Poland goes alt right

Poland goes /pol

This may be the start of a Soviet style collapse of the American empire.

In the new issue of the weekly Network, a report about ?*what the media and Brussels elite are hiding*? from the citizens of the European Union”.

OK, they are reporting sexual Jihad, but what about the Jewish question? Yes, Poles are now allowed to mention the Jewish question

So. Are the Jews plotting to rule the world?

Biblical prophecy is that Israel gets to rule the Middle East, and clearly the Middle East would be better for it. Plus I don’t much care what happens to the middle east, and someone needs to keep Muslims in line. Fine by me if Jews plot to implement Biblical prophecy. They are supposed to plot to do that.

Since the exile there has been a whole lot of Talmudic and Rabbinical interpretation that reinterprets this Biblical prophecy as ruling us – as ruling whites, as ruling Europe, as ruling the lands of exile. Some Jews buy into this, some Jews do not. Perhaps some of my Jewish supremacist commenters can tell us how widespread is acceptance of this re-interpretation.

I would be inclined to suspect that Jews that want to take the Temple Mount back now tend to favor the interpretation that Jews should rule the Middle East, while Jews that do not want to return to Israel and do not want to take back the Mount tend to favor the reinterpretation that Jews should rule the lands of exile – but some of those are waiting for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting and are not necessarily going at it right now.

So. Did the holocaust actually happen?

Well the holocaust of the Jews did not happen quite in accordance to the official myth, but somehow most Jews under Nazi rule did wind up dead one way or another. There has been a whole of mythmaking and lies about the holocaust of the Jews, but it seems to me that the point of the mythmaking was not so much to make the Nazis more guilty, as to make killings by Nazis as different as possible from killings by commies. Anyone who tells you commies are very different from Nazis is in favor of one or the other.

Well, actually there is a big difference. Commies killed a huge number of commies. Nazis only killed a fairly small number of Nazis. Unless you count the war between Germany and Greece, in which they killed every Nazi they found.

225 Responses to “Poland goes alt right”

  1. Jack says:

    Jews don’t want to rule the lands of exile without first occupying those lands militarily and eliminating therein all forms of “idolatry”, which include Christianity — but not Islam — according to the Halacha. They also want to keep the inhabitants of those lands as slaves after the messiah arrives, though possibly beforehand. Basically, ISIS took the idea of exterminating and/or enslaving pagans, idolaters, and infidels, and burning down all of their temples, directly from the Jews. ISIS is what Jews who take their religion seriously would be like, which goes to show how unserious even so-called religious Jews are about their religion. By the way, this isn’t meant as criticism of the Jews, I’d actually like Israel to ethnically cleanse the Middle-East from all the Arabs, make it desolate in its entirety so they can colonize it safely. And then world Jewry will immigrate to the Israeli empire and leave White people alone already, damnit. So if the Jews start genociding everything that moves in the Middle-East, “burning down the whole bitch” as it’s said, I’ll just bring the popcorn and enjoy the apocalyptic carnage.

    • Minion says:

      The problem with ISIS is not in its extermination of pagan cultural presence, but because they are in a holiness spiral against the rest of Islam, and even within themselves.

      I am not sure why you are comparing Judaism with ISIS, besides being Abrahamic religious movements.

      • Jack says:

        ISIS is authentic Islam, or very close to authentic Islam, and authentic Islam is similar to authentic Judaism. The key difference is that the Jewish global agenda is rather vague and needs a messiah, whereas the Islamic global agenda is unambiguous and doesn’t require the second coming.

        Ultimately Israel should do a nuclear holocaust on the Middle-East and on Africa. Do you want to share a world with 7 billion niggers? I don’t, so it’d be awesome — so awesome that all the Jewish sins will be forgiven forever — if (((someone))) could annihilate the continent with nuclear bombs, and while we’re at it, why not drop nuclear bombs on Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, to remove as many kebabs as permitted by the laws of physics? This seems like the best long-term strategy to stabilize human civilization. Inferior races deserve nothing but ruthless and total genocide, and the most efficient genocide can be achieved by emptying the reactor in Dimona against all the bases of the filthy wogs and niggers.

        • Minion says:

          ISIS is not authentic Islam in the least. Unless you think you know more about Islam than the Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

          Additionally, Islam literally believes in the second coming of Jesus, and many believe a pre-messianic figure, called the Mahdi, will reunite the Muslim world. So, I am not sure where you get the idea that there is no second coming/messiah in Islam.

          >Ultimately Israel should do a nuclear holocaust on the Middle-East and on Africa
          I know this is Jim’s blog, but even by these standards, you sound pretty unhinged.

          >Do you want to share a world with 7 billion niggers?
          Dunno. Their women are hot, and niggers and brownies are much less likely to be liberals than non-slavic whites are

          >and while we’re at it, why not drop nuclear bombs on Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, to remove as many kebabs as permitted by the laws of physics?
          You have serious issues. What about Christian kebaps? Or are they too sand niggery for you?

          >This seems like the best long-term strategy to stabilize human civilization. Inferior races deserve nothing but ruthless and total genocide, and the most efficient genocide can be achieved by emptying the reactor in Dimona against all the bases of the filthy wogs and niggers.
          First off, the fallout from the nukes would cause way many more problems than it solves, and you are suspiciously letting low-IQ whites off the hook, despite having much of the entropic tendencies as colored folk

          • jim says:

            ISIS is not authentic Islam in the least. Unless you think you know more about Islam than the Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

            The Mufti of Saudi Arabia is restrained by a King who, while proudly proclaiming his Islam is more authentic than his neighbors, does not want his Islam to be excessively authentic.

            Hence my preference that priests should be subject to Kings.

          • Irving says:

            >Hence my preference that priests should be subject to Kings.

            This hasn’t been the case in Saudi Arabia since 1979.

          • Erik says:

            Moreover, the Caliph of Islamic State has a PhD in Islamic Theology from the Islamic University of Baghdad.

            I don’t think it’s a question of (any commenter here) against the Mufti on the question of authentic Islam. It’s the Caliph against the Mufti.

        • Minion says:

          @Jim
          >The Mufti of Saudi Arabia is restrained by a King who, while proudly proclaiming his Islam is more authentic than his neighbors, does not want his Islam to be excessively authentic.
          Hardly so. Sunni Islam has always been “authentic Islam”. There is nothing authentic about ISIS. They simply say that anyone who does not agree with them is a kafir, as if they had a monopoly on Islam.

          In what way do you think ISIS is more authentic? Even other Islamists hate them.

          >Hence my preference that priests should be subject to Kings.
          What if the king is an agent of the Cathedral, and is pushing liberalism and feminism on an unwilling conservative population (Think the Shah in Iran or even Juan Carlos in Spain)?

          @Erik
          >Moreover, the Caliph of Islamic State has a PhD in Islamic Theology from the Islamic University of Baghdad.
          A quite a few of ISIS’s victims themselves were professors of Islamic law. Professional qualifications dont mean anything, other than that Baghdadi is able to use Islamic language well enough to attract gullible and desperate Islamists

          >It’s the Caliph against the Mufti.
          But Baghdadi is a self declared Caliph, not a real one (who needs to be approved by the general Islamic community). Therefore, Muslims have no obligation to obey him.

          • jim says:

            In what way do you think ISIS is more authentic?

            Jihad, slavery, execute the pagans and apostates.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Imagine my surprise if someday a PhD in computer science executes the Harvard sociology faculty.

          • peppermint says:

            the CS PhDs depend on the sociology PhDs for a steady stream of female students that they’re increasingly not allowed to hit on, and a constant expansion of university jobs that is about to implode, and an ideology that makes them prestigious that is about to collapse

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Abrahamic religious movements”

        This is heresy.

        A.J.P.

    • Bob Wallace says:

      If Mohammed had been Jewish, Jews would have proclaimed him their Messiah.

      • B says:

        If aunt Roberta had a crank, we’d call her Uncle Bob. If my Arab neighbor’s donkey and olive trees were a space shuttle and a launch pad, there would be a Palestinian Space Agency.

        There are very clear criteria for whom we can consider a potential and actual Messiah, listed in eg Maimonides’ Mishne Torah. There are 5 things (none of them supernatural) he must accomplish. Muhammad (and Jesus btw) were 0 for 5.

        • Minion says:

          Actually, The Quran claims that the Jews rejected Islam for the very reason that the Prophet was not from the Banu Israeel. Many Jews did end up becoming Muslim, especially in Yemen

          • B says:

            The reason the Jews rejected Islam is because it is plainly against the Torah. Which problem the Muslims handily solved by claiming that the Torah the Jews have had been rewritten by them, retconning Ishmael as Abraham’s inheritor, etc.

            Most Yemenite Jews did not convert, and you had ones like the Habbanites who did not even submit particularly. The Jews of the area which is now Saudi were forcibly converted or forced to flee. There was a small remainder living in the part of Saudi bordering Yemen, which fled to Yemen in the 1930s. When the Saudi king demanded the Yemenites give them back, the Yemenite Imam Yahya told him to pound sand, that they were Yemenite Jews.

          • Jack says:

            The Jews rejected Islam because Muhammad manifestly doesn’t fulfill Deuteronomy 18:18, seeing as it refers to an Israelite prophet and not to an Arab one.

          • Ron says:

            @B

            Im impressed. Most people dont know that. They were also one of the only groups of Jews who maintained the warrior aspect of our culture.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) Build a new Temple (with a reformed Sanhedrin)
          (2) Gather all Jews back to Israel. Maybe this means they all have citizenship, not physical residence, so this is already done.
          (3) Create world peace (under the Sanhedrin?)
          (4) Spread universal knowledge of God, presumably this means make everyone obey the Noahide Laws
          (5) ???

          • B says:

            Maimonides’ Mishne Torah is quite specific:

            http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101744/jewish/Laws-Concerning-Kings-and-the-Messiah.htm

            4. If a king arises from the House of David23 who meditates on the Torah and occupies himself with the commandments like his ancestor David, in accordance with the written and oral Torah,24 and he will prevail upon all of Israel to walk in [the ways of the Torah] and strengthen its breaches,25 and he will fight the battles of G‑d26 it may be assumed that he is Mashiach.27

            If he did [these things] successfully (and defeated all the nations around him28), built the Sanctuary on its site29 and gathered the dispersed of Israel he is definitely Mashiach!30 He will [then] correct the entire world to serve G‑d in unity, as it is said, “For then I will turn to the peoples a pure tongue that all shall call upon the Name of G‑d and serve Him with one consent.”31

            (If he did not succeed to that extent or was killed, it is clear that he is not the [Mashiach] promised by the Torah … for all the prophets said that Mashiach is the redeemer of Israel and their savior, and he gathers their dispersed and reinforces their commandments…)32

            • jim says:

              So. You need a general who wins a war, makes himself the ruler, replaces progressivism as the state religion with Judaism as the state religion, rebuilds at least the inner temple and gets lots of Jews returning.

              (Good that you only need the inner temple, since the outer temple would require those highly embarrassing animal sacrifices.)

              I don’t see anything there about the Sanhedrin appointing him. If he does that stuff, sounds more likely he appoints the high priest and the rabbis do as they are damn well told.

          • B says:

            This is an excerpt dealing with how we know someone is the Messiah. It is not an exhaustive description of how things will function under his reign and those of his descendants. It is 1/10th of 1/13th of a fairly cursory overview of what an Israeli kingship will look like.

            Rather than making idiotic extrapolations, why don’t you read the source document and see what it says?

            • jim says:

              Rather than making idiotic extrapolations, why don’t you read the source document and see what it says?

              Source document says nothing about the Sanhedrin, etc, either. Source document has the newly minted King choosing the priesthood, and forcefully purging those who claim priesthood. Warriors on top, not priests on top.

              Source document is most plausibly interpreted as Israel conquering its immediate neighbors and becoming a light to the nations, having moral, but not political, authority over the whole world, and political authority only over its neighborhood, but could also be interpreted as Jews having political authority over the world, if someone was inclined to so interpret it.

          • B says:

            >Source document says nothing about the Sanhedrin, etc, either.

            I know that for someone such as yourself, if someone says “here’s chapter 11 of the book of laws dealing with kings,” it has to be spelled out that there are at least 10 other chapters.

            The first one says as follows:

            Halacha 3
            As an initial and preferred option, a king may be appointed only by a court of 70 elders, together with a prophet, as Joshua was appointed by Moses and his court, and as Saul and David, were appointed by Samuel of Ramah and his court.

            And then it says:

            If the king leaves only a young son, the monarchy should be held for him until he matures, as Yehoyada did for Yoash. The order of inheritance of the monarchy is the same as that governing the inheritance of property. An older son is given precedence over a younger one.

            Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one’s children and grandchildren as inheritances forever.

            The above applies if the knowledge and the fear of God of the son is equivalent to that of his ancestors. If his fear of God is equivalent to theirs but not his knowledge, he should be granted his father’s position and given instruction. However, under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any posi-tion in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge.

            In other words, someone with your mindset (if he were otherwise eligible) would be precluded from the monarchy. The Sanhedrin would not appoint him. And if he only lacked the knowledge but had fear of G-d, they would teach him.

            >Source document has the newly minted King choosing the priesthood, and forcefully purging those who claim priesthood. Warriors on top, not priests on top.

            Where do you see that? It says the opposite-a King will not declare those whose lineage is presumed pure impure.

            The first thing the chapter I quoted says about the King: if a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.

            The crucial thing about him is not that he is a good fighter, but that he keeps the mitzvot.

            • jim says:

              As an initial and preferred option

              Its an option. The Old Testament is full of Kings coming to power in ways less orderly, and the accession of King David was far less orderly than implied. Regardless of how he comes to power, even if he comes to power in an orderly fashion, he then purges the priesthood. Or he purges the priesthood and then they appoint him King in an orderly fashion. David had widespread support and the military upper hand when Samuel voted for the winning side.

            • jim says:

              If progressivism remains the state religion of Israel then the existence of Israel is an unprincipled exception, being imperialism, colonialism, segregation, apartheid, and all that, and sooner or later Israel’s supreme court is going to insist on pious suicide after the fashion of Sweden.

              So sooner or later, Jews have to restore actual Judaism as the state religion, return Judaism from exile. But if you are not thinking of how to deal with all the embarrassing stuff like animal sacrifice, not really serious about bringing Judaism back from exile.

          • Dick Wagner says:

            B., what say you about the animal sacrifice thing, that is as Jim said, highly embarrassing? Do not such little slip-ups and moments of backwardness put into question the other More Innocuous Bits? I’ve never gotten a straight answer from a ‘person of the book’ on this.

          • B says:

            >Its an option. The Old Testament is full of Kings coming to power in ways less orderly, and the accession of King David was far less orderly than implied. Regardless of how he comes to power, even if he comes to power in an orderly fashion, he then purges the priesthood. Or he purges the priesthood and then they appoint him King in an orderly fashion

            This is a pretty dishonest way to approach a source-“I have an idea in my head, let’s see how we can make what Maimonides is saying fit.”

            When you say “the priesthood,” are you talking about priests (Cohanim) or rabbis? If it’s the former, then Maimonides says specifically that the Messiah will not declare lineages presumed pure to be impure. If the latter, we do not find anything about him purging them. In general, we do not find him purging anybody. We’ve already had kings who purged our Sages (Herod.) It did not end well for anyone.

            It is possible that the Messiah will not be from the lineage of David at all, by the way, which possibility Maimonides addresses.

            >you are not thinking of how to deal with all the embarrassing stuff like animal sacrifice

            I do not think animal sacrifice is embarrassing. Especially when you compare it to the things that will need to happen for the Temple to be built.

            To discuss animal sacrifice, we need to understand what it is and what it’s for. Maimonides and Ibn Ezra say that it’s G-d’s concession to man’s desire for sacrificial worship, and that G-d did not particularly desire it, but understood that if He forbade sacrifice completely, people would then satisfy this desire by sacrificing to idols in various idol worshipping sites (like Druid-worship.) So He commanded sacrifice to be done in a very limited way-in a particular place, at particular times, by particular people, as a sort of concession to human weakness. This view is not shared by all authorities, but it exists.

            Personally, I think that Rav Kook’s idea that in the distant future it will be abolished (when people stop eating meat altogether) is plausible. On the other hand, it is not necessarily an accurate prediction.

            Part of the prophecy of the Temple is that all of the nations will bring their sacrifices to be offered there, and this is part of the role of the Jews as a light unto the nations, a “holy people and a nation of priests” as was promised to Abraham.

            • jim says:

              This is a pretty dishonest way to approach a source-“I have an idea in my head, let’s see how we can make what Maimonides is saying fit.”

