable degree, because their laws were affronted, and the place was polluted.” “The place” means “the synagogue.”

                  >Josephus makes no claim that Jews possessed right of way, simply describing the land as belonging to the Greek.

                  The Greek built up where the Jews walked, so the Jews were cramped into a narrow passageway, which is what started the whole issue.

                  >The rioting Jews are people of Ceasarea. Every reference to action by the Greeks up to that point, Josephus says “Greeks”. Why is it now suddenly “People of Ceasarea”?

                  For grammatical clarity: ” when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea, the Jews caught up their books of the law, and retired to Narbata”

                  It is obvious that “the people of Cesarea” and “the Jews” are two different things. Otherwise, he would have said something like “when he was overcome by the violence of the Jews, they caught up their books of the law”, or “when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea, they caught up their books of the law” etc.

                  >It is stereotypically in character for Jews to not take yes for an answerblahblahblah

                  It is stereotypical of a dumb goy to be unable to parse a simple sentence and then use his inability to understand the sentence as a nail to hang a bunch of antisemitic bullshit.

                  Again, had the Jews killed Jucundus, Florus would have jailed them for murdering a Roman official. Instead, he jailed them for leaving Cesaria with their Torah scrolls.

                  This really isn’t very complicated, try to focus.

                  >Eleazar tortures Menahem because Jews should have no King but God. But that issue had been settled a while back, when God ordained Kings for sinful men. Claiming no King but God makes Eleazar holier than David.

                  Please do not try to change the subject, I’d like to establish an actual understanding of what happened in Cesarea.

                • B says:

                  Re: the identity of the “people of Cesarea”-I thought it was pretty obvious. But in case you are still not convinced, chapter 18 starts off like this:

                  “Now the people of Cesarea had slain the Jews that were among them on the very same day and hour [when the soldiers were slain], which one would think must have come to pass by the direction of Providence; insomuch that in one hour’s time above twenty thousand Jews were killed, and all Cesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them in bonds to the galleys.”

                • jim says:

                  When it suits your purpose, you tell me Cesarea was not a Greek city but a Jewish city, and when it suits your purpose, you change your mind.

                  When on one line he says “Greeks”, and on another “People of Cesarea” there is a change of meaning.

                  And even if Josephus had told us in so many words that the Greeks rioters, not the Jewish rioters, killed the Master of Horse, it is apparent that the Romans were of the opinion that the Jewish rioters killed him, and Roman opinions about who is killing Romans are likely to be reliable, a good deal more reliable than anyone else’s opinions about who is killing Romans.

                  When one is looking for reasons to kill members of some group, one’s reasoning powers and attention to evidence goes right down, but when someone kills someone like oneself, kills them for characteristics that one shares in common with the person being killed, one’s reasoning powers and attention to evidence goes right up.

                  Although the Jews are themselves a counterexample to this, paying keen attention to Nazis killing Jews, blithely ignoring commies killing Jews, and engaging in enthusiastic mythmaking to make Nazi killings as different as possible from commie killings. This may have something to do with the fact that the Nazis killed Jews in substantial part because Jews tended to be commies, and the commies also killed Jews in substantial part because Jews tended to be commies, indeed more commie than thou, so your “killing people like me” detector gets fucked up.

                • B says:

                  >When on one line he says “Greeks”, and on another “People of Cesarea” there is a change of meaning.

                  For the 20th time:

                  “The seditions also among the Gentiles of Cesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand [as ready to support him;] so that it soon came to blows. Hereupon Jucundus, the master of the horse, who was ordered to prevent the fight, came thither, and took away the earthen vessel, and endeavored to put a stop to the sedition; but when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea, the Jews caught up their books of the law”

                  The “Gentiles of Cesarea” and “people of Cesarea” are the same thing. The Jews are different.

                  Parenthetically, it’s unclear that the master of horse was killed-he tried to put a stop to the unrest, was overcome, perhaps they just pushed him aside like the Baltimore PD.

                  >And even if Josephus had told us in so many words that the Greeks rioters, not the Jewish rioters, killed the Master of Horse, it is apparent that the Romans were of the opinion that the Jewish rioters killed him

                  It is apparent that they were not of this opinion, because if they had been of this opinion, they would have had those Jews tried for murdering a Roman official, not thrown in jail for leaving the city with their books.

                  >When it suits your purpose, you tell me Cesarea was not a Greek city but a Jewish city, and when it suits your purpose, you change your mind.

                  Cesarea was originally built by Herod, who was a Jewish (Idumean) ruler. Wikipedia says: “In the 3rd century, Jewish sages exempted the city from Jewish law, or Halakha, as by this time the majority of the inhabitants were non-Jewish.” Meaning that up until some previous time, the majority were Jewish. In any case, all of this is irrelevant, since from the text it’s obvious that when Josephus says “the people of Cesara,” he means the non-Jews, as in the later example about “the people of Cesarea had slain the Jews.”

                • B says:

                  I notice you are trying to change the subject to the Holocaust, using Jim-logic. The millions of European Jews who were killed were not commies. If you mean that they died for the sins of that fraction which was Communist, then perhaps it would be just for you and your family to be killed-after all, many whites are, as you put it, Marxist, or at least cultural Marxists.

                  “I am a Marxist you are a Marxist, we are all Marxists now.”-that’s you, right?

                  Seems like an open-and-shut case, off to the cattle cars with you.

                • jim says:

                  As usual, you lie about what I said.

                  I did not say that killing Jews was OK because some Jews are commies. I said that Jews tend to find rationales to excuse or forget about commies who kill Jews – which is a very different accusation.

                  You hate your allies because they are not Jewish (hence the Jews killed the Roman Captain of the horse) and love your enemies because their memes are cladistically Jewish, hence the mythmaking around the holocaust, which myths are not primarily to make it worse than it was, which could scarcely be necessary, but to make it as different as possible from the crimes of communism.

                  You interpret all my arguments as me saying that I am holier than you. In fact you interpret everyone’s arguments as saying they are holier than you. But I am not saying I am holier than you. I am saying I am more rational than you. (Also lay more chicks, cook food in complicated high status ways, and so on and so forth.) But not holier than you. I am biologically and culturally Christian descended. We don’t do holiness all that much. All the men that did do holiness wound up not having children, so we are all descended from the men that claimed to throw better parties and to have a terribly swift sword arm, not so much descended from the men that claimed holier than thou.

                  Of course it is right to kill commies, but that is not what I said in the post to which your replied. Rather, I implied that being commie (which you are not) or even being unduly tolerant of commies (which you are) will get you killed, likely killed by commies.

                  Indeed, this is exactly what is happening to Israel. The problem is not that President Latte wanted and his state department still wants a peace deal that will lead to the death of all Jews in Israel, the problem is that lots of Jews in Israel want a peace deal that will lead to the deaths of all Jews in Israel, and you are a lot more tolerant of them than you are of me.

                • B says:

                  Changing the subject.

                  Jews pay more attention to the guys who tried to exterminate them as a nation and killed a third of them than to the guys who killed some smaller proportion without setting national extermination as a goal.

                  Obviously, to the people being murdered it made no difference, but to survivors there’s a big difference psychologically.

                  Similarly, if your uncle and aunt are run over by a crazy truck driver having a psychotic episode, or murdered by a serial killer who was out to get your whole extended family, you’re down an uncle and aunt either way, but the second situation is more horrifying.

                • jim says:

                  Fair enough. Hitler targeted biological Jews, targeted Jews as Jews, commies targeted people with memes or ways of life that tended to be disproportionately Jewish: political, holier than thou, middle class, affluent before the revolution.

                  But if you start a program explaining that the trucks were totally different, when in fact they were the same make and model, and the psychotic truck driver is A-OK, something funny is going on.

                  And, come to think of it, are you not political, holier than thou, middle class, and affluent?

                  Also, right now today, the big threat to your biological existence is not the nazis. Recall that Hitler’s original program was to deport all Jews to Israel and he only decided on extermination because the allies stopped him from deporting Jews to Israel and he had the usual socialist food shortage. The big threat to your existence is the unironic openbordersforIsrael crowd in the state department, and in Israel itself.

                  When today’s Nazis say #OpenbordersforIsrael, they are being ironic. Their implication is not that Israel should have open borders, but that Israel should exist and be Jewish so that Jews can survive, and America should exist and be white and non Jewish so that whites can survive.

                  And, by the way, the big threat to your existence is not Nazis. It is that Israel is not Jewish. Israel is progressive. And if you wait for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting, you are all going to die.

                • B says:

                  In every instance where Josephus uses the term “people of Cesarea,” he means the non-Jews.

                  For instance:

                  When the death of king Agrippa was publicly known, the people of Cesarea and Sebaste,* forget|ting the obligations he had laid upon them by so many instances of his liberality, vilified his memory with the foulest aspersions. A band of soldiers carried away the statues of his daughters out of the palace into the public brothels, and reviled and ri|diculed their characters in a manner too indecent to be related. They also celebrated festivals, with garlands on their heads, ointments and libations, to Charon; and drank to one another in token of their joy for the death of the king. Nay, they were not only unmindful of Agrippa, who had so abundantly extended his liberality to them, but of his grand-father Herod also, who had himself re|built their cities, and raised them temples and har|bours at a vast expence.

                  or:

                  What Roman weapons, I pray you, were those by which the Jews at Cesarea were slain? On the contrary, when they were no way disposed to rebel, but were all the while keeping their seventh day festival, and did not so much as lift up their hands against the citizens of Cesarea, yet did those citizens run upon them in great crowds, and cut their throats, and the throats of their wives and children, and this without any regard to the Romans themselves, who never took us for their enemies till we revolted from them. But some may be ready to say, that truly the people of Cesarea had always a quarrel against those that lived among them, and that when an opportunity offered itself, they only satisfied the old rancor they had against them. What then shall we say to those of Scythopolis, who ventured to wage war with us on account of the Greeks?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, you have a persuasive argument that Josephus meant to say that the Jews resident in Cesarea were aliens and exiles in Cesarea, and were not the “people of Cesarea”. But even if this is what Josephus meant (and it reads rather more ambiguously when he discusses the murder of the Master of Horse) it is evident that the Romans were of the opinion that the Jews, not the people of Cesarea, were responsible for the murder of the Master of Horse

                • B says:

                  >it is evident that the Romans were of the opinion that the Jews, not the people of Cesarea, were responsible for the murder of the Master of Horse

                  No, it is not. His alleged murder is nowhere mentioned after the Jews leave Cesarea. When Florus arrests the delegation of Jews from Cesarea, he doesn’t do it for murdering a Roman official. He does it because they left Cesarea with their scrolls after the riots: “But John, and twelve of the principal men with him, went to Florus, to Sebaste, and made a lamentable complaint of their case, and besought him to help them; and with all possible decency, put him in mind of the eight talents they had given him; but he had the men seized upon, and put in prison, and accused them for carrying the books of the law out of Cesarea.”

                  >But if you start a program explaining that the trucks were totally different, when in fact they were the same make and model, and the psychotic truck driver is A-OK

                  The post-WW2 Americans and Europeans taught about the crimes of their defeated foes and not about those of their semi-former allies. What could be more natural?

                  >And, come to think of it, are you not political, holier than thou, middle class, and affluent

                  This is an interesting non sequitur.

                  Neither I nor anyone I live near is affluent or middle class in the American sense of the word. I make enough to provide for my family in a modest way (though of course I hope to eventually improve my financial situation.) I drive a vehicle which is 15 years old and has 300k miles on it. I had job opportunities in America involving the military-industrial complex ranging from the low to mid-six figures, and with the aid-educational complex for somewhat less, but did not want to continue my association with either of those, or with America as a whole, and as a result have had to deal with significant financial hardship for years. Which is fine-no complaints-but I’m hardly affluent.

                  I, and the other 500K settlers, are political by default-we may not inherently be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. If I build a tarpaper shack behind my house, the State Department will issue a protest and the Israeli government will send a bulldozer. Nonetheless, I neither vote here, nor in America, and am not a member of any organized party.

                  Holiness-our concept is completely different from yours.

                  In your concept, a Catholic priest or a Puritan divine are holy. Their holyness gives them the right to take stuff from others, to impose their will on others, and in general makes them better, morally superior to those others.

                  In our concept, something holy is set aside for G-d, separated. Someone holy is not inherently better. He may not be morally better. He certainly does not have a claim on the stuff of the non-holy, except for certain prescribed ritual claims (for instance, Cohanim and Leviim are entitled to a certain percent of the harvests/animals of other Jews.) A Nazir, for instance, is holy compared to the rest of the Jews. He may not be a good person, or a moral one-see Samson-but he is holy. They are orthogonal things.

                  In our view, every Jew is inherently holy, and those who keep the Torah consciously are on a higher level of holiness. Of course, there are various levels of keeping the Torah, just as there are different levels of charity, of scholarship, of raising your children, of auto maintenance, etc. I’m not particularly advanced with regard to any of those, sadly.

                  Anyway, I fail to see why any of the above is a good reason to want to kill me.

                  >And, by the way, the big threat to your existence is not Nazis. It is that Israel is not Jewish.

                  At the moment, thankfully, we do not have a threat to our existence.

                  We have potential threats to our existence, and some of these lie internally (our leaders are not even progressives and have no principles,) some externally (America may slide off into full-blown leftist insanity and take the West with it, Iran may actually get a nuke and unexpectedly be willing to use it on us, Muslims may take over Europe and use their newfound resources for a jihad, antisenonymous and peppermint may get to positions of power and-nah, just kidding, that last one will never happen,) and some in the relationship between the two (we are a client state, largely by choice.)

                  Theoretical American Nazis are not a potential threat to our existence, but America has many Jews who are our brethren, and I do not want to see them hurt, dispossessed or driven from their homes. Anyone advocating these things is my enemy. Obviously, I’d like for them to repent and come to Israel of their own free will, with the intent to build it.

                  In general, our challenges right now are not existential threats, but rather obstacles to our achieving our purpose on this planet, which is not $15 billion startup exits-far from it.

                • jim says:

                  Oh no, its anduda Shoah!

                  Is there anything I can say to you that you will not interpret as an argument in favor of murdering you?

                • B says:

                  Where did I say that you made arguments in favor of murdering us?

                • jim says:

                  > Anyway, I fail to see why any of the above is a good reason to want to kill me.

                  Which implies I was arguing that there are good reasons for killing “the Jews”. It’s anudda shoah.

                • B says:

                  >Which implies I was arguing that there are good reasons for killing “the Jews”.

                  “And, come to think of it, are you not political, holier than thou, middle class, and affluent?”

                  What a terrible accusation. It’s anudda shoah!

                • B says:

                  >Josephus meant to say that the Jews resident in Cesarea were aliens and exiles in Cesarea

                  More reading disability-type problems.

                  The Jews BUILT Cesarea.

                  They did not build it in Greece.

                • jim says:

                  This is absolutely typical of you. According to you Cesarea both was, and was not, a Greek city as convenient for your argument, and you make both claims with equal confidence, and support both claims with equal abuse and insults. This is argument by stereotypical Jewish chutzpah.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >America has many Jews who are our brethren, and I do not want to see them hurt, dispossessed or driven from their homes. Anyone advocating these things is my enemy.

                  Exactly, Judeo-Globalist, exactly. You side with your ummah, even if ummah is clearly in the wrong, and the goyim clearly in the right. “Brethren.” That’s what I wrote above in a few paragraphs, and you’re basically repeating verbatim my own words, but from the opposite direction. Splendid.

                  All Globalists must hang.

                  B is a Globalist and that’s why I advocated exterminateing him. He has picked the side of the White Race’s avowed arch-nemesis, the Progressive American Jew, and it doesn’t matter if he claims to love flyover badwhites. He only loves Jews, all Jews, and no one but Jews (and the Jewish tribal demon Yahweh). Because “brothers.” He’s a Judeo Globalist – so goes without saying, he’s against White Gentile Christian nationalism, because it clashes with Jewish interests. He said so explicitly.

                  If he ever does support alt-right ideas, it’s necessarily for the wrong reasons, because his only reason for supporting anything is Jewish interests. B doesn’t care about truth, beauty, and real justice between people and peoples. No. “Brethren.” No different than your average Muslim.

                  The West should annihilate both Jews like B and the Muslims, because both Jews like B and Muslims are ethnocentric (religio-ethnocentric) enemies of humanity itself. All forms of Globalism need to be abolished, be it communism, islamism, globojudaism, globoprogressivism, or whatever. All, and I mean all.

                  Guillotine the Globalists.

                  It’s not that I care about your retarded boring settlement on the hilltop. Don’t give a crap about your conflict with dunecooniggers. It’s that *you* care about all Jews on the globe and side with them against all Jews on the globe, hence you’re a filthy globalist, hence you deserve the rope. If you sided with Israeli Jews against Arabs, but were indifferent and oblivious to “brethren”, I’d have no reason to care about you and your loonie pals. Since you want worldwide Jewry to defeat the goyim, I want to resist you, by having the goyim preemptively destroy you. It will happen in a few decades. There will be annudah shoah.

                  Not because of any scripture there will be another shoah. Rather, because you’re bad people. If Jews were nice and productive and loyal and a real blessing, I’d say fine, I guess there’s no good reason to be rid of you. But you have murdered 80 million people with communism, and right now, killing the west by flooding it with coons and nogs. You’re not good. You’re evil. You side with communists, you side with progs – all the bad Jews are your allies, and all the good gentiles who want to stop these commie and prog Jews, are your enemies. That’s according to you.

                  Because B sides with Trotsky and his followers, and Frankfurt Schoolers and their followers, and against the people who want to defeat these commies and progs and kill these commies and progs because these leftist monsters have agency and use it to murder millions of whites, it is B who has to be defeated, B the ally of commies and progs who “””happen””” to be Jews, ally exactly because they “””happen””” to be Jews.

                  B is and will always be on the same side as commies and progs. Also, on the same side as Mudslimes against Christians. Is it not obvious why he has to be defeated? Do I really need to write thousands of words, many of them repetitions, to explain that in this war, the side of B is the side of the enemy? Even as B, from his own perspective, basically says the same thing?

                  Choose a side White Man.

                • B says:

                  >According to you Cesarea both was, and was not, a Greek city

                  This is stupid sophistry on your part.

                  Jews built Cesarea.

                  At some point, Jews ceased to be the majority there.

                  When Josephus writes “the people of Cesarea”, he means the non-Jews. Similarly, if I write “the people of Detroit,” I do not mean the whites/French/etc. Despite the fact that Detroit was founded and built up by them.

                  Please stop pretending to be dumb.

                  >B doesn’t care about truth, beauty, and real justice between people and peoples. No. “Brethren.”

                  Look, guys, it’s a “white nationalist” upset because I care about my people, wherever they may be, as opposed to universal ideals such as “truth, beauty and real justice” (according to his interpretation of them, of course.) Which somehow makes me a globalist.

                  “Not fair? Who’s the fucking nihilist?”

                  Newsflash: a globalist is precisely someone who cares about abstract ideals such as the ones you listed above more than he does about his people, and at the expense of his people. A nationalist is the opposite.

                  Meaning, for instance, that in the 80s, American globalists would demand an end to apartheid, in the name of truth, justice etc. White nationalists would oppose them, since they did not wish to see their fellow whites raped, robbed and butchered, even across the world.

                  Personally, I think that there is no serving universal values such as truth, beauty, etc., except through the nation, the community, the family and so on. Someone truly dedicated to truth, beauty, justice and so on would have demanded that apartheid be preserved, because all those values were better served by the previous order of things than the post-apartheid one. Even a real black nationalist who had the interest of his people in mind first and foremost would have advocated for apartheid.

                • jim says:

                  It is far from clear Jews ever had a majority there – Herod built Cesarea but shipping was at all times a Greek business, so likely he employed Greeks to build it. At one time it was ruled by Herod, but after Herod’s death, his Kingdom was reorganized and its territories adjusted.

                  At the time of these events it was legally Greek, in that the Romans, the local government, the Jewish Kings and the Jewish priesthood viewed it as a Greek city outside the territory of second temple Israel. Something that you have alternately asserted with insults and personal abuse, and denied with equal insults and personal abuse.

