The death of Christianity

I have often remarked that Christendom is as dead as Roman paganism was in the fourth century AD, but, not being a believer, have been unable to explain why in ways believers could understand.

“Throne and Altar”, however, has nailed it:

The first is a sense of the sacred, the spirit of reverence, coupled to a sense of God’s revelation in the given meanings of the world. The second is a horror of nihilism, so that a man fears meaninglessness more than he craves license. The last is basic tribal loyalty to the Church and her members throughout the ages. The theologians scorn these attitudes because they are after all natural; one finds analogous or even identical things in any vital religion. But without them, any spiritual quest is bound to begin in pride and end in apostasy.

Heartiste, minion of Satan, observes the symptoms with horror.

A religion is a synthetic tribe. But progressives hate tribalism, so Christians have piously stopped being tribal.

Some Jews are still tribal, as B smugly reminds me rather frequently. But if they are, B’s version of Judaism is not doing a lot to encourage it.

300 Responses to “The death of Christianity”

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    > Shabbat is on the seventh day. It’s in the Torah. On the 7th day, G-d rested.

    Yes, Shabbat is the 7th day. The 7th day after 6 work days. New Moon is not a work day. Ezekiel 46:1. And by writing G-d instead of God, you continue the shibboleth introduced as a response to Hadrian. Many midrash are coverups for the deep shame of Roman dominion. When Israel is free of Rome, it will own up and cast these off.

    > Are you suggesting the Jews forgot how to count to 7 due to Roman oppression?

    No. I’m stating it outright. In a time without telecommunications and internal combustion engines, a couple hundred years is enough to wipe out memories in an enslaved people.

    > Did everyone get drunk one day and sleep so long that they couldn’t tell what day it was?

    Are you so unaware of the horror that came in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba rebellion? When Rabbi Akiba was alive, heaven came down to earth. This is a sad, inside joke: noone living has ever seen heaven. Because of Akiba, most Jews of his generation died or were enslaved. Heaven (death) indeed came down to earth…

    > Rosh Hodesh is the new moon, and the lunar cycle is not a multiple of 7.

    Once you remove the 2 days of new moon, you have 28 “lit” days of the month, where the moon is visible. And 28 divides 7 perfectly. Did you never wonder why they sometimes announce two days of chodesh at shul?

    > There is nothing in the Torah that says you can’t buy or sell or work on Rosh Hodesh. If you are referring to Amos, he is talking about Shavuot and the Omer.

    So you admit that the Omer coincides with chodesh. The only way for that to happen, is by Lunar Sabbath reckoning. Saturday reckoning doesn’t come anywhere near.

    Apart from handwaving, you have no evidence that Amos wasn’t talking about chodesh (New Moon) in general as a rest period.

    As for blowing the trumpets at New Moon, that is the call to assembly, a miqra kadosh. Since when was it allowed to buy or sell when a holy convocation is called? The offerings on the New Moon are greater than those on the Sabbath; yet you place more importance on the Sabbath. Please re-examine this.

    > The creator of the fixed calendar was Hillel HaNasi, who lived in the 4th century CE, in Babylon; are you suggesting that they’d forgotten how to look at the moon due to Hadrian?

    So now you have the correct Hillel, 300 years after the first one you mentioned. You throw out assertions so fast. What are you defending, really?

    I’m not suggesting; I said already that Hadrian suppressed some things, among them the original sabbath, and the usage of the Name. Once forgotten, it was well and truly forgotten. The few that knew otherwise risked death if they spoke out.

    > If you are saying that we should go back to the traditional intercalation-I agree. But for that we need a Sanhedrin.

    Your idea of traditional intercalation is a fairy tale made up hundreds of years after the fact. There is a Kohen haGadol in Israel, down to this day. And he is doing the intercalation the way it was always done; first conjunction after equinox.

    > We know exactly what deal Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai cut with the Romans; his dialogue with Vespasian is recorded, as are his following doubts about whether he’d made the right decision or not.

    And 60 years later, Hadrian chops off Akiba’s head. The remnant had to make a new deal to survive.

    But this too was prophesied, by Hosea and Jeremiah; they both warned that Sabbath and New Moon would be taken away. And they were. In 136AD. By Hadrian. Daniel prophecies a restoration; 400 years from now. There will be no temple until then, no matter how much the Temple Institute jumps up and down.

    • B says:

      >New Moon is not a work day. Ezekiel 46:1.

      All Ezekiel says here is that the court does not convene on Rosh Hodesh. Not that it’s not a work day.

      >And by writing G-d instead of God, you continue the shibboleth introduced as a response to Hadrian.

      Do you have a source for this assertion?

      >In a time without telecommunications and internal combustion engines, a couple hundred years is enough to wipe out memories in an enslaved people.

      The Jewish people did not stay enslaved for very long after the rebellions. Certainly, not long enough to forget how to count to seven. And given the large Babylonian diaspora, there was always a large part of the Jewish people which was not under Roman dominion.

      > Are you so unaware of the horror that came in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba rebellion?

      I am quite familiar with the aftermath. Nonetheless, not all the Jewish people were enslaved and not all the rabbis were killed.

      >Once you remove the 2 days of new moon, you have 28 “lit” days of the month, where the moon is visible. And 28 divides 7 perfectly. Did you never wonder why they sometimes announce two days of chodesh at shul?

      There are sometimes two days of rosh chodesh because a lunar month is 29 days and change. Therefore, a month is either 29 or 30 days.

      > So you admit that the Omer coincides with chodesh. The only way for that to happen, is by Lunar Sabbath reckoning. Saturday reckoning doesn’t come anywhere near.

      The omer coincides with the second day of Pesach. Pesach starts on the 15th day of Nisan. Nisan is the 1st month of the calendar. What is the problem? If you wish to use the Sadducees’ argument that the “shabbat” in the commandment to count the Omer refers to the 7th day of the week, I can answer with the Pharisees’ argument that Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur are both referred to as a “shabbat” and it is impossible for them to be a week apart.

      >Apart from handwaving, you have no evidence that Amos wasn’t talking about chodesh (New Moon) in general as a rest period.

      Aside from conjecture from a couple of lines in the Prophets, you have no evidence that work was ever banned during rosh hodesh. Again, the Torah clearly tells us the days when we can’t do any work. Rosh hodesh is not one of them. Further, in the Torah, G-d says “MY Shabbat” and “YOUR rosh hodesh”. This means that G-d determined when Shabbat is (every 7th day,) and WE determine when the rosh hodesh is.

      >Since when was it allowed to buy or sell when a holy convocation is called?

      Excuse me?

      The prohibition on buying and selling on Shabbat and the holidays is rabbinical!

      >So now you have the correct Hillel, 300 years after the first one you mentioned.

      Yes, centuries after the events you claim destroyed the ability of the Jewish people to count to seven.

      >What are you defending, really?

      The fact that our rabbis knew what they were talking about, represented an unbroken tradition and did not just make stuff up because they’d forgotten how to count.

      >I said already that Hadrian suppressed some things, among them the original sabbath, and the usage of the Name.

      The usage of the Name is completely different from the reason I write G-d.

      >The few that knew otherwise risked death if they spoke out.

      In Babylon? From the Romans? Come on.

      > Your idea of traditional intercalation is a fairy tale made up hundreds of years after the fact. There is a Kohen haGadol in Israel, down to this day.

      Oh, now you’re a Samaritan? Nehemia already said they were wrong. Is Nehemia now confused according to you?

      >But this too was prophesied, by Hosea and Jeremiah; they both warned that Sabbath and New Moon would be taken away

      They meant the sacrifices of the day. And indeed, we have no Temple and thus no sacrifices.

      >Daniel prophecies a restoration; 400 years from now. There will be no temple until then, no matter how much the Temple Institute jumps up and down.

      “Whoever forecasts the date of Moshiach’s arrival has no place in the World- to-Come.”