              Prophecies are usually designed to be stretchy.

              If you want Israel to survive, find a realistic and practical non supernatural way to fulfill that prophecy.

            • jim says:

              B wrote:

              Maimonides says specifically that the Messiah will not declare lineages presumed pure to be impure. If the latter, we do not find anything about him purging them.

              On the contrary Maimonides says:

              First he will purify the descendants of Levi, saying “This one is a legitimate Kohen (priest), and this one is a legitimate Levite,” while diverting those of improper lineage to the [rank of] Israelites. Thus it is said, “The governor [Nechemiah] said to them… until there will rise a Kohen with the Urim and Tumim;” from this you can infer that the determination of presumed pedigree and the public declaration of lineage is by means of the Holy Spirit.

              Since Maimonides’ messiah is not a supernatural figure, merely, like David, a great King, “the holy spirit” is externally indistinguishable from the Messiah’s political judgment and his political preferences for the shape of the revived and restored state Judaism.

              And, of course, it would be improper to have people of the wrong lineage voting on the King, so, purging and restoration needs to be done first, then the purged and restored priesthood can vote the King in. With the King’s praetorians guarding their meeting place, much as Monck’s praetorians guarded the British parliament when it voted to dissolve itself, and when the very different new Parliament voted to restore the monarchy. Which is not in fact all that different from the way that David did it.

              (Yes, I know that Samuel supposedly anointed David in a timely fashion, but if he did no one noticed or cared until after David had the power. David does not really get anointed King until Saul is dead and the men of Judah anoint him King, at which time failure to anoint him would likely be bad for their health, since he has entered Judah with an army.)

          • B says:

            >If you want Israel to survive, find a realistic and practical non supernatural way to fulfill that prophecy.

            We survived 2000 years of bitter exile through faith in G-d and the Torah. To throw that out the window and appoint a Latin American style tinpot dictator with a star of David would be unbecoming. The Messiah will not be such a dictator.

            >On the contrary Maimonides says:
            First he will purify the descendants of Levi, saying “This one is a legitimate Kohen (priest), and this one is a legitimate Levite,” while diverting those of improper lineage to the [rank of] Israelites.

            Yes, but being a Kohen or Levi is not related to being on the Sanhedrin, whose members are appointed by the Sanhedrin itself based on their Torah knowledge, like any professional association.

            >Since Maimonides’ messiah is not a supernatural figure, merely, like David, a great King, “the holy spirit” is externally indistinguishable from the Messiah’s political judgment and his political preferences for the shape of the revived and restored state Judaism.

            Someone who claims to have some sort of holy spirit while actually just pronouncing whatever he chooses does not fit the description of the Messiah given by Maimonides (a man of integrity and Torah learning.) This person fits the description of a false prophet, whose punishment is death. We’ve had such false prophets telling kings what the kings wanted to hear-it did not end well. On the other hand, our great kings, when they had prophets tell them things that were politically inexpedient, accepted the prophecy (David and Nathan, or Solomon and the prophecy against him.)

            >And, of course, it would be improper to have people of the wrong lineage voting on the King, so, purging and restoration needs to be done first, then the purged and restored priesthood can vote the King in.

            Being on the Sanhedrin has nothing to do with whether one is a Levy, Kohen, or Israel, and the King can’t appoint people to the Sanhedrin.

            >With the King’s praetorians guarding their meeting place, much as Monck’s praetorians guarded the British parliament when it voted to dissolve itself, and when the very different new Parliament voted to restore the monarchy.

            As I said, the restoration we’ve been waiting for for 2000 years is not some tinpot Chilean dictatorship. If that’s the case, we don’t need it-let’s pack it in and go assimilate. If you’re going to do something, do it right.

            The hamfisted approach you’re advocating was what Solomon’s son, Rehovoam, did (although even he did not go so far as to attempt to appoint proxies to the Sanhedrin.) The result was an immediate rebellion of the 10 tribes of Israel against him, a split in the kingdom. And he was presiding over a nation that had been united for many decades under David and Solomon, with a national administrative apparatus, etc.

            • jim says:

              >If you want Israel to survive, find a realistic and practical non supernatural way to fulfill that prophecy.

              We survived 2000 years of bitter exile through faith in G-d and the Torah.

              You will be back in exile soon enough if your state religion continues to be progressivism. And without the advantage of a superior knowledge of hygiene.

              Yes, but being a Kohen or Levi is not related to being on the Sanhedrin, whose members are appointed by the Sanhedrin itself based on their Torah knowledge, like any professional association.

              Actually during the extremely brief period that the Sanhedrin actually existed it was related – the Rabbis did not get the upper hand over the Levites until after the Romans leveled the temple and dispersed the Jews.

              You are not actual practicing temple period Judaism, and if you want your state religion to stop being progressivism and start being some form of Judaism, you are going to have to revive at least some aspects of temple period Judaism.

              Your religion has changed rapidly and radically over the centuries, and continues to change with disturbing speed. To once again be a state religion like progressivism, some things will have to be changed back.

          • B says:

            >You will be back in exile soon enough if your state religion continues to be progressivism.

            We’ve been back and forth about this. What I am seeing is that things are moving in the right direction, bottom-up.

            >Actually during the extremely brief period that the Sanhedrin actually existed it was related – the Rabbis did not get the upper hand over the Levites until after the Romans leveled the temple and dispersed the Jews.

            We’ve been back and forth about this as well. You have yet to produce a source for this assertion. By the way, the Sanhedrin existed uninterruptedly from Moses until the 5th century AD (when it was disbanded by the Byzantines who executed the head of the Sanhedrin).

            >you are going to have to revive at least some aspects of temple period Judaism.

            Yes, obviously. Maimonides details what we will revive at length. But we are not going to institute Pinochet with a kippah.

            >Your religion has changed rapidly and radically over the centuries, and continues to change with disturbing speed.

            Not true, and by the way, how long until our bet about Orthodox gay marriage is up? Did we say September 2016 or the end of the year?

            • jim says:

              What I am seeing is that things are moving in the right direction, bottom-up.

              How is the gay parade going?

              the Rabbis did not get the upper hand over the Levites until after the Romans leveled the temple and dispersed the Jews.

              We’ve been back and forth about this as well. You have yet to produce a source for this assertion.

              Who were the Sadducees then?

              we are not going to institute Pinochet with a kippah.

              For the brief period for which we have actual historical evidence that the Sanhedrin existed and exercised power, it compares most unfavorably, indeed disastrously, with Pinochet in a kippah

          • peppermint says:

            What were the terms of the orthodox gay marriage bet anyway? That some major Orthodox organization would agree that gay marriage is kosher? That can’t be right, because many major churches in the US still oppose gay marriage, and the Jews are only going to have it rammed down their throats after all the churches submit.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Greenberg_%28rabbi%29

            » Steven Greenberg (born June 19, 1956) is an American rabbi with a rabbinic ordination from the Orthodox rabbinical seminary of Yeshiva University (RIETS). He is described as the first openly gay Orthodox Jewish rabbi, since he publicly disclosed he was gay in an article in the Israeli newspaper Maariv in 1999 and participated in a 2001 documentary film about homosexual men and women raised in the Orthodox Jewish world.[1]

            » Greenberg′s officiating at what is considered the first marriage between two Orthodox men in the United States presided over by an Orthodox rabbi,[12] first reported by +972 Magazine on November 11, 2011,[23] and subsequently widely reported and discussed in the Jewish press, attracted controversy and was rejected by most within the Orthodox Jewish community, including some of Greenberg′s friends and colleagues who thought that he had performed a Jewish wedding (kiddushin).

            • jim says:

              My recollection is that we could not agree on the terms of the bet precisely because of all these almost-gay-marriage shenanigans – that orthodox Jews want to go as close to accepting gay marriage as they can while arguably not quite accepting gay marriage.

          • B says:

            >Who were the Sadducees then?

            Why don’t you look it up in Josephus?

            >For the brief period for which we have actual historical evidence that the Sanhedrin existed and exercised power

            If you discount everything the Jews have to say about our own history, sure. If not, the Sanhedrin existed and exercised judicial power for about 1000 years.

            Pinochet was not that great, and lasted as long as he was alive, followed by democracy. There is no point in replicating that. The only way that we can have a stable Jewish monarchy is through the Torah, which is nothing like Anglicanism with a Star of David.

            You are aware of what Froude had to say about the 39 Articles, right?

          • B says:

            “Recollection”?

            Hello, it’s Date().getFullYear()

            Who needs recollection when you have an archive?

            (I could tell you who, but you already know.)

            http://blog.jim.com/culture/radix-on-christianity/#comment-926508
            http://blog.jim.com/culture/radix-on-christianity/#comment-927390
            http://blog.jim.com/culture/radix-on-christianity/#comment-927832

            • jim says:

              Those link to offers that I made for bet conditions that you proceeded to quibble about, rather than agree to.

              My final bet offer was clarified in this comment, to which you made no response.

              It is an orthodox gay marriage if the New York Times says so and the Orthodox community does not vigorously prevent that version of reality from becoming the generally accepted history.

          • Jack says:

            The Pharisees told many lies, but no lie is as grandiose as proclaiming that the Sanhedrin was an ancient governing institution. In reality it was established well into the Greek period (if not later) and had exactly as much authority as granted to it by the various rulers of Judea, like the Romans. The Pharisees themselves were the reformers of their time, but as Machiavelli remarked: if you want people to accept a new thing, you better claim that it’s an old thing. The Mishnah written in second century A.D is an unreliable source containing mostly hearsay and outright Pharisaic propaganda, a “just so” story if there ever was one.

            Some scholars would argue that the Sanhedrin was established by Ezra, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that such an institution existed at the time. More likely, Ezra gathered a bunch of scribes — proto-rabbis — and charged them with disseminating the scripture and teaching it to the masses; centuries later, the descendants of those scribes have split into various sects, one of them was the Dead Sea Qumranites and one was the Pharisees (who were themselves split between the followers of Hillel and those of Shammai). Unlike the former, Essene sectarians, who were mostly ascetics, the latter were popular with the masses, and competed for power with the Temple Priests, the Sadducees who somehow never heard about the Oral Torah (maybe they had severe amnesia).

            Due to numerous factors, eventually the Pharisees gained the upper hand and were granted authority by Salome Alexandra; thus the Sanhedrin was born. (So we can say that modern Judaism traces its origin to a female, heheh) It’s probably then that the Chamber of Hewn Stones was added to the Temple complex, or at least, that’s when it was occupied by Pharisaic sectarians, presiding over the Sadducee priests. After the Temple’s destruction the authority of the Pharisees crystallized, though many Jews rejected them, perhaps even most Jews, who were sympathetic to Hellenism and Christianity.

            Also, Palestine ceased being the center of Pharisaic Jewish thought, which has shifted to Babylon; the Bar Kokhba revolt cemented this shift. There, the Pharisaic Jews could re-write their own history to assert that the Sanhedrin was established by Moses and the 70 elders millennia beforehand (no Biblical reference is needed, and none provided) and that it had the authority to appoint kings, etc. Of course it’s bullshit. But there was no one in Babylon with enough force or authority to challenge the Pharisaic usurpers about their lies, and no one cared about them and their written calumnies anyway, so no motivation to interfere in this affair of brazen historical falsification. (To be fair to the Pharisees, everyone back then engaged in the re-writing of history, always having pious objectives in mind that just happen, conveniently, to coincide with their interests)

            Anyway, history being written by the victors, the victorious Pharisees downplayed both the importance of the defeated Sadducees and the pull Christianity had over most of the Jews (most of Palestinian, Syrian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Jewry, that is, most of Byzantine Jewry, converted to Christianity), completely marginalizing all their historical rivals and relegating them to the fringes of Jewish society and history.

            Tl;dr “who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” (Orwell)

            Tl;dr 2 if you want to introduce a new thing, present it as an old thing. (Machiavelli)

          • B says:

            >The Pharisees told many lies, but no lie is as grandiose as proclaiming that the Sanhedrin was an ancient governing institution.

            Except for the Biblical sources and Josephus who agree that it was.

            >Also, Palestine ceased being the center of Pharisaic Jewish thought, which has shifted to Babylon; the Bar Kokhba revolt cemented this shift.

            Nonsense. The Land of Israel remained the center of Jewish thought well after the Bar Kokhba revolt. The Jerusalem Talmud was compiled centuries after Bar Kokhba.

            >he Mishnah written in second century A.D is an unreliable source containing mostly hearsay and outright Pharisaic propaganda, a “just so” story if there ever was one.

            Sure. If a primary source contradicts your version, so much the worse for the source. Ditto Josephus.

            > the Sanhedrin was established by Moses and the 70 elders millennia beforehand

            It says in the Torah that Yithro, Moses’ father in law, came to visit him and told him that he was going to waste away solving all the legal issues the people were bringing to him all day long, and therefore advised him to appoint a legal hierarchy, which Moses did:
            7 And Moses’ father-in-law said unto him: ‘The thing that thou doest is not good. 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee; for the thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God be with thee: be thou for the people before God, and bring thou the causes unto God. 20 And thou shalt teach them the statutes and the laws, and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves; so shall they make it easier for thee and bear the burden with thee. 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people also shall go to their place in peace.’ 24 So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father-in-law, and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

            We see the 70 elders of Israel making their appearance at Mount Sinai.

            We see the elders of Israel make their appearance to crown David the King of Israel.

            We see the Book of Nehemiah mention the elders of Israel at that time by name:

            http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et35b10.htm

            We then see the Mishna talk about Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, the Men of the Great Assembly, which is to say the Sanhedrin of the 2nd Temple Period.

            Obviously, it was not known as the Sanhedrin for most of its existence, since Sanhedrin is a Greek word for “assembly.” Just as obviously, if you see an institution established at point X and dissolved at point Y (the 5th century CE, by the Byzantines,) with intermittent mentions of its existence between those points, it’s not very reasonable to postulate that it came in and out of existence between those mentions. It’s a legal institution, not a quantum particle.

            >the Sadducees who somehow never heard about the Oral Torah

            Check what Josephus says about them.

            >The Pharisees themselves were the reformers of their time

            Check what Josephus says about them, too.

            • jim says:

              We see the 70 elders of Israel making their appearance at Mount Sinai.

              No we do not.

              We see the elders of Israel make their appearance to crown David the King of Israel.

              No we do not. That is what the Talmud says, but as usual the Talmud directly contradicts what the Old Testament says.

              David was anointed King by “The men of Judah” – which in context might reasonably be interpreted as the Judah militia, or the men of Judah assembled for war, or the mighty men of Judah, but not likely the elders of Judah, and certainly not the elders of Israel.

              We then see the Mishna talk about Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, the Men of the Great Assembly, which is to say the Sanhedrin of the 2nd Temple Period.

              Authority in the early second temple period belonged to princes, the high priest, and the levites. The princes were primarily men of war, rather than learning. Not a rabbi in sight.

              The Sanhedrin story is rabbis rule. Who then are the high priest and the princes?

            • jim says:

              Except for the Biblical sources and Josephus who agree that it was.

              Biblical sources flatly and directly deny your Sanhedrin in the sense that Rabbis just don’t show up in biblical times, and in the sense that religious rulings come from the priests, no council, no voting, non priests do not issue rulings on religious issues. Likely the priests get together to give a consistent position, but if so they get together informally, rather than holding a meeting with a well defined membership and voting.

              Similarly, Josephus attributes the Sanhedrin to the Romans, rather than to Moses.

          • B says:

            If these conditions of yours are not met by the end of the year, you will not be buying that Ardbeg, then?

          • B says:

            >So, if the Cathedral announces a gay marriage in an orthodox synagogue, and the orthodox fail to draw a bright line excluding that synagogue, then the Cathedral wins even if the story is completely made up.

            These are your victory conditions? I thought we’d agreed to them. No problem, we’re on.

          • Jack says:

            >Except for the Biblical sources and Josephus who agree that it was.

            It’s not Biblical sources, you’re misrepresenting your own scripture in typical Talmudism. Josephus the Pharisee relies on the same unreliable tradition as the rest of Pharisees. Besides, the Talmud itself clearly extrapolates:

            סנהדרין גדולה היתה של שבעים ואחד וקטנה של עשרים ושלשה מנין לגדולה שהיא של שבעים ואחד שנאמר (במדבר יא, טז) אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל ומשה על גביהן ר’ יהודה אומר שבעים

            “The large Sanhedrin consisted of 71 and the small one of 23. Wherefrom [do we know] that the large one is of 71? For it is said (Numbers 11, 16): “bring me seventy of Israel’s elders” and Moses in addition to them. Rabbi Judah says 70.”