                • B says:

                  >At the time of these events it was legally Greek

                  At the time of these events, it was a mixed city and part of the Province of Judea, as can be seen on this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)#/media/File:First_century_Iudaea_province.gif

                  The legal status of the Province of Judea at the time was that it was the nominal control of Herod Agrippa, a Jewish kin.

                  You can open your New Testament and see that Paul pleads his case before Herod Agrippa at Cesarea a few years before the Revolt.

                  Of course, the Romans had been doing to the Herodeans what they did to all their client kingdoms around this period, namely, undercutting them to move towards direct administration, which would let their local governors maximize their personal take at the expense of quality of rule, stability and utility of the province in terms of imperial defense. So you have Florus calling the shots on the ground.

                  If Cesarea is a Greek city, Detroit is a black city. I guess that gives Detroit blacks special legal privileges?

                  >Something that you have alternately asserted with insults and personal abuse, and denied with equal insults and personal abuse.

                  You are twisting facts to attempt to prove a range of assertions which are obviously not true: that the Jews in Cesarea were living in a Greek city (implying that they had no special right to be there,) that they picked a fight with their innocent Greek neighbors, that they wanted to massacre their Greek neighbors, and that they killed a Roman official who tried to break it up.

                  Literally all of these contradict the plain meaning of the text.

                  In typical Jim fashion, you hang half of these assertions on a willful misreading of a phrase (“people of Cesarea”), twisting it first to mean that the Jews killed a Roman official, then to mean that Cesarea was a Greek city. I’m surprised that you don’t follow through and say that since Josephus says that the people of Cesarea massacred the Jews, this means that the Jews were actually killing themselves.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Look, guys, it’s a “white nationalist” upset because I care about my people,

                  Anticipated response right here – a typically Jewish strawman, typically Jewish deliberate misunderstanding. Nationalist =/= ethnocentric. One can be a nationalist without thinking “dindu nuffin”. In all conflicts between Jews and Gentiles, you believe either “we dindu nuffin” or “the goyim deserved it anyway”.

                  >I care about my people, wherever they may be, as opposed to universal ideals such as “truth, beauty and real justice”

                  “Your people” do indeed exist “wherever”, and given your support of them globally, you’re perforce a globalist, in the same way a Yemeni Arab supporting his Turkish Muslim “brethren” in Germany is a globalist. Nationalism is in one country, or in several closely related countries. Thus, you’re not a nationalist or an ethno-nationalist, you’re just a Judeoglobalist, the Jewish equivalent of an Islamoglobalist. Semites gonna Semite.

                  >Newsflash: a globalist is precisely someone who cares about abstract ideals such as the ones you listed above more than he does about his people, and at the expense of his people.

                  If “your people” are spread over the entire globe, and you side with them in every conflict despite them being in the wrong time and again, then you’re a globalist; in your case, a globalist guided by tribalist and religious ideals, hence I call you “judeoglobalist”. Some globalists are guided by progressive ideals, others by tribal/religious ideals. You belong to the latter group. A nationalist you are not, because your definition of “nationhood” is globalist.

                  To further elaborate on my point, it’s not only that you side with Ashkenazim globally, who are the same race as you are; you also side with mud Jews in ME/NA, nigger Jews in SSA, and so on. You’re not just a regular kind of globalist, but a hyper-globalist, because the people you side with are in many cases not even biologically related to you. Hyper-globalism on steroids.

                  Of course, if Christian crusaders came knocking on your door, you’d suddenly find religiously-inspired globalism an intolerable affront and a horrible injustice: “how dare those foreigners invade my own land to oppress me and to impose their will on me! This is my country!” But you support judeoglobalism, and you seem to not particularly dislike islamoglobslism “One rule for me, one rule for thee.” That’s why people call you a hypocrite ethno-centrist, B.

                  >except through the nation, the community, the family and so on.

                  Your “community”, “nation”, “family” is spread globally – fact.
                  You side with and support them globally – fact.
                  And another fact is, read the dictionary definition of globalism:

                  “a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence”

                  Dictionaries are sometimes wrong, but this definition is spot-on. It doesn’t matter what content your globalism bears: “human rights + libery + democracy”, “meat is murder”, “women deserve education”, “the muslims are my brothers”, “the jews are my brothers”, “dictatorship of the proletariat”, “LGTB is like you and me”, or whatever. It’s the form that matters, not the specific message.

                  I’m not a globalist because I don’t pursue political influence in the entire world. You think I *actually* give a shit about you and your stupid settlements? You think the editor of the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, would *really* feel sorry if you genocide all the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims just for the amusement of watching them die? You, meanwhile, support your “brothers” “wherever they are”, and because they reside in almost every country, you are necessarily a globalist.

                  Jim is an anti-globalist. I am too. You’re a judeoglobalist. These are facts.

                • B says:

                  So, I guess to you white people in South Africa, Australia and Europe can just go ahead and die? After all, you are not some sort of GLOBALIST, right?

                • Anonymous says:

                  I’m supposed to play the nazi bogeyman here, as such, let me remind you that while Hitler (happy birthday!) had an affinity for whites in other countries, he was first and foremost a deutscher ethno-nationalist, and anticipated an alliance between Germany and Britain against America, in the far future that is, even while recognizing that there are plenty of Americans of German descent.

                  So the bottom line is that you may choose, based on sundry factors, to support your kin (if they actually are your kin, like a biological family) in another country, but shouldn’t support them blindly and unreservedly “wherever they may be”, while completely disregarding their own decisions, their own political ambitions as distinct from yours, and — cynically as that may sound to you — the utility of allying with them to your *actual* country.

                  While whites should ally with each other in their own countries, and in mutt countries like America, amalgamate to a single white ethnicity, I don’t think Frenchmen are under any obligation to go to war, say, to help Russia against Japan, and the Germans should not involve themselves in the dispute between Anglos and Abos. White unity in white countries – yes, of course. But if some whites decide to colonize China for shits and giggles, they shouldn’t rely on anyone’s “solidarity” to protect them.

                  That’s nationalism. You’re a globalist.

                • B says:

                  You’re as crap at being a White Nationalist as you are at being a Christian. Sad!

                  Do you have any identity which is not a halfheartedly affected pose?

                • jim says:

                  Your superior holiness is noted.

                  And laughed at.

                • Anonymous says:

                  There’s no substance in your insults; you’re now merely holiness-signalling me about how I’m a bad Christian and a bad White Nationalist.

                  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If your sole trick is holiness-signalling, you’ll end up accusing nazis of not being nazi enough, Christians of not being Christian enough, and so on.

                  You don’t have true convictions. A person with true convictions states: “my ideals are X, Y, and Z, and here’s why I believe in them.” In your case, in contrast, the argument is always some version of “I am better than you are, and to prove it, I’ll believe in X, Y, and even Z, and I’ll believe in them more strongly than you do.”

                  When a gentile is signalling, the signal is almost invariably along the lines of “everything you can do, I can do better.” When a Jew is signalling, it usually boils down to “all your achievements are null and void, because my superior holiness is the only thing that truly matters.” You are genuinely dumbfounded when your interlocutors just don’t seem to care much about your superior holiness.

                  This “gotcha” game you’re playing is an old Alinskyite trick. Thing is, I’m so many steps ahead of you, you’ve disappeared from my view altogether. You still make your own moves, of course, but it’s become a formality at this point, and dare I add, a badly scripted one.

                • jim says:

                  If your sole trick is holiness-signalling, you’ll end up accusing nazis of not being nazi enough, Christians of not being Christian enough, and so on

                  You have B nailed.

                • peppermint says:

                  It is possible for a White woman to deserve to be raped by a nigger, see Amanda Kijera. Indeed, globalist White supremacism is arguably what progressives actually believe in and they would be able to have their attitudes adjusted if the White patriarchy would refuse to bail them out.

                  The punching of the bomb-throwing thot can be seen as the beginning of this.

                  South Africa and Rhodesia were destroyed in order to help English and American women feel good about themselves. White nationalists wanted the global White powers to mind their own business or maybe fight the Second World armies that were gathering in Angola, but First World globalists wanted the world remade in their image so jetsetters could go anywhere and have everyone love them.

                • B says:

                  >If your sole trick is holiness-signalling, you’ll end up accusing nazis of not being nazi enough, Christians of not being Christian enough, and so on.

                  You accused me, a Jewish nationalist, of being a globalist because I see Jews as my brethren. I merely pointed out that you are not much of a white nationalist if you don’t care about your fellow whites across the world. Your position lacks principle.

                  Jim-you may mock holiness, but nothing can stand without it, except as a sham and mummery. See: Carlyle. You’re just a particular kind of Utilitarian, and Utilitarianism is largely responsible for the problems of today’s West.

                  peppermint-ironically, South Africa and Rhodesia were not founded as nationalist projects. They were founded by guys like Rhodes, who were true globalists (read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope sometime-you’ll be shocked. Maybe.)

                • B says:

                  Jim,

                  Because you, in typical modernist fashion, lack earnestness and conviction, you mock those who do as signalling holiness. Everyone’s a signaller! Everyone’s holier than thou!

                  Without earnestness and conviction, what is there? Utility. Pig-philosophy. Extinction.

                • jim says:

                  Holiness signaling invariably goes way overboard. Hence Jews getting double dishwashers while eating nerve tissue and Christian women adopting black children while aborting their actual children.

                  Actual holiness, not so much.

                  Because holiness signaling always goes way overboard, the correct response to holiness signalling is always scorn and ridicule.

                  Every single time, the correct response is scorn, ridicule and contempt. Actual holiness is hard to detect, not announced with a flourish of trumpets. If I hear the trumpets blowing announcing holiness, it is obviously not holiness, but mere holiness signaling.

                  If, on the other hand, someone blows the trumpets announcing he cooks meals in a high status manner, chances are he will invite me to dinner and the dinner will be pretty good. And quite likely will be cooked in a high status manner.

                  As for my own holiness, I have on one occasion mentioned it, though with so few trumpets and cymbals that you might have missed it, but I do not make a habit of mentioning it.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >You accused me, a Jewish nationalist, of being a globalist because I see Jews as my brethren.

                  I accused you of being a globalist (Judeo-globalist) for taking the side of all Jews on the globe when in conflict with gentiles, in the same way a Muslim is a globalist (Islamo-globalist) for taking the side of all Muslims on the globe when in conflict with infidels.

                  You see their struggle as your struggle, and it doesn’t bother you in the least that, in the case of American Jews, they are in the wrong, and WASPs — whatever else you think about them — are in the right. It’s one thing to convince yourself that black Ethiopians and brown Mid-Easterners are your “kin”, that’s more delusional than globalist, and quite another thing to see, all the way from your distant Hitnahlut (settlement), Barbara Lerner Spectre as your “sister” and Noel Ignatiev as your “brother”. That’s pure globalism.

                  If you take the side of Spectre and Ignatiev — “brethren” — against the goyim, don’t complain when the goyim support #OpenBordersForIsrael. They are giving you, what you’ve been giving them.

                  >I merely pointed out that you are not much of a white nationalist if you don’t care about your fellow whites across the world. Your position lacks principle.

                  You do realize that white nationalists are not all congenital retards, right? Actually, you don’t realize it. You probably imagine this comment section as full of meth addicted tattooed criminal skinheads.

                  No, white nationalism is principled, and the principle is white countries for white people – nonwhites GTFO. A simple principle. It doesn’t mean that if the Dutch decide to colonize China “because lolololol”, the Swedes must send troops to defend them from repercussions. It doesn’t mean that Poles and Greeks should patrol the Mexican-US border, or that a Portuguese should lose sleep when a Finn stubs a toe. That’s globalism, and white nationalism =/= white globalism.

                  (Of course, fellow whites may be accepted as refugees, but not necessarily – depends on who those whites are. Chechens and Albanians are also white, and I don’t think Norway must accept them)

                  Historically, American white nationalists advocated restricting immigration to the US to Anglosaxons and selected northwestern Europeans only – not letting any random Slovenian, Pole, Italian, or Ashkenazi into the country. Of course, right now, those American Slovenians, Poles, and Italians are allies against bixnoods and snackbars and the rest of the shitskins. (For obvious reasons, Ashkenazim, even if blonde and blue-eyed, are not part of this alliance – and they don’t want to be) But the general principle should be nationalism, not globalism, and eugenics, not dysgenics.

                  This is non-globalist, WN 101. Care about fellow whites, broadly, but don’t lose sight of your own folk’s interests. So hard to grasp?

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                “Like Jews, they claim that this fact establishes irrational hatred and their blamelessness.”

                Good work there.

              • Ron says:

                @Anonymous

                “Jewry will be expelled to Israel, and when all Jews are there, the nukes will rain down on them”

                Anytime you want to start that party sweetheart, we have plenty of bottled sunshine to share with all our good friends.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Your expulsion is non negotiable. The raining nukes part, we’ll have to wait and see. Keeping you in suspense!

                • jim says:

                  Why such a hurry? Jews are leaving for Israel or assimilating under their own power over time, and if we had a more self confident Christian culture, one where it was OK for the country club to not invite people who do not fit in, they would be a lot more inclined to leave or to assimilate to it.

                  The hurry is because you are thinking that stealing their stuff, knocking over a pawnshop, will make us rich. Never works. Makes us poor. You are making the error, and the sin, of envy and covetousness. You don’t get rich by knocking over pawnshops.

                • jim says:

                  We have not tested any nukes for a long time, and you have not tested any nukes at all. The more I learn about nukes, and the more I learn about the people who are managing our nukes, the more I doubt that our nukes and your nukes are going to work. I expect a fizzle yield of about four or five kilotons per nuke, as about one twentieth of the fissionables gets utilized, with our nukes doing a little better than your nukes.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The costs on the margin involved by metaphorically breaking the metaphorical windows of the metaphorical bagel shop is an investment that pays off handsomely for a future without alien jewish elements.

                • jim says:

                  Breaking the literal windows on the literal bagel shop undermines property rights, and loss of secure property rights harms us more than Jews do. Leftism is disorder, and when you break the windows on the bagel shop, you are a leftist.

                  The correct way to deal with the Jewish problem is that you don’t invite him to the country club, and then because he is not invited to the country club he eventually sells up his bagel shop to someone else who can use it productively and moves to Israel. Which leaves you with a functional bagel shop, functional property rights, and you are still down one Jew.

                  People who smash the windows on the bagel shop are under the delusion that they will get a bagel shop that way. They think “You did not build that.” They think bagel shops rain down from heaven and the greedy Jews snarfed them all up.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Thats all really orthogonal to the point i was really driving at; which is, such is looking at the problem deontologically, whereas i, being an ideological chameleon, am willing to entertain anything that most elegantly achieves that goal, or at the limit, helps drive the forces of being each in their own way further towards the real-ization of such a goal (such as, people openly talking about the possibility to inflicting violence on aliens without molestation).

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Why such a hurry? Jews are leaving for Israel or assimilating under their own power over time

                  The destruction they wreak metastasizes faster than aliyah/assimilation rates. Plus, the Orthodox brethren of the leftist Jews, who are odious and obnoxious in their own right, keep spawning leftist Jews, thus, problem won’t get solved “by itself” at all.

                  You are uncomfortable with violence against high IQ people, but come on, you don’t expect your formidable villain to be a retarded dumbass, do you? This villain is high IQ, and using violent methods to neutralize the villain is morally justified and often, as in this case, indispensable.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The arch-nemesis of European descendent people happens to be intelligent. Tough shit. Need to get over your aversion to dealing harshly with intelligent people, because otherwise, the direst problems will remain unsolved.

                • jim says:

                  Harsh solutions are appropriate when the other guy is engaging in actual violence. Sometimes they are appropriate when the other guy is doing something subtle which is well short of violence, which is apt to be the case if the other guy is clever.

                  But if the other guy is cleverly doing hostile and harmful stuff that is nonetheless well short of actual violence, the appropriate response is likely to also be clever and well short of actual violence.

                  If you don’t let Jews join the country club, they are likely to gradually migrate to Israel or assimilate over time. What is wrong with this solution?

                  The trouble with smashing up the pawnshop is that it does not actually produce the intended result – those who smash pawnshops are apt to find that they mysteriously get poorer, while their victims equally mysteriously recover.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >If you don’t let Jews join the country club, they are likely to gradually migrate to Israel or assimilate over time. What is wrong with this solution?

                  Orthodox Jews in America don’t want your country club, so depriving them of access to it is hardly a threat, and they’re not making aliyah any time soon. Their TFR is high, and in addition to not assimilating and being extremely annoying at the very least, they spawn leftist Jews who are apt to always stir trouble.

                  Now what?

                • Anonymous says:

                  You have a thesis, according to which the Jewish problem is about to “solve itself”. This thesis is wrong on all accounts, from all possible perspectives. Orthojews don’t assimilate, don’t make aliyah, and would *prefer* if you keep their youngsters away from your cou5 club. They are extremely annoying, have 6 or 7 kids, and spawn subversive leftist Jews.

                  Can’t circle a triangle.

                • Eli says:

                  That’s just ridiculous logic, anonymous/jack, and you should know it. The “leftist spawn” leaving the fold of their paternalistic communities is not something that said communities, including the relatives of said Jews, desire for their children — especially, if they see them adopt all kinds of “alternative lifestyles.” This is why these communities try to isolate themselves from outside influences, for their children to be raised properly. Some people go to extremes of, when devoid of communal proximity, home-educating their children and scheduling lessons and interactions with other such kids via the Internet-streamed videos.

                  Also, most of the hardcore Ultraorthodox (the ones whose TFR you so worry) whom I both know personally and read about — are right wing, and voted for Trump, even when (in case of Satmar) their Rebbes explicitly (!) instructed them to vote for Hillary (due to a political deal).

                  The question to ask is: what makes outside culture so dangerous to family formation? This matter gets discussed on this blog quite a bit. Religious Jews, like the Amish and Mormons, are one of the few groups in America who still preserve their paternalistic communities. You might get your endorphins from soliciting their destruction, but your problems will still remain. Culture has the inertia of a glacier and alas it’s moving surely in the wrong direction. You can’t stop it in any easy way, with nukes, without extreme damage to everything else. The only way to stop it is by waiting out this current cycle, by focusing on building your own life, your own family, via a personal struggle. If it takes importing a woman from the 3rd world, like Russia, it is still a better deal than being miserable or getting your brief animal high, like the negrillas of black and white variety, from taking, breaking and burning stuff that doesn’t belong to you.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, physical warfare is ineffectual against what is a spiritual attack.

                  If you killed off everyone who was biologically Jewish, we would have substantially less holiness signaling, but proggism is in substantial part driven by status signaling generally, rather than holiness signaling in particular, and killing off biological Jews is not going to stop people status signaling by ditching their biological children in favor of photogenic black orphans, and declaring that their little boy is a little girl and cutting off his testicles.

                  What is going to stop that is making it low status.

                  Orthodox Jews assist in white white Christian fertility in the US in the same way they do in Israel, by providing a role model of female subordination. It is when they convert to proggism or Marxism, usually proggism, that they are a problem – and if proggism ceased to be high status, this problem would be greatly diminished. If proggism remains high status, nothing you do about Jews can make much difference.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Eli:

                  >The “leftist spawn” leaving the fold of their paternalistic communities is not something that said communities, including the relatives of said Jews, desire for their children

                  Absolutely totally 100% irrelevant, because what matters is what actually happens in the real life which exists, and not what these people “desire” or not. The fact of the matter is that they spawn leftist Jews from their midst. If they didn’t, that would be one thing. They do, and that’s all that matters here.

                  >Also, most of the hardcore Ultraorthodox (the ones whose TFR you so worry) whom I both know personally and read about — are right wing, and voted for Trump

                  Their version of right-wingism is not compatible with the Anglo-American version of right-wingism. And who gives a shit about votes.

                  Jim:

                  >What is going to stop that is making it low status.

                  Jews, being a high verbal IQ elite, decide what is high-status and what is low-status. It’s they who facilitated the castration of boys into trannies by making it high status, and the white Christian cucks who status-signal by engaging in this depravity are merely adjusting, logically from this perspective, to what (((cultural forces))) tell them is high-status.

                  If Jews are removed, and replaced by alt-right shitlords, suddenly the white Christian cucks will no longer feel inclined to slice off their sons’ testicles.

                  >Orthodox Jews assist in white white Christian fertility in the US in the same way they do in Israel, by providing a role model of female subordination.