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        > Whoever forecasts the date of Moshiach’s arrival has no place in the World- to-Come.

        My words concerned rebuilding the temple. I said nothing about the future coming of Moshiach. What sort of threat is this you are offering me? Shut up or I won’t get some fabulous reward in the afterlife?

        >>But this too was prophesied, by Hosea and Jeremiah; they both warned that Sabbath and New Moon would be taken away
        >They meant the sacrifices of the day. And indeed, we have no Temple and thus no sacrifices.

        And you also don’t have the original Sabbath and New Moon. Hosea and Jeremiah explicitly said Sabbath and New Moon would be taken away; now you magically wave your hands and “it was just talking about the sacrifices”. Are you a prophet? How is it that everyone else missed this meaning in the prophets plain words?

        In fact, Sabbath and New Moon were taken away at the exact time the sacrifices were; 136 AD. (the sacrifices didn’t stop in 70AD, even though the Temple was destroyed)

        >>New Moon is not a work day. Ezekiel 46:1.
        >All Ezekiel says here is that the court does not convene on Rosh Hodesh. Not that it’s not a work day.

        You’ve just made up a new entity “the court”. Ezekiel is there talking about the Temple sanctuary, not a legislature. Ezekiel specifically says there that the doors are closed on sabbath and New Moon, but not on the six work days. He explicitly says New Moon isn’t one of the six work days. You get the hand-waving school of Biblical interpretation award.

        > Oh, now you’re a Samaritan? Nehemia already said they were wrong. Is Nehemia now confused according to you?

        You think the Samaritans of Nehemiah’s day are the same as the carefully sifted and distilled Israelite Samarians that exist today? You ignore the scriptures that speak of the remnant of Israel in Samaria, of the Levites and Cohenim that were sent to Samaria from Babylon to teach the Torah? You ignore the testimony of Josephus regarding the sons of Aaron the high priest, who dwelt and served as priests among the Samarians? I think so. You’re out of your depth, B.

        >>I said already that Hadrian suppressed some things, among them the original sabbath, and the usage of the Name.
        >The usage of the Name is completely different from the reason I write G-d.

        Speaking of Nehemiah, Nehemia Gordon wrote a book about the Name and how it stopped being said. He mainly quotes rabbinic sources. Check it out. Your conscious reasons for writing G-d are the reasons you were given; but the root source that lead to you being given this custom, dates back to Hadrian.

        >>Since when was it allowed to buy or sell when a holy convocation is called?
        >Excuse me?
        >The prohibition on buying and selling on Shabbat and the holidays is rabbinical!

        Poor silly ignorant me, I thought the prohibition of buying and selling was a direct consequence of Exodus 20 (you know, the 10 commandments, you shall not do any manner of work on the Sabbath?) But perhaps I should bow to your superior wisdom, obviously this Saturday sabbath is a Rabbinic invention. Oh wait, did you actually mean to say that??? You keep making my points for me. You even admit that buying and selling on “the holidays” is forbidden. Yet somehow you make exception for New Moon… ignoring the prophet Amos who said it is forbidden. So, Rabbinic invention trumps the prophet Amos. Why did Rav Akiba allow Amos to remain in the Bible? Such a puzzle!

        >>So now you have the correct Hillel, 300 years after the first one you mentioned.
        >Yes, centuries after the events you claim destroyed the ability of the Jewish people to count to seven.

        So you acknowledge your error, then distract by setting up a straw man immediately. I never claimed Jewish people can’t count to seven. But you did make such a claim about me. There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count in binary, and those who can’t. There is more than one way to count 6 days of work plus 1 day of rest. Your way involves ignoring New Moon and other rest days, nor do you allow the Holy Days to reset the 6+1 count, as they properly should.

        If you hadn’t already displayed dishonesty, I’d accuse you of lacking imagination.

        >>What are you defending, really?
        >The fact that our rabbis knew what they were talking about, represented an unbroken tradition and did not just make stuff up because they’d forgotten how to count.

        Interesting way to defend your ideas, when you are making stuff up. You were off 300 years on Hillel, make up straw men about “forgetting to count”, and misquoted the prophets to make them say things other than they did. Yes, a very good defense indeed. You have me convinced! You’re pathological.

        It is true the rabbinic tradition is unbroken; but it isn’t unbent.

        >>Once you remove the 2 days of new moon, you have 28 “lit” days of the month, where the moon is visible. And 28 divides 7 perfectly. Did you never wonder why they sometimes announce two days of chodesh at shul?
        >There are sometimes two days of rosh chodesh because a lunar month is 29 days and change. Therefore, a month is either 29 or 30 days.

        That is a fact, not a reason. Who cares how long the month is; why is New Moon either one or two days? Why isn’t it always one day? Why not always two days? More than one Rabbi has noted that the remaining 28 lit days of the month perfectly fit the 7 day Sabbath cycles. With the 1 and 2 day system, the working portion of the month is always a perfect 28 days. Coincidence? If it is, prove it.

        >>In a time without telecommunications and internal combustion engines, a couple hundred years is enough to wipe out memories in an enslaved people.
        >The Jewish people did not stay enslaved for very long after the rebellions. Certainly, not long enough to forget how to count to seven. And given the large Babylonian diaspora, there was always a large part of the Jewish people which was not under Roman dominion.

        You really need to learn more about the influence (and even control) that Rome had over the Babylonian diaspora at the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion. And also, how much of the Bar Kokhba rebellion was aided and abetted by the Babylonian diaspora. Once the hot heads willing to die for their faith were killed off, what was left were people intent on survival.

        • B says:

          >My words concerned rebuilding the temple. I said nothing about the future coming of Moshiach.

          One of the ways we know the Moshiach is the Moshiach is that he rebuilds the Temple. It’s part of the definition. Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot, the last two chapters.

          >What sort of threat is this you are offering me?

          Simply saying that Judaism is traditionally unimpressed with this sort of thing. It has historically been remarkably unfruitful.

          >And you also don’t have the original Sabbath and New Moon.

          Oh, but we do. Since the Torah says the Shabbat is every 7th day, and we have always known how to count to 7.

          >Hosea and Jeremiah explicitly said Sabbath and New Moon would be taken away; now you magically wave your hands and “it was just talking about the sacrifices”.

          The Torah occasionally refers to sacrifices by the name of their purpose. For instance, Pesach is frequently used to denote the Pesach sacrifice. The sacrifice for a sin is often referred to as a sin, and a sacrifice for negligence is referred to as a negligence. Similarly, when we say “counting the omer,” the omer is a unit of measure for a barley sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan. “Counting the omer” means “counting days from the bringing of the sacrifice until Shavuot.” Until the omer has been brought, new wheat may not be eaten.

          >How is it that everyone else missed this meaning in the prophets plain words?

          You are moving the null hypothesis. Nobody I know or have heard of has ever said that Shabbat was anything but the 7th day. So obviously, the prophets were talking about something else.

          >In fact, Sabbath and New Moon were taken away at the exact time the sacrifices were; 136 AD.

          Did the community of Babylon, which was more numerous than the one in the Land, also forget how to count to 7?

          >(the sacrifices didn’t stop in 70AD, even though the Temple was destroyed)

          Source?

          >Ezekiel specifically says there that the doors are closed on sabbath and New Moon, but not on the six work days. He explicitly says New Moon isn’t one of the six work days.

          Fine, correct, he’s talking about the hatzer, the courtyard. He then goes on to talk about the new moon and Shabbat as different days, with different sacrifices.

          Not that this is relevant: nowhere in the Torah is there a prohibition on work on Rosh Hodesh. There are explicit and repeated prohibitions on work on Shabbat and the Holy Days.

          >You think the Samaritans of Nehemiah’s day are the same as the carefully sifted and distilled Israelite Samarians that exist today?

          Since the Samaritans of today are descended from those of Nehemia’s day, and those in Nehemia’s day were not kosher, the ones today are not kosher.