            This is called wild assed extrapolated conjecture. This is 100% obviously total complete conjecture. Had it not been 100% obviously total complete conjecture, the Talmud would state “we know for a fact that there were 71 judges” or even the weaker version of “a tradition has been handed to us (from Sinai / from our elders) that there were 71 judges.” The fact that the Talmudists resort to asking “minayin?” — wherefrom? as in: wherefrom do we learn about X? — proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were extrapolating rather than knowing, extrapolating from scripture rather than knowing or remembering unequivocally how it all came to pass.

            To add ridiculousness to absurdity, rabbi Judah — who ostensibly knew what everyone else was supposed to have known, you know, “common knowledge” — disagrees and proclaims that there were only 70 judges. I literally can not even. Wow, just wow. This is so triggering that I have soiled myself completely and have to change underwear. Seriously: if everyone in the whole world knows based on reliable sources, traditions dating back to the relevant period, etc. that there were in actual undeniable fact 71 judges, there is no plausible conceivable room for rabbi Judah to argue otherwise. If, on the other hand, we’re dealing with 100% obviously total complete conjecture whose relation to reality is tentative at best, then such mild disagreements are par for the course, since the Talmudists don’t have any actual knowledge of what actually happened all those years.

            Since even the number of judges is pure unabashed extrapolation by the Talmudists, can anyone rely on their claim that the Sanhedrin existed since Moses’ time?

            >Nonsense. The Land of Israel remained the center of Jewish thought well after the Bar Kokhba revolt. The Jerusalem Talmud was compiled centuries after Bar Kokhba.

            What are you talking about? The Babylonian yeshivas of Nehardea, Sura, and Pumbedita were established as early as the beginning of the third century A.D, some 70 years after Bar Kokhba, and these were the centers of Jewish thought. They were not established out of thin air: thriving Jewish communities resided there for centuries.

            >Sure. If a primary source contradicts your version, so much the worse for the source. Ditto Josephus.

            Your primary sources don’t claim what you say they do, are highly biased and draw on highly biased and unreliable traditions, and are outright ridiculous and fall flat on their own face. Is that all you’ve got?

            >25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

            You claim this alludes to the Sanhedrin. Do Jim or anyone else here think this alludes to the Sanhedrin?

            >Just as obviously, if you see an institution established at point X and dissolved at point Y (the 5th century CE, by the Byzantines,) with intermittent mentions of its existence between those points, it’s not very reasonable to postulate that it came in and out of existence between those mentions.

            Except you don’t see anything of the kind. What you see is Biblical references to “elders of Israel”, that is, old respectable people who functioned as judges, as was customary throughout the whole world during that time, and is still the custom among many communities throughout the world, just look at Africa. What you don’t see is an institution. When an institution *is* mentioned, it refers not to old venerated elders of the people, but to the Cohanim, Aaron’s descendants. Deuteronomy 17:9-11:

            9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. 10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. 11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.

            Priests who are Levites?! Oy vey, doesn’t sound like Sanhedrin of rabbis to me. Then we have Haggai 2:11-13:

            11 ‘Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Ask now the priests for instruction, saying: 12 If one bear hallowed flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any food, shall it be holy?’ And the priests answered and said: ‘No.’ 13 Then said Haggai: ‘If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?’ And the priests answered and said: ‘It shall be unclean.’

            Centuries later, first Temple destroyed, second Temple established, yet who instructs the law? The Priests, not Sanhedrin of rabbis.

            • jim says:

              Then we have Haggai 2:11-13:

              11 ‘Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Ask now the priests for instruction, saying: 12 If one bear hallowed flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any food, shall it be holy?’ And the priests answered and said: ‘No.’ 13 Then said Haggai: ‘If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?’ And the priests answered and said: ‘It shall be unclean.’

              Centuries later, first Temple destroyed, second Temple established, yet who instructs the law? The Priests, not Sanhedrin of rabbis.

              Priesthood is hereditary, status within the priesthood is semi-hereditary. No rabbis in sight.

              Obvious a third temple would result from a King who restored that system – and granted initial status within the priesthood, choosing the high priest. An essential part of state religion is that if you are granting a substantial amount of state power to a priesthood, need to keep them in line. The problem with progressivism as the state religion is that the priests, notably today’s Israeli supreme court, are getting seriously out of line. Hereditary priesthood with semi hereditary status, as in first and second temple period, prevents holiness competition.

              Of course to reestablish such a system – state Judaism, Judaism as the state religion of the land of Israel in place of progressivism as the state religion, needs a Pinochet in a kippah. B fails to notice the striking resemblance between King David and a successful warlord or very successful bandit.

              The old theocratic system was breaking down, with no successor for Samuel, so had to switch to Monarchy. Samuel picked a very big man, because easier to look like a King if you are big, but this did not really work. Chaos ensued, with David bringing order out of chaos.

              Obviously there was no Sanhedrin at the time, or it could have simply voted a successor to Samuel, and Samuel himself, as he neared the end of his life, became a lame duck, unable to resolve things between Saul and David.

          • B says:

            >>We see the 70 elders of Israel making their appearance at Mount Sinai.

            >No we do not.

            Yes, we do. And you as usual not only know nothing, but don’t even know that you know nothing, so that arguing with you is a total waste of my time.

            Look up Exodus 24.

            >>We see the elders of Israel make their appearance to crown David the King of Israel.

            >No we do not. That is what the Talmud says, but as usual the Talmud directly contradicts what the Old Testament says.

            Here not only do you know nothing, and not know that you know nothing, but you have forgotten that we’ve had this same idiotic debate, and I’ve already showed you where it says that the elders of Israel crowned King David.

            I am really starting to suspect that your use of steroids is causing memory loss and other neurological damage.

            2 Samuel 5: So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel.

            >Who then are the high priest and the princes?

            “Princes” is a bit of a mistranslation. The word for “prince” is “nasi” (as in, Yehudah HaNasi, the exilarch and compiler of the Mishna-interestingly enough, why would a noble make up a retconned history which put authority into the hands of rabbis? I mean, if you’re going to retcon, retcon something that will give power to the nobles! But Yehudah HaNasi did not take this route. In fact, he was referred to in the Mishna as Rabbi.)

            In this case, the word uses is “sar,” which means minister or leader. The leaders were the sages/scholars.

            >Josephus the Pharisee relies on the same unreliable tradition as the rest of Pharisees.

            As usual-“if the primary sources disagree with my conjectures, so much the worse for the sources!”

            Josephus was a rabbinical Jew, as were the vast majority of Jews. He found the tradition reliable (and the tradition was dealing with events that had happened a few generations prior in this case). You don’t have a tradition-you have a bunch of morally dishonest extrapolation. Thanks, I’ll take Josephus.

            Incidentally, Josephus was a priest (Cohen) of the First Order (Jehoiarib) and a noble (of Hasmonean descent through his mother.)

            Either Josephus is honest, or he is dishonest.

            If Josephus is honest, then the rabbinical Jews were the majority, had the right idea, and had proper intellectual descent from Sinai. Which is what I’m saying.

            If Josephus is dishonest, why would he possibly make up a retconned Jewish history where he, a priest and noble, only had intellectual standing based on his learning (the rabbinical system) and where his Sadducee noble and priestly relatives were impostors and frauds? Why would he not make up a version of history to the advantage of his fellow nobles and priests?

            >Since even the number of judges is pure unabashed extrapolation by the Talmudists, can anyone rely on their claim that the Sanhedrin existed since Moses’ time?

            The number is not extrapolation. They have a tradition, the details of which they do not agree upon: 70/71. The fact that they record this disagreement tells us they were morally honest (rather than just making something up and putting that down.) The fact that they agree that there was a Sanhedrin and only differ in a small particular tells us there was a Sanhedrin. When the Talmud says “how do we know this” and brings a textual support. it doesn’t necessarily mean that if not for the textual support we wouldn’t know it.

            >The Babylonian yeshivas of Nehardea, Sura, and Pumbedita were established as early as the beginning of the third century A.D, some 70 years after Bar Kokhba, and these were the centers of Jewish thought. They were not established out of thin air: thriving Jewish communities resided there for centuries.

            Congratulations-you’ve convinced me that Jews lived in Babylonia and learned Torah there since the Babylonian exile. Good job. But that’s not the question. The question is, where was the intellectual center of the Jewish world? The answer is that it moved to Babylonia after the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud in the academies of Tiberias, Sepphoris and Causarea around the 4th-5th century CE.

            >What you see is Biblical references to “elders of Israel”, that is, old respectable people who functioned as judges,

            Yes. And judges sit on a beit din, at the gate of a city (see the halakha of the rebellious son.) And the hierarchical system of batei din, of courts, was established by Moses at the injunction of Yithro, and existed uninterrupted until the 5th century CE.

            • jim says:

              > That is what the Talmud says, but as usual the Talmud directly contradicts what the Old Testament says.

              Here not only do you know nothing, and not know that you know nothing, but you have forgotten that we’ve had this same idiotic debate, and I’ve already showed you where it says that the elders of Israel crowned King David.

              I am really starting to suspect that your use of steroids is causing memory loss and other neurological damage.

              2 Samuel 5: So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel.

              Whenever you insult me egregiously, it is a reliable sign that you are going to lie egregiously and blatantly with outrageous chutzpah:

              Not what the old testament says, not what Samuel 2-5 says:

              Samuel 2-5: And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.

              I checked the Septuagint. Clearly says “Men of Judah”, not “Elders of Israel”. That is how google translates the Septuagint, and it is perfectly obvious in context that “Elders of Israel” simply makes no sense.

              And just in case, checked other usages of the same words in the Septuagint. They also clearly meant “men” or “Judah”, not Israel, in context. There is simply no room for alternate translations. Your version is not a possible alternate translation. If you accept the Septuagint as authoritative, and you have repeatedly told me that you do, it is a barefaced blatant lie.

              The phrase that google translates as “Men of Judah” occurs 33 times in the bible, and in every single case in a context where the meaning “elders of Israel” makes no sense. In every case it is obvious from context that it means either the male population of the tribe of Judah, the armed forces of the tribe of Judah, the army of the tribe of Judah, or the entire population of Judea. In most cases it might mean either the armed forces of Judea, or the mighty men, the officers, of the army of Judea.

              “Princes” is a bit of a mistranslation. The word for “prince” is “nasi” (as in, Yehudah HaNasi, the exilarch and compiler of the Mishna-

              There are hundreds of references to princes in the old testament, and in most cases it is obvious from context that these are political and military leaders, men of the sword, not the robe.

          • B says:

            >Samuel 2-5: And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.

            Roids affect reading comprehension.

            2 Samuel 5:3 says: So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel

            The word for elders is “ziknei,” which literally means aged men. וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל-זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ. Try googling that one.

            Your Google may be broken, and probably your King James bible is buggy. Maybe hasn’t got the software update yet.

            >There are hundreds of references to princes in the old testament, and in most cases it is obvious from context that these are political and military leaders, men of the sword, not the robe.

            Again, I don’t understand why you’re arguing with me about what words mean in a language of which you are ignorant.

            “Nasi” means “prince.” Meaning, a hereditary noble.

            Example usage: in Numbers 7, a prince of each tribe brings an offering for the tabernacle: “And the princes brought the dedication-offering of the altar in the day that it was anointed, even the princes brought their offering before the altar.” וַיַּקְרִיבוּ הַנְּשִׂאִים, אֵת חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, בְּיוֹם, הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ הַנְּשִׂיאִם אֶת-קָרְבָּנָם, לִפְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. Vaikrivu hanasim means “and the princes brought.”

            “Sar” means “minister”. In current Hebrew usage, the minister of defense is “sar habitahon.” In Exodus 18, Yithro tells Moses to appoint “sarei alafim, sarei meoth, sarei hamishim v’sarei asaroth”-ministers of thousands, ministers of hundreds, ministers of 50s and ministers of tens: וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים, אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת–שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע; וְשַׂמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם, שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת.

            The criteria for appointment have nothing to do with nobility, or military prowess: Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain.

            And their functions are judicial: And let them judge the people at all seasons.

            They are not “nasiim,” “princes.” They are “sarim”, ministers.

            In 10 Nehemiah, the word used is “sareinu,” “our ministers”: וּבְכָל-זֹאת, אֲנַחְנוּ כֹּרְתִים אֲמָנָה וְכֹתְבִים; וְעַל, הֶחָתוּם, שָׂרֵינוּ לְוִיֵּנוּ, כֹּהֲנֵינוּ.

            • jim says:

              David was anointed King of Israel by the men of Judah, which is to say the armed forces of Judah. Analogously Pinochet was playing with his grandchildren when the junior officers arrived and hauled him off to the still smouldering presidential palace.

              There followed seven years of warfare between David and the house of Saul, which ended when Joab slew Abner, whereupon the remaining forces of the house of Saul made military surrender.

              And after the military forces of the house of Saul had surrendered to David, murdering their leader of the line of Saul, then the elders of Israel anoint David.

              Which is not an indication that your Sanhedrin existed, and if it existed, is an indication that it lacked the power to make kings.

              And, in the second temple period, it is princes and levites. Not a rabbi in sight.

          • B says:

            I love how you go from saying that the elders of Israel did not crown David the king of Israel according to the Torah to saying that they did, but it didn’t count, without ever acknowledging that you were wrong.

            Yesterday:

            B: We see the elders of Israel make their appearance to crown David the King of Israel.

            Jim: No we do not. That is what the Talmud says, but as usual the Talmud directly contradicts what the Old Testament says.”

            Jim today: David was anointed King of Israel by the men of Judah, which is to say the armed forces of Judah. And after the military forces of the house of Saul had surrendered to David, murdering their leader of the line of Saul, then the elders of Israel anoint David.

            And you’re still wrong. The men of Judah anointed David king over Judah, not over Israel. Obviously, they had no power to anoint a king of Israel.

            2 Samuel 2: 4 And the men of Judah came, and they there anointed David king over the house of Judah.

            >And, in the second temple period, it is princes and levites. Not a rabbi in sight.

            The “princes” of the Second Temple Period as I said were not “princes” in the sense of nobles, “nasim,” but rather “sarim,” “ministers,” the same judicial position that Moses appointed people to and the same one which the Sanhedrins were made up of. Normally I’d assume you were willfully avoiding grasping this distinction, but given how this conversation has gone so far, I suspect you’re just not capable.

            I will give another example: 1 Kings 8.

            1 Then Solomon assembled the elders (“ziknei”) of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes (“nasiei”) of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.

            Another example. We see the Sanhedrin, the elders (“ha-zkeinim”), make their appearance in 1 Kings 12, when they advise Rehovoam (and are mentioned as having stood before Solomon):

            ו וַיִּוָּעַץ הַמֶּלֶךְ רְחַבְעָם, אֶת-הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר-הָיוּ עֹמְדִים אֶת-פְּנֵי שְׁלֹמֹה אָבִיו, בִּהְיֹתוֹ חַי, לֵאמֹר: אֵיךְ אַתֶּם נוֹעָצִים, לְהָשִׁיב אֶת-הָעָם-הַזֶּה דָּבָר. 6 And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, that had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying: ‘What counsel give ye me to return answer to this people?’
            ז וידבר (וַיְדַבְּרוּ) אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר, אִם-הַיּוֹם תִּהְיֶה-עֶבֶד לָעָם הַזֶּה וַעֲבַדְתָּם, וַעֲנִיתָם, וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם דְּבָרִים טוֹבִים–וְהָיוּ לְךָ עֲבָדִים, כָּל-הַיָּמִים. 7 And they spoke unto him, saying: ‘If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.’
            ח וַיַּעֲזֹב אֶת-עֲצַת הַזְּקֵנִים, אֲשֶׁר יְעָצֻהוּ; וַיִּוָּעַץ, אֶת-הַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר גָּדְלוּ אִתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר הָעֹמְדִים, לְפָנָיו. 8 But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and took counsel with the young men that were grown up with him, that stood before him.

            Please feel free to engage in more retarded sophistry where you run the English translation of the Septuagint through Google Translate into Korean and then back into English to explain to me what all this REALLY means, contra the plain Hebrew meaning, Josephus, the Mishna and every authoritative source ever.

            • jim says:

              I love how you go from saying that the elders of Israel did not crown David the king of Israel according to the Torah to saying that they did, but it didn’t count, without ever acknowledging that you were wrong.

              There are multiple meanings of “crown”. Your claim was that the Sanhedrin made David King. The elders did not make him King. Soldiers, the men of Judah, made him King. Victory made David King – Pinochet in a kippah.