                  Fair enough, not gonna argue with this one.

                  >It is when they convert to proggism or Marxism

                  They don’t “convert” to cultural Marxism. They convert to modernity – by ditching the black hats and the Jewlocks, and then *create* cultural Marxism. Notice that whites: Anglo-Saxons, Frenchmen, Germans, etc, do just fine, or rather, did just fine back when ethno-nationalism wasn’t taboo, without black hats and without strange facial hair, and can prosper in modernity if they want to.

                  In contrast, Jews who enter modernity become pozzed, so naturally, many of them shun modernity.

                  It seems most Jews, 90% of Jews, have only two options: shun modernity and wear the black hat, or embrace modernity and get pozzed. For whatever reason, probably Semitic genes, Jews can’t just be “normal”, and raise big healthy patriarchal families without going full Talmudic. At least, that’s the case with the Ashkenazim everyone’s familiar with. Mud Jews are a whole ‘nother thing.

                  >And if proggism ceased to be high status, this problem would be greatly diminished.

                  For proggism to cease being high status, need the elite to cease being leftist-Jewish. If you have any plan to replace the elite of leftist Jews, which plan doesn’t involve “getting physical”, we can debate it. Perhaps Kevin MacDonald has some ideas. What there isn’t point debating is that the elite of leftist-Jews is toxic to society and has to be replaced with someone else.

                  >If proggism remains high status, nothing you do about Jews can make much difference.

                  a) would proggism remain high-status without Jews?
                  b) would proggism look and behave without Jews the same way it looks and behaves with Jews?

                  I believe it’s a “no” on both questions.

                • jim says:

                  Jews, being a high verbal IQ elite, decide what is high-status and what is low-status. It’s they who facilitated the castration of boys into trannies by making it high status

                  Jews are guilty of piles of stuff, but I am pretty sure that castrating boys into trannies is the Puritan descended left, not the Jewish descended left. If you go looking at black lives matter burning stuff and running whites out of town, they are paid and organized by Jews, but if you look at pre pubescent boys being placed on puberty blockers preparatory to castrating them and turning them into very bad imitations of girls, its thoroughly Christian prog, and Jews have little to do with it.

                • jim says:

                  If you have any plan to replace the elite of leftist Jews, which plan doesn’t involve “getting physical”, we can debate it.

                  Our elite is not leftist Jews. Our elite is leftists who are disproportionately biologically descended from Jews, and disproportionately influenced by Cultural Marxism, which is a meme system descended from Judaism, but puritan descended beliefs are a bigger problem than Jewish descended beliefs, and there is a plentiful supply of non Jewish SJW commissars.

                  Any plan to massacre Jews is a plan to massacre a good part our elite. If we have the capability to massacre a good part of our elite, we have the capacity to rule with or without massacring Jews. If we have the capacity to rule with or without massacring Jews, we can trivially make proggism low status.

                  I plan a state church, with an archbishop and a grand inquisitor. The state church will claim to be Episcopalian, and will have a married and patriarchal clergy, though it will swipe most of its beliefs from Orthodox Christianity, in particular the communion of saints. It will have an updated version of the 39 articles and the book of homilies, which will prohibit puritanism, progressivism, Judaism, and Marxism, and everyone who wants a job at a high status university or a high status government job has to claim adherence to this religion, and swear compliance with the thirty nine articles and the book of homilies (Which I plan to reduce to twenty two articles now that Puritanism and Roman Catholicism are no longer major threats). They also get a job interview where they are informally asked about their compliance with the thirty nine articles and the book homilies. And after they get the job the inquisition keeps an eye on make sure they really are compliant.

                  So, you will not be able to be a Jew, a prog, a cultural Marxist, or a Marxist, and be high status because it will be flat out simply forbidden.

                  This program, with or without massacring Jews, will get us the outcome we want. Massacring Jews without this program or something substantially equivalent will not get us what we want.

                • Eli says:

                  Talmud and “Talmudic abstractions” have nothing to do with this crap.

                • jim says:

                  Talmudists discover religious truth by torturing texts to say that up is down and black is white.

                  Marxists discover truths about this world, about the immanent world, by the same procedure, even though it is even less appropriate to this world than the next.

                  This procedure is alleged, both by Talmudists and Marxists, to demonstrate deep respect for the holy texts, though it does not look very respectful to me.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >puritan descended beliefs are a bigger problem than Jewish descended beliefs

                  That’s an interesting contention, and I’m willing to entertain this notion, but it’s far from evident. The most vocal complaints I hear about modern progressivism, are regarding the Jewish aspects of it, rather than the puritan aspects of it. Perhaps those complaints are misguided – but where’s the “meat” here?

                  The alt-right protests most vocally against the White Genocide project. White Genocide is not descendent from 1776 “that all men are created equal” or 1789 “liberte egalite fraternite”. It’s descendent from Dialectical Materialism as applied to race rather than class – that is, cultural Marxism, Judaic through and through. There simply wouldn’t be Dialectical Materialism without Jews, it’s a thoroughly Talmudic idea, Hegel or no Hegel. We know full well who converted it to cultural, racial, and sexual politics, and who gave it high status.

                  If the most serious problem of Progressivism is the plan to exterminate the white race, as per alt-right complaints, then your statement must be wrong, and it is Jewish descendent proggism, not the puritan edition, that is more insidious.

                  >Any plan to massacre Jews is a plan to massacre a good part our elite.

                  That’s not the plan, not for the next 2 decades. The plan is to foment resistance to Jews, first in thought, then in deed, which would eventually materialize to sporadic violence against Jews, and proceed to become well-organized violence against Jews (and this is not because I’m a sadistic maniac, but because the Jews left no other choice available), causing a great scandal, a lot of tears, sad pictures that would make one move uncomfortably on one’s chair and fidget in nervousness, and at some point, the Jews will flee to Israel. Whether or not nukes should rain on Tel Aviv, is yet to be decided – that’s a later stage altogether.

                  >Massacring Jews without this program or something substantially equivalent will not get us what we want.

                  If you can convince enough people, people who’ve been brainwashed with “horrible Auschwitz” propaganda since forever, and brainwashed with other types of “Jews are innocent victims” propaganda since forever, that massacring Jews is justified and good, you can convince them of anything you want.

                  If you can sell Jew-hatred to Americans, then “the sky is the limit” as to what kinds of social reform or social restoration you can get. Now you will ask: “but why do we even need to sell Jew-hatred to Americans?”, and the answer is that otherwise, there’s absolutely no incentive whatsoever for Jews to make aliyah. Look at France. Why are Jews fleeing? Because of Muslim sporadic violence. That’s the crucial, key incentive to getting Jews to leave a place.

                  If there’s sporadic, or not so sporadic, violence by (to use Anglin’s trollminology) “white gangs” against Jews, then, and probably only then, will they flee. Now, if your next question is “okay, but is it practical?”, the answer is yes – just wait and see.

                • jim says:

                  >puritan descended beliefs are a bigger problem than Jewish descended beliefs

                  That’s an interesting contention, and I’m willing to entertain this notion, but it’s far from evident.

                  Cuckoldry, war on marriage, war on husbands, and war on Christmas are puritan descended beliefs. Jews that adopt them are conversos, converting to an alien and hostile religion. World War Tranny did not start with the Frankfurt school, it started a lot more recently. World War Tranny was a next step escalation of gay marriage, which was a next step escalation of the feminist attack on marriage, which was a next step escalation of Cromwell introducing divorce, raising the age of consent, and desecrating marriage.

                  White Genocide is not descendent from 1776 “that all men are created equal” or 1789 “liberte egalite fraternite”.

                  White genocide is a logical and necessary consequence of “all men are created equal” . When it becomes obvious that certain individuals and groups are profoundly unequal to other individuals and groups, obviously the superior group is somehow harming the inferior group and keeping it down, scarfing up all the good stuff for itself. “You did not build that”. So you have to somehow punish the superior group, lower their self esteem, or and when that fails, somehow make sure they are not around any more, the details of how come they are not around any more being carefully not thought about.

                  “You did not build that” is a Marxist belief that is Jewish descended, but the implication of getting rid of the people who actually did build it is a Puritan descended belief that descends from “All men are created equal”

                  The Jewish program is that when Messiah returns, Jews will rule over non Jews, which gets immanentized as the vanguard of the proletariat ruling, or social justice warriors ruling over badwhites. Making whites actually somehow disappear comes from “all men are created equal”, not from Judaism, nor from Jewish descended memes. Any Jew pushing white genocide is a converso to Christian descended memes. The Jewish messianic program is genocide only for bad non Jews in Israel. Come the eschaton, Israel then rules the middle east, or maybe the world, it does not replace the world or even the middle east, or even eliminate all Israeli non Jews.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >World War Tranny was a next step escalation of gay marriage, which was a next step escalation of the feminist attack on marriage,

                  These steps are with the realm of possibilities of the preceding steps, but aren’t inevitable steps – seems to me that biological Jews, individuals with Jewish brains, had to be there and “guide” apparatuses of memetic transmission to take those step.

                  For instance, if you hate yourself, it may lead you, “logically”, to cut yourself. But that’s not an inevitability. If you cut yourself, the “logical” next step may be to shoot yourself, but again, not an inevitability. If someone with ulterior motives compels or impels you to take such a next step, and then another, worse next step, he bears the blame to an extent. Perhaps you wouldn’t have cut yourself, perhaps you would have done something else entirely:

                  Recall that in the beginning of 20th century, biological realism, race realism, and eugenics, were becoming *more commonly accepted* than at any time since their inception, with the fiction of “all men are equal” being gradually abrogated. Then the Jews came and told everyone that actually, the next step, inevitable next step, is race denialism.

                  In retrospect, you may say that the “Hand Of The Jew” was redundant. If you lived through 1910s and 1940s and was aware of what’s going on, you wouldn’t say that. You’d have said that society was actually improving in some key aspects, such as eugenics and race-science being embraced by the intelligentsia, but then a lot of shit happened, and society began deteriorating.

                  >Any Jew pushing white genocide is a converso to Christian descended memes.

                  That may be so, but if

                  a) without the converso, this meme wouldn’t exist;
                  b) the converso was not driven by pure sincerity and pure faith, but rather, the converso, cynical and self-interested, had a brain of his own, and this brain told him, out of ulterior motives, sinister motives, to push the meme

                  Then the problem is not the religion – it’s the converso. Now of course, could be that both are a problem. But if you merely hate yourself, while your “good friend” assists your suicide, convinces you that you have to do it, that you’re a hypocrite and a coward if you don’t do it, that it’s only a question of time before you actually do, and gives you detailed instructions, and the right tools to carry the whole thing out, and gleefully makes sure you follow through – then this friend deserves being thrown down a deep well, upturned.

                  You once said that “progs believe all religions are the same, and that they all preach progressivism”. True. Now, imagine a prog joining a religion, any religion, and using his high verbal IQ to convince “fellow” believers that it’s inevitable they get pozzed, that Holy Scripture has always logically and inevitably lead to poz.

                  Now in such a case, there indeed could be a problem with the religion for tolerating such people (just as there’s a problem when society tolerates kikery), but there’s also an obvious problem of there being such people in the first place (just as there’s a problem with Jewish conversos).

                  If you accept converts, and those converts turn out to be wicked or outright demonic, then the solution is to not allow such converts. However, that doesn’t make the converts any less of wicked demons. They have agency, and if, once converted, they push Satan’s Word and pretend it’s God’s Word, then once you realize what’s happening, you must rid yourself of these creatures.

                  So the short argument is that these converts have distinct and distinctive interests, and alien thought-patterns, and should not be accepted, at least until they prove that they’re not going, as they’ve done again and again and again, to “guide” you into taking “logical next steps” which you wouldn’t have come up with, and wouldn’t have taken, on your own.

                • jim says:

                  These steps are with the realm of possibilities of the preceding steps, but aren’t inevitable steps

                  They are inevitable steps. Collectivization will lead to abundance. Collectivization fails to lead to abundance. Obvious invisible intangible landlords are still somehow exercising power, so we must liquidate the kulaks.

                  Leftism has an inevitable and inexorable tendency to go to ever crazier and ever more murderous extremes. Cthulhu always swims left, until a Cromwell, a Napoleon, or a Stalin cuts down everyone to his left, and makes it as dangerous to be excessively left wing, as it was to be insufficiently left wing.

                  Supposedly leftism will immanentize the eschaton. When it does not immanentize the eschaton, obviously more leftism is required. Eschaton still not immanentized? Obviously bad people are doing invisible intangible bad things. Hunt down the witches and burn them!

                  When Victorian England freed the slaves, they set foot on a path that can only end in the murder of every white man. When they emancipated women, they set foot on a path that can only end with the elimination of fathers and fatherhood.

                  Superior holiness will produce utopia. Utopia does not eventuate, instead everything goes to shit. Obviously not enough holiness. More holiness is applied. More shit ensues. Burn the witches!

                  Victorian England freed the slaves and yet, strangely, blacks still today are not actually free men. So burn the witches!

                • Anonymous says:

                  >They are inevitable steps

                  Not seeing it. I think my analogy is really spot-on. To further elaborate on it:

                  Your “buddy”, let’s call him Scott, tells you that, why, as an objective, totally disinterested party, it’s evident to him that you’re a huge hypocrite, not to mention a coward, because once upon a time, about 15 years ago, you had claimed that you hate yourself, yet, why is it that you still haven’t taken the “logical inevitable next step” and shot yourself in the right temple?

                  Then, after he tortures your mind with it endlessly, you finally give in to his hectoring, and shoot yourself in the right temple…

                  While delivering the eulogy at your funeral, another “buddy” of yours, let’s call him B, says about you in front of everyone that, actually, you were always bound, inevitably, to shoot yourself in the right temple, that it was only logical that you would do so of your own free volition, and that Scott is a good, upright, loyal friend who dindu nuffin wrong ever. B then produces a dubious-looking will, which states that all your stuff goes to “my 2 best buddies: Scott and B”.

                  After your funeral ends, those two “buddies” leave together, and for some reason, they don’t seem particularly upset at the event. Huh – go figure!

                • jim says:

                  But why does your supposed buddy argue that you should shoot yourself? What is in for him?

                  If you look at any statement by any female on politics and society, she is arguing that come the revolution, she should be considered hot.

                  If you look at any statement by any biological Jew on politics and society, he does not care what happens come the revolution, he is actually arguing he is holier than some other biological Jew. For example Scott Alexander’s recent post against freedom of speech was not really about freedom of speech. It was actually Scott arguing he is holier than Milo.

                  He does not much care that his reasoning, his twisted logic, and his holiness is likely to get you shot – it is usually far more likely to get himself shot – Scott Alexander and Scott Aaronson being classic examples. Trotsky says “you cannot be right against the party, you can only be right with the party”, and the party gives him an icepick in his head. Scott Aaronson is soliciting an icepick from his fellow progressives much as Trotsky did from his fellow commies.

                  If we had a King, and that King was the fount of all honors and could set the rules for fashion and status competition, and he set the rules so that demonstrations of holiness that are apt to result in people being shot are low status, and only prosocial activities earn you high status, Jews would enthusiastically engage in prosocial activities.

                  The trouble is that Harvard rules, and it is anti social activities that earn you high status, and Jews are enthusiastically engaging in those high status antisocial activities that got high status thanks to Puritans, Harvard, and the Declaration of Independence.

                  And if we get rid of Jews, but those activities remain high status, we are still screwed.

                  If, on the other hand, we make those activities low status the problem is solved, Jews or no Jews.

                • peppermint says:

                  liberté egalité fraternité did in Haiti and the ideology that all men are created equal is the reason France doesn’t officially know that all the rapists are muds

                  marxism didn’t exist in the US when niggers were authorized to rape any White woman who refused them in New Orleans by the Yankees

                • Anonymous says:

                  Jews did not always get along with kings.

                  Ferdinand and Isabella banished the Jews after the Jews did not heed the call to stop being subversive. They could have engaged in prosocial activities – they chose not to, and instead, they traded white women as sex slaves, and supported the Muslims.

                  Czar Alexander II was good to the Jews. Yet, the Jews murdered him. (Alexander III was considerably less good to the Jews than his predecessor. Did they learn anything? Nope. They’d kill Trump, who is relatively good to the Jews, and eventually there will come another Hitler)

                  Likewise, King Edward I expelled the Jews after they did not cease with the usual kikery. Needless to say, England flourished as a result.

                  All of history, kings were trying to get Jews prosocial. To make them stop with the black market they run, the high collar crimes, the petty crimes, the religiously-motivated intifadas, and the cultural subversion and agitation. No king in history that I’m aware of has succeeded in taming the Jew. Your proposal is unprecedented.

                  You always say that no one can coexist with Muslims. Well, as far as I know, no nation peacefully coexisted with Jews for long durations. Excluding central Asian periphery, perhaps. But no nation in Europe.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >If, on the other hand, we make those activities low status the problem is solved, Jews or no Jews.

                  Again, impossible when elite is chock-full of Jews.

                • jim says:

                  The power necessary to eradicate Jews from the elite is much the same as the power necessary to eradicate progs from the elite.

                  Eradicating progs from the elite is goring the matador. Eradicating Jews from society is goring the matador’s cape.

                  Hitler was unable to feed his conquests, and had limited success in raising German fertility, because he failed to eliminate progs from his elite.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If your solution to Jew problem is secure monarchy, then

                  A) there won’t be monarchy, or;
                  B) the Jews will destroy your monarchy and kill your king, or;
                  C) the king will eventually expel the Jews

                  Why not simply preempt C, and get 6 million American Jews to make aliyah.

                • Eli says:

                  I’ve got two books: one by S. Greengus:

                  “Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections”

                  the other being by Shaye Cohen:

                  “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”

                  All I can say from those two, especially, the former, is that Talmud (which includes Mishnah and Gemorah) is partly rationalization based on the Torah (midrash/homily), partly clarification and ongoing codification of many laws and customs that had already *existed* in the region for hundreds, if not thousands of years. These law codes have been practiced by various communities, and Mishnah was their filtered codification. Gemorah is an evolution of the process, done in the context of needing to obfuscate and illustrate by allegory (and Haggadah does it perfectly), in light of loss of autonomy of the Jewish people.

                  There is not so much invention there as much as syncretism, which (according to both Cohen and Greengus suggestions) includes even Roman law and legalistic tradition, in particular, the matrilineal principle and the non-talionic response to physical damage.

                  According to Josephus, Sadducees rejected the divinity of the Oral Law and practices, while Pharisees postulated them as such. *But* Josephus does *not* claim that Sadducees rejected them as secular phenomenon or argued that these laws were invalid. In fact, here is an excellent paper by Greengus that explains what law terms in the Tanakh really stand for, and how they evolved from being communally/aristocratically enforced to being priestly-enforced:
                  https://biblicallaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/greengus.pdf. And in his book he also argues, based on recorded disputes between the two sects, that Sadducees recognized validity of extra-Torah laws (baraitot), even if opposing their divinity.

                  In any case, when Anonymous talks about Jews praying to the devil, using excerpts from Talmud, it’s trolling. And jim’s statement about “Talmudic torture of text” misses the picture above.

                • jim says:

                  Syncretism, and collecting ancient customs that have worked for a long time, is good. Chesterton’s fence and all that.

                  Pretty sure, however, that double dishwashers and strollers are not syncretism of ancient customs, but very recent holiness escalation. Double dishwashers are not likely to get you killed, but holiness escalation is apt to involve an attitude that all non Jews are unclean, therefore no alliance or friendship with non Jews (reflect on Israel’s treatment of Lebanese Christians, and that Israel is in Syria backing the side that is likely to murder or expel Christians) and this sort of holiness escalation has gotten Jews killed in the past, and will get Jews killed again in the future. The Romans were harshly and corruptly taxing Jews, so therefore Jews proceeded to pick fights with Greeks who were also getting harshly and corruptly taxed. Turned out to be a very bad idea.

                  In the Jewish rebellion and in the lead up to it, people tended to demonstrate superior holiness in escalating ways that made enemies and drove away or destroyed allies. Double dishwashers are harmless, but the holiness escalation of which they are a symptom is potentially dangerous.

                  But the conspicuous instances of text torture are projecting matrilineality, female emancipation, female sexual choice, and delayed marriage into the distant past.