          >Speaking of Nehemiah, Nehemia Gordon wrote a book about the Name and how it stopped being said. He mainly quotes rabbinic sources. Check it out. Your conscious reasons for writing G-d are the reasons you were given; but the root source that lead to you being given this custom, dates back to Hadrian.

          Read Gordon’s books (not this one,) was unimpressed. Philo says the name was not allowed to be pronounced by regular people in a regular time and place. People stopped pronouncing it around the 2nd century BCE, apparently.

          >I thought the prohibition of buying and selling was a direct consequence of Exodus 20 (you know, the 10 commandments, you shall not do any manner of work on the Sabbath?)

          You thought wrong. Buying, selling and handling money are not part of the 39 categories of work forbidden on Shabbat and the Holy Days. The prohibition on them is rabbinical.

          >You keep making my points for me. You even admit that buying and selling on “the holidays” is forbidden.

          Try to follow the logic here. According to the Torah, there is a prohibition on work on Shabbat and Holy Days. There is no prohibition on work during Rosh Hodesh. The work that is prohibited by Torah decree on Shabbat and Holy Days does not include buying and selling. Buying and selling were prohibited by rabbinical decree.

          >Yet somehow you make exception for New Moon… ignoring the prophet Amos who said it is forbidden.

          Again: Amos specifically mentions grain. He doesn’t say “so we may work”. He says, “so we can sell grain” and cheat people and enslave them.

          Why? Because he’s not talking about any month and he’s possibly not talking about any Shabbat, and he’s not talking about work. For the month, there are two possibilities. Either he’s talking about the month of gleaning, when the poor have the corners of the field left over and there’s a surfeit of grain, and thus the rich are not in a position to cheat the poor, who are not buying from them, and thus wish the month to be over (Rav David Kimchi, the Radak, thinks this is the case,) or he’s talking about the intercalated 2nd month of Adar that’s added every three years, because the new grain is forbidden until the bringing of the omer, and the bringing of the omer happens after the added month (Adar Bet,) and thus grain prices go up because people must live on the old grain for an extra month (Rashi thinks this is the case, and as the Talmud says that the leap year may not be instituted in a year of famine for this reason, I understand his reasoning).

          For the Shabbat, Radak says that this is because they were, as is the plain text, waiting for Shabbat to end so they could sell, but Rashi thinks this refers to the 7th year, when agriculture is forbidden and thus grain prices go up and poor people suffer.

          Absolutely nobody thinks that this means that Rosh Hodesh and Shabbat are the same thing, or that work is forbidden on the first.

          >There is more than one way to count 6 days of work plus 1 day of rest.

          No, there isn’t.

          >Your way involves ignoring New Moon and other rest days, nor do you allow the Holy Days to reset the 6+1 count, as they properly should.

          No, they shouldn’t. Where does it say in the Torah that Shabbat is reset by the Holy Days?

          >You were off 300 years on Hillel

          I misunderstood which Hillel you were talking about. There were three of them. The idea that Hillel HaNasi, who lived 150 years after Hadrian, was motivated by Hadrian’s persecutions in composing the calendar is slightly less ludicrous than the idea that Hillel the Elder composed the calendar, but since you’re propounding crazy stuff, forgive me for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

          >make up straw men about “forgetting to count”

          The Torah says Shabbat is every 7th day. The only way you can get confused about this is if you forget to count to 7. I mean, it’s pretty obvious.

          >misquoted the prophets to make them say things other than they did.

          I did not look at the passage in Ezekiel closely and was mistaken. Now that I look at the passage, it is obvious he considers Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh two different things, and does not link them in time.

          >It is true the rabbinic tradition is unbroken; but it isn’t unbent.

          To get confused about when Shabbat is, it would have to be not merely broken, but dead.

          >Who cares how long the month is; why is New Moon either one or two days? Why isn’t it always one day? Why not always two days?

          If you want to have a lunar calendar, you need to start your months off when there’s a new moon. Since your month starts on a specific day, you will need to start a month on either the 30th or 31st day. If you’re relying on witnesses to see the new moon, you will know when they can possibly see it and the Sanhedrin meets and examines witnesses on that day. Should witnesses come and testify that they saw the moon (and interrogation of the witnesses shows that the moon could be seen in that part of the sky at that time from the place they were,) the 30th is a Rosh Chodesh. If the witnesses don’t come, or their interrogation is unsatisfactory (for instance, they claim they saw the New Moon in a part of the sky where it could not have been,) the 31st is the Rosh Chodesh. The 2 days is a reflection of this uncertainty: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11632/why-is-rosh-chodesh-sometimes-two-days

          >Coincidence? If it is, prove it.

          You want me to prove to you that it’s a coincidence that 28 is divisible by 7, but 29 and 30 aren’t?

          >You really need to learn more about the influence (and even control) that Rome had over the Babylonian diaspora at the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

          Their influence certainly didn’t extend to killing the rabbis living in the Persian Empire off, and certainly not to the extent that they would forget how to tell when it’s Shabbat. And certainly if it HAD extended to that degree, the Babylonian rabbis would have created a fixed calendar then and there, and not have waited 150 years to do it.

          >And also, how much of the Bar Kokhba rebellion was aided and abetted by the Babylonian diaspora. Once the hot heads willing to die for their faith were killed off, what was left were people intent on survival.

          Had they been that intent on survival, they would have assimilated. They didn’t. So it doesn’t really make sense to me that they would forget how to calculate the New Moon or how to keep Shabbat.

          A sage living outside the Land of Israel has the right to calculate for himself the New Moon, establish leap years and so on, as long as he has no equal living in the Land. So if what you said was true and Shabbat used to be synced with Rosh Chodesh, the Babylonian sages would have kept right on calculating.

          All the details are extensively described in the Mishne Torah, by the way: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/947918/jewish/Kiddush-HaChodesh-Chapter-One.htm

    • jim says:

      If no temple, probably no Israel. Jews will be obsessing over cheese crumbs encountering meat grease, while performing the important progressive sacraments of sodomy cuckoldry, disarmament, and defenselessness

      • B says:

        Yes, yes, sure. We are about to go all the way gay, let people sleep with our wives and get sex changes. Any day now.

        Who do you think was more fabulous? Bruce Jenner or Heliogabalus?

        Who do you think was more sophisticatedly gay? Nick Denton or Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

        15 months until that bottle of Argbeg…

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Can you clarify? Are you saying if they don’t rebuild the temple soon, the nation of Israel will collapse? Because the prophet Daniel puts the rebuilding of the Temple at 400 years in the future. Interestingly enough, when I counted backwards 480 years, I arrived very close to the date of the founding of the modern State of Israel. Why 480? Because Solomon built his temple 480 years after Israel entered the land and formed the State of Israel under Joshua.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    B, Jim: I read the New Testament in light of the proposition: “Did Jesus do away with the mitvot”. I concluded he didn’t. There are about 4 or 5 verses which can be twisted to look like maybe he did. But all the rest of it is clear that he didn’t. Acts 21; there is Paul still doing animal sacrifices. Kind of puts that whole “Jesus was the final sacrifice” thing to rest.

    It appears that Christianity dumped the Torah in 136AD, when Rabbi Akiba was executed. It was a politically expedient move; the Roman empire was not happy with its Jews. Christians switched from trying to be classified as Jews, to distancing themselves from the Jewish label every way possible. Most of the early Jewish members of the church had been killed off (equally by Hadrian and Akiba), and the Gentiles didn’t have the same connection to Torah. What Hadrian did to the Jews in 136AD makes the other H look like a kindergartner.

    Even today, Jews say G-d instead of God, and call Saturday the Sabbath, because of Hadrian. When they end these practices, I will know that they have thrown off the shackles of Rome. Until then, they are continual reminders of the shame that Emperor Hadrian put upon the Jewish people.