              Another example. We see the Sanhedrin, the elders (“ha-zkeinim”), make their appearance in 1 Kings 12, when they advise Rehovoam (and are mentioned as having stood before Solomon):

              You are torturing the text. King Rehoboam recalls Solomon’s advisers, the men that Solomon chose to advise him, advisers who are of course pretty old by this time.

          • Jack says:

            >Josephus was a rabbinical Jew, as were the vast majority of Jews.

            Josephus was a rabbinic Jew who claimed that most Jews were rabbinic Jews like himself, even though most Jews did not belong to any one specific sect and vacillated between different Judaisms, practicing a mixture of various traditions. Attempting to impress his Roman audience, he equated different Judaisms with philosophical “schools”, that is, the Romans had their Stoics, the Jews had their Pharisees. In actual fact, Second Temple Judaism was as diverse as it could get, with dozens if not hundreds of sects, denominations, sub-denominations, cults, prophets, messiahs, and influences. Pharisees were popular and eventually gained dominance, but that’s all.

            >He found the tradition reliable (and the tradition was dealing with events that had happened a few generations prior in this case).

            You’re addicted to lies. The tradition under debate pertains to an institution which, so it is argued, existed not a few generations prior, but for millennium and a half prior. Such a tradition would only be advocated by those who seek to ascribe authority to said institution: to be acceptable in the eyes of the Romans, a tradition or a practice had to be regarded as ancient. So rabbinic Josephus presented the Pharisaic sect and its traditions as ancient, one such “ancient” tradition being the antiquity and Mosaic origin of Sanhedrin, another – the antiquity and Mosaic origin of the Oral Law. It’s nothing sinister, he could have believed his own bullshit, everyone back then believed their own bullshit. But the bias is obvious.

            >You don’t have a tradition-you have a bunch of morally dishonest extrapolation.

            “Morally dishonest” is a meaningless phrase, just so you know.

            >Either Josephus is honest, or he is dishonest.

            False dilemma. Like saying “either the sun is above Earth, or below it.” That’s not how real life works. In realiry, Josephus was slightly — but not completely — dishonest, as he lent the Pharisaic tradition, of which he was himself a follower, more credibility than it objectively merited. That is, he was told by rabbis that Sanhedrin was established by Moses, and did not put much effort into verifying this claim. It was too convenient, so he accepted it at face value. It’s not exactly lying, because it’s a real “tradition” promoted by the rabbis, but presenting it at face value doesn’t fit the definition of pure honesty either. I’ll give you that – Josephus had infinitely more integrity than you do.

            >If Josephus is dishonest, why would he possibly make up a retconned Jewish history where he, a priest and noble, only had intellectual standing based on his learning (the rabbinical system) and where his Sadducee noble and priestly relatives were impostors and frauds? Why would he not make up a version of history to the advantage of his fellow nobles and priests?

            The short answer is that his purpose was impressing the Romans, otherwise he wouldn’t have written about the subject at all. Specifically, he attempted to present the “zealots” as a troublesome minority not representative of the majority of Jews, whom he (misleadingly) classified into different schools, and presented the dominant school, his own sect, in a positive light. His mission was not to glorify himself personally, but to glorify the Jews at large, that’s the whole point of his apologia, so no point in praising the Sadducees or others, you conceited dumbass.

            >The fact that they agree that there was a Sanhedrin and only differ in a small particular tells us there was a Sanhedrin.

            Actually this is the rabbinic strategy condensed: presenting their propositions as given, matter-of-factly, then arguing about specific details. “Of course the Sanhedrin existed for millennia, everyone knows that, but let’s have a fierce debate about its exact structure!” “Of course the Oral Law was dictated to Moses on Sinai, everyone knows that, but let’s have a fierce debate about its specifics!” Etc. If you buy into their frame, you’ve already lost. The thing is, it reeks of dishonesty: if you actually have a solid tradition, a tradition not concocted of whole cloth, then there shouldn’t be any debate about whether there were 71 or 70 judges. Such a debate betrays that the whole thing is made up. That they distort scripture to lend credence to their tradition, with different rabbis coming up with their own distortions to make up for lack of real knowledge, proves it’s all a con.

            On a different note, it has become clear that some religions appeal to outsiders as well as to insiders, such as Christianity and Buddhism to a lesser extent, whereas others only appeal to insiders, like Judaism and Islam. You need not be a Christian at all to appreciate the sheer beauty of the religion. You definitely have to be very very Jewish to find beauty inside Judaism. But this is off topic.

            >When the Talmud says “how do we know this” and brings a textual support. it doesn’t necessarily mean that if not for the textual support we wouldn’t know it.

            This is weaseling and textual torture by the Talmudists and by yourself. If you actually know something for a fact, you state it plainly, then, perhaps, give textual supplementation. Asking “how do we know?”, then fishing for a decontextualized Biblical quote that doesn’t say what you claim it does, then debating about the inclusion or lack thereof of Moses with the 70 elders to substantiate the number of judges – this is not how you treat a subject you know very well. This is how one would treat a subject one doesn’t know very well. The argumentation standards you apply to the Talmud diverge completely from the ones you apply in real life.

            If you were born in 1984, knew it for an actual indisputable fact, and wanted others to know that you were born in 1984, you would state “I was born in 1984” and when disputed, provide some real document.

            If you conjecture and extrapolate to compensate and cover for lack of authentic, solid knowledge that is verifiable, you would say “I was born in 1984. How do I know it? Momma, whom I trust blindly (why wouldn’t I?), told me that I was born in a year that is the title of a very popular book, and I seem to be around 30, so therefore I was born in 1984. But which month? Well let’s see…” You will be laughed out of town if you pull this kind of crap, and it doesn’t even matter when you were actually born.

            Of course you can choose to blindly trust the rabbis, but there’s no reason for an outsider to take this crap seriously.

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    Whatever the problem and whoever is staffing our overlord class we are at fault for being weak. The weak minded are going to be dominated. Our women are frankly a bigger problem than any minority.

    As to the question….Maybe just being overly leftist leads to over representation in leftist governments.

    In particular when your own ruling class collapses the staffers are for a time going to be in charge.

    Having said that the pro-immigration/globalist open borders staffing is already leading to a backlash. Open borders isn’t a literally indefensible position it’s a physical reality of no defense. Any advocate of such is going to be very unpopular when the inevitable consequences occur.

    Of course if we’re enserfed it is ultimately our fault for being weak.

    Again – if we’d be men that would be enough. Being a Nazi isn’t necessary.

    The reaction has begun sadly.

    My recommendation is Names Not Groups. Not sentimental. Go after the actual dangerous men not their entire group – or you’ll miss your chance.

  3. vxxc2014 says:

    The Protocols began originally as an Infernal dialogue between Montesquieu and Machiavelli that was published in France around 1868. Later agents of the Orkrana picked it up and redid it as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    In truth many of our current troubles do come from Eastern European 19th century Radical Leftism and again it’s a matter of over-representation in the enemies camp.

    It’s not that they want to run the world as much as what people will do to succeed, perhaps combined with the Culture of Critique. It just gets old being run down all the time.

    We’re not so likely to get a Hitler. We’re getting a reaction. Hitler was trapped by Germany’s geography and the growing might of America driving him to seek an internal Empire as internal market in the East. That drove Hitler to genocide more than anything else. Neither America nor the West is so trapped by geography and the Russians while still a Bear are not the monster of the USSR.

  4. Irving says:

    The Poles aren’t much better off than those countries in Western Europe currently being overrun by Muslims. Sure, Poland is racially homogeneous, but the country is also rapidly disappearing due to suicidally low birthrates and, on the top of that, the mass exodus of its young people to Western Europe and other places, who have no economic opportunity at home and who are forced to leave in order to find decently paying jobs.

    • Minion says:

      And lets not forget, Roosh has been there.

    • A.B Prosper says:

      Birth rates can go up. The US in the 1930’s with no pill and few condoms had a birth rate of 1.5 per couple or so with high infant mortality which if it had continued would have led the the end of the nation.

      It reached a peak of twice that and created a baby boom I suspect as Poland and other nations go farther Right, birth rates will go up. They probably won’t go vastly above 2 and change but they will go up possibly beyond replacement.

      • Irving says:

        >The US in the 1930’s with no pill and few condoms had a birth rate of 1.5 per couple or so with high infant mortality which if it had continued would have led the the end of the nation

        But of course the US survived its low birth rate due to the mass immigration from Europe which it allowed in the preceding decades.

        Also, birth rates during the early to mid 1930s was about 2.25. There’s no way that a third of those children died due to infant mortality. It is interesting, though, that Americans were able to sustain a replacement-level birth rate even during the Great Depression, whereas the Poles, today, despite the fact that their country is vastly more prosperous than 1930s America is, cannot. This doesn’t portend well for the polls.

        >I suspect as Poland and other nations go farther Right, birth rates will go up.

        Nope. Let’s remember that in Poland, abortion is effectively banned. As well, birth control pills are much harder to come by than they are elsewhere in the West. That their birth rate, despite all this, is still 1.3 per woman, is astonishing. It is very clear that until Polish women are banned from the workplace, and are forced to marry and have children, the birth rates will remain low. And if and when abortion and birth control becomes more accessible to Polish women, birthrates will drop even further.

        • jim says:

          Unemancipate women, and you will have birthrates similar to every place whose women are not emancipated.

          • Irving says:

            My worry is that countries like Poland may have passed the point of no return.

          • pdimov says:

            Russia was able to bounce back from 1.17 in 1999:

            “As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman[8] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people.”

          • Irving says:

            >Russia was able to bounce back from 1.17 in 1999

            >As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman

            1.75 per woman is still an unacceptably low and remains significantly below the replacement-level. Also, Russia accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world except America, and those immigrants have higher birth rates than do Russians. And, within Russia are non-Russians, and those non-Russians have a slightly higher birth rate than do Russians.

            This is all to say that I’m not impressed with the Russian birth rate. However, I do expect the Russians to survive as a nation. As far as Eastern Europe goes, though, I think that it’ll continue to be a major exporter of job seeking youths, and that it’ll also continue to have suicidally low birth rates. These two trends will do it in eventually, and soon countries like Poland will become countries of miserable, childless pensioners.

          • pdimov says:

            I’m not saying that 1.75 is above replacement; this was merely a response about the point of no return. There isn’t a point of no return. It’s possible to get the TFR back up (by electing Putin, it seems), and once it surpasses 2.01, exponential growth is exponential.

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t think it’s that simple. Whites, at least, also need to feel like they can support their kids and their kids will have a future.

          • Irving says:

            >There isn’t a point of no return.

            Where Poland and certain other Eastern European countries are concerned, the problem isn’t just low birth rates. It is also mass emigration. The best and brightest, as well as the not-so-bright but nevertheless hardworking and ambitious, young people from these places are leaving in droves in their search for better jobs. They likely aren’t going to come back. And as for the ones who remain, I doubt that they will be willing to shoulder the burden of replacement-level birth rates when economic opportunities in their home countries are as poor as they are, while at the same time having to pay the pensions and health care costs of the elderly. It isn’t clear that this is a problem with a solution.

            Anyway, check out this article:

            http://www.ozy.com/provocateurs/the-man-who-says-poland-will-be-dead-by-2020/60638

            Here’s a quote:

            “The direction that Poland is going toward? A crippling brain drain, Sowa says, with one-third of a population, including two-thirds of university graduates, emigrating, leaving an aging society where the vast majority work in “precarious job positions,” earning barely enough to make ends meet, and pensions are 200 euros.”

            And the article doesn’t even mention birth rates

            • jim says:

              I have a cure for all that. First step in the cure is defiance of the Cathedral. The next step in the cure requires defiance of democracy, which may be more difficult.

              But I am still mighty glad to see them take the first step.

              As I said before: if everyone had the laws and customs on marriage, the family, and women of Timor Leste or Japan before McArthur emancipated women, everyone would have their fertility rates. If everyone had the laws of Hong Kong and Singapore on property and commerce, every high IQ country would have their living standards. If everyone had the health system of Singapore, everyone would have the health results of Singapore.

          • pdimov says:

            @peppermint: Yes, that’s true. Whites are also prone to suicide when they see no future. Putin gave Russia a future though. (You know who else did that, for a certain other country in the past?)

            @Irving: Things _are_ admittedly bad. I’m however willing to take that bet. Poland will still exist in 2020.

          • pdimov says:

            “First step in the cure is defiance of the Cathedral. The next step in the cure requires defiance of democracy, which may be more difficult.”

            The main difficulty in step two is that the Cathedral will oppose it, all options on table. Defying democracy is defying the Cathedral, for real.

          • Irving says:

            >I have a cure for all that. First step in the cure is defiance of the Cathedral. The next step in the cure requires defiance of democracy, which may be more difficult.

            >But I am still mighty glad to see them take the first step.

            How is democracy at fault here? Or, for that matter, the Cathedral? Democracy is bad. The Cathedral too is bad, although in its defense, it is probably the only thing keeping Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe from being swallowed up by Russia. But it isn’t clear that either of them are coercing the Poles into not reproducing. After all, even the Poles in England, a country in which democracy and the Cathedral both have a firmer hold on power, have higher birth rates than Poles in Poland. This suggests that there’s something else at work here.

            >Things _are_ admittedly bad. I’m however willing to take that bet. Poland will still exist in 2020.

            Yeah, but it very likely won’t exist in 2035 or so. Let alone 2050.

            • jim says:

              it isn’t clear that either of them are coercing the Poles into not reproducing.

              To reproduce, a man and a woman have to cooperate over time. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues. She cucks him, he spins plates, neither gets to reproduce.

              Tit for tat only works for iterated prisoner’s dilemma, so does not work for marriage and family.

              The solution is coercive enforcement of the marriage contract, or pet status for women, women as property with special protections, or, in most successful societies, a bit of both.

              If women are emancipated, and the marriage contract is not socially and legally enforced, and your education system and mass media let people know it, then very difficult to successfully reproduce.

          • peppermint says:

            » To reproduce, a man and a woman have to cooperate over time. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues. She cucks him, he spins plates, neither gets to reproduce.

            » Tit for tat only works for iterated prisoner’s dilemma, so does not work for marriage and family.

            There are instincts for this. You know that there are instincts for this when you say that men must be made high status in the eyes of their women. Additionally, the government must not incentivize divorce.

            Maybe it’s good that Poland’s ambitious high-IQ people left. They can return when Poland has been fixed by the dummies.

            After all, us whatever we are to be called, and Andrew Anglin and Donald Trump, are the only high-IQ people around who really understand what’s going on.

          • Irving says:

            Jim, all of that sounds very good, but none of that addresses the principle point, which is that the Poles are not willing to accept a lower standard of living in order to accommodate the increased birthrate that would follow from your policies. They’d most likely migrate rather than go through with it./

            • jim says:

              the Poles are not willing to accept a lower standard of living in order to accommodate the increased birthrate

              The individual Pole does not have that option. How do you know what he would do if he had that option?

              In societies where people do have that option, large numbers of extremely poor people choose to reproduce at a TFR of two or three times replacement.

          • pdimov says:

            “The Cathedral too is bad, although in its defense, it is probably the only thing keeping Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe from being swallowed up by Russia.”

            Where do people get those ideas? Russia doesn’t swallow countries.

            “Yeah, but it very likely won’t exist in 2035 or so. Let alone 2050.”

            I’ll take the 2035 bet. 2050 is too far for my crystal ball, which is still 32 bit and can’t see past 2038.

          • Irving says:

            >Where do people get those ideas? Russia doesn’t swallow countries.

            Well, there was that thing called the Soviet Union….

          • pdimov says:

            “Well, there was that thing called the Soviet Union…”

            Which incidentally didn’t include Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe, and it easily could have.

          • Irving says:

            >Which incidentally didn’t include Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe, and it easily could have.

            Poland was under the control of the USSR as were many other Eastern European countries. But that’s besides the point: the USSR swallowed up many other countries, and before that so did the Tsars. And I don’t doubt that there are Russians today who have designs on Eastern Europe, who want to reduce the countries to their former subservience to Russian power.

          • Irving says:

            Jim, as is shown in the article above, the Poles are already leaving their country en masse due to lack of economic opportunity. The idea that you or anyone else would try and force them to have Timor Leste level birth rates, even if they’re unwilling, is preposterous. In order for you plan to work, you’re going to have to keep people from leaving, which is to say to turn poland into north korea.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Somebody said that the reason Eastern European states have not had the mass third-world flood is because they are poorer compared to the West which is seeing the mainstay of it. This lends one to believe that it’s the insane and rather sickening decadence of the immoral anti-white establishment which is the issue.

      Regarding birth-rates, I would say that Japan and South Korea have low birthrates, too, “Irving”. Maybe you think Poland will follow them…

      A.J.P.