                  From Israel the Patriarch to Roman times, Jews were patrilineal and severely patriarchal. At some time during the dark ages between the fall of the Temple and about 1200AD, Jews became matrilineal and substantially less patriarchal, and there are multiple layers of text torture and rewrites in the Talmud changing things. One generation of rabbis stands the Torah on its head, the next generation of rabbis stands the writings of those rabbis on their head, stands the Talmud on its head, the next generation of rabbis after that ignores them all and issue new rules from scratch, and the generation after that stands those new rules on their heads.

                • Eli says:

                  Personally, I dislike the matrilineal principle myself. S Cohen put a nice investigative paper (this stuff is also in his book “The Beginnings of Jewishness”, in considerably more expanded form) about its origins:

                  http://archive.jewishrecon.org/resource-files/files/Shaye%20Cohen%20-%20the%20Matrilineal%20Principle%20in%20Historical%20Perspective.pdf

                  Nonetheless, albeit I dislike it myself, the fact remains that the Karaite community, who have practiced non-rabbinic patrilineality, is de facto extinct, other than in Israel, which tells you that matrilineality imposed on men in context of obedient women from community, helps to protect said community against miscegenation and loss of identity, in the still-larger context of secular, utilitarian urban world.

                • jim says:

                  Judaism was a religion of exile, and still is a religion of exile, even in Israel, and is thus automatically low status. Joining the country club just made the country club cease to be a place of power and status. Thus Jews automatically have a huge problem with memetically Jewish women sleeping with non Jewish men. Hence patrilineal Jews died out, matrilineal Jews culturally continued.

                  For Judaism to return from exile, it has to replace progressivism as the state religion of Israel, in which case you become literally Hitler and have to grow a toothbrush moustache, Israel becomes literally South Africa, and the Palestinians become magic Negroes.

                  If Judaism returned from exile, then being memetically Jewish would be high status in Israel, in which which case the patrilineal principle would once again be more appropriate.

                • Eli says:

                  Agree with the larger point, of Judaism still being, maybe not in exile, but a religion not of the comfortable host, not of ruling status in its own land.

                  Disagree with your point on rabbinic Judaism being memetically female. If it were, it would’ve been no different than African mating, which it’s not. While some contemporary American Chassids are slowly turning it into a feminist-friendly spiritualist movement, the core remains paternalistic. The stress here is on paternalism, not patriarchy per se, a subtly different paradigm. Men might not be completely in charge on an individual basis, but their position is still clearly defined, and everyone’s role is regulated. A woman is pressured (via family and associating with community members) to behave a certain way (modesty is important) and a man is expected to do certain things and fulfill obligations.

  4. Alrenous says:

    >Partly H1B is about saving money, mostly it is about status. The bean counters and the HRs are troubled by the status of engineers. Notice the complete absence of H1Bs in HR and accounting.

    Oh damn, I missed that one. Nice hit.

    >actual de-regulation, and promised de-regulation.

    While being self-aware of the spoonfeeding issue…
    What actual de-regulation?

  5. peppermint says:

    Syria matters to me because I want the First World ideological bloc broken and the US to be a normal country which cares first for the American nation. Hitler complained that Germans in Austria were getting cucked by the deals to keep Czechs and Serbs from breaking away, and when the US is only concerned about people withing the borders of the US and surrounding areas I’ll be concerned about Americans getting cucked by deals to keep the Blacks and Indians in line.

    Tillerson just offered a consolation prize, asking why Americans care about whether various territories belong to the Russian Empire or the Ukraine (as well as whether Ukrainians are even separate from Russians, and most importantly whether the Ukraine should be in the Russian sphere of influence or the EU). If the missiles for testing Russian air defense, intimidating gooks, and confusing the media are also the price of that statement, that is a deal I would have been prepared to accept and gladly accept.

    • Inquiring Mind says:

      My initial reaction was, if I wanted WW-III by fighting Russia, I would have voted for HRC.

      Based on media reports on the strike (yeah, yeah, Gell-Mann Amnesia), don’t know, seems like a finely calibrated response.

      For ill or good, Mr. Obama had that agreement that Russia would cleanse their Syrian ally of chemical weapons, there remained some chemical weapons, Russia got a quick warning, “Incoming!” and blam!

      This all took place over dinner with the dude from China with not-that-subtle-message “put that NK pit bull of yours on a steel-cable leash.” Not quite the level of Michael Corleone at the baptism taking the vows of the Catholic faith by proxy for the nephew being baptized at the exact moment his henchman were murdering the arch rivals who had shot is father and murdered his brother. But there is an element of “not gonna take no stuff from no-body.”

      What is so wrong about probing Russian anti-air, intimidating Han-guk (Korean persons), and fogging the Media, anyway?

      • peppermint says:

        i bet chinks are more annoyed about gooks calling themselves hanguk than about us calling chinks gooks. do you think a chink would know what i’m talking about if i thank him for saving hanguk socialism?

  6. Pseudonymous says:

    What status of engineers?

  7. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Trump is slowing the decline and will probably slow it more.

    Victory is reversing the decline though: eugenic fertility with at least the top 10% above replacement, and no net effect of immigration on IQ or behaviour (foreigners replacing the elite is worse than foreigners adding a new underclass).

  8. deltahedge says:

    If its true that Trump is about to remove Bannon, its over, and the Deep State has won.

    • jim says:

      Likely true.

      • peppermint says:

        You’re acting like Trump is either Bannon’s guy or Kushner’s guy. He’s Trump’s guy.

        Their most immediate path to seizing power probably includes getting Trump assassinated and then controlling Pence. They could then convince Pence and the Republicans to crackdown on porn and use that power against memes. That plan could go through with or without Bannon in the White House.

        What mist be remembered about the left, however, is that it is composed of Boomer true believers, younger larpers with no real sense of how it fits together, and Jews. If you’d been to any non-Boomer leftist events recently, you’d know that no one is really driving them and they’re all confused and wondering what the next social justice campaign is while surreptitiously thinking various right-wing thoughts. Boomers, meanwhile, whine about how if only they would be able to beat those libertarians and christcucks they would be retiring in an true egalitarian society free of hate where children can get sex changes upon request and everyone can have as much sex as they want.

        • peppermint says:

          Richard Spencer held an anti-war protest. Boomers mostly love war for egalitarianism, while the Alt-Right is the only political entity opposed to a Syria war on principle. The only parastatals that could be scrounged up to counterprotest were, according to reports, demoralized by chants that they were objectively pro-Trump.

          At any point up until last year there would have been liberal anti-war protests.

          Liberalism is spent. It has no real grasp on anyone under 30 and actually little grasp on anyone under 60, it is incoherent, and it lacks a central authority. It needs censorship now more than ever but that is increasingly difficult. The Deep State is a bunch of increasingly incompetent ass-clowns who have only ever succeeded with the legacy media covering for them.

          • peppermint says:

            It’s worth noting that even racist Boomers and GenXers suffer from feminism that younger people increasingly openly reject. You can see this in racist literature like The Turner Diaries and the Northwest Novels.

          • I like Spencer but he’s clueless about Antifa. Antifa is not a group of “true believer” leftists. It’s an Israeli front group, the nutjobs that actually show up to events to scream at people are just marginal lumpenproles they round up at college bookshops. Those people go scream at “racists” for the promise of a few bong hits and a blowjob from a hippie girl. They themselves are a not a serious movement.

            The people that organize Antifa are – it’s organized by lawyers and semi-official Democratic para-party operatives.

            In Europe, Antifa openly carries banners reading “Antifa means solidarity with Israel.” In America, they try to hide their Zionist organizers because it raises too many questions among the lumpenprole footsoldiers.

            The really big anti-Trump rally was the Women’s March, and that was just liberal White ladies getting together to pretend to be outraged by Trump talking about pussy while wearing silly hats.

            The anti-Trump riots in places like Chicago were just Citizens of Color finding another excuse to riot. One assumes the Trump campaign held a rally there hoping that the Coloreds would riot as it made the best campaign commercial.

            Whites need to figure out who their actual enemies are vs. the people their enemies corral against us. Hint: Negroes and Beaners and Musselmen don’t run the show in America.

            It’s that other group. (And no, the NRxers are lying to you, it ain’t the Puritans either.)

            The Deep State is on our side, at least the Deep State outside of the “liberal CIA” part.

            • jim says:

              Antifa is not an Israeli front. And saying that it is, is absolutely typical of Nazis finding excuses for leftism.

              The problem is not that Jews are insincerely converting from Judaism to progressivism, the problem is that all too often their conversions are alarmingly sincere. The problem is not Jews emitting evil mind rays at us, but us emitting evil mind rays at them. Trumpism is striking at those evil mind rays at their source.

              • Antifa is run by Zionist Jews, both in Europe and in America. That is a fact anyone with a half an hour of online research can show you.

                In fact, a pro-White guy in the Pacific Northwest actually named names – Antifa is an Israeli operation.

                “And saying that it is, is absolutely typical of Nazis finding excuses for leftism.”

                Calling people critical of Zionists, Israelis, and Jews “Nazis” is exactly what leftists do. You may as well join the left and call anyone who voted for Trump a “Nazi.”

                It’s astonishing how White men will abase themselves trying to get Jews to love them. It’s nothing but cucking.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Antifa is run by Zionist Jews, both in Europe and in America. That is a fact anyone with a half an hour of online research can show you.”

                  Names of said Zionist Jews?

                • jim says:

                  > In fact, a pro-White guy in the Pacific Northwest actually named names – Antifa is an Israeli operation.

                  Antifa is ultimately run by George Soros, and George Soros is an enemy of Israel, the most powerful enemy of Israel that there is.

            • peppermint says:

              At least one antifa affiliate is openly funded by Soros, and antifa probably has a high concentration of Jews. I would like them all deported to Israel.

              I wonder if, were Mossad to send some people to train and organize the antifa, they wouldn’t be rejected for being cops, capitalists, and taking showers.

              It is probably true that if there weren’t trust fund ancoms who, figuring they’re not going to stay rich, want to destroy The Rich and live if not like a leader of the commune than at least have no one lording over them, Jews would need to find some other group to counterprotest the alt-right.

              Trust fund ancoms seem like a naturally existing feature of capitalism. They are best ignored except to ridicule them.

              What I’m worried about is your assertion that the deep state is even a little on our side. That attitude should have died in Iraq, or, actually, long before then.

              The judges have been against us since long before the ridiculous decisions of the 50s.

              The professors have been against us since long before the ridiculous race denialism of the 20s and the sexology and psychology.

              FBI has been against us since the days when people joked that half the Klan was FBI.

              We pulled out of Vietnam because we won.

              Lockheed Martin’s F35 isn’t the first expensive turkey. The F117 couldn’t beat ’60s Soviet AAA in the Balkans, and the reason they found Christie McAuliffe’s head and shoulders on the beach is NASA needed to buy parts from everywhere to keep the funding coming in.

              If Apollo had continued any longer, we would all regularly hear from the first nigger on the moon.

              But all of this is because of the nature of the US government. It was in the 20th century imperially ruled by a suicide cult of Christian anglos. And because Tim Kaine’s son was arrested on felony rioting charges and Joe Biden’s son’s wife is divorcing him after he blew tons of cash on hookers and blow, the US government can’t continue to destroy us.

              • jim says:

                At least one antifa affiliate is openly funded by Soros, and antifa probably has a high concentration of Jews. I would like them all deported to Israel.

                To my knowledge, they are all funded by Soros: But Soros wants the one democratic state solution for Israel. Thus antifa being substantially Jewish does not make it pro Jewish, and being in favor of an Israel does not constitute being in favor of actually existent Israel. Antifa and Soros are pro Israel in precisely the way that antifa and Soros pro American.

                They are, naturally, totally opposed to the Jews in Israel being genocided. It is just that they are in favor of measures which, sad to say, are likely to result in the Jews in Israel being genocided. Antifa and Soros are pro Israel in a way that is not sharply different from wanting all Israeli Jews dead, and pro American in a way that is not sharply different from wanting all legacy Americans dead.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  Dude that’s crazy. Pro-Israel, but not pro-Jewish-ethno-Israel. Crazy crazy crazy.

                  I bet they’d be a whole lot less dangerous if they could consistently eschew their own poison. Consistent hypocrisy is a lot less confusing.

                • Ron says:

                  @Mister Grumpus

                  Go up to a leftist and accuse him of being a “fake American”. Watch him completely lose his shit.

                  Same thing.

              • “What I’m worried about is your assertion that the deep state is even a little on our side. That attitude should have died in Iraq, or, actually, long before then.”

                Jim is using the term “Deep State” to simply mean the State Department and the “liberal” side of the CIA. He completely ignores the actual history of the term “Deep State” which comes from Turkish politics and the infamous car crash.

                Jim is just using the “Deep State” to mean “the Democrats” because he want to position Trump as an “outsider” as opposed to simply a representative of a specific faction of the “establishment.”

                The “Deep State” was pretty much against Iraq and the entire purpose of the Iraq War Study Group of 2005 was an attempt by the real “Deep State” to wrest back control of US foreign policy from the neo-cons. The neo-cons – including (((neo-conss))) are not part of the traditional American “Deep State” at all.

                Just compare and contrast CIA director George H. W. Bush with CIA director R. James Woolsey to see the difference.

                If your purpose is to idolize Donald Trump you want to pretend that his (((neo-con))) faction are the “heroes” bravely fighting against the “liberal progressives.” But that is about at the same levels as Democrats saying that Trump is a “Nazi fascist Hitler.”

                • peppermint says:

                  Ok, so who is the Deep State? If they lost against the intelligence agencies and State Department and legacy media in 2002, why do they even warrant our attention, when have or will they ever win?

                  Also what happened to GWB’s foreign policy plans from 2000?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Liberalism vs neocon is split that exists within the Deep State or whatever. The Deep State not being deep at all because it’s the same split that the regular state and the media exhibits.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Deep State Left: Don’t invade Iraq because this will damage Iraq and our duty is to maximise the welfare of Iraq.

                  Deep State Right: Invade Iraq because this will benefit Iraq and our duty is to maximise the welfare of Iraq.

                  Dissident left: Don’t invade Iraq because it will cost us our money and not benefit us.

                  Dissident right: Invade Iraq and take the oil.

                • B says:

                  For a bunch of supposedly iconoclastic deep thinkers, it’s amazing how nobody on the alt-right knows what “Hegelian” means, and the relationship of the way their society is run (by the Deep State too) to Hegelian ideas of progress.

                • B says:

                  It’s also amazing that nobody seems to have a grasp on historical cycles.

                  One way of looking at historical cycles which belongs to Carroll Quigley (who discussed the actual Angloamerican “Deep State” in detail about 70 years before you yahoos picked up the phrase from iSteve) is the seven-stage model:

                  Mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, invasion.

                  The shift from expansion to conflict started in the US around the 1910s. The four signs are declining rate of expansion, increasing class conflicts in the core area, increasingly frequent and violent imperialist wars, and growing irrationality, pessimism, superstition and otherworldliness.

                  The next step is victory by a peripheral state (not the US) and transition to a Universal Empire.

                  Or you can say that the rate of expansion (in terms of knowledge and economics) tanked in the Western world in the late 19th century, and the US is the triumphant peripheral state with its Universal Empire. In which case, the empire is now in decay, which is to be followed by invasion.

                • jim says:

                  Don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

                  We are already in the stage of universal empire. American dominion following world War II was victory by a formerly peripheral state. The core area was Europe and England.

                  However, Europe post dark age has a long history of reinventing itself when it started to go decadent, so the dark age following universal empire is by no means inevitable, though it is the way to bet.

                  The non dark age solution is orderly retreat from universal empire, a period of genuinely independent white ethnochristian states with genuinely Westphalian international law, followed by re-establishment of universal empire on a restorationist basis.

                • Robert Brockman says:

                  B, what do you know about this “Chabad” group that the Kushner family is involved with? I found some evidence that they are heretics within Judaism but you are obviously in a better position to know.

                • B says:

                  Yes, I’m familiar with Chabad. Pretty much every Jew outside Israel has had some contact with them, as well as many prominent non-Jews (here’s a hilarious spazz-out about a running exchange of letters between Reagan and Chabad’s late Rebbe: http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=831832.0)

                  I have many fundamental disagreements with Chabad, but have a lot of respect for their late leader, who was a heroic personage of towering stature. I think many Jews feel this way.

                  During the beginning of the USSR, when it became clear that the government would be actively anti-religious and would use force to push this agenda, all the organized movements of Judaism fled the country except for Chabad, which stayed behind and went underground, maintaining underground yeshivot, kosher slaughter, in short, everything necessary to enable Jews to stay religious. Many paid with their lives or did long jail sentences for this. The previous Rebbe was arrested by the NKVD and almost executed (due to pressure from outside governments, the USSR expelled him instead.)

                  They were the first Orthodox group to take outreach to non-religious Jews seriously. They also engaged in lots of outreach to non-Jewish leaders (see the Reagan thing above). Also, since their efforts and institutions cost money, they’ve done a lot of outreach to various philanthropists. All of which placed them in a good position vis-a-vis, for instance, the Russian and Ukrainian governments and Jewish communities after the fall of the USSR. And of course prominent Jewish Americans, such as Kushner’s father, who may not be of a particularly Chabad bent but see the value in this or that initiative and choose to support it.

                  The vast majority of Chabad people are not heretics, however, most saw their leader as the potential Messiah. In Judaism, this concept is very different from the Christian one. It does not necessarily require miracles or supernatural achievements. They saw their leader as having the stature to bring the remainder of the Jewish people out of exile and establish a state run according to the Torah.

                  With the decline in their Rebbe’s health and after his passing, some minority doubled down, whether to say that he was in fact the Messiah and will rise from the dead eventually to fulfill the proper requirements, or to say that he is not actually dead, etc. Familiar stuff. A very small minority are vocal about these beliefs. Some other portion keeps them to themselves. Needless to say, the belief that someone who has passed away is actually immortal, perhaps divine, and so on, is outside the bounds of normative Judaism. 99% of the Chabad people whom I know (and I know a few very closely) do not share these beliefs, or at least do not share them with me.

                  I doubt that Kushner is a Chabad guy by belief. External appearances point to “no.”

                • Anonymous says:

                  Modern Chabad activism is a long-running public relations stunt initiated by a charismatic rabbi, a rabbi who was otherwise entirely unremarkable. As B said, some of his followers believe that instead of being dead for decades, he’s now playing “hide and seek” with the world, and that he’s going to reappear (reveal himself!) before the rising of the dead, and himself raise the rest of the dead. B would tell you how absurd Christianity is, but just look at the reverential, solemn tone manifest in his writing about these loons. Hypocrite!

                • B says:

                  >The non dark age solution is orderly retreat from universal empire, a period of genuinely independent white ethnochristian states with genuinely Westphalian international law, followed by re-establishment of universal empire on a restorationist basis.

                  Similarly, in order to deal with the health problems associated with old age, the answer is returning to middle age and then youth. And if I don’t like my omelette, all I need to do is just unfry it and unscramble it, then cook it the right way.

                  Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of that?

                  Has anyone ever managed an orderly retreat from universal empire?

                • jim says:

                  The cyclic theory of empire, unlike the cyclic theory of generations, is merely a rough approximation to which actual societies fit quite imperfectly. Dark ages, unlike old age, do not recur reliably and predictably.

                  Things keep falling apart, keep being put back together. And then one day things fall apart and no one can put them back together. Unlike old age, it is fairly random.

                  Our immediate problem is not the dark age, but the left singularity. Leftism is apt to lead to dark ages, since leftism is in large part things falling apart, but there is no consistency in that. Sometimes, often, there is a restoration, as for example Sulla and Charles the second.

                • B says:

                  Again-has anyone ever managed an orderly retreat from a universal empire?

                • jim says:

                  Sulla did a temporary retreat, for example making substantial concessions to the Samnites and the Greeks, because it was more important to save Rome itself, than to save its possessions. Kemal Atatürk abandoned the empire that Erdogan is eyeing to reconquer.

                  Sulla held back darkness, and created a foundation for further greatness. Kemal Atatürk held back the darkness. It is too soon to tell what the final outcome will be for his successors.

                • B says:

                  Sulla’s Rome was not an empire.

                  Ataturk’s Turkey was a fragment that he carved from the total collapse of the Ottoman Empire. There was no order-the establishment of Turkey involved years of intense chaos and total war after decades of less intense chaos.