    • jim says:

      Acts 21; there is Paul still doing animal sacrifices. Kind of puts that whole “Jesus was the final sacrifice” thing to rest.

      Paul was playing both ends against the middle. That was not necessarily indicative of Christian practice. He did not really go to the temple to conduct animal sacrifice. That was only a pretext. He went to the temple to be martyred, to be sacrificed, playing both the serpent and the dove.

      Perhaps Christians were still Jews before 136 AD – but clearly the mob that Paul provoked into almost martyring him did not think so.

      Since Christians were likely to be killed if they went to the temple, they must have found it mighty difficult if they were still into offering sacrifices.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        At the time of Acts, it says the Christians were at the Temple every day; hard to see them doing that if they were going to be killed for going there. The straight forward reading of Acts 21 is that Paul was genuinely going to the Temple to perform some animal sacrifices along with some other brothers who were too poor to afford to do the sacrifices on their own.

        • jim says:

          A lot of the Christians were Greeks. The horrifying act of which Paul was wrongfully accused was bringing such a Greek into the temple.

          Even if other Jewish Christians could sacrifice without the drama that ensued for Paul, most Christians could not. Paul was cashing in on his multiple identities: Pharisee, Roman, and Christian.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Paul didn’t provoke the mob; it was the “community organizers” who whipped up the mob with false accusations. That is the straight forward reading of the text; I have no reason to think it should read otherwise.

    • Ion says:

      Paul was opposed to the law, and Jewish rituals. That is apparent if you read his writings, and the writings of his disciples. the Epistle to the Hebrews, Romans, Galatians, et cetera.

      Jesus is an ambiguous person, because our primary records of him (the gospels) are not very reliable. The four gospels we have largely reflect Pauline theology.

      Early Christians held diverse perspectives on the Law and ritual Sacrifice. Modern Christians are entirely Pauline, but around 100 AD, Christians were not mostly Pauline.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        People keep quoting Romans Galatians, etc, as if Paul was against the Law. Five ambiguous verses, compared to a wealth of statements to the contrary. You have to take off the blinders of 2000 years, where Christians literally abandoned the law because their lives depended on it. Hadrians wrath was immense. Even Jews have some practices in Judaism today that are a remnant of the loyalty tests that Hadrian imposed on the survivors of the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

        Rushdoony went through Romans, Galatians, and commented on them. Since most people don’t have time to start reading the Bible in Genesis, and then read it all the way through to the end, I offer his commentary as a shortcut; but know this, if you perform the experiment of reading the Bible from beginning to end, you will come to the same conclusion on your own.

        http://chalcedon.edu/research/books/romans-and-galatians-2/
        http://chalcedon.edu/research/books/hebrews-james-jude/

        Why do people keep saying Paul is opposed to the Law? Imagine teaching calculus to someone who didn’t know about addition and subtraction. Do you think they’d misunderstand some of the things you were saying? Most Christians don’t know the foundation Paul and Jesus were building on; which consists of the Old Testament.

        And this is a good introduction to Rushdoony, far better than the reviews that have been posted on the web about him:

        http://chalcedon.edu/research/books/the-institutes-of-biblical-law-voumel-1/

        • Ion says:

          Circumcision is required under the Law. Is it required by Paul?

          Paul spends a great deal of time insulting the Law. “Child of a slave woman” –

          >People keep quoting Romans Galatians, etc, as if Paul was against the Law.
          You my be misunderstanding what I said. Paul was against the Law. He was not against circumcision. He was against mandatory circumcision. Which is called “the Law”.

          In Christianity, keeping Kosher isn’t mandatory, but avoiding Pork is still a good idea. It’s not very nutritious, and carries lots of diseases.

    • B says:

      >Jews say G-d instead of God

      We don’t SAY G-d. We write it. The idea is that should the piece of paper on which it is written be thrown in the trash or otherwise used in a lowly manner, the name of G-d is not being insulted. This is something that has somewhat carried over to the internet under the rationale that someone could print out your post/email and so on.

      >and call Saturday the Sabbath, because of Hadrian. When they end these practices, I will know that they have thrown off the shackles of Rome

      We will throw off the shackles of Rome by referring to the day by its pagan name (Saturn’s Day)? Or do you mean that Shabbat is supposed to be on Sunday?

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Before Hadrian, Shabbat was counted from New Moon. After Hadrian, it became a restless, rigid cycle disconnected from the luminaries in the heavens. Hadrian forbade New Moon observance and utterance of the Sacred Name, on pain of death. Things like Hillel’s postponements and some other anamolies in the Talmud make sense when you see that the small remnant of the Rabbi’s were recording things as best they could before they were forgotten altogether. The 3 witnesses and watch fires to mark New Moon is obvious “back-fill” by men who were writing centuries later and had forgotten much. Remembering things takes a lot of manpower. Hadrian killed a lot of Rabbis besides Akiba. The Romans succeeded in wiping out the Druids; they succeeded in reducing the Pharisees to such circumstances that they had to commit the Oral Law to writing.

        When the Communists killed the intelligentsia as standard practice, there was solid reason for this, and historical precedent. It really does break the back of resistance. The British Crown was no better.

        • B says:

          >Before Hadrian, Shabbat was counted from New Moon.

          What the hell are you babbling about?

          Shabbat is and always has been counted on every seventh day. It’s in the Torah. The moon has nothing to do with it.

          Are you attempting to explain to me the procedure by which the monthly calendar was fixed instead of the intercalation of the months?

          >Things like Hillel’s postponements and some other anamolies in the Talmud make sense when you see that the small remnant of the Rabbi’s were recording things as best they could before they were forgotten altogether…Hadrian killed a lot of Rabbis besides Akiba.

          You’ve got an “anamoly” between your ears. Hillel passed away 30 years before Rabbi Akiva was born.

          Before the crushing of the rebellion, Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai escaped Jerusalem and opened a yeshiva at Yavne. There was not, during this period, the possibility that the Oral Law would be forgotten. Yehuda HaNasi compiled the Mishna a generation later.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            > Shabbat is and always has been counted on every seventh day. It’s in the Torah. The moon has nothing to do with it.

            The Oral Torah was written down a long time after the Tanakh. Saturday Shabbat does not predate Hadrian. In fact, noone can reliably trace a Saturday shabbath back more than 1500 years. “Because I say so” isn’t acceptable as evidence. Every dated shabbat in Philo, Josephus, and Tanakh falls on the same days of the month. And the moon has much to do with it, as it is a set and determinable starting point for the shabbat count, being a day of no buying or selling, and a miqra kodesh also.

            > You’ve got an “anamoly” between your ears. Hillel passed away 30 years before Rabbi Akiva was born.

            Wrong Hillel. Calendar Hillel came later.

            As for Rav Zakkai, he opened the Yeshiva at Yavne by permission of the Roman government. Didn’t you ever wonder what deal he cut with them to be allowed to do that?

          • B says:

            Shabbat is on the seventh day. It’s in the Torah. On the 7th day, G-d rested. “Six days you shall labor, but the 7th day is Shabbat.” Are you suggesting the Jews forgot how to count to 7 due to Roman oppression? Did everyone get drunk one day and sleep so long that they couldn’t tell what day it was? Rosh Hodesh is the new moon, and the lunar cycle is not a multiple of 7.

            There is nothing in the Torah that says you can’t buy or sell or work on Rosh Hodesh. If you are referring to Amos, he is talking about Shavuot and the Omer. Unlike holidays and Shabbat, where we are expressly prohibited from working, all it says for Rosh Hodesh is that you blow the trumpets and do a mussaf (additional) sacrifice.

            The creator of the fixed calendar was Hillel HaNasi, who lived in the 4th century CE, in Babylon; are you suggesting that they’d forgotten how to look at the moon due to Hadrian? Rather, the Romans were oppressing the Sanhedrin and it was uncertain that they would be continue to carry out their function of determining a new moon, calling a leap year (this is the key point here), etc.