      • A Pint Thereof says:

        Exactly. Plus, a nation can survive long periods without “replacement level” reproduction. In fact, stable population levels are unnatural – impossible, even – in complex systems such as we’re describing.

        • Irving says:

          >Regarding birth-rates, I would say that Japan and South Korea have low birthrates, too, “Irving”. Maybe you think Poland will follow them…

          Nope. Poland and the other Eastern European countries, unlike Japan and South Korea, have shit economies, which is due (among other things) to their relatively lower IQs (according to Lynn, Poland has a 99, although there’s reason to believe this is inflated, and other Eastern European countries, such as Serbia, score as low as 88). Therefore, they cannot follow Japan and South Korea.

          >Exactly. Plus, a nation can survive long periods without “replacement level” reproduction. In fact, stable population levels are unnatural – impossible, even – in complex systems such as we’re describing.

          You’re greatly underestimating the catastrophe that sustained sub-replacement level birthrates truly represents. It is true that historically, demographic stability is unusual. Yet, demographic instability was caused by wars, famines, etc., and never by the population’s collective loss of any feeling of desire or responsibility to reproduce. This is a completely ahistorical phenomenon:even the examples of past civilizations that did themselves in through low birthrates never had birthrates as low as ~1.3 per woman, as for example Poland currently has. No one knows how to remedy this problem, and the reality is that there probably isn’t a remedy, so much as there seems to be an inescapable, inexorable conclusion, which is national suicide.

          • jim says:

            No one knows how to remedy this problem, and the reality is that there probably isn’t a remedy, so much as there seems to be an inescapable, inexorable conclusion, which is national suicide.

            There is a remedy. Unemancipate women and make marriage an enforceable contract. As I am fond of saying, if everyone had the family and marriage laws of Timor Leste, Talibanic Afghanistan, and Japan before General MacArthur emancipated women, everyone would have their birthrates.

          • pdimov says:

            “No one knows how to remedy this problem…”

            The historical remedy for this problem is “being conquered”.

          • Irving says:

            > Unemancipate women and make marriage an enforceable contract.

            This would help, but this proposal would only work in the way intended if you were able to keep people from leaving. There’s already a mass exodus of people from these countries due to the lack of economic opportunity, and the assumption has to be that the number of people leaving will rise if you try to make them have a bunch of kids without at the same time guaranteeing them economic prosperity. Unfortunately Jim, you’re proposal only treats a symptom of the problem (low birthrates) without addressing the root cause of it

            >The historical remedy for this problem is “being conquered”.

            For the moment, Eastern Europe is successfully resisting the tidal wave of mass immigration from the global south. It remains to be seen whether they can keep this up. If not, Eastern Europe may well be conquered after all.

            • jim says:

              This would help, but this proposal would only work in the way intended if you were able to keep people from leaving.

              If reproducing at two or three times replacement, people leaving not a problem. Plus, men want to get married and have obedient wives and children. If they could do that in Poland, would stay in Poland.

          • Irving says:

            Excuse me, according to Lynn, Poland’s IQ is actually 95.

          • Morkyz says:

            What do you think of Sarah Perry’s theory that modern shit tier fertility comes from social mobility? As in, even with women unemancipated, fathers would still prefer small families, (and might want to just keep fucking around and having non reproductive sex anyway since children have no real economic value anymore) ?

            • jim says:

              Wherever and whenever control of children, sex, women, and reproduction is substantially in male hands, we get pretty impressive fertility. For example, when they green carded a bunch of Mexicans in California, and allowed them to bring in women on girfriend visas if they liked them, and deport them back if they did not like them, they promptly got one hell of a baby boom until they changed the visa rules to prevent men oppressing women, whereupon the Mexican baby boom instavanished.

              In the short term, the major burden and risk of childbearing is carried by women. Women are reluctant to bear children without promises of close support, but men are reluctant to promise close support if they risk being cucked. Cooperation is easier if marriage is enforceable and/or women are legally pets and property.

              If you are going to raise children together, need to have one household. If one household, one head of household, and the head has to be the man, as women will not endure being head of household. To cooperate, need to enforce the marital contract. Enforcing the marital contract thus requires enforcing female submission and obedience. If no submission, then no children.

          • Irving says:

            Morkyz, I definitely agree with that assessment as it regards the upwardly mobile parts of the population. I don’t know however if it accurately accounts for the low birthrates of middle class people and lower.

          • Morkyz says:

            I think middle class people do at least think of themselves as upwardly mobile. For the lower classes, them have low time preference and would prefer to just keep having non-reproductive sex if they can get it.

          • pdimov says:

            “Unfortunately Jim, you’re proposal only treats a symptom of the problem (low birthrates) without addressing the root cause of it.”

            I think that Jim is closer to the truth here than you are, that is, I think that the primary cause of the problem is not economic.

          • Morkyz says:

            @jim, damn, impressive. I’m actually surprised the left did the right thing for once and put a stop to it.

          • Irving says:

            >Wherever and whenever control of children, sex, women, and reproduction is substantially in male hands, we get pretty impressive fertility.

            This sounds very nice, but birth control isn’t going anywhere, and neither is the availability of safe and efficient methods of abortion. The cat is irretrievably out of the bag, and at this point, the re-imposition of male control of female sexuality is, at least for the foreseeable future, going to be partial and imperfect. And this is not to even address the fact that in Poland, abortion isn’t even legal. No doubt the methods you propose would help the Poles and other Eastern Europeans reproduce more, but I doubt that it’ll be enough, given their economic situation.

            >I think that Jim is closer to the truth here than you are, that is, I think that the primary cause of the problem is not economic.

            Fair enough, but although I do think that the primary cause is economic, I don’t think that it is the only cause. There’s a lot of reasons why birth rates in Eastern Europe are what they are, but I just don’t think that making women the property of men, as desirable and perhaps necessary as that may be, will solve the problem. Reinstalling patriarchy is great, but in any case how can that be done without keeping people from leaving the country? It isn’t as if the men aren’t culpable in this too. I doubt that the average Polish male wants to be the father or 3+ children.

            • jim says:

              >Wherever and whenever control of children, sex, women, and reproduction is substantially in male hands, we get pretty impressive fertility.

              This sounds very nice, but birth control isn’t going anywhere, and neither is the availability of safe and efficient methods of abortion.

              We have had condoms, abortion, non reproductive sex, and infanticide for several thousand years, and patriarchal cultures just are not much into that stuff.

          • Irving says:

            >We have had condoms, abortion, non reproductive sex, and infanticide for several thousand years, and patriarchal cultures just are not much into that stuff.

            Condoms are worn by men, non-reproductive sex can only be done with the consent of the man, and infanticide, because of its nature, is never going to be done by too many people unless they are under some kind of duress. So of course patriarchal cultures can deal with these things.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            It would be brutally cruel in the short-term, but take away state childcare assistance from families that are not composed in a traditional manner i.e. no divorced or single parents etc (other formulations are moot and open to debate), and you’d very quickly see patriarchy return.

            In fact, I think this one policy on its own would achieve 95% of what we on the alt-right are hoping to see instituted into society. It might even be less cruel than I imagine, if religious bodies took back their proper role as welfare providers, rather than the appropriation of such currently by the various national governments.

            • jim says:

              Been tried.

              Economics does not work. Sex and babies are just too powerful to be much affected by financial incentives.

              Indeed we already tried this in the nineteenth century. Emancipated women without the welfare state means a whole lot of women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain to a fatherless child. If you give women freedom of choice, a great many women make such terrible choices that men have little alternative but to pay for women’s choices. If you emancipate women to make their own decisions, you have to pay for their decisions, have to have a welfare state, because their decisions are frequently so bad. This profoundly impairs the freedom of men, that they have to pay for bad choices that they have no power over and receive no benefit from. Some thug knocks up some idiot, and the man with a job has to support another man’s child and a woman who is not giving him sex and domestic service.

              This is pretty much what “Less Miserables” was about. “Less Miserables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women. And indeed it is true, if you reject the obvious alternative of coercively and forcibly subordinating criminal men and immoral women to good men.

  5. Cloudswrest says:

    Does anybody else think the linked picture of the Polish Defense Minister looks very much like Revilo Oliver? http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_63smism.jpg Maybe there’s some physiognomy associated with being aware of the JQ.

  6. B says:

    I recommend you read what the Biblical prophecies actually say.

    Certainly, the Jews who have enjoyed large levels of individual powers in the West over the last 160 years have been precisely those Jews who didn’t particularly care what the Bible says on any particular question and were, like Karl Marx’s father, quite willing to switch the Bible and being Jewish for modest secular professional advantages. So any Biblical/Rabbinical visions were completely irrelevant to them-they would, if aware of them, dismiss them as Bronze Age superstitions.

    • jim says:

      You are not answering the question that was asked.

      • B says:

        If you have questions about specific Biblical prophecies or specific Rabbinical interpretations of them/speculations about what the political future of Israel is, I’d be happy to discuss them.

        • jim says:

          You are dodging the question and weaseling.

          • B says:

            I’m not here to do your homework for you.

            Ask a specific question with source attribution, and there will be something to discuss.

            • jim says:

              I’m not here to do your homework for you.

              You resemble Bart Simpson. “I did not do it, nobody saw me do it, and you cannot prove I did it!”

              You will not tell me the Jews have no such prophecies, but if I produce a specific particular prophecy you will litigate it to death explaining it does not mean what it says nor say what it means.

          • B says:

            This is squid ink. You have any specific questions about specific prophecies?

            • jim says:

              No. I have a general question about Jewish acceptance of such talmudic and rabbinic prophecies, which question you are dodging.

          • B says:

            Yet you won’t specify which prophecies you are generally asking about our acceptance of. Why is that?

            • jim says:

              Because that is a tactic you use for dodging the question, which is not a question about specific prophecies, but about Jewish beliefs concerning prophecies, not a question about how founded or well founded these beliefs are, not a question about what these beliefs are founded on.

          • B says:

            Obviously, I can’t tell you what we think about something when I don’t know which something you mean.

            This conversation is getting pretty dumb, even for you.

            • jim says:

              Obviously, I can’t tell you what we think about something when I don’t know which something you mean.

              The something that I mean is to what extent do Jews believe it is their divinely appointed destiny to rule over the middle east, and to what extent do Jews believe it is their divinely appointed destiny to rule over us?

          • B says:

            The Jews believe that Israel will extend from the Nile to the Euphrates.

            We do not believe that Israel will extend from Australia to Greenland.

            The specifics of the Messianic Age are unclear. We know that there will be a judgement of the nations-Psalm 149 says so explicitly. Which nations-I don’t know. Ezekiel 35 and Ovadiah say that Edom will be judged very harshly.

            The outcome will be that everyone will worship G-d through the Temple. i doubt that this will happen as a result of some Jewish conspiracy. Rather, it seems that people will come to the conclusion on their own: “He (the Messiah) will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: ‘I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'”

            Again, Maimonides:
            Halacha 1
            Do not presume that in the Messianic age any facet of the world’s nature will change or there will be innovations in the work of creation. Rather, the world will continue according to its pattern.

            Although Isaiah 11:6 states: ‘The wolf will dwell with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the young goat,’ these words are a metaphor and a parable. The interpretation of the prophecy is as follows: Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked gentiles who are likened to a wolf and a leopard, as in the prophecy Jeremiah 5:6: ‘A wolf from the wilderness shall spoil them and a leopard will stalk their cities.’ They will all return to the true faith and no longer steal or destroy. Rather, they will eat permitted food at peace with Israel as Isaiah 11:7 states: ‘The lion will eat straw like an ox.’

            Similarly, other Messianic prophecies of this nature are metaphors. In the Messianic era, everyone will realize which matters were implied by these metaphors and which allusions they contained.

            Halacha 2
            Our Sages taught: “There will be no difference between the current age and the Messianic era except the emancipation from our subjugation to the gentile kingdoms.”

            The Sages and the prophets did not yearn for the Messianic era in order to have dominion over the entire world, to rule over the gentiles, to be exalted by the nations, or to eat, drink, and celebrate. Rather, they desired to be free to involve themselves in Torah and wisdom without any pressures or disturbances, so that they would merit the world to come, as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah.

            Halacha 5
            In that era, there will be neither famine or war, envy or competition for good will flow in abundance and all the delights will be freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know God.

            Therefore, the Jews will be great sages and know the hidden matters, grasping the knowledge of their Creator according to the full extent of human potential, as Isaiah 11:9 states: ‘The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the ocean bed.”

            Regardless of the debate concerning these questions, neither the order of the occurrence of these events or their precise detail are among the fundamental principles of the faith. A person should not occupy himself with the Aggadot and homiletics concerning these and similar matters, nor should he consider them as essentials, for study of them will neither bring fear or love of God.

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Polesh news publications are protesting that the Mahometans are not “assimilating” in the right way. Assimilating means racially intermarrying, part of the obvious program of White Genocide.

    A.J.P.

    • Mackus says:

      Nope.
      Haven’t heard much of any media complaining about Poles not marrying non-whites. Google turned out _one_ example, Kinga Dunin, but she’s radical leftist feminist (obvious, given that she rants about polish patriarchate nationalizing wombs). She’s not even complaining about lack of intermarrying, just advises it to polish women while insulting polish men.
      Can link any other publications? You mentioned publications, as in plural.

  8. ad*m says:

    Some good points, but “There has been a whole of mythmaking and lies about the holocaust of the Jews”

    I am not sure what you refer to here. Several of my family ended up dead in Maydanek and Auschwitz. The only reason my wife and I exist is because some brave Christians allowed our parents (kids then) to hide with them.
    There is no record of the rest of my family being gassed, but having seen the fences, buildings, gas chambers, piles of ashes, and records of many others who ended up there, Occam’s razor teaches me that they were killed, and in massive fashion.

    I am not sure what other explanation you propose for how my family was murdered there, except that they must have been unique in some way, when all the other stories I have personally heard from people who were there confirm this.

    What you call mythmaking is, from my limited perspective, what my family experienced.

    Since my great grandfather was murdered by the Bolsheviks, no I dont see communists in any way better than Nazis. They were worse in fact as the comparative heights of the piles of corpses they left behind attest.

    • jim says:

      I am not sure what you refer to here. Several of my family ended up dead in Maydanek and Auschwitz.

      The question is whether they were gassed by authorities that consciously planned to kill them, or allowed to die through starvation, thirst, disease, and exposure to the elements by authorities that did not think much about whether those in their charge lived or died.

      It appears that they were not in fact gassed, which makes the manner of their deaths very similar to that of many of the much larger killings in communist countries.

    • peppermint says:

      » gas chambers, piles of ashes,

      these do not exist

      » fences, buildings,

      these do exist

      » records of many others who ended up there

      these are lies, and a lot of official records are sealed

      don’t forget, the Red Cross confirmed the concentration camp prisoners were being treated humanely

      • ad*m says:

        Here is one of the piles of ashes, a big one. I have been there, apparently you have not

        http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Majdanek/Majdanek06.html

        The records of many who came in and died can be seen in Auschwitz. They are mostly written in German which I read.

        Again, Occam’s razor. Who could set up such your giant deception and keep it completely hidden for so many years. And who would have benefitted from this deception?

        But you can see how Jim’s statement is distracting. Maybe he intended that, but if not, he should be more careful.

        • jim says:

          No one sane denies that the Nazis murdered most Jews they got hold of.

          The question at issue is how did they murder them: did they murder them pretty much commie style, or in a special and unique Nazi style that was very very very different from the much kinder and nicer way in which communists murder people, which makes Nazism the ultimate epitome of evil whereas communists were really nice kindly good people who regrettably made a few regrettable errors that unfortunately somehow mysteriously resulted in large numbers of people dying through absolutely no one’s fault.

          • jim says:

            Again, Occam’s razor. Who could set up such your giant deception and keep it completely hidden for so many years.

            Turns out there are no actual witnesses to gas chambers etc, while there are overwhelming numbers of witnesses to Jews dying pretty much the way people died under communism – starvation, torture, overwork, bullet through the head, exposure to the elements, etc.

            And whenever someone claims to be presenting evidence for gas chambers, etc, he loudly and piously announces he is presenting such evidence, but in fact presents evidence of communist style death by neglect and mistreatment.

            And who would have benefitted from this deception?

            Commies. Jewish commies. Socialists. Jews who want to make crimes against Jews completely different from crimes against kulaks, Cambodians, etc.

          • Irving says:

            >No one sane denies that the Nazis murdered most Jews they got hold of.