                  And because Turkey was an artificial nation built on an artificial and made up identity and ideology, it is always ready to flop over into total chaos. Even Singapore is better off.

                  Any other examples?

                • jim says:

                  You, and all cyclic theories, are straining the data to fit the model. If Sulla’s restoration had failed, you would have classed it as a universal empire because it ruled all of classic civilization and then some (Italy, Greece, Spain, North Africa, plus a fair bit more here and there) That is a lot more universal than most of the universal empires that fit the model.

                  You say it was not universal, because Sulla’s restoration soon resulted in an empire that was even bigger.

                  Well if our restoration succeeds, North America will eventually rule not only all of earth, but much of the solar system, and then cyclic history theorists will say that the current North American empire was not universal, so our restoration does not break the model.

                  True, history is somewhat cyclic, but often the data has to be retrospectively tortured to fit. Old age is predictable, dark ages considerably less predictable.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Here’s a question:

        Can you see/detect examples from the past where Don intentionally feigned signals of weakness and defeat, just to set his enemies up for a trap?

        • Alrenous says:

          I thought of this too.

          “Hey Bannon, it looks like I have some assets I can use to destroy some enemies, so I’ma publicly pretend we’re on the outs to lure them into the open. Don’t take it personally, okay?”

          • jim says:

            I hope so, but I fear that Trump may be ditching Bannon, and thus us, for the flattery of his enemies. Which we always knew was the big Trump Achilles heel.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              “For the flattery of his enemies.”

              +1

              What a phrase man.

            • lalit says:

              Flattery of his enemies. Sounds very Gandhian. Who knew that Trump and Gandhi might have the same quality. Gandhi was addicted to receiving praise from Christian missionaries and he was always trying to get his opponents to think well of him while he castrated his supporters. That is what Pagans get for being such a bunch of Dumb-ass clowns.

              • peppermint says:

                after disabling the president by getting Ivanka to cry, shadow president Kushner is reassigning H1B visas from tech workers to Indian military officers to be sent into Afghanistan and the lawless border region UBL was hiding out in

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                Can you elaborate on this? Maybe a particular anecdote? I know next to nothing about Gandhi, but I (naively I suppose) wouldn’t expect something like this.

                • Lalit says:

                  Gandhi was basically a virtue signaler par excellence. He is the greatest enemy the Hindus ever had and he might have castrated them for Good! I am not sure the Hindus will ever recover from Gandhi.

                  A good place to start is here
                  http://www.savarkarsmarak.com/activityimages/The%20Gandhian%20Confusion.pdf

                  Savarkar was a contemporary of Gandhi

                • Alrenous says:

                  Proggies like Gandhi, therefore you know he was full of shit.

                • Lalit says:

                  Absolutely, if progs like anyone, that’s a strong indication of being full of shit. The man was cathedral educated, for crying out loud! Whst he taught the Hindus was essentially turn the other cheek. You can also translate it as bend over and pull down your pants. That man single handedly harmed the Hindus more than 1350 years of struggle with Islam and 150 years of British rule combined. The blows from traitors cut the deepest. Deception by trusted ones hurts the most.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Not very reactionary of you Lalit to oppose British Raj considering their government was 10x more efficient and smaller than both the Mughals and the Gandhi dynasty. How many children did Hindus have under the Raj versus now? Even my Maratha Brahmin friend is a fierce loyalist of the Raj.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Gandhi’s revolution was India being handed to the British priesthood from the British sword aristocracy.

                • Lalit says:

                  Reactionary Oriental Lib, It is a Hindu progressive thing to assert that British Raj was an economic and cultural disaster for India. It is an Indian progressive thing to assert the reverse. Your Maratha Brahmin friend is an Indian progressive and a cuck.

                • Lalit says:

                  ReactOrientLib, a few points you will notice.

                  1. Indians nostalgic about the Raj tend to have views that line up with those of American progressives. Chances are your Maratha brahmin friend is a leftie and an apologist for the Raj and possibly Muslims as well. Not much of a Maratha if he does not realise that the Brits did not take India from the Muslims, rather they took it from the Hindus, more specifically the Marathas.

                  2. Being a reactionary is necessarily a longing to return to the high point of one’s culture. For a Hindu, this is snytime before the Muslims started gaining ground, I.e. 1192 A.D. For an Anglo, somewhere in the 1650s, for a Japanese, somewhere before 1857 or atleast before 1941. For a Roman of the Empire days, somewhere before career crossing the Rubicon. Would not be much of a Hindu reactionary if longed for a Raj. That’s hardly the high point of Hindu culture.

                  3. A longing for the days of foreign domination, in this case the Raj sets one up as a cuck or a traitor. Even if you do not have much of a history via-a-vis culture or accomplishments, the correct attitude is, “let’s make history. Let’s create a culture, let’s create our traditions.” Not let’s invite foreigners back in since we suck. That’s the sign of a cuck.

                • jim says:

                  India had been a great civilization. A long time back, had been technologically superior to Europe and England. When Clive hit it, it was obviously decadent – had been heading into darkness for five centuries. What do you think made it great, and what do you think made it decadent? As a reactionary, need a plan for restoring greatness, and what makes that plan reactionary is that you believe we have lost important social technology, that Chesterton’s fences have fallen down.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Indians nostalgic about the Raj tend to have views that line up with those of American progressives.”

                  Are you sure about this? The standard American progressive line is that the Raj is responsible for all of India’s problems.

                  Considering that he told me Modi is a cuck who is continuing feminism and socialism (urban TFR below replacement, confiscation of savings), while you support Modi, I’m pretty sure he’s to your right. Then again he’s not much of a Hindu nationalist.

                  I am curious though – you don’t consider yourself a leftist, yet you dislike the Raj. What period of Indian history do you think outperforms the Raj in terms of quality of government, and why? Please don’t say “we were independent”, if some rajput is ruled by a maratha that’s foreign rule as much as British rule.

                • peppermint says:

                  ROL probably thinks hk pre-reunification is the best chinese country

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Nah. HK is cucked because of white imposed feminism. Same with Singapore. The Ming are better than them once you account for fertility.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “Gandhi’s revolution was India being handed from the British sword aristocracy to the British priesthood.”

                  Sharp as fuck man.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  There’s no “we” in India. Being a suspension of Indo-European, Dravidian, and hybrid, there isn’t even an underlying racial stock or linguistic group. Quite “real” remnants of the “real” India were around still in 1948 – the princely states – destroyed by Gandhi’s revolution because they were incompatible with the Indian nationalist ideal of Fabian socialism built on top of unitary national parliamentary democracy. You know, the old Indian way.

                • Lalit says:

                  ROL, economically speaking, even the Muslims were better than the British Raj. In 1750, following 1100 years of conflict with Muslims, India had 25% of the world GDP. By 1947, when the Brits left, it was down to 2%. You do the math and tell me which period outperforms the Raj economically. Almost all of them.

                  A progressive leftie in the US swears by yoga for men. A progressive leftie in India thinks of Yoga as a superstition. A prog in the US is a vegan. A prog in India eats Beef and encourages cow slaughter. As Spandrell argues, all politics is local. Progs are basically destabilising to the native culture. Hence the difference in behaviour between progs in India in the west, because what behaviour is destabilising in the west is different from what is destabilising in India.

                  Hindu nationalists see Modi the way white nationalists see Trump. Not ideal, but the best we can do at the moment. BTW, Modi of India has competition for the affections of Hindu nationalists in the form of Yogi Adityanath who is unapologetic regarding his views on Muslims. At the moment the two are allies, but it’s a message to Modi to stay on track or else. Will Bannon provide that competition to Trump? Who will provide that for LePen of France?

                • Lalit says:

                  Jim, what made India great in the past can’t be very different from what made the west great or the romans great. The basic elements remain the same. Good laws, patriarchy, social cohesion etc. How do we get there from here? I have no idea. But I think you have some ideas. Hence I read your blog, Spandrell’s blog, socialmatter.net, follow Richard spencer, ramzpaul and try to adopt your ideas for an Indian context. I know that a good proportion of the Hindu nationalist intellectuals follow white nationalist thinkers though they won’t say it out loud because Uncle Tom. In a sense some of us are trying to do what Japanese intellectuals did after Admiral Perry forced the opening of Japan in 1857. Then there are also several Hindu reactionaries who are studying the past with a reactionary angle instead of the socialist angle of class struggle.

                • jim says:

                  Jim, what made India great in the past can’t be very different from what made the west great or the romans great.

                  Because all races, castes, and ethnicities are the same?

                  What made India great can be very different from what made the west great.

                  Evolution operates quite rapidly. Notice how every political argument by someone Jewish descended is an argument that the person putting the proposition is holier than some other Jew, while Christian descended compete for status on grounds other than holiness. B says he is holy, I say I bang more chicks, and cast doubt on his holiness, on much the same grounds as Jesus cast doubt on the holiness of B’s predecessors. He cooks food in a holy way, I cook food in a clever and complicated way and explain that my way of cooking food is higher status than his way of cooking food. When I did a cooking post, pissed him off no end.

                  If you have a fertile elite, you pretty quickly have an aristocratic elite, as the elite operate the state as a jobs program for their numerous offspring. Kings and popes get tired of rivals spawning more rivals, and discourage elite fertility, or hire non fertile people to be their elites. Pretty soon you have a non fertile elite, which means you have dysgenics. You are breeding for stupidity. Obviously the Dravidians used to be smart, built the Indus Valley civilization, became incapable of maintaining a civilization. Lighter skinned outsiders came in. Rinse and repeat.

                  Aristocracy does not cause eugenic reproduction, rather eugenic reproduction causes aristocracy, but trying to prevent aristocracy, for example the various programs of “inclusion” does prevent eugenic reproduction and cause dysgenic reproduction. Thus, for example, admitting women to prolonged education is dysgenic. Removing IQ loading from the SAT and dumbing down the IQ loaded part of the LSAT is dysgenic.

                  A policy of admitting people into the governing elite primarily on parental accomplishments is likely to give more reliable results than the best of tests, because the apple does not fall far from the tree. Repeating: Aristocracy does not cause eugenics, far from it, but resisting the natural tendency of aristocracies to form does cause dysgenics.

                • Lalit says:

                  Oliver Cromwell, the Hindus do not think via the Racial or ethnic context. They think in terms of culture which to them is very tightly coupled to religion or nationality. The Hindus consider the ancient Greeks and Romans closer to themselves than they do modern Indian Christians or Indian Muslims. The Hindus are a cultural group, not an ethnic group.

                • jim says:

                  Surely caste is absolutely central to Hinduism?

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Compared to the Mughals and Rajputs, it is indisputable that living standards were far higher under the Raj. India’s population barely grew before 1800 but increased several fold later, indicating better nutrition and living standards.You need to compare before and after, not relatively.

                  India under the Raj was a preindustrial agarian society, obviously it was going to grow slower than Western Europe, which was industrializing. However, once foreign investment became a factor (post-1950), then it would have had industrial era growth rates.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Hinduism could be the basis for a revived Indian civilisation, but would neither require not legitimise an Indian state. The current Indian state is required and legitimised by Anglo Progressivism, and is the main threat to Hinduism and Hindu civilisation today. I like Modi and wish him the best of luck, but, like Trump, what I have seen so far is too little too late.

                • Lalit says:

                  ROL, not sure where you are getting you data on living standards from. Let me give you some more data. Prior to British Raj, 14 recorded famines between the 11th and 18th century. During British Raj, look here

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

                  And these are just the major ones. You may talk to the Irish on this matter as well. It seems they have more experience in this area than we do.

                  Here is a short speech by Shashi Tharoor on how Britain ruined India

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hwhtDXSN0XM

                  Mind you I’m no fan of Tharoor, but this speech shows what most Indians think about British rule in India. It was a calamity.

                  Then there is celebrated historian William Durant who believed that the Brits were the worst imperialists of them all.
                  https://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/2012/02/book-revew-case-for-india-will-durant.html?m=1

                  Durant’s book was banned all over the British Empire. The British though are Brilliant at propaganda. The make the nazis and soviets seem like amateurish clowns in comparison.

                • Lalit says:

                  Oliver Cromwell, your observation is absolutely correct. Could not agree more. For the same reason, The global progressive machine will give a Hindu state about as much chance as it will a Stuart restoration or an American monarchy.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Prior to British Raj, 14 recorded famines between the 11th and 18th century.”

                  Maybe 14 recorded famines? I’m pretty sure there were a lot more famines given how Muslims usually rule / wars / etc, I doubt Aurungzeb was that great on you guys, given what I know and what my friend told me. I do have a bias because my interest in the Raj is sparked by Moldbug and I’m more familiar with HK / Singapore, but I am open to sources if you provide it. However, I’m not confident in the source you gave me because it implied British taxed at 50%+, which is above even modern Indian levels and not plausible given its the 19th century. A quick search showed me that:

                  http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/articles/moghul_3.pdf
                  “The British had inherited the Moghul tax system which provided a land revenue equal to 15 per cent of national income, but by the end of the colonial period land tax was only 1 per cent of national income and the total tax burden was only 6 per cent.”

                  Anyways, there clearly was a lot of famines in British India but the population growth was much higher than the preceding period (I don’t know about pre Muslim invasion, maybe not). The only plausible explanation to me of British India’s population far exceeding Maratha / Muslim controlled India is that living standards were a lot higher due to no wars, lower taxes and higher productivity given it was an agarian society without access to modern medicine. However, if you have another explanation I’d be interested in hearing in it, I’m just copying / pasting Moldbug’s hypothesis in this case.

                • jim says:

                  It is clear that the early East India Company had a policy of taxing at the Laffer maximum, and believed the Laffer maximum to be extremely low.

                  It is possible that the laffer maximum was anomalously low due to their policy of ruling with very few Europeans and very few European troops. Or it is also possible that modern government are taxing at enormously above the long term Laffer maximum for ideological reasons – Dubai is obviously taxing foreigners at the long term Laffer maximum, and is taxing them very lightly.

                  The Laffer maximum depends on your time horizon. If you are an army on the march and your time horizon is the next battle, the maximum is to take absolutely everything and burn down what you do not take. The Laffer maximum for today’s democratic governments may reflect a short time horizon – grab everything before the other guy gets elected, distribute it among your supporters, and leave as little as possible for him to grab. If this is so, we would expect tax levels to reflect election cycles, which in fact they do. The shorter the election cycle, the higher the tax level.

                  Elections are advance auctions of stolen good, the more frequent the election, the more severe the pillage.

                • B says:

                  Caste was/is central to actual traditional Hinduism. Which had degenerated by the time Islam showed up to the point that the Muslims could take over most of India with no problem, and the Hindus jumped all over themselves to serve them.

                  I’m talking everything from the conquest of Sindh to the conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor to the conquests of the Moguls.

                  Prior to the Muslims showing up, it was a long chain of outside conquerors-the Kushans, Hepthalites, Greeks, you name it. Only the laziest of the lazy did not conquer India.

                  Every time that a new conqueror showed up, the previous ones joined the enormous rubble heap on which the next administration would be built. Needless to say, they all despised each other and the new rulers, but served them as long as it was profitable.

                  The Brits were just the latest in a long line of conquerors. The only difference is that the Brits were actually intellectually curious about the past of their subjects, more so than the subjects themselves. Aside from building them universities, they also set a bunch of amateur and professional archaeologists, linguists and historians loose on them. These dug up the past of the Indians, which until that point had degenerated into obscurantism and mythology.

                  Guys like Vivekananda (who, not coincidentally, came from the most Europeanized part of the Raj, Bengal, and received a Western education) found actual Hinduism as it existed painfully embarrassing, and so reinvented it as a branch of Unitarianism, complete with Sunday services.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta

                  Obviously, if you’re going to be a Unitarian with a dhoti, you can’t very well believe that the inferior castes are actually inferior, polluted, etc. And if you’re going to spend years running around the US selling your “Hinduism” to Oneida Commune-type proto-hippy Unitarians, you need some way to believe that travelling over the sea does not make you ritually unclean, that the non-Indians are not mlechchas, etc. Or at least pretend.

                  Needless to say, in the minds of real, actual Hindus, caste matters quite a lot, and even beyond caste, color matters-varna, skin color, is huge in arranged marriages. This is despite that there are plenty of Brahmins who are very dark, especially in the South, and plenty of Indians of lower castes who are light. But Western-educated/oriented Indians find this rather embarrassing and will dance around it.

                  PS Modi is an asshole. The great demonetization experiment is a prime example (and I think a globalist experiment to see if it can be done in a major economy-if you can do it in India, you can do it in the US/Europe/China, and then all transactions can be tracked.)

                • B says:

                  >B says he is holy,

                  Where?

                  >I say I bang more chicks

                  This is an argument a chimp would make if it could speak.

                  >He cooks food in a holy way, I cook food in a clever and complicated way and explain that my way of cooking food is higher status than his way of cooking food.

                  Higher status is a relative term. For instance, societies in South Sudan consider a lip plate to be very high status. It would be stupid of me to argue with a South Sudanese about how my kippah is higher status than his lip plate, or with a French chef about how there is value in food beyond just flavor and texture, or with an actual Hindu about how cow dung does not purify one or expiate one’s sins-there’s no common reference point.

                  I can, however, point out that unlike in the past, where scarcity was the major challenge humans had to face, today’s major challenge is surplus and surfeit. In the past, it would be difficult to find enough to eat (for most people) and hard to support children to adulthood. Today, people’s challenges are that they overeat and become obese and diabetic, and that they see sex as a sport, and thus have few to no children. And since survival IS a common reference point, I can say that just as our system of beliefs allowed us to survive as a nation despite an environment of scarcity and its challenges, it is allowing us to survive and thrive despite the current environment of surfeit, surplus, hedonism and its challenges.

                  >When I did a cooking post, pissed him off no end.

                  ??

                • peppermint says:

                  An actual Hindu has already explained that sin and expiation don’t exist. Feel free to explain to a christcuck, however, that eating Jesus in a state of mortal sin isn’t the worst possible type of action.

                • Lalit says:

                  ROL, a lot of what I know about the British Rule comes from my own grandfather who lived under it. He was a rabid anti communist and in a sense passed it on to me. He was also on the communist hit-list for a period of time. Anyway, the scholarly authority on British rule and its effect on India is will durant and it is not very different from what people who lived during that time say. If anything, the 50% number is too low. Some accounts say that assessment was so bad, the cultivator did not have enough to feed his own family.

                  I’m surprised you are so pro British considering what the Brits did in the Boxer Rebellion, the opium wars and the guerilla war in Malaya. You are of Chinese ethnicity aren’t you?

                • Lalit says:

                  Jim, isn’t hierarchy central to human societies? Caste is just an admission that different kinds of humans with different abilities exist. Caste in one form or the other exists all over the world in all societies whether they admit to it or not. There is no word in the Indian language to match schadenfruede. Does that mean Indians don’t experience it. Ofcourse they do. The Germans are honest enough to admit it.

                  Regarding assignment of castes from birth and its rigidity. There is no defence I can offer for it except that by then the culture had degenerated and this what happens as degeneration sets in. lots of theories regarding caste. Some say castes are tribes with the Dalits being the losers in a war. Others say That big offences(treason etc) caused an entire community to be driven to a lower caste as punishment. Was it a better option than genocide? You tell me! What actually happened is not clear.

                  Speaking of untouchability, here is the French practicing it.
                  https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-last-untouchable-in-europe-878705.html%3Famp

                  Here is an Indian talking about caste in Europe
                  http://indiafacts.org/why-is-the-world-so-obsessed-with-indias-caste-system/

                • jim says:

                  You are writing a if I was condemning Hinduism for having castes. On the contrary, I think that cast roles in most cases likely reflect real and important differences between groups.

                  While completely abolishing intergroup mobility is generally a bad idea, restricting it often reflects important realities, which are likely to be more important in India.

                • B says:

                  >Regarding assignment of castes from birth and its rigidity. There is no defence I can offer for it

                  The fact that you seem to feel it needs a defense means that you’re pwned. That your Hinduism is MTV Hindusim, NYT Hinduism, Walmart Hinduism.

                  See, a real Hindu reactionary would feel no need to defend something as fundamental as the caste system to a bunch of mlechchas, much less point to France as an example of “see, they do it too!” He would see it, as all aspects of Hinduism, as an unqualified good thing.