            If you are saying that we should go back to the traditional intercalation-I agree. But for that we need a Sanhedrin. And if we have a Sanhedrin, might as well rebuild the Temple and reestablish a monarchy. At that point, the redemption will be complete. But it has nothing to do with Shabbat.

            We know exactly what deal Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai cut with the Romans; his dialogue with Vespasian is recorded, as are his following doubts about whether he’d made the right decision or not.

            • jim says:

              Obviously in the primitive condition, farming activities are regulated by the solar year, and social activities by the lunar month. If one is doing something that is likely to result in a long, late walk home, such as going to the fair to trade for non perishable goods, one wants to do it on the full moon or shortly before the full moon. (But not shortly after the full moon). Priest comes in handy coordinating these social activities. So one would expect that in the original condition, the week was coordinated with the actual moon with leap days to coordinate the week with the moon, with leap months to keep the month coordinated with the solar year, with the high priest looking at the sky and introducing leap days and leap months unpredictably.

              Subsequent calendars have been something of a bodge, with the convenience of the farmers being sacrificed for the convenience, and in the case of Mohammed the innumeracy, of the rulers.

          • B says:

            >Priest comes in handy coordinating these social activities.

            You need a priest to tell you when the moon is full?

            >So one would expect that in the original condition, the week was coordinated with the actual moon with leap days to coordinate the week with the moon,

            For the 20th time:

            The week is 7 days.

            It has always been 7 days as far back as we have records.

            There are no leap days in the week, for the simple reason that it is not coordinated with the lunar month. They are independent from each other.

            “G-d blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it G-d rested from all his work that he had done in Creation”

            “Seventh” means seventh.

            Likewise, the shmita year comes every seven years, the Jubilee year comes every 7 shmita years, there are 7 feast days in the Torah, etc.

            >with leap months to keep the month coordinated with the solar year, with the high priest looking at the sky and introducing leap days and leap months unpredictably.

            I don’t know what fantasy novel you are reading, but the leap months were intercalated according to a specific and well-known set of rules. The high priest was not in charge of determining whether to insert a second month of Adar or not-this was the function of the Sanhedrin, similar to their function of questioning witnesses about the appearance of a new moon to determine whether the month was 29 days or 30.

            • jim says:

              >Priest comes in handy coordinating these social activities.

              You need a priest to tell you when the moon is full?

              If you have a meeting or a fair on the full moon, or the day before the full moon, could be one of several days. Handy to know that the moon will be officially full in such and such a number of days.

              Suppose your fair serves a large enough area that some of the participants will be walking home after sunset. You don’t want your schedule to drift with respect to the moon schedule – but plausibly that is what months are for, and weeks may well drift with respect to months.

              You argue that weeks always have drifted with respect to lunar months, and true, there is no strong reason why they should not. But more convenient if your day of rest does not drift with respect to fairs and such.

          • B says:

            This is empty conjecture. Fairs, walking home in the dark, moonlight…what are we actually discussing here? Sources, events, what?

  3. Dr. Faust says:

    Christianity was largely built on the success of its story. The bible has a beginning in Genesis, a middle in the Gospels, and ending in Revelation. And the bible has had more success in white countries than anywhere else because whites relate their existence to story than other races. It’s no surprise that high IQ scientists often deny God and the Bible because they place supremacy on logic and not empathy.

  4. Dr. Faust says:

    Christianity allowed people to avoid nihilism for millennia but its fire has faded.

    Suffering with a purpose is endurable. Now is the age of the nihilist and the beginning of man’s unendurable suffering. From there suicide follows both personally and collectively.

    Look at the weak arguments of Leftism and how they prosper today. Can you say that you would rather face the void or believe in something – anything – to deny nothingness? How else can you explain such an asinine belief system, founded in nothing, established on faulty premises, and deriving erroneous conclusions?

    “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls” And what would they do to avoid facing that they have no soul? Sooner genocide their race, enslave their sex, castrate their sons, etc. then that realization.

    If leftism is both bad and absurd then perhaps it exists to deny something worse?

  5. A.B Prosper says:

    Jim it might be better to say Western European Christianity is dying, American Christianity is doing well, eastern European Christianity is holding the line , African Christianity and South/Central American Christianity is growing.

    This is of course if you don’t count The Cathedral as a mutant Christian strain because if you do, the world has never been as Christian as it is today

    What this means is that, just as when it started, Christianity is mostly for the poor and uneducated which is fine. They need it more than most.

    • Ion says:

      >American Christianity is doing well
      Drop by a church some time.

      Numerically, American Christianity is in decline, and it’s message is morphing into something more and more evil.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Jim it might be better to say Western European Christianity is dying, American Christianity is doing well, eastern European Christianity is holding the line , African Christianity and South/Central American Christianity is growing.”

      There is no such thing as Western European Christianity, American Christianity, etc.
      It’s simply Christianity.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Ion, agreed that Christian numbers are declining in the US but ABC polls that 83% of Americans profess Christianity. That’s a pretty good number for a relentless secular world. And yes many people say they are Christian and suck at it, that is nothing new,

        Alas Corvinus, no. Christianity is not “one faith.” never has been, well not since the earliest days maybe never will be.Just ask an Evangelical if his Mormon neighbor is a Christians some time or some Protestants if Catholics are. I doubt you’ll get any agreement.

        That said I know the much of D/E even when they aren’t has a deep attraction to the idea of Christendom. Hey its hierarchy, a control tool and cheap social capital. What’s not to like.

        Lots actually. Maybe at least part of the West would like to be rid of universlaistic Messianic Judaism and in fact we as a culture can do fine without it. Well strong believers will disagree on religious grounds of course, but outside those grounds, humanity and Western man had centuries of civilization without it and can do so again.

        All that said ,no one in D/E would actually like Christendom very much if they had it, far too many are thinking prosperity gospel clap-trap when they’d probably get Liberation Theology with a dash of monarchy.

        There are lost of historical reasons to suggest this but this is Jim’s blog not mine and it would probably put everyone here to sleep discussing it.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Alas Corvinus, no. Christianity is not “one faith.” never has been…”

          That’s not what I said. I clearly stated that there is observably no such thing as
          Western European Christianity, American Christianity, etc. I am well aware of the philosophical disagreements between Christian sects; regardless, they share similar traits.

          Please read carefully next time.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            I did read what you said and IMO you are not correct , The way people in Europe relate to their Christian way of life regardless of sects, differs from the way Americans or whatever other group does.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            And apologies for the extra post, I forget something, Of course they share similar traits that isn’t enough to make them the same thing.

        • Ion says:

          >ABC polls that 83% of Americans profess Christianity.
          The polls I’ve seen show something more like 73%. A number that has been in substantial decline over the past 50 years. And the decline is not due to Muslim immigration (which is a major reason for Christian decline in Britain, France).

          Also, if you define Christianity as “Trinitarian Christianity”, the number is considerably less. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, liberal Episcopalians (who tend to not believe Jesus was God), and similar. Maybe 50%-60% of American is Christian, if we exclude quasi-Christian groups. And that’s down from >90% in 1900.

          Worse, the American church is in decline in other ways. Catholicism and Traditional Protestants have abandoned their historic forms of worship, and, along with evangelicals, have adopted a form of worship similar to a Katy Perry concert.

          The most-used Bible is no longer the KJV. It’s the NIV, which is a horribly inaccurate translation. It’s mistranslated to suit modern Protestant/evangelical theology, and cannot be considered literature.

          Sermons are rarely used to teach doctrine. More often, they are used to create positive emotions in the congregation, and tell funny anecdotes. The Eucharist is marginalized, and many churches don’t have it each week.