            The historian Jan Gross is extreme in certain respects, but his book “Neighbors” clearly documents how the Poles, when the Nazis liberated Poland from the Soviets, went to town on the Jews, given the widespread (and correct) belief among them that the Jews collaborated with the Soviets. It got so bad that even the Nazis thought the Poles were going too far, and attempted to stop them.

          • B says:

            There are obviously witnesses to the gas chambers. For instance, the entire population of Hungarian Jews was deported to Auschwitz. Upon arrival they underwent selection on the ramp, with those deemed unfit to work gassed immediately. J the Water Engineer, who comments here sporadically and has a blog at h2oreuse, had his parents survive while most of their families were killed.

            • jim says:

              Who is the witness that saw “gassed immediately”? Who are these “obvious witnesses”. What did they actually see, as distinct from claim to know what happened decades after the events?

          • B says:

            J’s father and mother got unloaded from the cattle cars, went through the ramp, were told to go to one side while their weaker family members were told to go to the other, that was the last time they were seen. The gas and the burning of the bodies were common knowledge in the camps.

            Another example; my friend (who is a local legend) is 84 now. His first wife was captured while working for the partisan underground in Lvov, pretended to be a non-Jew, was sent to Auschwitz and survived, moved to Israel after the war, served in the military intelligence community here. She wrote a book, “A Girl Called Judith Strick,” which is available on Amazon. She writes that the chambers were common knowledge in the camp, with the weak and those who offended the guards in some way constantly getting gassed. I did not meet her-she passed away in the 1960s-but I know my friend and have no doubt about his integrity.

            Another example: SS judge Konrad Morgen started off investigating corruption in the SS system, ended up investigating the camps. He talked about the gas chambers: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/konradmorgen.html

            • jim says:

              The gas and the burning of the bodies were common knowledge in the camps.

              Ah, yes, common knowledge, that ever reliable source of information. Or was it common knowledge years after the events, as in numerous recent child molestation convictions prosecuted forty years after events?

              And, supposing that it actually was “common knowledge” at the time, “common knowledge” is neither knowledge nor evidence.

              That sick people were never seen again is entirely consistent with the equally evil Cuban Healthcare system. No gas chambers required.

              Indeed gas chambers require more efficiency, organization, forethought, energy, and resources, than does the Cuban healthcare system. Entropy is on the side of the obvious. Chances are that the sick were placed in the nil by mouth, no bedsheets changed, no bedsheets at all, medical care system, the Liverpool Pathway, that being more in line with human nature, which tends to take the line of least resistance.

              Why send the sick to gas chambers when it is so much easier to send them to (nonexistent) medical care? (Other than sending people into nonexistent medical care has a disturbing resemblance to socialism, communism, and progressivism.)

          • Jack says:

            I know of a Jewish chick who claims her grandma was put in charge of handling the selection process, sending people either to die or to work. Presumably it was known that some were destined to be exterminated, but perhaps the Nazis didn’t outright tell her “these people shall be killed” but merely that those unfit to work need to be separated; therefore it was within the realm of possibility that those unfit to work would be sent to live somewhere, though that must have seemed like a pretty dubious prospect because, uhm, who exactly would care for all those people? So the stories about people being sent in this or that direction depending on whether or not they were fit to work, with those unfit to work being exterminated somehow, are probably accurate.

            Her grandma’s account does not contain actually seeing any gas chambers, but I don’t remember which camp it was so whatever.

            • jim says:

              If there is a Jew rating other Jews as unfit to work, then there should be a pile of Jews hauling other Jews out of the gas chambers and disposing of the bodies. And there do not seem to be. Or if there were, somehow, strangely, the bodies had rigor mortis.

          • B says:

            >yes, common knowledge, that ever reliable source of information.

            As is typical, you know more about what went on in the camps than their inmates and Konrad Morgen, the SS judge in charge of investigating abuses there.

            Tell me, what happened to all the children and old people there? Veesenmayer telegrammed the Reich to report that 437K Jews had been deported from Hungary to Auschwitz between May and July 1944. Where did the sick, the old people and children go when they were separated upon arrival? Where are the reports of 100s of thousands of them being, as you imply, stashed somewhere to starve to death? Surely, we’d have a bunch of SS and Polish and inmate eye witnesses, as we do for the death by starvation of Soviet POWs in giant pens in 1941. But we don’t. Of course, it does not make any sense to dedicate precious German rail stock in 1944, when Germany is busy getting its ass kicked on all sides, to moving hundreds of thousands of Jewish children and old people 500 km in order to starve them to death-starving people to death on the spot was an art the Germans had perfected in e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto, and did not require such gargantuan efforts.

            Likewise, sending 50K Greek Jews from Thessaloniki to Auschwitz does not make very much sense if you are just going to starve them to death.

            >Indeed gas chambers require more efficiency, organization, forethought, energy, and resources, than does the Cuban healthcare system

            Amazing-who could believe that the Germans were more efficient, better organized and energetic than the Cubans?

            • jim says:

              Surely, we’d have a bunch of SS and Polish and inmate eye witnesses, a

              I rather think we do.

              Recall the work details processing dead people with rigor mortis. You don’t get rigor mortis from gas chambers. You don’t get rigor mortis from shooting people. You get rigor mortis from forgetting about people until the smell becomes embarassing.

              If you have an efficient high tech system of killing people in large numbers it is going to be the front end for an efficient system of corpse disposal, and rigor mortis is not going to be a problem.

          • TheBigH says:

            >Likewise, sending 50K Greek Jews from Thessaloniki to Auschwitz does not make very much sense if you are just going to starve them to death.

            Germany was keeping thier entire war effort going on the backs of slave labor and was burning through labor at an amazing rate. Exactly like the Soviet system. And if knew anything about history you’d know that slave labor kicked into high gear starting in 1944 when all German men were pushed into the military.

          • B says:

            >Recall the work details processing dead people with rigor mortis.

            Source?

            Aside from killing the young, old and weak in the gas chambers upon arrival, of course they killed many of the able bodied through overwork and starvation.

            I have not seen any sources suggesting that people came out of gas chambers with rigor mortis.

            >Germany was keeping thier entire war effort going on the backs of slave labor and was burning through labor at an amazing rate.

            Which is why it was essential to deport the old people, women and children of Greece and Hungary, and kill them on the spot, right? And to starve the Warsaw Ghetto.

            Notably, the Soviet civilians who were deported to Germany as slave and factory labor were not mass murdered, and left plenty of memoirs of being treated like slaves but with occasional kindness.

            • jim says:

              Killing large numbers of people in gas chambers and disposing of their bodies involves substantial equipment, labor and resources. But all the gas chamber testimony comes from people who were very peripherally involved in the process, supposing that they were involved at all.

              Yes, we have plenty of evidence of lots of Jews not being around any more, and plenty of evidence of large numbers of dead Jews. But if they were done in using gas chambers, there should be a lot more evidence, and the evidence should be much more direct. The evidence for gas chambers resembles the evidence for flying saucers. We have huge amounts of direct and compelling evidence of Jews dying of neglect, exposure, starvation, mistreatment etc. We ought to have similar evidence for gas chambers, and we do not.

          • peppermint says:

            This some gas chambers theory is the latest version of the death camp legend. Previous versions include geysers of blood, electric incinerators, and smoke of different colors depending on the second language of the Jews being ovened.

            The goal is to make it as plausible as possible by putting one little gas chamber into what actually happened, so we won’t feel too bad about agreeing that there were, or may have been, gas chambers.

            The death camp legends must be considered as a literary genre instead of considering just one decontextualized text. The gas chambers were slowly developed into being more realistic the same way as vampires and first person shooter games.

            People still say it was a shower room with a slow-release insecticide, would the holohoaxers like to go on record saying that that’s a misconception?

          • B says:

            >But all the gas chamber testimony comes from people who were very peripherally involved in the process, supposing that they were involved at all.

            This is no different from the modern day Stalinists who deny there having been mass executions through shooting through a similar process. We don’t have a lot of people talking about shooting 10K people in an episode, the ones who did talk about it generally did so under some sort of duress or can be otherwise discredited, therefore, it didn’t happen. Unless I can produce someone who was personally gassed to tell you about what it was like, you will disbelieve.

            Me, I believe the testimonies of people whose siblings/parents/children disappeared immediately upon arrival to the camps and who were then told that they had been gassed, and the testimony of Konrad Morgen, Eichmann and Hoess:
            http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/eichmanfuhrerorder.html
            http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/hoesstest.html

            • jim says:

              Unless I can produce someone who was personally gassed to tell you about what it was like, you will disbelieve.

              Produce a corpse disposal squad where each saw the freshly killed bodies, bodies of people who all died at the same time, (no rigor mortis, no decay) and each saw the others disposing of the uniformly fresh bodies.

              Hard to do for Stalin’s crimes, but should be trivial to do for Hitler’s crimes.

              Me, I believe the testimonies of people whose siblings/parents/children disappeared immediately upon arrival to the camps

              I believe them also. Sounds like the Cuban healthcare system, which, though extremely evil, does not employ gas chambers when neglect suffices, and requires less forethought, efficiency, and capital expenditure.

          • B says:

            A comment of mine is in moderation.

            In the meantime, I’d also like to point out that the Communists after WW2 were not largely Jewish, did not like the Jews very much, and de-emphasized the Jewish aspect of Nazi mass murders, emphasizing instead the general suffering of the Soviet people. The role of mass gassing in the Holocaust was known but not emphasized.

          • peppermint says:

            …which is why only the concentration camps that were occupied by the Soviets are still claimed to have had gas chambers, that having been disproven in the Western-occupied territories

          • B says:

            it’s all a ZOG plot, man.

          • peppermint says:

            yes, the ultimate argument that the holocaust happened is that doubters are untrustworthy because they are consumed with pathological hatred.

            Meanwhile, anyone who wants to know how the holocaust myth was made can read chapter 12 of David Duke’s book Jewish Supremacism, which is not an anti-Semitic book because it says so in the author’s preface and was confirmed to not be anti-Semitic by the Russian government.

          • B says:

            What possible pathological hatred could there be in a dude who spends a significant portion of his waking hours on the internet calling for people to “gas the kikes”?

            As for David Duke’s book-I’ll get right on it.

          • B says:

            >If there is a Jew rating other Jews as unfit to work, then there should be a pile of Jews hauling other Jews out of the gas chambers and disposing of the bodies. And there do not seem to be.

            There were, called the Sonderkommando, who were themselves periodically disposed of. This is common knowledge, again, and your ignorance of it is strange.

            • jim says:

              There were, called the Sonderkommando, who were themselves periodically disposed of. This is common knowledge, again, and your ignorance of it is strange.

              Then there should be a Sonderkommando squad where each saw batches of bodies with no rigor mortis and no decay in any of the bodies, indicating that everyone in the batch died at the same time (hence actively mass murdered, rather than passively mass murdered) and each saw each of the others see this. Produce the squad testimony.

          • pdimov says:

            [Discussion of the six million figure deleted, not because that wild assed guess should be sacred, but because everyone who claims that the real figure is much much lower also wishes it was much much higher, which tends to generate excessive heat.]

          • Jack says:

            >What possible pathological hatred could there be in a dude who spends a significant portion of his waking hours on the internet calling for people to “gas the kikes”?

            Hatred it is, but it’s no more pathological than when people spend hours obsessing about their favorite football team and deriding rival teams as “cocksucking faggots”.

            Look, with some internet Nazis it’s kinda pathological indeed, but most people here are not some dumb niggers of a caucasian extraction, and can actually give you lots of articulate, erudite, valid, coherent, and logical reasons why they would rather the Jews be gassed yesterday.

            In the same way, but for reasons having to do with exploding buses rather than intellectual subversion, Israeli folks can give you plenty of good explanations why they wholeheartedly prescribe “mavet la’aravim” (death to the Arabs), but you wouldn’t argue that writing “mavet la’aravim” once in a while on some blog (or Mosque) makes one a pathological hater, now, would you?

            Deep-seated hatred is not really about the color of the skin, nor is it about the shape of the nose. It’s about intra-tribal antagonism which is inherent to all human societies that haven’t gone extinct. But some groups manage to arouse higher levels of it than others, and it’s not a mystifying process either. You’re a typical Jewish asshole, for instance, thus your antics and yourself have brought more readers of this blog into the camp of anti-Semitic hate than, say, some fringe Wotanist who believes mass literacy is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy of the bankers, citing Shimon ben Shetach as evidence.

            You are the living proof that there are organic rather than crackpot roots behind anti-Semitism.

          • pdimov says:

            “Discussion of the six million figure deleted”

            No problem, but with that you imply that I discussed it, whereas I did not. Deleting what I said while leaving this note in its place allows and encourages the reader to assume much worse than what I actually wrote.

            • jim says:

              My apologies.

              Neither you nor anyone else on this blog has suggested that the true number is a lot smaller than six million.

              The sacredness of that exact number is worthy of parody. But unfortunately opening that discussion, no matter how much it needs to be discussed, attracts idiots.

              The true number is in fact likely to be a little bit smaller, but of comparable magnitude, not a whole lot smaller, which is to say, one hell of a lot of Jews. I am saying this without providing evidence or argument, and without allowing anyone to reply, because the debate is a moron magnet.

          • Jack says:

            To add to my post above: anti-Semitism should be a natural reflex when you see it argued, on radical right-wing venues of all places, that Catholics are pozzed because of themselves, Protestants are pozzed because of themselves, atheists are pozzed because of themselves, but Jews — and only Jews — are pozzed because of everyone but themselves. This kind of special-snowflakism would drive everyone not fully philo-Semitic to evaluate the merits of kike gassing. I’m not a real Nazi and don’t really support resurrecting zombie Hitler, but the attitude Jews have regarding their culpability in destroying nations is the epitome of chutzpah.

            It doesn’t help that every now and then some Jews like Anton LaVey, Claude Vorilhon, or the con-artists of PUA spawn from the depths of Hades to preach their degenerate loonery. This happens in the present and you can’t blame the Church of Satan, Raelianism, and Game on the usual “oh we poor oppressed Jews just tryin’ to avoid those dreadful ovens.” No, you’re trying to destroy the societies that host you and thereby generate ethnic antagonism. It’s not the noses, it’s the ever-subversive conduct.

            • jim says:

              Agreed.

              But neither should we tolerate the position that whites are pozzed primarily because of evil Jewish mindrays, and getting rid of the Jews and taking their stuff would restore white sanity.

              That position destroys white agency, and the take-their-stuff part of it displays a motivation of envy and covetousness.

              Jews are indeed a problem, and I think our resident Jewish supremacist has acknowledged this several times, vigorously pissing on progressive Jews. But they are not the big problem. Leftism is self destructive, not other destructive, and to the extent that Jews are leftists, they are industriously undermining, rather than plotting, Jewish domination, the Old Bolsheviks being the paradigmatic example of this.

              The Jewish problem should not be entirely ignored and concealed, but neither should it be given excessive weight and attention. That way madness lies.

          • B says:

            >Produce the squad testimony.

            What squad testimony? The Sonderkommando were executed en masse every several months. A handful survived the war. There is no more a testimonial record of a squad of them then there is a testimonial record of an NKVD execution squad, which I guess means that the NKVD did not mass execute anyone.

            Primo Levi writes about the Sonderkommando in his memoirs.

            Some of the surviving Sondrekommando members left memoirs. Others wrote diaries and buried them, which diaries were later recovered:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalman_Gradowski
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leib_Langfus
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ol%C3%A8re
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Gabbai
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Venezia
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Mandelbaum

            • jim says:

              >Produce the squad testimony.

              What squad testimony? T

              Supposedly the gas chambers were interrupted in full flow. The testimony of whatever squads were operating corpse disposal when the gas chambers were interrupted.

              Some of the surviving Sondrekommando members left memoirs. Others wrote diaries and buried them, which diaries were later recovered:

              It would seem, however, that none of these noticed batches of uniformly fresh bodies, but rather found themselves struggling with bodies in rigor mortis – none of them seem to have observed clear evidence of active mass killing, rather than killing by neglect, abuse, and mistreatment.

          • B says:

            >It would seem, however, that none of these noticed batches of uniformly fresh bodies, but rather found themselves struggling with bodies in rigor mortis – none of them seem to have observed clear evidence of active mass killing, rather than killing by neglect, abuse, and mistreatment.

            I don’t know what “it would seem.” Could you produce some quotes, with source attribution? Not the NRx way, eh?

            • jim says:

              My claim is that though there is plenty of evidence that lots of Jews died due wrongful conduct by Nazis against their captives, and in this sense were murdered, there is no real evidence for gas chambers, and if gas chambers existed, there should be evidence, because the Nazis lost the war and the genocide was interrupted in the middle.