                  But then you’d be left with the problem that without MTV Hinduism, Hinduism lacks a cohesive ideology and worldview, and has lacked one for over 1000 years. So you can’t really be a Hindu reactionary-damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, Lalit might be a neopagan reactionary, proposing neoHinduism because the Christianity that is afflicting India is so horribly cucked. But if Lalit is embarrassed about caste, he is embarrassed by Hinduism itself.

                  What I think happened is that a great civilization suffered dysgenic breeding, became decadent, pessimistic, and defeatist. A bunch of cheerful optimistic bloodthirsty horse riding cattle herders overran them, and set up a system where they were officially great, and everyone else was officially scum, and to be a warrior was the noblest and greatest calling, being a warrior not being all that different from being a brigand. And then the priests of the conquered people started doing clever manipulations to get priests back on top of warriors, and Hinduism is the result.

                • Lalit says:

                  Jim, intercaste mobility was definitely permitted, but not for the individual. It was permitted for the entire group. The Hindus believed more in group identity than in individual identity. Chinese Buddhist monks such as Fahien and hieuen tsang who visited India about 1500 years ago mention such mobility, both upwards and downwards. They also mention that they saw kings belonging to all four castes

                  But yes, abolishing that mobility is a bad idea as all Hindus can now see.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, wrong way around. Keep the caste in place, cream off individuals that compellingly demonstrate that they don’t fit the caste.

                • Lalit says:

                  Speaking of caste, the Japanese had one too, along with outcastes they called the Burakumin. Today they populate the Yakuza. Still seen as outsiders.

                  Caste in Japan got weaker with the Meiji restoration but it’s still there. We’re doing now what they did then. They’re ploytheists like us. Their beliefs are similar to ours. Japan’s doing alright! A good model for us to emulate.

                • jim says:

                  Seems to me that if you have caste mobility with an entire caste moving up or down, your system has failed, and this failure should be seen as a sign that you need to allow some limited intercaste mobility, with the top few people in the caste being elevated by adoption or marriage into a higher caste, and the bottom few people being condemned out and demoted into a lower caste, or remaining in their caste, but denied the opportunity to reproduce.

                  Castes with whole caste mobility just does not make a lot of sense to me. Maybe Hindus have some justification for it that I am not familiar with.

                  All Kings should be of warrior caste, but so should the security guard. Notice that the US fighting military is becoming increasingly hereditary.

                • B says:

                  Notice that aristocracy involves a high style of speech. “Cucked” is the speech of degenerate post-peasants and proletarians. Good for memes.

                  The neo-Hinduism Lalit and his peers ascribe to is actually dug up, reanimated Hinduism which is reshaped to be more palatable to post-Victorian nominal Christians. It is itself “cucked,” like Reform Judaism.

                  As to theories of how the caste system happened, first of all, they’re irrelevant to today’s situation.

                  Second of all, all of Indian history pretty much is the history of people living in a place which is very fertile but awful to live in. Hot as hell, big difference in minimum and maximum day temperatures, full of disease, everyone lives on starch. Crime, misery, dishonesty and superstition are endemic. Invaders from harder, less fertile but less miserable places are constantly drawn to conquer it. And they conquer it, no problem-for instance, Babur had a much easier time taking and holding Northern India than he did Afghanistan, despite the immense riches of the former and grinding poverty of the latter. And it immediately begins to suck the life out of them.

                  As long as they’re connected to their ancestral homeland or larger culture, they are replenished with new talent seeking easy riches. But the second the link is cut, the conquerors begin to wilt and degenerate. Pretty soon, a new group shows up and takes over. The old rulers find themselves down with their former subjects in a servile status. Of course, they all hate and backstab each other, and won’t intermarrry, but they don’t have the energy for a good civil war most of the time.

                  Air conditioning, modern medicine and drip irrigation are all promising to change this cycle, but it’s how we got to this point.

                • Lalit says:

                  I must confess I have not thought too much regarding the caste system, how it got there etc. I myself never knew my caste till I was 14. Never experienced any sort of caste discrimination inspite of being one from bottom. Similar to the US where I did not experience any racism at all.

                  But looking to modern India, it seems caste is on it’s way out since Hindu spiritual leaders do not believe that Hinduism can survive Islam and Christianity and also keep the hereditary caste system. You will not find very few Hindu religious leaders today in favor of a hereditary caste system and almost no one with any influence. They propose to keep all the festivals, the Philosophy,the rituals etc but jettison hereditary caste.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Lalit, have you gone through the Anglo University system? If you had you’d know speaking positively of the Raj is about as popular as speaking positively of the Confederacy. The fact that you cite Will Durant, a Cathedralist per excellence, does not really fill me with confidence. My Indian friend would likely say General Dyer is a better source. Anyways, all the evidence I’ve seen is that taxes were nowhere near modern Indian levels, let alone 50%.

                  Suppressing communists in Malaya was not a bad thing, LKY did it as well. Opium was good. The main way whites screwed Chinese over was exporting Christianity and Communism (but I repeat myself), leading to the Taiping and Communists (which they forced on us). Although without the British Malaya would likely be Chinese, their rule was a lot better than the browns ruling it now.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Keep the caste in place, cream off individuals that compellingly demonstrate that they don’t fit the caste.”

                  Isn’t this the same thing as “no caste system.”
                  You don’t need a legal category for people to self sort. The old Chinese system had well-defined classes with no legal intervention. In fact having a legal classification kind of fuck things up.

                • jim says:

                  No, because there is a presumption that if you are born to a caste, that is substantial evidence you belong in the caste.

                • Lalit says:

                  ROL, Indian academia is controlled my Marxists just like everywhere else but I did not believe them since they kept contradicting themselves. The Marxist view is that India lay helpless before any and all invaders but if only the Indians would adopt Marxism, no more invasions and getting conquered.

                • B says:

                  Speaking of castes, here’s LKY speaking in parliament about why he instituted affirmative action for Malays and why it’s not going away anytime soon, despite the wishes of a representative of Singapore’s Indians:

                  https://youtu.be/eJAv2DFZrgM

                  Notice how completely different his reasoning is to anything you might read on this blog.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t interpret him the way you interpret him, and reading the comments, the commenters do not interpret him the way you interpret him.

                  For example
                  “Billy the Kid” says:

                  Never really like LKY but he’s right about Muslims. Muslims has a tendency to slip into a “Us vs Them” mentality. That’s why I agree that tudung should not be allowed in schools as it will cause more serious social segregation amongst

                  FAthe RHAN6

                  As a muslim, with a very heavy and a disappointed heart, I have to agree with this.

                  Islam in Singapore is run by the state, which is as it should he, for pretty much the reasons I have advocated.

                  Lee piously quotes the Declaration of independence and the US constitution, and then proceeds to use all the prog tropes to justify making Islam an inferior branch of the official state religion.

                  Lee says: “Will we ever make the pegs the same? No.”

                  And then proceeds to list real differences between the communities, and asserts that those differences are ineradicable, and must be accommodated by the state.

                  He proceeds to argue that proggism is best and most effectively implemented by not implementing it because proggism is not in fact true.

                  Unlike Jews, Asians are inclined to be extremely careful around nine hundred pound gorillas.

                • B says:

                  He plainly says that the Malays are inferior, expected LKY’s Chinese to treat them as they would have treated non-Muslims had they captured power, that LKY’s guys are better than that, that as part of the process of making the Malays resemble normal Singaporeans, they get affirmative action, and that this is not going away anytime soon.

                  I really don’t know how you have to interpret that to get anything different.

                  Notably, he’s answering an Indian MP. I don’t know what the Indian said, but assume it had to do with ending AA and going to a meritocracy.

                • Lalit says:

                  So much for the theory that India lay helpless before any or all invaders.
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_campaigns_in_India#

                  This at a time when the caliphate got to the south of France. The Muslims rule in India was never secure. Only the Brits managed to secure their rule. Also, we are the last remaining pagans surviving after 1350 years of Abrahamic attacks. No other pagan/polytheistic civilization has come close to matching the Hindus in this regard. Remember, there used to be a time when except for the Jews, the entire world was polytheist.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  This speech basically showed LKY was a prog at heart, which is obvious if you read his bio. A 1920 prog, but a prog nevertheless. Giving AA to the malays probably ranks as one of his worst decisions, just below encouraging female education and destroying the clans.

                • jim says:

                  A 1920 prog in power is a prog that is most of the way to our side. Hell, a 2008 prog in power is a prog that is on our side, as for example Trump. Remember it is 2017.

                • Lalit says:

                  This paper chronicles Hindu Muslim conflict for 550 years up until Muhammad Ghori in 1205
                  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856407408730690

                  The wiki page summary is here
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_Hindu_Muslim_military_conflicts_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

                  Note that in 95% of the cases the aggressor is Muslim. The Hindus can be faulted for lacking aggression, for being complacent fools, but not for being helpless.

                • jim says:

                  Muslim ruled India when the English hit it:
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mughal1700.png
                  It looks to me that the English saved Hindu bacon.

                  For Hinduism to survive, needs to upgrade the warrior caste and incorporate some elements of Sikhism.

                • Lalit says:

                  Jim, that’s not true. By the time the Brits came, the Marathas had ousted the Mughals. This is the Hindu counterattack that was going successfully until the Brits showed up. The Brits took India from the Hindu Marathas not the Muslims. The Brits saved Muslim bacon by taking over. Look here
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, the map you showed of the Mughal empire goes to 1700. Here is the map showing the maratha empire around 1758
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_involving_the_Maratha_Empire#/media/File:India_18th_century.JPG

                  This should clear things up as to who the Brits really took India from. Also, here is the Sikh Empire reclaiming Afghan territory lost to the Muslims when the Brits hit it.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire#/media/File:Sikh_Empire_tri-lingual.jpg

                  Holds a good portion of the densely populated parts of Pakistan and had taken the Afghan province of Khyber-Pakthoonwala which later became part of the british empire and present day pakistan. It was originally Sikh territory taken from the Afghans. Here is the Sikh Afghan wars
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan%E2%80%93Sikh_Wars

                  The Sikhs did what the British could not/would not do, i.e. take afghan territory. So Islam was on the backfoot in India when the Brits hit it. Hindu nationalists believe that the Hindus were hit when they were exhausted else the Brits would have met the same fate as the Dutch or Portuguese who came to nothing due to defeats at Hindu hands.

                  The misconception that Brits saved Hindu Bacon is firmly believed by the Brits. Fact is that the Brits did everything and continue to do everything to strengthen Islam to this day as part of British Foreign policy. With your permission, I will post some links regarding this British Wahhabi symbiosis beginning around the late 19th century continuing to the present day in other posts which may have less to do with your original post. If this is okay, I will do so as I come across the links.

                • jim says:

                  I stand corrected. The Maratha Confederacy was a Hindu Recovery that was cut short by the East India Company.

                • pdimov says:

                  “This speech basically showed LKY was a prog at heart, which is obvious if you read his bio.”

                  AA for the inferior is very different from AA for the oppressed.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “AA for the inferior is very different from AA for the oppressed.”

                  ? Singaporean AA is way lower than American AA, but it still sucks. LKY did a lot of things to cuck the Chinese like his two child campaign. For gods sake even browns like this https://medium.com/@geethat are allowed to stay. As a 20th century leader, he can only be viewed as good in a relative sense.

            • Alrenous says:

              Really it’s strategy porn. I know all these nifty tricks but I never get to see them used. See also: congenital optimism. He might just be on the stupid pills, but that’s stupid and boring, so I’ma pretend it’s interesting as long as possible.

  9. Glenfilthie says:

    I dunno if any of you have seen it but I am seeing glimmers of it here and there in the mainstream media. Certain politically incorrect articles are starting to appear. Eg Christie Blatchford did a shockingly honest appraisal about how family courts are failing and literally killing men. Other similar articles are cropping up too – but they are always written by ‘safe’ vibrant and diverse authors. I suspect such articles would be meaningless if some privileged evil white man wrote them.

    Maybe this tide of idiocy is finally starting to turn.

  10. Trump is a Likud asset, a goy front man for Jew money, and he always has been for his entire career. Trump spent the entire Obama administration mouth Likud propaganda from Orly Taitz.

    The reason the GOP establishment hated Donald Trump so much is because Trump isn’t a Republican, he’s a Democrat. Trump isn’t a conservative, he’s a liberal. While technically Trump is a German/Scottish Presbyterian, he is spiritually a Jewish convert just like his daughter. We’ve never had a President as stereotypically Jewish as Trump, just like we never had a President as stereotypically gay as Obama or a President as stereotypically black as Clinton.

    Trump represents the Likunikization of American foreign policy – which is terrible – and the Likunikization of American domestic policy, which is not bad at all, but actually quite good for White America.

    Since all the cuck conservative Republicans were bending over for Netanyahu anyway, Trump doesn’t represent much of a change except now when the Deep States tries to stand up to Israel – like they successfully did with their front man Obama – Trump is there to tell the deep state “no” and do whatever Kushners says Netanyahu told him to do.

    That could really be dangerous for America, but I suspect that Jews are just far, far to visible these days. When the next stab (false flag, war, terrorist attack, whatever) in the back comes, everyone will be pointing to the Jew the second the light comes on.

    Netanyahu sold American Jews for Israel – just like Jim said, they have to choose between Israel and Holocaust.

    That’s why at Manhattan cocktails parties it’s common to overhear Jewish CEOs and lobbyists say “sure we hate Trump but we had to support him for Israel.”

    Just like the Russian lady told us – Putin knew Trump was going to win because “our (Russian) Jews in Brighton Beach told us.”

    Trump is giving White America some breathing room to take back control from the Jews and anti-whites. What White America – and the “Alt Right” so to speak – needs to do is stop shilling for Trump and his Jew family, drop the idiot NRx clown talk about monarchy and all that rot, and start organizing a pro-White political coalition to keep pressuring the GOP.

    And, if whites get smart, that same pro-White coalition can switch to the Democrats to punish the GOP is they try to get off the plantation.

    It’s useful for the Alt Right to pretend to be Trump’s biggest fans, while understanding full well he’s only on loan to us from the Jews. Pretending that Trump’s bizarre half-caste family is every going to become a new hereditary monarchy is just an NRx fantasy in the wet dreams of Curtis Yarvin fanboys.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      That was a damned good post, H.R. and spot on accurate

    • jim says:

      And what would the number one objectives of a pro-white coalition be?

      Wall, illegal immigration, rapeugees, H1B, and law and order.

      Trumpism is the pro white coalition.

      What about the Jewish problem, you ask.

      Jews are only a problem because they present clever arguments for evil thoughts, and promote evil thoughts as virtuous and high status, as for example Scott Alexander’s latest, and Trump is doing something about that also.

      Jews are “not pouring poison down our throats”. Rather, those that tell us that poison is tasty, delicious, high status and will make us successful with women are disproportionately Jewish, and they find their own clever words so persuasive that they drink their own poison. Thus Scott Alexander gives us a too-clever-by-half explanation of why his own wrongful and cowardly behavior is wise, virtuous, holy, and high status.

      Trump is countering this, not by gas chambers, which are inappropriate method and less effective than you imagine, but by setting fashions, both personally, and by actions such as having Marvel comics dump tranny Thor, which is both more appropriate and more effectual. Scott Alexander irritates me, but helicoptering him, seems a bit excessive, and giving comic artists new marching orders is not only more humane, but considerably more effective.

      Scott Alexander is not so much evil as weak and frightened. Do you really want to helicopter him? I am sure that when the new Orthodoxy comes into effect, he will claim he has always believed it and will propagandize the new orthodoxy as cleverly as he propagandized the old.

      • “Wall, illegal immigration, rapeugees, H1B, and law and order. … Trumpism is the pro white coalition.”

        Yes, when Trump told his political handlers to listen to conservacuck talk radio and give him three issues to run on, they came up with a) Common Core b) Obamacare c) illegal immigration.

        Only FOXtards give a damn about Common Core and Obamacare, but all Whites care about illegal immigration – and legal immigration.

        Netanyahu saw the writing on the wall and overruled the International Jews to put his man, Trump, in, and the only way Trump could beat the Democrats and the Republicans was by stealing the GOP base by beating guys like Jeb over the head with immigration.

        It worked.

        As for the rest of your stuff about “the Jew problem” – it’s unconvincing. You are desperate for Israelis like “B” to love you, but they don’t, they hate you, and that isn’t going to change. So you can argue Old Testament Bible verses with him and even engage in some low-rent Christian “anti-semitism” because Jews are so “lawyerly” but Jew Israelis like “B” will continue to mock you, your people, your race, and your country because he knows that Trump loves him more than Trump loves you.

        “Tranny Thor?” The length of Trump’s red ties? I guess that is interesting and all but I’m more concerned with immigration, war, the Deep State, etc.

        I want Whites to use Trump, not let Trump use Whites.

        I thought everyone knew that the internet trolls who talk about Anime Hitler and helicopter rides are just that – internet trolls. No one takes Andrew Anglin seriously, he’s a comedian. Frankly, it’s not my sense of humor and I think it’s mostly counter-productive, but I’m not going to suck up to Jews like “B” just because he’s going to call me a “Naaaaaaazi anti-seeeeemite! Fuck him, he’s not even an American.

        • peppermint says:

          Andrew Anglin is a great activist. Hillary would have found a way to silence him. That’s the most important way we’re using Trump.

          B is in his place so there’s no reason to insult him, he’s going to destroy Israel for us anyway. It’s useful to know what our enemies are thinking, this is a thinking blog not an activism blog.

          Either the White race will die out, or all the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. St.’s in every city will be renamed after Hitler.

        • B says:

          >Netanyahu saw the writing on the wall and overruled the International Jews to put his man, Trump, in

          You know, if the Hhhwhites are so dumb and corrupt that Bibi can secretly control them from Jerusalem (Bibi is the genius who gave Hevron to the Arabs back in the 90s-it’s been the epicenter of Arab terror here ever since), perhaps you’re just better off inviting us to rule you openly. By the same theory that the Indians/Pakis/Bangladeshis were better off being ruled by the Raj than by their postcolonial governments manipulated by the IMF and various global organizations, you’d be better off being directly managed by us.

          >I’m not going to suck up to Jews like “B” just because he’s going to call me a “Naaaaaaazi anti-seeeeemite!

          This is a bit of projection on your part. I’ve never seriously called anyone a Nazi or antisemite as a conversational gambit. That would be stupid. Anyone worth being called either of those things 1) writes things that are so obviously antisemitic/Nazi that it’s redundant to call them that, 2) is obviously proud of being a Nazi/antisemite. Just like you can’t shame a tranny and it’s pointless to try…

          >Fuck him, he’s not even an American.

          How old are you, 22? 25? That would mean that I started serving in the US military before you got your first pube, and got out before you could legally buy cigarettes. I earned the privilege of calling myself an American the hard way, and the fact that I chose to chuck that privilege in the trash has a lot to do with the mentality exhibited by guys like you, where it’s a free handout.

          • peppermint says:

            》 I earned the privilege of calling myself an American

            Cool! And I could earn the privilege of calling myself an Israeli by learning to recite Torah verses and then moving there to live on welfare.

            • B says:

              You’d have to convert first, which is a non-trivial process, unless you are already Jewish or have significant Jewish ancestry.

              Which, given the tone and volume of your posting about Jews, is probable.

              • Anonymous says:

                >yfw the next holocaust is committed by Jews against themselves

                • B says:

                  any girl can tell you, nobody is more full of promises than an impotent.

                  a real man does instead of promising, promising, promising…

                • Anonymous says:

                  Don’t cum prematurely, B, it takes some time to get it hard and robust……give it 2 decades

                • B says:

                  promises, promises, more promises…

                  in two decades, you’ll be plugged into Faceberg’s Treblinka sim, sucking soy blend through a stomach tube. Faceberg will get a tenth of a penny every time you click on an in-game ad.

                  eternally alone.

                  eternally unloved.

                  beyond redemption.

                  meanwhile, I will, G-d willing, have ten kids or more, a bunch of grandkids, and a hilltop settlement overlooking the Jordan River Valley from 1000 meters up which I will have helped build.

                  sound good?