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

  6. […] Jim likes Greg Cochrane, even though they do seem to have electric wires attached to his testicles. Also from Jim, with an assist from Bonald, an back-of-the-napkin analysis of The death of Christianity. […]

  7. Corvinus says:

    “Are we not seeing today in the Great White East, the restoration of Christianity’s martial past. I certainly believe so. Today in Russia it seems, to be against Orthodoxy is to be part of the Western ‘fifth column’.”

    [Laughs] The Russian government is raising its divorce tax to counter the 55% marriage break-up rate. Ironically, Vladimir Putin got rid of his wife of nearly 30 years in 2013. Moreover, the country’s illegitimacy ratio is about 30%. If the Russian Orthodox Church is currently assisting in the restoration of Russia’s glory years of high fertility/low divorce rates, it is woefully underperforming.

    Sure, Russian lawmakers applaud the efforts of the Russian Orthodox Church to address “family values”, but Russian Patriarch Kiril’s speech before the Duma in February 2015 was grandstanding. His address actually address signified his church’s willingness to become an appendage of the state’s political-ideological machine, regardless of the backlash by prominent congregation members. Why? Consider the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has a vast business empire with all the trimmings, with each cleric and hierarch using their own connections to make deals with political authorities in that particular parish. I suppose scam-artistry is a thing of beauty under the Putin regime.

    “As a committed Christian Reactionary, I can only ever devote myself to the rebirth of the Traditional Christian Monarchical state.”

    Which means nothing if you are merely a mouthpiece without the temperance and drive to put into actual practice the ideology.

    “then I can only be supportive of the swallowing of Europe into a ‘Eurasian’ Empire as Aleksandr Dugin proposes.”

    Good luck!

    • jim says:

      Your argument presupposes that there is something wrong with a religion being an arm of the state, that the Church serving earthly state aims discredits the Church. Such an argument is unconvincing to those of us who notice that progressivism around the world serves the US State Department, and the US State Department serves progressivism around the world.

      The Church should be an arm of the state, as in ancient Israel the King appointed the high priest.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        I point out Jim, Corvinus is a true believer in Secularism, and spends his days all around the Reactosphere needling any ideas perceived to be ‘anti-american’, probably a result of being banned from FreeRepublic or some other such calamity. The Constitution is his Bible and in it he finds the magical establishment clause. All praise the Founders! (or not, since they were degenerates).

        As for me, I say that Secularism can go to hell.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Do you live in America? Are you an American citizen? It’s easy to notice the cons of America and none of the pros if the answer to both is no. Nationalism may be ridiculous if you live in and are a citizen of the Congo but most people see America as better. Is it because America *works* to be better?

          • Ansible says:

            All the pros of America are genetic. The more Congolese come to America, the more America will have the pros and cons of the Congo.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Does your definition of genetic cover behavior? If not, then how do it affect things outside of how it is expressed? If so, then surely environment, free will and cultural change play a role too?

          • Ion says:

            >free will and cultural change play a role too?
            From a mathematical standpoint, free will tends to average out in large populations. For every person who uses free will to start using drugs, there is a person who use free will to stop using drugs.

          • B says:

            Free will averages out within the socially acceptable window of reasonable behavior. Choosing to take drugs or not to take drugs falls in that window. Building a temple to Quetzalcoatl and sacrificing people on it does not. Neither does, for instance, killing a lion if you’re a Masai youth.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Your argument presupposes that there is something wrong with a religion being an arm of the state, that the Church serving earthly state aims discredits the Church.”

          The argument I was making was that the Russian Orthodox Church, as an arm of the state, is being corrupted by mammon. Opponents of such an arrangement within the Church, which advocates chastity, obedience and poverty, n Russia are astounded by their blatant hypocrisy.

          “The Church should be an arm of the state…”

          Corrected for accuracy–The Church ought not be an arm of the state.

          “I point out Jim, Corvinus is a true believer in Secularism…”

          i am a believer in God and Scripture.

          “spends his days all around the Reactosphere needling any ideas perceived to be ‘anti-american’,”

          I actually show my disdain for those on the Reactosphere who lack the gumption to put into practice their vision. You are merely a mouth with hair.

          “You just cannot keep state and religion apart.”

          If said state was completely homogenous. America has major faiths and offshoots of those faiths. Anyone trying to replace our government with the type of political system you advocate will be summarily drawn and quartered.

          “If you were forced to choose between the church of progressivism and the Catholic church having actual political power..”

          Except the Catholic Church has never been or will have have political power in the United States. Now, unless you are willing to lead that charge, Mark or Jim.

          Do you have what it takes?

          • Ion says:

            >the Russian Orthodox Church, as an arm of the state, is being corrupted by mammon
            Money comes from power, and money is corrupting, so nobody should have any power.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Do you have what it takes?

            Nuclear weapons… plus a non-progressive religion.

      • Hidden Author says:

        The Bible has Jesus saying that His followers should be in this world but not of this world; that he who loves the world does not have the love of the Father in him. So regardless of whether you are one of His followers, having the Church be an arm of a worldly institution like the State is a fraud. You, Jim, like the idea of ruling the people by fraud but people who value liberty want the administration of the people to be based on honesty!

        • Hidden Author says:

          You may notice a contradiction where I defended America but denounced worldliness in the Church. But the overarching theme is that each thing has its time and place. See Ecclesiastes.

        • jim says:

          having the Church be an arm of a worldly institution like the State is a fraud

          That proposition would sound mighty strange to Christians from 95% of human history. In particular, would be mighty odd to the founding fathers, in that each state had an official religion. In the nature of things, the state always winds up promulgating an official religion, and if it does not, swiftly gets taken over by a religion. That is just the way things are. A state is the tribe writ large, so always wants to synthesize a synthetic tribe. Religion is a synthetic tribe. You just cannot keep state and religion apart.

          In the civil war, the real question at issue was whether the US was an association of states, or one state. If one state, then one religion, and if we look at the hymn singing Unionists who led the US into the Mormon war, and the war between the states, they had a very clear idea of what that one religion would be.

          And, lo and behold, so it came to be.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Christians were very skeptical about the virtue of the Roman State until Constantine offered to be their Sugar Daddy. Arguably the first three centuries of Christianity were its defining moment or at least the age which future Christians would look back at as the Golden Age when the blood and zeal of the martyrs fed the Faith and kept it vital.

            • jim says:

              Oh come on. You don’t want Church separated from State. You want all Churches except your own separated from State.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I am a confirmed member of the Catholic Church. I don’t want the U.S. Government to mandate church doctrine. Nor do I want the Vatican to pass laws binding on all American citizens.

            • jim says:

              And yet you are quite content when it mandates progressivism, and mandates that the Catholic Church be progressive.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Jim is correct.

            Every single traditional religion has worked in cooperation with the state, often acting as a strong judicial arm. Christianity is no different in this regard.

            If you were forced to choose between the church of progressivism and the Catholic church having actual political power, and you chose the church of progressivism, this would be an especially nonsensical kind of apostasy.

          • Red says:

            >Arguably the first three centuries of Christianity were its defining moment or at least the age which future Christians would look back at as the Golden Age when the blood and zeal of the martyrs fed the Faith and kept it vital.

            It’s huge population growth thanks to it’s patriarchal family structure and faithful daughters kept the church alive and vitial, not it’s martyrs.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I’ve already mentioned differences between progressivism/Communism/whatever strange Leftist dogma that you want to fling like monkeys flinging shit and my position so it is clear that you consider me a Leftist just because you want to and for no other reason…

          • peppermint says:

            — Nor do I want the Vatican to pass laws binding on all American citizens.