              It is your job to show the presence of evidence, not my job to produce the absence of evidence.

              If gas chambers existed, there should be eyewitness testimony of batches of uniformly fresh bodies. I say such evidence does not exist. If such evidence exists, you produce it.

          • Jack says:

            Jim, you are correct that debating about the exact number of dead Jews is not expedient, to say the least. Then again, debating about the exact methods used to kill the Jews also misses the point. The real discussion should be about whether killing the Jews at all was justified or not.

            The Holocaust was an overreaction. The Nazis should not have gassed or otherwise exterminated all the kikes. That doesn’t mean, however, that nothing should have been done about the kikes. Jews who were productive citizens of the Reich should have been peacefully expelled to Palestine or to Madagascar, as was originally intended. Unfortunately, the British wouldn’t let it happen, so in a way, the Holocaust was their fault. Jews who were subhuman, like Leftists or smelly black-hatters, should have been exterminated. The Zionists — particularly the fascist faction of Betar or the Revisionists or whatever they called themselves — wouldn’t have cried about that too much anyway. A small minority of Jews, who appeared to be wholly White (blue eyes, etc.), could have remained and assimilated into German society.

            To sum up: assimilate the White Jews, expel the normal Jews, kill the worthless and subversive Jews. This is what the Nazis should have done, and this is what should be done today.

            As for the stuff of the expelled or exterminated Jews, well obviously taking away their stuff shouldn’t have been the raison d’etre behind the expulsion or extermination, so it follows that if you want to respect abstract property rights, then you should let the expelled Jews take away their stuff with them; but as for the dead Jews, they have no abstract property rights and their stuff could be used to enrich the Reich.

            Is there any objection to the course of action outlined here?

            • jim says:

              To sum up: assimilate the White Jews, expel the normal Jews, kill the worthless and subversive Jews.

              Americans won the war of indepenedence in substantial part because Lord Howe, commander of the British forces, deliberately sent his own men to their deaths and supplied George Washington with gunpowder.

              Should not we be primarily worried about subversive whites?

              So how about we enslave worthless people, who will likely turn out to be mostly blacks and very few Jews, and kill subversive people, who will likely turn out to be disproportionately Jewish?

              If the Tzar had executed Lenin instead of sending him to a country club prison for a spot of hunting, fishing, and horseback riding, the Tzar might have lived, and the best people in Russia might have lived. If the Tzar had executed Trotsky, would not have made much difference.

              If the Tzar had executed all subversive Jews, or all Jews, would have made some difference, but if he did that and still sent Lenin to a short time in country club prison, missing the target.

              Lenin should have been executed for treason, Lord Howe for dereliction of duty and treason, and Wilberforce enslaved or crucified for apostasy in power. Those three executions would have had a dramatic effect on history. Robbing and killing a few million Jews, not so much.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Mr Dimov,

            I’ve noticed that “Jim” doesn’t want a body to debate with others at his blog; he wants you to debate with _him_. Perhaps that knowledge will be helpful to you as it is for me…

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >but rather found themselves struggling with bodies in rigor mortis

            You made a positive claim here. Namely, that Sonderkommando memoirs you’ve come across involve struggling with bodies with rigor mortis. I’m asking for a source.

            • jim says:

              The positive claim I made is that those that Sonderkommando memoirs I’ve come across provide evidence for mass deaths caused by wrongful Nazi behavior, but not mass executions, are not relevant to the claim of killing by gas chambers.

              The positive claim I made is that the evidence I have come across fails to support the gas chamber story.

              We are debating the gas chamber story. Your job is to provide evidence for presence of gas chambers, not my job to provide evidence for the absence of gas chambers.

              And your endless efforts to create a distraction reveal that you are unable or unwilling to provide such evidence.

          • B says:

            >those that Sonderkommando memoirs I’ve come across

            Which ones are those? I’d like to see if they say what you claim they say.

            >The positive claim I made is that the evidence I have come across fails to support the gas chamber story.

            Which evidence is that? I’d like to be the judge of that myself.

            > Your job is to provide evidence for presence of gas chambers, not my job to provide evidence for the absence of gas chambers.

            This is the textbook definition of moving the null hypothesis. Hey, where have I seen that described?

            Oh, yeah:

            http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html

            “First: shift the burden of proof to the converse of your unsupported hypothesis, defining it as the null hypothesis – true until proven false. Second: raise the standards for proving it false to an absurd and unsatisfiable level…Third: declare victory.

            Thus: the moon is made of green cheese. You say the moon is made of moon rock and moondust, but you have no real evidence for this claim. Astronauts landed on the moon and brought home moon rock and moondust, but this is just a superficial layer of asteroid debris around the cheese. If they go again and actually drill this time, they’ll hit cheese. If they don’t, they didn’t drill deep enough. Regardless, the moon-rock theory remains highly speculative and unproven – it is probably “junk science” funded by lunar mining interests.”

            The null hypothesis is not that the gas chambers were a figment of the camp prisoners’ association, amplified by an international communist conspiracy post-war to make Communists look better, while in reality the many Jewish children, old people and sick people who were immediately separated out upon arrival to the camps were herded off to a large pen somewhere to die of starvation (which large pen or whatever was conveniently not witnessed by anyone on record.) The null hypothesis is that they were gassed and cremated, which was the whole point of moving them halfway across the continent on scarce rail stock.

            • jim says:

              >those that Sonderkommando memoirs I’ve come across

              Which ones are those? I’d like to see if they say what you claim they say.

              >The positive claim I made is that the evidence I have come across fails to support the gas chamber story.

              Which evidence is that? I’d like to be the judge of that myself.

              If the gas chambers existed, there would be concrete evidence, not someone saying that someone else says that someone else says that someone else says that someone else says there were gas chambers. If gas chambers existed there would be someone saying “I myself with a bunch of others saw a pile of freshly killed people”. A pile of dead people some of whom have rigor mortis counts as evidence of wrongful deaths caused by Nazis, but it is not evidence that they were actively killed, only that they were allowed to die.

              Produce that evidence.

              This is the textbook definition of moving the null hypothesis

              You want the testimony of some guy who failed to see gas chambers? Well, actually you don’t because you would reply that like flying saucers, they were hidden, then swiftly dismantled.

              We have evidence that a lot of Jews somehow wound up dead, and evidence that they believed in gas chambers. We don’t actually have evidence that significant numbers of Jews, or indeed any Jews, wound up dead in that particular way – as against all the other ways that oppressive regimes tend to cause people to wind up dead.

          • Mackus says:

            B, what would evidence that there were no gas chambers you ask of Jim would look like? I ask for a hypothetical example which, if backed by source, would be proof that you would accept.
            Can you conceive of such example?

          • pdimov says:

            “… herded off to a large pen somewhere to die of starvation …”

            We know that the only two possible options are gassed or herded off to a large pen to die of starvation, because no children survived Auschwitz.

            http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Jews-on-the-edge-350607

            Especially not a one month baby born there.

            “You want the testimony of some guy who failed to see gas chambers?”

            Such a testimony would be illegal in Germany or Poland, and a severely career-limiting move elsewhere.

          • B says:

            >If gas chambers existed there would be someone saying “I myself with a bunch of others saw a pile of freshly killed people”.

            You mean like the manuscript left behind by Leib Langfus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leib_Langfus

            >B, what would evidence that there were no gas chambers you ask of Jim would look like?

            I have no idea what evidence of absence looks like. What would evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese (deep below the surface, no matter what the ZOG-brainwashed “astronauts” and their masters would like us to believe) look like? What would evidence that the Soviets did not mass execute millions of people look like?

            >Especially not a one month baby born there.

            Does dyslexia run in your family? The article you cite says the baby was immediately killed because giving birth there was punishable by death.

            >because no children survived Auschwitz.

            It is well-known that Mengele and co. selected a bunch of kids for medical experiments. The gypsies, by the way, did not undergo selection when they arrived at the camps, and were interned in whole extended families.

            • jim says:

              You mean like the manuscript left behind by Leib Langfus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leib_Langfus

              1. These are not his words, but what someone else says his words imply, decorated by a few fragments of his words.

              2. Supposing this interpretation of his words is not deceptive, he sees people going to what he believes are their deaths, but, at least in this summary and paraphrase, does not see them die or see them dead. Maybe in his original, unparaphrased, uninterpreted, version he also sees them dead, but strangely, I cannot seem to find his original version. Maybe you can find it for me.

              To be evidence, needs to be his own words, not someone else’s interpretation of his words, and he needs to say he saw them dead, not merely say he believed they were going to be killed.

          • B says:

            Of course.

            We don’t have the video of the moon rocks being excavated, just some rocks and the video of some guys who claim they’re astronauts talking about digging them up. And even if those guys are real astronauts, and even if they believe they landed on the moon and dug those rocks up, who’s to say that it wasn’t some giant hoax? Etc etc etc.

            What a waste of time and brainpower.

            • jim says:

              Yes, but the astronauts say they dug them up. The equivalent would be someone saying he did the killing, saw the killing, or saw the freshly killed dead.

              This is not, at least in the paraphrase and interpretation, someone who says he saw the killing or saw the freshly killed dead. Maybe the unparaphrased original says that. Produce the curiously hard to find unparaphrased original and we will see what it actually says.

          • Mackus says:

            Your comparison to cheese-moon is flawed B.
            Wikipedia article you linked has very little actual quotes by Leib Langfus, its mostly descriptions of what supposedly said, summaries of his diary, not text of his diary.
            If one tried to prove Moon is made of rocks like that, he would provide no rocks. He would not introduce you to an astronaut, not show you diary astronaut written during his mission. He would provide article describing rocks, one not written by astronauts who were there but by journalist who read astronauts diaries, with some, but very little quotes by astronauts who actually went to the moon.
            The article on wiki was written being based on some source. You showing us text of the source (or telling us in which archive source texts are stored) would be pretty good proof, like reading diaries published by an astronaut who went to the moon, almost as good as personally talking to an astronaut who went to the moon.

          • B says:

            >Produce the curiously hard to find unparaphrased original and we will see what it actually says.

            You read Yiddish now?

            >You showing us text of the source (or telling us in which archive source texts are stored) would be pretty good proof

            The manuscript of Leib Langfus is, according to Wik, in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Memorial Museum. Other manuscripts were written by Sonderkommando members such as Zalman Gradowski, which are also kept in the museum’s archive as well as the Medical Military Museum in St. Petersburg and in Yad Vashem.

            Translations of the manuscripts were published in The Scrolls of Auschwitz by Bernard Ber Mark: http://www.amazon.com/The-scrolls-Auschwitz-Mark-Ber/dp/9651302526

            http://www.worldcat.org/title/scrolls-of-auschwitz/oclc/564575410

            • jim says:

              >Produce the curiously hard to find unparaphrased original and we will see what it actually says.

              You read Yiddish now?

              Allegedly, this key and central document was translated into – – – – Czech.

              Google can translate Czech well enough and yiddish well enough to check purported summaries and translations. Except that only certain people – properly progressive academics – seem to have access to either the yiddish or Czech version.

              Seems very much as if people don’t want this key evidence widely read.

              And, in fact, that is how it works with any piece of evidence that supposedly clearly and strongly supports the gas chamber narrative. It is walled away where ordinary people cannot get at it. “We have this compelling proof of gas chambers, and here is how it proves gas chambers. No, you cannot see it. Sorry about that.”

              There is clear evidence that a lot of Jews died as a result of wrongful conduct by Nazis. What, however, is in doubt, is the claim by a lot of Jews and a lot of commies that Nazis killed people in a dramatically different way to the way that commies killed people

          • pdimov says:

            “It is well-known that Mengele and co. selected a bunch of kids for medical experiments.”

            It is also well known that Mengele’s experiments, being evil, usually resulted in the death of the experimentee, yet hundreds of children survived.

            “The gypsies, by the way, did not undergo selection when they arrived at the camps, and were interned in whole extended families.”

            Not all children survivors were gypsy. There are many accounts of Jewish children who, in accordance to the official story that everyone under 15 was gassed, have had to come up with some narrative about their survival. Usually, they say to have lied about their age.

            “Does dyslexia run in your family?”

            Ah, you don’t know. Look up Angela Orosz, famous for being the surviving one baby out of two born in Auschwitz.

            Although I now see that the official story has been updated:

            “Germans treated pregnant women and newborns living in this section of the camp less harshly than in the other ones. They were given a little bit more food, sometimes even milk. Infants were registered in a registry book, which has survived until this day and holds records of 378 babies having been born. These privileges, however, were very short-term; the vast majority of these mothers, and those of their children who were not murdered soon after birth, perished not long after in the gas chambers.

            In fact, thousands of babies were born in Auschwitz, the vast majority of whom the Nazis killed virtually upon their emergence from the womb.”

            http://forward.com/news/317798/i-was-born-in-auschwitz-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale/

            Consider also the fate of Anne Frank’s family. Upon arrival, nobody is gassed, Otto Frank separated. Later, Anne and Margot fall ill, aren’t gassed, but transported to Bergen-Belsen. Edith dies in Auschwitz from (starvation|tuberculosis). Anne and Margo die in Bergen-Belsen from typhus. Otto survives.

          • Mackus says:

            >>http://www.amazon.com/The-scrolls-Auschwitz-Mark-Ber/dp/9651302526
            … the fuck?
            They want two thousand dollars? Are they insane?
            That piece of evidence seems to be in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.

            • jim says:

              Gas chambers are like global warming. Global warming scientists have all this compelling evidence, and they will tell you what it says, but they will not actually show you the evidence.

            • jim says:

              I also went looking for scans of the diary of Anne Frank.

              Found that a court had found that the diary handwriting matched other samples of Anne Frank’s handwriting, but somehow, could not find scans of any samples of Anne Frank’s handwriting. Maybe I am not looking hard enough, for the court’s findings are very widely published.

              Interesting that there are over a hundred million deaths by communism, with no Anne Frank.

              It is obvious that Anne Frank really existed, and lived and died pretty much as she is said to have lived and died. I am not in the least skeptical of the existence of Anne Frank the way I am skeptical that Nazi murders were carried out in the dramatic and completely-different-from-communism style that they are said to have been carried out. It is less obvious that she wrote her famous diary, which reads as if written by a competent adult male novelist rather than a teenage girl.

              But this may merely indicate a much keener search for colorful and sympathetic victims of Nazism than colorful and sympathetic victims of communism. Still, given the perhaps excessively enthusiastic search for colorful and sympathetic victims of Nazism, it would be nice to see scans of her handwriting.

              Let me make it clear that I think that killing Jews and taking their stuff is a really bad idea, and even ejecting them to Israel and taking their stuff is also a really bad idea, because taking their stuff means that it will be ruined rather than sold to someone competent to use it productively, and I also think a desire to take their stuff reveals a motivation of envy and covetousness. And I also think that Nazis murdered a lot of Jews, not necessarily six million, but something not far from six million, though probably not by means of gas chambers.

              However I also think that undue focus on the deaths of six million Jews, when communism murdered a hundred and sixty million, is unfair and is driving us insane, driving us towards the murder of billions, for it is not discrimination that kills, but covetousness, wanting what is someone else’s, and the Diary of Ann Frank is inexorably linked to a narrative of envy and covetousness, a narrative that white males do not deserve their stuff but somehow grabbed it before single women and people of color could, that husbands and fathers should be expelled from their homes and separated from their children, that those who work and pay taxes are the real welfare queens whose resistance to demands that they lose their undeserved privilege is racism and sexism.

              Of all the Jews murdered by the Nazis, the Jew to be specially humanized just happens to be single, female, and did not have major possessions to confiscate. So that her murder is pure discrimination, and absolutely nothing to do with envy and covetousness. The choice of Anne Frank as poster girl rather than someone more typical profoundly and dangerously misleads us about the nature and causes of mass murder.

          • pdimov says:

            “Seems very much as if people don’t want this key evidence widely read.”

            As far as I can see it was “common knowledge” in the camps that the Sonderkommando were Nazi collaborators, and by reading Wikipedia carefully I get the impression that they were also legally considered such in Israel.

            Then, miraculously, “between 1945 and 1980, a total of eight caches of documents were found buried in the grounds of Crematoria II and III in Auschwitz-Birkenau”, but I can’t find anywhere information on when exactly they were found, who found them, where specifically, and in what condition.

            These documents demonstrated conclusively that the Sonderkommando were victims and not collaborators, and that they were murdered every three months, except for the very last group, who was evacuated and not killed.

    • Markus says:

      I have no doubt that many Jews died in the holocaust and I don’t care it should be denied much like the Japanese deny all the rapes and murders they did during WWII to protect their own national integrity, if the jews want to show pics of piled up corpses in their schools by all means.