                • Anonymous says:

                  As I’ve already told you: “you’re gonna die alone and be eaten by cats” only works if you actually have some solid indication as to the other person’s station in life. Evidently, you don’t. Facebook, seriously?

                  You’re a dual citizen, so I can’t tell you for sure that you’ll drown in an ocean of Jewish blood. But the likelihood you’ll die miserably during the next 2 or perhaps 3 decades is, not to put too fine a point on it, much higher than you ascribe to me.

                  Promises, promises, promises – God’s promises to you are annulled, and Israel will be your last and biggest graveyard. All you have is annulled promises. The goyim have divine mandate to dispossess and inherit you, and by 2040 even obstinate turds like you will admit as much.

                • jim says:

                  Denouncing Jews on the basis of divine revelation is uninformative and gets boring. I shall allow no more of it.

                  You can denounce Jews on the basis of misconduct that led Jesus, or present day people, or the Romans, to get pissed at them, but refrain from accusing them of mind controlling non Jews into wicked or self destructive actions. Blacks may be that helpless and stupid, but whites should not be. Claiming to be mind controlled by hostile evil forces is unhealthy, and if there is some truth to it, it is even more unhealthy.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Not “controlled”, but substantially influenced. Do Jews and Jewish memes not have a substantial influence? Of course they do. If we can’t discuss that, we can’t formulate resistance, and then the influence continues unhindered.

                  If Jewish influence was minor, marginal, insubstantial, then I’d say “who gives a shit about Jews, there are more important issues to worry about”. That’s basically what I had been thinking, up until the full scope of the problem was revealed to me by way of open-minded research.

                  Why B can make claims based on divine revelation, but not B’s adversaries, is beyond me. Are only Orthodox Jews allowed to appeal to scripture? If B denounces me, and you, based on Torah promises, then he should be able to take what he dishes out. You’re making his shilling too easy.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, Jewish memes do have influence, and often it is useful to examine memes cladistically, so that one can say this man’s memes are apt to have the same consequences as this other man’s memes did. Marxist memes obviously have a higher propensity to rapidly go democidal than puritan memes.

                  But when a non Jew does bad things, stupid to say the Jews made him do it, even if he is giving effect to memes that are cladistically Jewish.

                  It makes sense to say “This guys memes are cladistically Jewish, therefore he is likely to wind up murdering millions of people”.

                  It does not make sense to say “This guy’s memes are cladistically Jewish, so let us kill the Jews and not worry about this guy.”

                • jim says:

                  Why B can make claims based on divine revelation, but not B’s adversaries, is beyond me.

                  B claims recent events are evidence that god intends to fulfill the prophecies – without B and his pals needing to do any heavy lifting.

                  If B and his pals had the balls to do some heavy lifting, which they do not, it is quite likely that those prophecies would indeed be fulfilled. So I let him argue prophecy because I hope that someone has the balls to make them come to pass.

                  But I don’t want your prophecies concerning the Jews to come to pass.

                  Further, it would be very wrong for the west to destroy Israel in nuclear fire for basically religious reasons, also highly unlikely. What is far more likely is that Israel’s progs will induce Israel to commit suicide, as South Africa’s progs induced South Africa to commit suicide.

                  The joke #OpenBordersForIsrael is highly likely to come true, if B and his pals continue to wait for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting for them.

                • Pseudonymous says:

                  Jim, out of one side of your mouth you say that ideas are infinitely more powerful than guns, and out of the other side you say that subversive Jewish memes are harmless compared to senseless nigger automobile vandalism.

                  But viruses and memes are not so different. Neither can reproduce themselves without a host. Both are subject to the same evolutionary pressures. When a virus infects a human, is it the virus’s fault for existing, or the human’s for being vulnerable? When confronted with epidemic typhus, do we say, “live and let live,” or do we purify everything with Cyclone B?

                • jim says:

                  I don’t say that Jewish memes are harmless. I say that smashing pawnshop windows and looting vodka distilleries is not going to be successful against Jewish memes.

                • Pseudonymous says:

                  Smashing pawnshop windows and looting vodka distilleries isn’t going to be successful against Jewish memes, but smashing and looting the Fed will be. If you want to take down the Hydra you don’t cut off the heads, you shoot for the heart. Coincidentally, Trump gets to appoint the next chair early next year.

                  P.S. US foreign policy doesn’t make much sense unless its overriding goal is the strength of and maintenance of USD as world reserve currency with everything else a distant second.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

                • jim says:

                  I have always advocating excluding anyone who does not subscribe to the official religion from state and quasi state institutions, such as professorships at high status universities, and advocated an inquisition to check on converts in high status state and quasi state jobs for sincerity. (This is exactly what we are doing now, except that the religion you are required to subscribe to progressivism, and the requirement is informal, rather than overt and official) This would exclude both Orthodox Jews, and Jews who converted to progressivism. Of course I am fairly sure that all the Jewish progressives would overnight convert to the new official religion, but the inquisition would keep an eye on them.

                • B says:

                  >B claims recent events are evidence that god intends to fulfill the prophecies – without B and his pals needing to do any heavy lifting

                  That’s a lie. I did not say we would not need to do any heavy lifting.

                  >smashing and looting the Fed

                  The Fed was established by a conspiracy of six guys: Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg. Only Warburg was Jewish.

                  Marx plagiarized the Manifesto from Victor Considerant.

                  Most of the ideas behind the current American economy were stated clearly in Clinton Roosevelt’s book which he published in 1841.

                  In short, while knocking down the current system might be a great idea (assuming you have something better planned out,) the current system is not particularly Jewish, or based on Jewish ideas, and if you go after the Jews as such, you will miss the matador and gore the cape.

                • Pseudonymous says:

                  >B, the Fed, Jewish values

                  The Old Left was Anglo-led. They were a little bit nuts but not a lot nuts. If I could choose to live in my grandfather’s America I would be a very happy man indeed. The New Left is Jewish-led. They are stark raving mad.

                  The Federal Reserve was established by a conspiracy of Anglos, back when Anglos ruled the country. Jews came to power when Harvard revamped its admissions. Anglos no longer rule the country, and the last four decades of Fed leadership reflect this fact.

                  The Federal Reserve imposes an invisible, untraceable, and unaccountable tax on every dollar in existence, everywhere in the world, as well as on every currency and security based on the dollar, as most currencies and securities are. There is no greater power.

                  That America zealously pursues the maintenance of the hegemony of the dollar nearly to the exclusion of all other interests reveals the nexus of American power. There are other clues, of course: that the Economist, that mouthpiece of the Cathedral, is a Rothschild rag — that the power dynamic of elected officials’ funding reveals them to be little more than servile employees — that when Congress dragged the Fed in to accuse them of trillions of dollars-worth of terrorism, the Fed told Congress to fuck off.

                  (Fortunately, we have their most earnest assurance that they don’t do anything untoward with any part of that trillion or two — the yearly take from the Federal Reserve System’s world-tax-farm.)

                  Killing the Fed kills the American Empire in one stroke, disemploys most of Washington, and nails the New Left to the cross. The American Empire: December 23, 1913 — February 2, 2018. RIP.

                • jim says:

                  The Old Left was Anglo-led. They were a little bit nuts but not a lot nuts. If I could choose to live in my grandfather’s America I would be a very happy man indeed. The New Left is Jewish-led. They are stark raving mad.

                  Jews are indeed more prone to craziness than anglos, but the madness was manifest and escalating in 1820-1865, when Jewish involvement was minor.

                  In particular, you cannot blame Jews for the pedestalization of women. We clearly did that to them. They did not do that to us. And that is what is killing us.

                  It was our evil mind rays driving them mad, not their evil mind rays driving us mad. Removing Jews would at best alleviate the problem a little, but Cthulhu would continue to swim always left.

                  I am aware of the Jewish Question, and B pisses me off a lot. But our survival depends on unemancipating women, and expelling the Jews is not helpful in that, and expelling Orthodox Jews is profoundly unhelpful in that. Though Jews are generally a bad influence, Orthodox Jews are in substantial part a good influence in this matter.

              • Anonymous says:

                >Which, given the tone and volume of your posting about Jews, is probable.

                https://8ch.net/pol/res/9740432.html

              • peppermint says:

                I’ll just go trans and gaymarry a jew lesbian, then she’ll make aliyah and i’ll be a trans orthodox rabbi lolol

    • peppermint says:

      》Jews are creepy and dangerous
      》Trump isn’t /ourguy/
      》we need an explicitly pro-White political alternative
      》tldrx had lots of ideas and most of them are stupid
      》salt

      Put it in a bag and shake it. Perfect for parties.

  11. Anonymous says:

    >Scott Alexander irritates me, but helicoptering him, seems a bit excessive

    Don’t helicopter him. Send him and the rest of Jewry to Israel. Scott will resist such a relocation kicking and screaming, yet he’d be better off for it, as would the overwhelmingly-Nordic Anglo-Americans descendent from the founding stock.

    This land is your land
    This land is my land
    This land is fortunately only for the White Man.

  12. cerebus says:

    If you honestly think Obama told marvel comics what to do with its books, you are insane. Btw there was never a tranny Wolverine, old MAN Logan has been around for years, and marvel planned to bring regular Logan back in 2017-2018 as soon as they “killed” him in 2014. This is an EXTREMELY common tactic in comics and has fuck all to do with Trump.. why are you even blathering about something you know nothing about ?

    Trump has been a total abysmal failure who’s flipped or
    become incoherent on nearly every “promise”… his number one guy is a jewish democrat named Kushner, for christs sake. Stop kidding yourself man!

    • jim says:

      Oh come on.

      I don’t have free speech. You don’t have free speech. You think Marvel Comics has free speech? Like everyone else who is vulnerable to reprisals, they do what they are damn well told.

      • Art says:

        Can you explain the mechanics: how did Trump issue the order to change the characters and what was the threat if they refused to obey?

      • Anonymous says:

        Most run-of-the-mill “shitlibs” are just nerdy goofballs who adopt the political views that are popular among their social circle (which are whatever the talmudvision screen promotes and whatever their faghag girlfriend supports) and therefore, even though they’re pretty apolitical on the inside, they go along with victim-politics because there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain from it.

        They think to themselves: “well, trannies are weird, and I certainly wouldn’t fuck one, but hey, it’s the current year, need to be tolerant, I guess.” When they sense that perhaps they don’t really need to go along with that madness, they kinda revert back to being apolitical, their natural state. By all means, these aren’t “natural conservatives”, not even close.

        GamerGate was not shitlords furiously exploding in a revolt against SJWs. It was relatively apolitical, moderate leftist, milquetoast liberal gamer-types telling the fanatical SJWs to cut the bullshit and leave them alone to enjoy their degenerate vidya hobby unperturbed.

        Pseudo-shitlib: “Hey, whatever you do in bed is none of my business, and oh yeah, I love strong women, big fan, and God knows I’m not a racist, I have black friends and my girlfriend is Asian, can you believe it, how awesome – yay me, so like hey, let’s just live and let live, shall we?”

        SJW: “ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag for 20 years – k bye!”

        Pseudo-shitlib (to fellow pseudo-shitlibs): “guys, umm… I think we have some sort of a problem, here.”

        My point is that, given the chance, shy introverted dorky nerds will opt for apolitical hobby-indulgence. And it seems that they’ve got the feeling that, now that political correctness is publicly challenged by none other than POTUS, their chance has arrived. It’s not that Trump personally made direct phonecalls to the right executives. It’s that he’s there at all.

        These people — comics fans, vidya fans, you know the “type” — aren’t shitlords, certainly not Traditional Conservative Right-Wing Christian Republicans, and if they chose to ditch the victim-politics insanity, it’s not because they’ve been proselytized away from SJW and initiated into GTKRWN – it’s because they’ve never really bought into SJW, and are glad and relieved they’ve got the chance to go back to their apolitical hobby-life.

        In short, the Overton Window did not shift to the right, so much as that a certain segment of the population ceased to pretend it’s on the same side and on the same page as Feminist Communists, and commenced staking its own safe space. Real left-wingers did not lose power, and did not move to the right.

        Fake leftists, leftists of convenience, stopped being hypocritical, and stopped being agreeable, and asserted, with an earnestness (belatedly) found due both to SJW excesses and the rise of Trump, their own interests independent of the interests of SJWs. The Cathedral is as Left as ever, and growing Lefter by the minute, it’s just that some people, quite a lot of people, have disengaged from it due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Lines are being drawn. The winds of war are blowing.

        And if the wind is blowing, it could be a sign that… a Storm is coming.

        • jim says:

          > Pseudo-shitlib: “Hey, whatever you do in bed is none of my business, and oh yeah, I love strong women, big fan, and God knows I’m not a racist, I have black friends and my girlfriend is Asian, can you believe it, how awesome – yay me, so like hey, let’s just live and let live, shall we?”

          > SJW: “ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag for 20 years – k bye!”

          The Social Justice Warrior does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag. Rather he thinks that if it was not for “bullying” all nine year old boys would be gay and they would all be fucking in the classroom a great big pile. When a great big pile fails to ensue in the classroom, escalates the war on “bullying”, until it starts to look remarkably like sending all cisgender males to the Gulag for twenty years.

          This is cultural Marxism doing the same thing as original Marxism. The original Marxist were going to emancipate the peasants from the landlords, and utopia and abundance would ensue. Utopia and abundance failed to ensue. Obviously invisible intangible landlord oppression. Therefore, war on kulaks, which liberation of the peasants looked curiously similar to war on the peasants.

          And thus, today, instead of war on kulaks, war on cis hetero patriarchal oppressors. They are liberating us from being “bullied”. They are indignant at our lack of gratitude.

          • Anonymous says:

            >The Social Justice Warrior does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag.

            Not only they do think that, but the most vocal advocates for it are themselves self-hating hetero males. Cynicism is lacking among true believers. Boomers were LARPing, but millennials on Tumblr aren’t LARPing – when they say “whiteness is oppression”, they truly believe that getting rid of whiteness will prevent or diminish social injustice. As you are fond of saying, millennials were not “in on the joke”, and take the propaganda fed to them dead-seriously.

          • Anonymous says:

            In much the same way Marx envisioned the abolition of capitalism as something clean, orderly, instrumental, and largely symbolic, while his followers had no time for nonsense and fancy jargon and took to spill blood to achieve Utopia now, the millennial True Believer, atomized, hopeless, desensitized, and overstimulated to the point of autism, really wants the “good guys”, sundry victim groups and malcontents, to overcome the “bad guys”, people who ostensibly have it good in life –

            – xir’s view isn’t nuanced, and is bolstered by the “safe space” echo chamber of fellow SJWs, so the millennial isn’t content to merely mouth platitudes and write slogans, thus, you’ve got Antifa, who are basically anarcho terrorists, and BLM, thugs supported by the SJW establishment, not to mention rampant Islamic terrorism, which is often supported by the very cucks these terrorists massacre on the streets. Of course, there’s still an abundance of wealth to go around, hence you don’t see mass murder and butchery as you saw in the first half of the 20th century, but when SHTF, you can expect millennials to far exceed in sadism, cruelty, and wastage of blood and limb their predecessors.

            Things can and do get very gory when you’ve got nothing to lose. If civilizational decline reaches point of no return, and metastasizes to full-on social collapse, there will be blood running in the streets of every Western city, and I suspect that the Tumblrinas can viscerally sense that, and are mentally preparing for that day – it’s not only alt righters who imagine day of the rope and helicopters, leftie commies have some vivid imagery of their own. Those who write about abolishing this and abolishing that should be taken seriously, because they are serious.

            Those accustomed to safety and luxury go pretty mad when these suddenly become inaccessible. As they say: “you won’t believe what happens next.” Well, you better believe, because the day isn’t all that far off.

            • peppermint says:

              Do you hang out with milennials, or are you assuming that propaganda directed at children without also giving them opportunities in life makes true believers?

              Tim Kaine’s son is antifa because he believes that he has a better future with commies than working for a living.

              Other White milennials will recite prog slogans on demand and say nigga on teamspeak in their vidya.

  13. peppermint says:

    Good Friday is the celebration of not quite throwing a commie jew out of a helicopter, but the next best thing, nailing him to helicopter blades.

    Easter is the celebration of a commie leader rising from the dead. Commie leaders are known for these kinds of miracles and for asserting that they are the only people who actually care about science – seriously. The followers of this commie to this day say science would not be possible without his philosophical contributions.

    Passover is the celebration of a Middle Eastern massacre of children with WMD that today would be responded to with an airstrike.

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >Some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, have a distinctive appearance which is parodied as large hooked noses.

    Ebin maymays aside, I’d say the most distinctive feature above all is the rat face.

    Take (((John Oliver))) for instance; no so prominent a schnozz, but total rat face.

    Once you know what to look for, you can recognize it everywhere.

    • Anonymous says:

      What I want to know is whether the average Ashkenazi is dolichocephalic or brachycephalic. It is known what the average Ashkenazi skull looks like, but how is it classified?

  15. Turtle says:

    The state church will claim to be Episcopalian, and will have a married and patriarchal clergy, though it will swipe most of its beliefs from Orthodox Christianity, in particular the communion of saints.”

    Then, jim, you need Orthodox men, mostly foreigners, because of demographic limitations, whether naturalized American citizens or not, to be in

    charge, together with the very few non-cucked, non-churchian Episcopalians. Nuns would help run hospitals, schools, etc., just like Roman Catholic ones did quite recently in America. Everyone seriously desiring to expand American Orthodoxy believes the main growth-method is accessible (not just in rural outposts) monasticism. Greece has urban monasteries, even in Athens. I could tell you more about how Orthodoxy works, but you don’t seem interested in learning much. If you do want to learn quickly and without visiting a church, start with “The Orthodox Way” by Metropolitan (ranking higher than an archbishop) Kallistos Ware, who is considered a prolific genius, knows biblical Greek, and is an Englishman. Even prog. public libraries have this book.

    I am sure that most evangelicals would accept bishops and Orthodox beliefs if Trump lead the new church’s imperial wing. But the name,
    “Episcopalian,” is ineffectual and unpleasant: it come from the Greek “episcop” which makes it non-modern, great, but it’s not English.
    “Bishopric Church” makes more verbal sense. It’s Western, new, and starting the name with a consonant, B, not E, is more structured and
    masculine-sounding. “Patriarchal Church” might be better.

    However, there are clerical ranks other than bishop, such as Patriarch (the Church of Russia’s head; and the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople/ Istanbul is #1 in Orthodoxy), Metropolitan (a major city bishop), Archimandrite (usually an abbot), Archpriest (maybe 15% of all presbyters), and Archdeacon (the whole church’s head deacon), besides many lower ranks.

    Also, I’m offended, without questioning your intentions, that you want to use the Church as a means to worldly ends. That’s not why I go to church, and nobody sincerely faithful cares that much about prog this or reactionary that. We’re moderates on politics, because we don’t know what exactly to “render unto Caesar,” as opposed to the heretics who think when Jesus refers to “what is Caesar’s,” he means everything or nothing. So being an Orthodox Christian, I think you need to be educated about the Church before you make decisions for her.

    Besides my book recommendation, here are quick, free links:
    https://orthodoxwiki.org/Category:Intro_to_Orthodox_Christianity_series
    https://orthodoxwiki.org/Differences_in_Mindset_among_Western_Rite_Orthodox

    The West’s place in Orthodoxy is controversial. I’m not educated on it, and most Orthodox people are anti-Western without meaning to be- we don’t know the Western Church because she was supplanted by heretics. We should know better, and I’m learning, but not at my parish yet.

    • jim says:

      Also, I’m offended, without questioning your intentions, that you want to use the Church as a means to worldly ends. That’s not why I go to church

      For the last seventeen hundred years, Orthodox Christianity has been in bed with Caesar. Russian Orthodox got in bed with Stalin during World War II, and remained in bed with the commies till they fell. After Putin took power, they got in bed with Putin.

      Seems to me that my worldly ends, and Putin’s worldly ends, are a lot more compatible with the proper role of the Church than Stalin’s worldly ends.

      • Turtle says:

        Orthodoxy is not everywhere endorsed by Caesar. The relationship varies by place and time. You might like Father John Romanides’ history of the Roman Church, which separates the “Franco-Latin” invasion, around the time of the West-East/ Catholic-Orthodox schism, from earlier unity across Europe.