            Either you want the US government to implement the recommendations of John Paul II and the CDF in CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS ( http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html ), and want to see abortion and contraception banned, or, but those are your independent positions arrived at through logic. The Pope has teaching authority, not legislative authority.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I think you hit on an important distinction, peppermint, between teaching and legislative authority. Teaching authority still allows the student the common sense to accept or reject particular teachings. Those that are rational can be encouraged by voters for Congressmen to legislate; those that aren’t, discouraged. The difference between (traditional) American secularism and the French Revolutionary secularism of Europe is that American secularism allows voters to weigh each proposal by the Church by the standard of rationality as if it were a proposal of the laity while French Revolutionary secularism makes the State an active agent in transforming the people’s Christian culture into a godless counter-culture. Thus French Revolutionary secularism by seeking to replace Christianity with another way of life on theological grounds really is another religion while in American secularism the Government presides over millions of people with different lifestyles dictated or not by their particular religions while favoring none…at least that’s how the philosophical theory goes but as you have pointed out the Left prefers its secularism to be an alternate state religion on the French Revolutionary model and works through government to achieve that goal.

          • Ion says:

            Christian persecution in the Roman empire is ridiculously exaggerated. Especially when you consider that the Roman Empire had incentive to persecute them – Christians would join the military, and then refuse to fulfill the requirement to sacrifice to Emperor.

            The “pre-nicene golden age” is bullshit, perpetrated by people who want to destroy an established church, and replace it with a newer form of Christianity that suits their ideal.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Does the Catholic Church still oppose religious freedom after Vatican II? If people make pronouncements on morality based on amoral or immoral motives, should I take them seriously? You guys say you want a theocracy–even though you’re largely atheists–to beat up (or kill?) fags but your guru Jim won’t even confront the pederasts in his own family. If he can’t keep his own household in order, to paraphrase a Bible verse on the selection of bishops, then how can he be trusted to guide others? And what he does is worse than what this Cathedral is supposed to be doing, considering that is pederasty is STILL ILLEGAL!!!

          • Ion says:

            I am not Catholic, and do not endorse clerical celibacy. (And I’m guessing Jim doesn’t either).

            >Does the Catholic Church still oppose religious freedom after Vatican II?
            Dogmas do not change. The idea that dogmas change is (in Catholic theological language) “modernism”. Which is another heresy.

            If the Catholic Church stopped opposing religious freedom after Vatican II, then it ceased to be the Catholic Church, and the SSPX or Sedevacantists are right. (or the Protestants, or the Atheists…)

            Moreover, it is difficult to find a genuinely secular state in human history. The Cathedral claims to be secular, but uses explicitly religious principles to rule. Just ask the Catholic Profession of Natural Law. Whoops, I meant the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

            >how can he be trusted to guide others?
            I don’t want Jim to run a country. I’m just posting in his comments (like you).

            >And what he does is worse than what this Cathedral is supposed to be doing, considering that is pederasty is STILL ILLEGAL!!!
            The Catholic church does not endorse or encourage pederasty. It is failing to prevent it effectively. (Or so I’m told, I am somewhat suspicious of the whole thing). For comparison, the Cathedral is failing to prevent blacks from murdering whites.

            • jim says:

              I am not Catholic, and do not endorse clerical celibacy. (And I’m guessing Jim doesn’t either).

              The church should support, and socially enforce patriarchy. Therefore priests need to set a good example, therefore …

              To support the family, priests should set a good example: Saint Paul, in his letter to Timothy, sets down the following rules for the appointment of Bishops and Deacons

              First Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 3:

              2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
              3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
              4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
              5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
              6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
              7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
              8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
              9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
              10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
              11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
              12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

              In other words, not only may priests be married, but high ranking priests should be married.

              Saint Paul, though himself unmarried, seems to have been suspicious of unmarried men. Perhaps he had is own struggles, and clearly he doubted the ability of most men to struggle successfully.

          • Ion says:

            If a religion must rule, then you want the least evil religion possible. I can confidently say that regency Anglicanism is less evil than counter-reformation Catholicism. I can also confidently say that modern Progressivism (or the Cathedral, or whatever) is worse than any major historical form of Christianity. But better than the Marx-Leninist religion.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Ion, I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church. If you had followed this blog as long as I have, you would have noticed Jim asserting that gays are pederasts and that he knows this from experience. When someone asked why he didn’t turn them in, he said that he does not snitch on family and friends. In other words, he wants his clique to have a royal exemption as his hoped-for NRx laws have fags (homos) burnt on fags (wooden sticks)…

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Christians were very skeptical about the virtue of the Roman State until Constantine offered to be their Sugar Daddy.

            Who decided which gospels and epistles would be included in the New Testament Canon? Why… It was Roman Emperor Constantine!

          • Hidden Author says:

            Actually the Bible was composed by Church Councils based on pre-existing traditions (thus the silliness of Protestants who claim to oppose church traditions).

            • jim says:

              Church councils under the emperor’s iron fist. Read up, for example the story of how we came to believe that God is one and God is Three. Christianity is in substantial part a state created religion, though built on the foundations created by Paul.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Ion makes some very good points here.

            A religion must rule, necessarily, since it dictates the landscape of what ought be done and what ought not be done. The questions to be asked in purely political terms is which religion does this to a good and wholesome effect, and I would argue this corresponds with a religion’s truth value.

            All Traditional religions do contain an essence of truth, though not to a Schuonian extent, and so all Traditional religions are superior to Modern heresies, whether they be a Cathedralite Christianity or a Secular Hinduism.

          • Corvinus says:

            “A religion must rule, necessarily, since it dictates the landscape of what ought be done and what ought not be done.”

            For a homogenous community, absolutely? Except that the United States was founded by a wide range of faiths. Having one particular religion forcibly govern a mix of people is heresy.

            “The questions to be asked in purely political terms is which religion does this to a good and wholesome effect, and I would argue this corresponds with a religion’s truth value.”

            Your error in logic comes from this phrase “religion’s truth value”. For Jews, their religion represents the absolute truth. For Christians, their religion represents the absolute truth. Mortals cannot possibly put a value on that truth, nor make judgements as to what truth has more value.

            Regardless of your intellectual escapades, are you merely a mouthpiece or are you actually going to take the reigns of leadership and put forth into practice your vision?

            Speaking of mouthpieces, what ever happened to Bryce LaLiberte, the shining star of the Neoreactionary Movement? Is he now wearing a digital hairshirt? Word on the street is that he taking a sabbatical to deal with “personal issues”–we all know what that means. Nary a peep among his peers regarding his whereabouts. It’s like he disappeared from the face of the earth.

            • jim says:

              Except that the United States was founded by a wide range of faiths. Having one particular religion forcibly govern a mix of people is heresy.

              But, as the current gay marriage business demonstrates, we have one particular religion forcibly governing a mix of people. And indeed the civil war was primarily about what religion would rule the entire United States, replacing each states state religion with one United State state religion.

              Further, it is not heresy, but absolutely standard practice. If you convert everyone at swordpoint that is arguably heresy, but the usual procedure is to reserve all the governing and educational posts for people of the official religion, so that the laws reflect the moral values of the official religion, people of the official religion are higher status than people of other religions and the official religion is taught by state sponsored institutions, so over time everyone tends to convert to the official religions, and other religions come to increasingly resemble the official religion, until people stop caring much about the difference.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But should anyone believe in Christianity out of trust for Constantine or out of trust for Jesus and Paul? Should we trust Constantine, is it due to his fallen human nature or is it because he like the Zoroastrian Emperor Cyrus was used by God to give His priests the chance to consolidate their forces and thus confirm His Word?

          • Hidden Author says:

            >>so that other religions may come to resemble the official religion and no one cares about the difference

            May happen under progressivism but how did Russian Orthodox and Muslim hegemony tilt the minority faiths towards becoming Islamic besides enforcing political submission and proselytizing bans. Of course, if progressivism converts all religions into copies of itself, it’s because progressivism makes the State the agent of salvation as opposed to traditional religions where the Spirit and Word of God as they inspire mere mortals act as the agent of salvation…

          • Corvinus says:

            “Further, it is not heresy, but absolutely standard practice. If you convert everyone at swordpoint that is arguably heresy, but the usual procedure is to reserve all the governing and educational posts for people of the official religion, so that the laws reflect the moral values of the official religion, people of the official religion are higher status than people of other religions and the official religion is taught by state sponsored institutions, so over time everyone tends to convert to the official religions, and other religions come to increasingly resemble the official religion, until people stop caring much about the difference.”