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Watch for Eastern and Central Europeans complaining about the E.U. in the way that American Southerners complain about Reconstruction, cynically using the latest misfortune as a bargaining chip in order to get more goodies from those in charge of the political sphere…

    The real issue is White Genocide by “assimilating” millions of non-whites into the white population, which if it were done instead by targeting the Asian or African race, it would be roundly decried as unjust or even as “racism”. Of course, in the white countries, this policy of White Genocide is rather known as “multiculturalism”, “integration” and “assimilation”.

    A.J.P.

  10. Hesiod says:

    The Jews: The original Dindu Nuffins?

  11. Alrenous says:

    http://blog.jim.com/politics/poland-goes-alt-right/#comment-1201851

    You see, when you kill people by accident they forgive you! It’s totally cool! You meet them in hell later you’re all like, “Sorry man, I let you starve to death, one of the most agonizing, lingering, and humiliating of possible deaths, because I couldn’t be arsed to view you as a person. No hard feelings, aright? It wasn’t personal.”
    And they’re all like, “Yeah man, it’s cool.”

    But if you kill someone on purpose, quick and clean, it’s bad. They totes mind dying if you do it that way.

    Luckily we have our masters of journalism to tell us what an empathetic human actually behaves like. God knows we’d have no idea, left to our own devices.

    • Alrenous says:

      I forgot about relatives! It’s the same thing, but I think it bears repeating.

      “I let your mom starve to death.”
      “No worries, I didn’t love her anyway.”

      “I killed your mom.”
      “YOU BASTARD I’m going to write a petulant Yelp review!”

    • Jack says:

      If depriving people of the preliminary conditions required for the continuity of their collective existence counts as murder in your book, do you accept the premise behind the White Genocide meme?

      • Alrenous says:

        Certain conditions had to be changed. These conditions were lame beyond lame. So no, that was surrender. Proactive surrender. Further there’s zero chance it can complete to actual genocide. Eventually the surrender-monkeys get selected out, leaving some form of crazy, which will get violent the instant they stop being held down by the surrender-monkeys,

        Basically if you try to remove a man’s ability to feed himself, he’ll fight. If he has a gun, he’ll shoot. If he doesn’t, he’ll sneak. If you remove a man’s ability to freely associate, apparently if he’s white he says, “Please sir, can I have some more?” I’ve worked out what a jackboot looks like. It’s a stiletto heel, apparently.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Alrenous”, those white anti-whites you’re writing about are better known as _traitors_. There are also real anti-white thugs that break up pro-whites meeting in public. Talk about them!

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            not really. There are thugs that the government tolerates attacking the enemies of the government. What the thugs get out of it is that chicks dig guys who beat people up.

            These thugs are anti-White because the government is anti-White. You won’t convince them to stop being anti-White by telling them that they are anti-White and pointing out that they are White and trying to be attractive towards White women.

            The way to demoralize them by reducing their attractiveness in the eyes of White women is to point out that they are a bunch of mama’s boy faggots who only exist because and to the extent that the government permits them to exist.

            • jim says:

              Will not work. Female perceptions of male status are markedly less sophisticated than male perceptions. Most of our stuff goes over their heads – hence the effectiveness of game with blatantly fake status.

          • peppermint says:

            it’ll work better than calling them anti-White.

            They’re still beating people up. But now they’re not the glorious vanguard of the revolution fighting evil while dodging the corrupt police, they’re unpaid thugs going after targets that would be politically inconvenient for the government to go after directly, that are going to get Ernst Rohm’d as soon as they become politically inconvenient.

            These guys aren’t in it because they can get puxxy anyway. Any way you can damage their claims to social status demoralizes them and reduces their numbers.

    • pdimov says:

      The moral calculus is different when you are a communist yourself, that is, you don’t mind letting people die of starvation (or dehydration) for the Greater Good. In that case, differentiating yourself from Nazis might become a little awkward if they weren’t evil in a particularly differentiating way.

  12. pdimov says:

    “There has been a whole of mythmaking and lies about the holocaust of the Jews, but it seems to me that the point of the mythmaking was not so much to make the Nazis more guilty, as to make killings by Nazis as different as possible from killings by commies.”

    Could also have been a way to root out the unbelievers. Do you accept the Six Million in Gas Chambers story, comrade? You have reservations, you say? Tsk tsk. That could be dangerous for your career and is illegal in most of Europe, don’t you know?

    (Similar to having to put a communist slogan on your shop. Who wrote about that, Dalrymple? Can’t find the quote.)

  13. pdimov says:

    “… but it seems to me that the point of the mythmaking was not so much to make the Nazis more guilty, as to make killings by Nazis as different as possible from killings by commies.”

    There’s also the matter with the deaths of 0.5-2.5 million Germans after WW2, which had similar causes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)

    • TheBigH says:

      Actual numbers are closer to 5 million when you include slave labor. Germans civilians and POWs were used as slaves for years after the war and many died from stavation and exposure.

  14. […] The Islamic Vortex update (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Saudi collapse chatter (plus). Stuxnet update. Charlie Foxtrot foreign policy (1, 2, 3, 4). Venezuela in ruins (1, 2, 3). Full communism in the UK and US. Chinese takes on the Norks, its own rich kids, and digital money. Germany leaves the reservation. Scary Poland (notable 1, 2), plus Jim’s take. […]

  15. Mackus says:

    Despite my initial skepticism of the claim, it seems Soviet-style collapse is imminent after all.
    Rather that focus on maintaining their still-functioning instruments of control, Cathedral doubles down and sacrifices CIA to the Moloch.
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/cia-dedicated-program-recruit-transgender/
    “diversity”, “inclusion”, “every demographic imaginable”
    I wonder how long it will take CIA to cease being useful at its originally intended function? Once last white men are chased out, I think. Depends on whether management “gets the joke”, if they place all affirmative action folk at sinecure posts, they’ll last a bit longer.

    • pdimov says:

      “I wonder how long it will take CIA to cease being useful at its originally intended function?”

      Minus twenty years?

      • Mackus says:

        Good point. Bill Clinton crippled CIA’s anti-terrorist efforts.

      • Mackus says:

        Of course, US intelligence agencies, even if failure at fighting foreign enemies, and least still manage to do job that is far more important to Cathedral, that is repressing _internal_ enemies. Once they are incapable of doing that due to crippling themselves with virtue-signaling, USA will fall.

  16. Jack says:

    Nationalism is often the result of national trauma, which is why it’s popular in Japan and Poland and unpopular in the US and Sweden. Germany is a mixed bag because while the Germans have had their fair share of national traumas, they were brainwashed by everyone to disavow naturalism. Nationalism is many times a direct response to genocide or national humiliation. Before the Holocaust most Jews renounced Zionism; afterwards most embraced it to varying degrees. Nationalism is back in Russia and Turkey because of nostalgia.

    Eventually people become attached to a specific form of nationalism at the expense of other possibilities. Americans have civic nationalism, but white nationalism is repudiated by liberals and “conservatives” alike. French have their multicultural nationalism which truly believes that Islam is indigenous to France; an “inclusive nationalism” rather than an “exclusive” one. Zionism is popular in Israel, Kahanism – not so much, and Ashkenazi exclusive nationalism doesn’t exist, even though it should.

    Because people find it difficult to conceive of foreign types of nationalism, they are reluctant to embrace ideologies which are often needed for survival. That’s why you won’t receive much applause by Frenchman if you argue that Islam doesn’t belong in a White country; that’s an “unpatriotic” and “divisive” statement in their mind, not to mention “racist”. Consequently, only anti-social conmen become nationalist leaders, but most people reject them, naturally. That’s why David “womanizer” Duke is a pariah. That’s why Israelis aren’t following Victor “I am the only real Kahanist ever; but you don’t have to be Jewish to send donations” Vancier aka Chaim ben Pesach.

    To make White Nationalism acceptable in France, Germany, and Sweden, they will have to experience catastrophic events, possibly genocide. Not metaphorical genocide, but literal one with rivers of White blood. Same is true for the US. From this perspective, a Trump candidacy is the worst outcome. In Israel, a full-blown intifada combined with a deadly war could bring back Kahanism and compel the Jews to finally expel the Arabs. It’s a sad, lamentable, deplorable truth, but many people need to lose their loved ones to an enemy explicitly targeting them for belonging to their ethnicity or nation to gain an ethnic consciousness. That’s the status-quo changer white nationalists are looking for. Not propaganda, but the stench of human cadavers everywhere, or at least memories of such stench, even vicarious memories would suffice.

    So the only relevant question for the alt-right is “did we have enough traumas?”

    • Morkyz says:

      > Ashkenazi exclusive nationalism doesn’t exist, even though it should.

      > implying an Ashkenazi state wouldn’t either leftism itself to death or wither on the vine from lack of goyim (or non Ashkenazim) to leach off of.

      • M. says:

        “Leech” is a pretty stupid word for “employ..”

        • Morkyz says:

          the leach victim had a disease where the cure is bloodletting, so there are some benefits to being leached off of.

          • M. says:

            Ashkenazim were adept enough at manual labor when they had to work at kibbutzim. Though I’m sure our purely hypothetical Ashkenazi nationalist would agree with you that our natural talents would be largely wasted on such endeavors, and it’d be better to delegate them in a limited way to the more obedient of the lesser races (Slavs, Southeast Asians and so forth).

          • Morkyz says:

            Why do the Jews on this blog like one letter names?

          • pdimov says:

            “Why do the Jews on this blog like one letter names?”

            Mossad doesn’t pay much, so they can’t afford longer names.

        • Morkyz says:

          Point being, Ashkenazim (+ other Jews to a lesser extent) aren’t adapted to having their own country, which is actually morally neutral but puts them at odds with other flavors of nationalists basically intractably.

  17. Morkyz says:

    What ever happened with that bet about Russians attacking Aleppo or whatever? Did Jim win yet or what?

  18. Morkyz says:

    I love how no one has any argument against my point about how any true reactionary must necessarily accept Jewish rule over the West (+rest), nice rhetorical skillllz goys.

    • Morkyz says:

      Which, BTW, is not the same as philo-semitism. Jews are shit tier themselves but serve valuable roles in other civilizations. I think the verdicts of history is pretty clear that multi-ethnic empires with both “productive” and “parasitic” ethnic groups are superior to the monoethnic nation states. Seem like the nationstates were doing well for a while between the french revolution and WWII, but that was a fluke.

      What we need is essentially a “Cathedral” style system. A universalitic ideology that provides us with a basis for with rule of the state at home and conquests and imperialism abroad. To create an ideology like this, we need a priest caste, and it’s obvious Jews excel in this role.

      Only thing we need to change is to make the empire pro America instead of anti American, but Moldbug offered us the solution here too. It just so happens that the ango-american civilization can better handle Cathedral-democracy than other cultures.

      We can use an only slightly modified version of our current ideology to keep the rest of the world permanently poor and weak while we ourselves are only slightly crippled.

      • Greg says:

        “I think the verdicts of history is pretty clear that multi-ethnic empires with both “productive” and “parasitic” ethnic groups are superior to the monoethnic nation states”

        Media driven democracy makes that former stable state impossible. That’s because the former stable state included both widespread anti-parasitic sentiment and occasional light pogroming. Both are necessary elements.

        If a media driven democracy keeps the widespread anti-parasitic sentiment, it will be amplified through media, government finds itself pushed into finding a “final solution”, destroying the stable state.

        If a media driven democracy disallows widespread anti-parasitic sentiment and light pogroming, it also destroys the former stable state, getting parasitic overgrowth.

        So no, we can’t go back without getting rid of modern media and democracy, which won’t happen. We’d also have to cut back to stable levels of political influence, because the stable state is not rule by parasite, but presence of parasite, hatred of parasite, occasional cutting back of parasitic overgrowth (but never to zero.)

        • jim says:

          You think too much about Jews. The Tsar would have been better off executing Lenin than every Jew in Russia.

          • Greg says:

            Morkyz invoked history. My comment was really more about why history (once again) fails to teach a lesson that still applies in the context of technological modernity.

            The historically beneficial configuration involved both a visible parasite and pervasive anti-parasitic sentiment that nobody felt guilty about. Modern media does not allow for this coexistence. We can have the parasite or the anti-parasitic sentiment, not both. The good configuration was to have both, at the same time.

    • pdimov says:

      You win. Congratulations. Your award is 50,000 Syrian refugees from various countries and cultures.

      • Morkyz says:

        Thanks, your country can have 10 million of same, also all my syrians’ kids will turn out needing gender reassignment at the age of 6 so the long term demographic impact will be 0.

    • jim says:

      Failure to reply is because the argument is obviously stupid. Whites obviously do a dramatically better job of ruling themselves than blacks do. Whites do a dramatically better job of ruling black countries than blacks do.

      Jews, however, are not better at ruling themselves than whites, (Israel is not particularly well run) and are absolutely disastrous at ruling others, as for example the Old Bolsheviks.

    • Jack says:

      People are reluctant to feed the troll, but sometimes it’s incumbent to feed it till it chokes on its own lard.

      To put it succinctly, we desire to find what works and what doesn’t, shorn of the idealism that characterizes the Enlightened. When blacks are ruled by whites, blacks are better off for it. It works. When whites are ruled by Jews, whites are not better off for it. It doesn’t work.

      Whites are demonstrably superior to blacks in terms of governance. Jews are not demonstrably superior to whites in terms of governance. If Jews were demonstrably superior to whites in terms of governance, most “anti-Semites” ’round here wouldn’t complain. Complaining under such a condition would be white nigger behavior. We aren’t white niggers. Since whites are better off governing themselves, and everyone else for that matter, complaining about detrimental Jewish rule doesn’t make one a white nigger.

      If your definition of reactionism calls for rule of inferiors by superiors, and you define Jews as superior to whites, then it’s a misnomer. The rocket scientist is superior to the street sweeper, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some things which the street sweeper does better, perhaps even much better, than the rocket scientist. So even accepting Jewish superiority to whites, whites are evidently better at governance than Jews, therefore should govern instead of Jews, regardless of whatever general, overall Jewish superiority you subscribe to.

      Simple put – white rule is benevolent: everyone is better off for it. It’s a win-win for everyone. Jewish rule is parasitic: it serves the Jews, if even that, at the expense and to the detriment of everyone else.

      Secondly, we don’t all seem to agree with you that Jews are generally, overall superior to whites. High verbal IQ is not everything. Jews have higher verbal IQs than whites, but some would argue that this Jewish high verbal IQ is outweighed by the Jewish deficiencies compared to whites, deficiencies which are manifold and profound. Whites are better than blacks at everything or almost everything. Jews are not better than whites at everything or almost everything.

      Your argument is childish. It is simplistic. It is autistic. Hopefully every reader of this blog can now see through it.

      • Morkyz says:

        But what does that say about the quality of pure white semen?

        • Jack says:

          An Arab dictator is better off spreading the pure White semen among his populace, as I have counter-suggested, than spreading the pure Jewish semen among his populace, as you have initially suggested.

      • jim says:

        Simple put – white rule is benevolent: everyone is better off for it. It’s a win-win for everyone. Jewish rule is parasitic: it serves the Jews, if even that, at the expense and to the detriment of everyone else.

        Jewish rule does not even serve the Jews. Worst case the Old Bolsheviks, best case Israel. Best case is not all that great.

        Jews, contrary to white nationalist myth, and contrary to their own myth, are not in fact very cohesive, which problem I attribute to their tendency to talmudize agreements they make with each other. Two Jews, three factions. For the brief and disastrous period that we know from history that B’s beloved Sanhedrin existed and exercised power, they usually could not agree on anything, and things that got done tended to get done by factions acting illegally. Successful Jewish government, for example Samuel or King David, relies on a single great man. A Jewish committee suffers all the usual problems of committees, only more so.

        Of course committees suck regardless of race, but the Sanhedrin that is known from history sucked spectacularly.

  19. Eli says:

    Off-topic, but relevant to other posts on this blog. I found a thoroughly researched writeup on Jewish divorce, from the point of view of Halakha. It focuses on women’s ability to obtain it, and various issues surrounding it. Written by a feminist. In short, divorce very hard for woman and much easier for man.

    http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/divorce-halakhic-perspective

    P.S. I tried posting it earlier, but it never got through

  20. […] quick note from Jim on what Leftism is, as illustrated by the destruction of GitHub. And Poland goes alt right. Or something in that general direction. It’s apparently still legal to ask the JQ there. And […]

  21. vxxc2014 says:

    Best Practices for comments:

    1] ctrl+F “B Says”

    2] Names not Groups.

Leave a Reply