        One metric of in bed-ness is chaplains, and in America there are very few Orthodox chaplain and similar workers such as psychologists. Within the U.S., only Alaska has politicians who support Orthodoxy, and there are 2-5 Orthodox congressmen.

        Some Russian Orthodox are not in bed with Putin. The Old Believers seem independent, because of their history of persecution by the Russian czar, until Stolypin relieved them.

        http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/big2x/BnPLv0Vrd0GhPXqaetWAwVKKVwZkfIA7.jpg

        Russian Orthodox were massacred during the communist-atheist revolution, especially ~80,000 priests. So they couldn’t just join the atheists, the oppression continued. And the ROCOR (outside Russia) church was not with Stalin, and their joining with the Patriarchate (who get along with Putin) is controversial. It caused a schism, and I don’t know how many left.

        Politicizing the Church as a status engine does not seem feasible to me. I mean that was tried, and the czar’s fall was the result- ordinary believers lost faith in the Church and their Czar when they were in bed with each other badly, during the ‘Synodal era,’ when the Church was just a department of the government. Peter the not-Great was very destructive this way. I think that your worldly ends would corrupt both the Church and society, so more independence is needed.

        Stalin partly based his requirements for Stalinist art on Orthodox ikonography (with forms/ style mostly from the Byzantine Roman empire). It’s an odd expression of a cultural inheritance.

        Putin never explicitly endorses the Church, only allying with it carefully. He uses it for conservatism, and basically, he might be in bed with Her, but he does not marry her. His father confessor says he is an ordinary Christian, so the Church is somewhat neutral on him, except that time they made an ikon of him, as if he were already a saint.

        I do think you agree with the Church more than Stalin did, but less than Putin does, in that he knows the Church, and you don’t. Your focus on bishops, not all hierarchs and clergy, is a mistake, like obsessing over colonels, not generals or all officers. And you don’t know how Western Rite Orthodoxy works, you want an Episcopalian plaigiaristic Church. That’s really crude,because it ignores an existing Tradition. Why bother making the Church vague and derivative?

        • jim says:

          I don’t agree with your history. The supposed independence of the Christian Church from the state is very recent and very fake – observe Roman Catholics preaching progressivism instead of Roman Catholicism.

          The Roman Catholic Church was only independent of the state to the extent that it had its own Roman state. When Charles sacked Rome it became subordinate again. The Eastern Orthodox Church was never independent except for a brief period when the Communists were trying to suppress it altogether.

          America has a tradition of Episcopalian ruling churches, which tradition was violently suppressed after the civil war. Instead we have a ruling progressive Church, which is derived from, and has institutional continuity with, the ruling Church of Massachusets. The Civil War in large part a holy war between Churches, and if the religion of America is going to be Christian, rather than progressive, we need to reverse that outcome.

          Or perhaps introduce official paganism, but I doubt that one is feasible. Christianity is not so dead as to be incapable of another resurrection, but paganism is truly dead.

          • Turtle says:

            Roman Catholics who left after Vatican II to be traditional(-ists) are not prog’s. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not just Rome and Moscow, there are many patriarchates, 5 main ones- Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and originally, Rome. Each has its own history, and I don’t know them. Most Orthodox laypeople don’t even know their own Patriarchate’s history.
            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Patriarchate
            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Pentarchy

            Father J.S. Romanides does cover the sack of Rome in his history and much more. His work is really interesting. There’s much in Orthodox history you did not respond to from my comment.

            So what about Western Rite Orthodoxy? Is that not in line with American-Episcopalian history? And how can the Russian synodal era’s fall not be repeated with an American Church? And why call your new Church Episcopalian if that already failed before, mostly because Protestantism always fails?

            • jim says:

              The Constantinople patriarchate is powned by progs, like the Roman Catholic Church, meaning it is owned by the state department. Same with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I don’t know about the others that you list.

              But we don’t have a church separate from the state, apart from powerless and persecuted cults, and we never will.

              Thus the relationship between throne and altar needs to be formalized, with the altar backing the throne, and the throne the altar, and the throne exercising power over the altar in those matters proper to Caesar, and the altar exercising power over the throne in those matters proper to God.

              • Turtle says:

                Alexandrian Patriarchate- mostly Copts, who are perhaps the original Egyptians, and get bombed by terrorists too often to be fully cucked, not that they fight back

                Antiochian P.- mostly Aramaics, Assyrians, various non-Arab Near-Easterners, and some Arabs. Very friendly with B. Assad, until the war started, still doing charity for Syrian Christians, who tend to support Assad. So, perhaps, not very cucked.

                I don’t trust most modern Church hierarchs, but a small cult might actually have more local power, within their communities, than a big, corporate church infested by the CIA, like Rick Warren’s Saddleback. Only CIA-approved churches get to send their missionaries to, say, the D.R. Congo. Warren sent ~2,000 missionaries there. My point is that the current “deep throne” is in bed with the shallow altar, so this is how it always is, architecturally- castle, temple, marketplace, shops, farms, etc. No other structures are found by archeologists.

                We mostly agree on what is possible for the Church, but there are some questions you haven’t answered. I won’t press you on them, besides suggesting that you learn more about the Western Rite if you want to assimilate Orthodox dogma into a new American Church.

        • jim says:

          > Orthodoxy is not everywhere endorsed by Caesar.

          Where orthodoxy is not endorsed by Caesar, some other state church, such as Islam, progressivism, or communism, is endorsed by Caesar, and Orthodoxy is being forcefully repressed and/or pressured to conform to the state religion.

          And, in reality, is conforming to the state religion.

          • Turtle says:

            This was awkwardly funny when the supreme court overturned CA’s Prop. 8, thus recognizing same-sex sodomy as marriage. The local bishop continues to say “different people have defined marriage differently for a long time,” as if the ruling has no effect in the big picture. And the sermon that Sunday was ridiculously tepid and vague. Other churches end up on the SPLC’s list of haterz. But, so do environmentalists concerned by “over-population.”

            I know there are no religiously neutral states. Bhutan might be more tolerant than most, but that was ruined when they got satellite TV, causing an instant spike in crime, including murder. Religiously compassionate prog’s get mighty reactionary when they learn how quickly TV-mediated culture ruins a country, and many people’s lives. They suddenly want censorship, strict borders, and all sorts of barriers and restrictions, like… a Wall. But not for us, oh no. Only for Bhutan, which is like their Buddhist fairy/ elf state (because everyone adores cut,e innocent, liddle Asians, right? I just mean that progs, too, are racist, even when attempting benevolence).

            Orthodoxy allows people to perhaps be saved, and thus not go to hell. So the state religion can establish all sorts of worship activities, and most of my parish’s families home-school because of this. Until college, when it’s time for their kids to learn how to be a SWPL prog. Few young adults stay.

  16. B says:

    >The Roman Catholic Church was only independent of the state to the extent that it had its own Roman state.

    Not so much for most of its existence, but it was able to pull a Singapore and be a sort of Schelling point for a bunch of mutually opposed vested interests.

    >The Eastern Orthodox Church was never independent except for a brief period when the Communists were trying to suppress it altogether.

    Their whole shtick was built on the idea that the Russian state was in some way G-d’s representative on earth. Then the representative turned out to be impotent and betrayed its own people and of course the church. The guys who had principles either died or fled or went deep underground (the Catacomb Church.) The guys left today are the disciples of the ones who cut a deal with more or less their antichrist. And once trust is betrayed, it won’t come back. They can bless all the fighter jets they want, and the Russian people will play along, but the trust is gone.

    >Christianity is not so dead as to be incapable of another resurrection, but paganism is truly dead.

    You’ve changed positions (in a positive direction) without acknowledging it.

    Let me help you out: Christianity is even deader than paganism, because what we have been watching die is not Christianity. It is the reanimated corpse of Christianity, dancing for the benefit of the preachers, politicians and worshipers who want to believe. Christianity itself died centuries ago.

    Carlyle:

    Not long ago, the world saw, with thoughtless joy which might have been very thoughtful joy, a real miracle not heretofore considered possible or conceivable in the world,–a Reforming Pope. A simple pious creature, a good country-priest, invested unexpectedly with the tiara, takes up the New Testament, declares that this henceforth shall be his rule of governing. No more finesse, chicanery, hypocrisy, or false or foul dealing of any kind: God’s truth shall be spoken, God’s justice shall be done, on the throne called of St. Peter: an honest Pope, Papa, or Father of Christendom, shall preside there. And such a throne of St. Peter; and such a Christendom, for an honest Papa to preside in! The European populations everywhere hailed the omen; with shouting and rejoicing leading articles and tar-barrels; thinking people listened with astonishment,–not with sorrow if they were faithful or wise; with awe rather as at the heralding of death, and with a joy as of victory beyond death! Something pious, grand and as if awful in that joy, revealing once more the Presence of a Divine Justice in this world.

    For, to such men, it was very clear how this poor devoted Pope would prosper, with his New Testament in his band. An alarming business, that of governing in the throne of St. Peter by the rule of veracity! By the rule of veracity, the so-called throne of St. Peter was openly declared, above three hundred years, ago, to be a falsity, a huge mistake, a pestilent dead carcass, which this Sun was weary of. More than three hundred years ago, the throne of St. Peter received peremptory judicial notice to quit; authentic order, registered in Heaven’s chancery and since legible in the hearts of all brave men, to take itself away,–to begone, and let us have no more to do with it and its delusions and impious deliriums;–and it has been sitting every day since, it may depend upon it, at its own peril withal, and will have to pay exact damages yet for every day it has so sat. Law of veracity? What this Popedom had to do by the law of veracity, was to give up its own foul galvanic life, an offence to gods and men; honestly to die, and get itself buried.

    • Turtle says:

      I don’t get what Carlyle was saying, perhaps because I’m dumb, perhaps because he was ignorant.

      I don’t get why you and jim agree, for once, that Orthodoxy = Russia. That’s almost like Judaism = Poland.

      Arguably, Judaism died when it failed to stop Christianity. And if ‘Nazarenism’ is a heresy, wasn’t it never alive? When was it alive, until the Protestant Reformation? Can you decide on a specific year or era when it died, B?

      • B says:

        Carlyle was not ignorant.

        You might want to read his whole screed.

        Russian Orthodoxy was Russia, or rather, the other way around-it was a branch of the Russian government in some ways. It placed religious significance on the Russian monarchy. When that monarchy collapsed on itself, a basic pillar of Russian Orthodoxy collapsed. I do not know very much about the other Orthodox churches.

        Judaism has a similar relationship with the monarchy of Judah, the Temple etc. prior to the Babylonian Exile (the Orthodox Christian relationship to the Russian state was, I believe, modeled after it.) Judaism survived the destruction of the monarchy and exile in large part because of the Prophets and the Sages, who survived the exile and continued in their functions. Judaism did not have such a relationship with the various regimes of the Second Temple era, or needless to say the ones we lived under in exile…

        I can’t say specifically when Christianity died. Carlyle, a sort of Protestant, says it was during the Reformation that the Catholic Church died. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? I know that Nietzsche said that god is dead, and he meant that the vast majority of educated Europeans either disbelieved outright or secretly.

        Judaism does not define itself in relation to Christianity, Sadduceeism, Islam or any other religion, and certainly doesn’t see its job as “stopping them”…Judaism survived because Jews continued to believe the same things they always had, and practice them. Obviously, many, many Jews stopped believing and dissolved into the surrounding masses. This is nothing new-look at the Hellenizers, 2000 years ago.

        • jim says:

          Judaism survived because Jews continued to believe the same things they always had,

          Jews don’t believe the same things they always did. They are always forgetting, or discovering loopholes in, old laws, for example you do not actually worry about eating nerves any more, thanks to legalistic loopholes too absurd to bother ridiculing, and always engaging in new holiness competitions, thus always discovering new laws, for example double dishwashers and restricting strollers on the Sabbath. Your levites have been completely disempowered.

          Jews were patrilineal and sternly patriarchal from Israel the Patriarch to the fall of the temple. At some time after the fall of the temple, Jews became matrilineal and far less patriarchal, with female sexual choice, delayed marriage, female initiated divorce, and so on and so forth. This resulted in five layers of radical rewrites in the Talmud and Rabbinic commentary of laws concerning sex and women.

          The only substantial things you have in common with the original Jews is enlarged phylacteries and such – that you are still engaged in the holiness competition that got you in trouble with the Romans and your Greek neighbors.

          The problem is that the rabbinate was selected for holiness, while the priesthood was based on noble blood. So the rabbinate is prone to go crazy, and went crazy on the Greeks and the Romans.

          • B says:

            >are always forgetting, or discovering loopholes in, old laws

            This is your conclusion, which you assume. Have you sent that bottle yet?

            >for example you do not actually worry about eating nerves any more

            Really? Please enlighten me-what nerves did we worry about eating? And what is that thing that I remove from the rear legs of the animals I slaughter and eat? Maybe you want to teach me how to slaughter, too?

            >Your levites have been completely disempowered.

            Yes, they don’t have a Temple. What else is new?

            >So the rabbinate is prone to go crazy, and went crazy on the Greeks and the Romans.

            Oh, that’s what happened?

            You should really try reading Josephus sometime. I mean, looking at the words, saying them to yourself, etc.

            First you tell me that the Jews went and tried to massacre the innocent Greeks for minding their own business, and then killed some poor Roman official who tried to stop them.

            Then it turns out that Josephus says that the Greeks sent a guy into the synagogue to defile it, the Jews got in a fight with him and then left when the Greeks rioted and overpowered the Roman official who tried to stop it, and that the Greeks massacred the Jews who stayed behind.

            Now you tell me that the rabbis were behind the whole thing, that the holier-than-thou rabbis were the extremists. Earlier, you used the example of Eleazar torturing and killing Menahem. Who was Eleazar? Was he a rabbi?

            “At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner.”

            Eleazar was a PRIEST.

            When you can’t get a single basic detail right about events described in a simple text which is available in plain English translation online, why would I take your sweeping judgments about 3000 years of our history, traditions and laws seriously?

            • jim says:

              The Jews of Caesarea. did not really intend to massacre their Greek neighbors – who heavily outnumbered them. Rather, things got out of hand. Predictably and foreseeably got out of hand. And yes, they killed the Roman Master of Horse, who was their ally, come settle the dispute in their favor.

              Josephus says that the Greeks sent a guy into the synagogue to defile it

              Josephus says no such thing.

              And I am disinclined to argue my reading of Josephus with someone who pronounces Caesarea at the time of the fall of the temple to be Greek with insults and indignation, and non Greek with equal insults and indignation.

              • B says:

                >Josephus says no such thing.

                You are dyslectic?

                “The seditions also among the Gentiles of Cesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand [as ready to support him;]”

                >yes, they killed the Roman Master of Horse,

                “he was overcome by the violence of the people of Cesarea”

                Josephus uses “people of Cesarea” to mean non-Jews in other places in the book.

                • jim says:

                  >Josephus says no such thing.

                  You are dyslectic?

                  “The seditions also among the Gentiles of Cesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand [as ready to support him;]”

                  Your claim was that Josephus says “sacrifice in the synagogue”

                  The material you quote fails to say “in the synagogue” or even say “on land owned by Jews”

                  Therefore, the sacrifice was conducted on the path used by Jews entering the synagogue over someone else’s land, to prevent them from using that path, that being the issue in dispute, that Jews were entering the synagogue over someone else’s land, and the owner of that land did not want them to do so.

                • B says:

                  “got an earthen vessel, and set it with the bottom upward, at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds…and the place was polluted”

                • jim says:

                  If a courier leaves a parcel “at the entrance” of my house, he does not enter my house.

                  And since the Jews were entering via someone else’s land, “the entrance” is not necessarily on their land.

                  And “the place” that was polluted, is, in context, that entrance.

                • B says:

                  Oh, come on, Johnny Cochran. They could not have cared about public property being polluted-they lived in a city full of idolatrous Greeks.

                  The only thing that would have gotten them pissed off is if the sacrifice polluted their synagogue. And it’s their synagogue which Josephus refers to as “the place”.

                  Obviously, the guy didn’t go all the way in, because he probably would have gotten trapped and beaten half to death, and his job was to lure the Jews into a trap, which he did.

                • jim says:

                  The only thing that would have gotten them pissed off is if the sacrifice polluted their synagogue. And it’s their synagogue which Josephus refers to as “the place”.

                  If the Jews of Cesarea had legitimate cause to be pissed off, Josephus would have given us that legitimate cause chapter and verse. He does not.

                  The Greeks remain in possession of their makeshift altar, despite the outraged Jews, therefore “the place” is located on their land, it is the “entrance”, on the path that Jews are trespassing on to enter the synagogue. If they sacrificed in the synagogue and fled, the Jews would have possession of the altar, or else the Greeks would have caused the altar to disappear altogether.

                  The Jews, then as now, were, like yourself, looking for trouble with potential allies and finding ways to alienate them.

                  Because Josephus does not present legitimate cause for the Jews of Cesarea to murder potential allies, you proceed to make up stuff that is not in fact found in Josephus.

                  The Greeks were being extorted by the Romans and the Jews were being extorted by the Romans. So what do the Jews do? While heavily outnumbered, they cook up trouble with the Greeks.

                • B says:

                  Johnny Cochran style acrobatics. And then you accuse others of torturing the text.

                • jim says:

                  When someone delivers a parcel to the entrance of my home, he does not enter my home. The entrance is the driveway and a post with my house number on it, or the stairs leading to the door, or perhaps even the doorstep. But he does not open the door and go inside.

                  And when someone engaged in pagan sacrifice at the entrance to the synagogue, the makeshift altar remained in Greek hands. If Greeks had invaded the Synagogue, or even set foot on Synagogue land, Josephus would have vehemently told us .

        • Turtle says:

          “You might want to read (Carlyle’s) whole screed.”

          Link, please. And how long is it?

          I do assume Protestants are ignorant, because they are heretics, and I don’t want to believe they just lie on purpose. I have read some Carlyle, and was disappointed. I don’t find him appealing.

          In most people’s view, Judaism has lost to Christianity in terms of who interprets the Old Testament / Torah / Pentateuch. And it’s hard to find ethnic Jews who have read even a single page of the Torah.

          B, I’m not sure why you respond to bullying here. You’re not winning anything, and it fills the comments with unpleasant bickering. It’s unpleasant because nobody learns anything. It feels like copypasta to read it. I just want you to know how I see these threads centered on describing what kind of Jew you are- they’re boring.

          • B says:

            Meh, it’s mildly entertaining. Becoming less entertaining with repetitiveness.

            Carlyle is long-winded. You can google the parts I quoted and find all his works online

            It’s not hard to find ethnic Jews who have read a single page of the Torah. Anyone who is observant reads/hears the weekly Torah portion, and the portions cover the whole Torah over the course of a year.

          • Anonymous says:

            >B, I’m not sure why you respond to bullying here. You’re not winning anything, and it fills the comments with unpleasant bickering.

            He finds it edifying to argue with coherent, articulate antisemites.

            When we see that:

            A) B proudly admits to be on the same side as Spectre, Ignatiev, Trotsky, and Bela Kun (“brethren!”) vis-a-vis the goyim;

            B) B has the audacity to argue for Jewish invincibility based on the fact that the Germans made “only” a third of worldwide Jewry disappear;

            C) B then proceeds to claim that if someone wants the Jews gone, obviously he’s an incorrigible defective malcontent, rather than someone who’s reached a perfectly logical conclusion based on Jewish behavior;

            And then, after all that, when his “why do these amalekites persecute me so?” non-arguments get crushed completely, not with one-liner digs (“I heard Auschwitz was a gas!”), but with calm cool-headed reasoning, it raises his dopamine levels — it’s exciting — and besides leaving him with some food for thought, something non-kosher to chew on, it kinda forces him to reevaluate his whole worldview, which as a Baal Teshuva is nothing novel to him, and something he’s rather capable of. It gets his brain-wheels rolling.

            What we’re doing here is called an “intellectual exercise”. I don’t really support the position that every single Jew has to disappear. But someone should be able to articulate cogently the logic behind that position, a position held by millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people worldwide, and I do believe I’m up to the challenge.

            It’s vital to indulge the most extreme “logical deduction” of your own worldview, so you can later adopt a more moderate stance, while keeping the extreme deduction in mind and in print, lest the other side gets too arrogant. And the other side is very arrogant, hence, look at what has transpired here.

Leave a Reply