            In other words, heresy by the force of law, using the alleged blueprint of the Cathedral. Good to know, Jim.

          • Ion says:

            >But should anyone believe in Christianity out of trust for Constantine or out of trust for Jesus and Paul?
            There are several different senses of the word “trust”. I trust Confucius as a reliable, pragmatic philosopher. I trust John Watson as a reliable empirical scientist. Some people trust Paul or Muhammad as the divinely-inspired messengers of God.

            I think Jim trusts Paul as a fairly reliable philosopher/teacher. Even though he doesn’t believe his spiritual claims.

            Also, since our only knowledge of Jesus comes through the Apostles, our trust in Jesus’ teachings must rely on our trust for Paul, Peter, James, et cetera.

          • Ion says:

            @Jim

            Also, the New Testament does not talk about “Priests” in the Christian church. The word “priest” (hiereus) is only used to refer to the Jewish priests and a pagan priest. The word elder (presbyter) is used to refer to Christian leaders. It is a word with an established meaning in the Old Testament:

            http://biblehub.com/topical/e/elder_in_the_old_testament.htm

            The concept of presbyters as “priests” in the sacrificial sense of the term, is largely a result of doctrinal development in the 300s and 400s. It wasn’t until then, that presbyters were seen as parallel to Old Testament Priests.

  8. Mark Citadel says:

    Jim, you don’t often address Orthodox Christianity, since your critique mainly skewers Protestantism’s dissolving and Catholicity’s awful leadership.

    The West is now scorned by Russia daily as ‘godless’, ‘heathen’ and ‘evil’, and the Church has gained tremendous power there since the collapse of the Soviet union. Are we not seeing today in the Great White East, the restoration of Christianity’s martial past. I certainly believe so. Today in Russia it seems, to be against Orthodoxy is to be part of the Western ‘fifth column’.

    As a committed Christian Reactionary, I can only ever devote myself to the rebirth of the Traditional Christian Monarchical state. If Christianity in the West is totally and irrevocably dead as you stipulate from your observation post there, then I can only be supportive of the swallowing of Europe into a ‘Eurasian’ Empire as Aleksandr Dugin proposes. I don’t necessarily want to endorse this proposal, and so for the moment, I will conclude you are a little too pessimistic in your outlook.

    • jim says:

      Yes, Russian orthodoxy is doing OK, since it is protected from the Cathedral by nuclear weapons.

      As for orthodoxy ins the US, not sure how it is doing.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        Nuclear weapons are wondrous things…

        They are truly Wunderwaffen.

        • B says:

          Amazing how they don’t prevent toilet paper shortages, or your best and brightest growing to despise their country.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Nukes have been good for Israeli sovereignty.

          • B says:

            Eh, perhaps. Anecdotally, when the Syrians swarmed the Golan Heights in 1973, the Israelis called them up and told them to cut the shit if they didn’t want Damascus to be a parking lot.

            However, I notice that Israel’s nukes (assuming they exist,) have not been very useful in helping Israel deal with its Arabs or reduce its political client status vis-a-vis the US, that the Israeli economy did not take off when Israel got nukes (assuming it did) but only when it implemented some free market reforms, etc.

            In general, a strong military and economy, and national cohesion, are more important than nukes for sovereignty. Though nukes are, of course, great to have.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            B says:

            In general, a strong military and economy, and national cohesion, are more important than nukes for sovereignty.

            It’s pretty hilarious for a Jew to make Hitler’s strategic mistake… “Never denigrate the importance of your nuclear weapons program, ever.”

          • B says:

            Hitler’s strategic mistakes were many (the biggest was murdering his Russian POWs and civilians who came under his control), but failing to make nuclear weapons was not one of them.

            Had the Nazis dumped all their spare resources into making nukes, they wouldn’t have succeeded in time because they took the heavy water approach to neutron slowing, which in turn was caused by their inability to accurately measure boron admixture in graphite. The boron (10s or 100s ppm) absorbed neutrons, preventing a chain reaction.

            Fermi was extremely fortunate (in secular terms) in meeting MacPherson, who’d developed carbon arc spectral analysis the year prior and understood the issue.

            Graphite gets boron from coal tar used as a ligand in the manufacturing process. Coal tar with low boron concentrations is found in only a handful of places in the world. None of them are in continental Europe. Once the Manhattan Project boys had tried the reaction with graphite produced with low-boron coal tar sourced from the Appalachians and succeeded, removing boron from regular coal tar was trivial (more or less.)

            The German nuke was doomed to fail due to events that took place hundreds of millions of years ago.

            Message: victory does not rest in cleverness or nukes (though these are good to have,) but in having G-d on your side.

          • Mackus says:

            >> http://i.imgur.com/TZ3D5Ht.png

            Yeah, not taking Moscow before winter was fatal mistake.
            Commissars and party members were running from the capital before advancing army, because they knew that population of city would lynch them once Germans enter.
            There would be counterrevolution.

          • B says:

            They were running from the Germans because the Germans executed Communist Party members on the spot.

            All that would have happened had the Germans taken Moscow was that the crisis of the winter of 1941 would have been worse; their lines would have been overextended even further, and the divisions coming from the East for the counteroffensive would have had an easier job of it. Heavy industry and the government had been moved to the Urals in the fall.

      • Ion says:

        Orthodoxy outside of Russia is progressive. The only exception in the US is the ROCOR, which is consistently at odds with the rest of the American Orthodox churches for it’s anti-ecumenical stance.

        For example, Orthodox canon law prohibits praying with heretics. The Russian Patriarch does not meet, or pray with the Pope. Most of the other Patriarchs pray with the Pope. The Greek Patriarch refused to meet and pray with the Pope, until 1964.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenagoras_I_of_Constantinople#Ecumenical_relations

        • jim says:

          So, Orthodoxy only exists where nuclear weapons protect it. In the rest of the world, has joined the universal church of progressivism.

          • Ion says:

            Though it has joined Progressivism less willingly, and at a slower rate than mainline Protestantism, or the Vatican. To a significant extent, this may be due to Orthodoxy’s lower level of cultural exposure to the West.

          • Ion says:

            Also, Jim, why is Islam so resistant to Progressivism?

            It has a lot of similarities to Christianity, but it seems to have succeeded, while all other world religions have capitulated. Hinduism is not as dead as Christianity, but it’s very badly off. Same for Shinto, Buddhism, et cetera.

            • jim says:

              why is Islam so resistant to Progressivism?

              Shinto was defeated by nuclear weapons, by naked uncomplicated violence. Buddhism and Hinduism was conquered by colonialists. Islam was not entirely conquered by colonialists. Saudi Arabia was never subject to colonial rule.

              Indeed, that is the general pattern of the theocracy, combining both force and persuasion.

              Progressivism relies rather heavily on the mailed fist inside the velvet glove. That is why Russian Orthodoxy has rather suddenly come back from the dead.

              You want to know why the Roman Catholic Church is so susceptible to progressivism? Because any priest who is insufficiently progressive is going to be found to be somehow connected to someone who is somehow connected to someone who is somehow connected to someone who allegedly fondled choir boys’ bottoms seventy years ago.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Here in Canada, Russian Orthodoxy is so progressive it is beyond nauseating. Must be different brands of Russian Orthodoxy out there. Or else they’ve weaponized it into a dual strategy, so it weakens alien populations, but strengthens the native population.

          • B says:

            Islam is resistant because it has a complex system of behavioral codes (which is a shitty knockoff of Halacha, but whatever.) The way the human mind works is that if you do something all the time for a system of thought you half-believe in, you end up believing all the way. Hence, all the prophetic gestures in the Torah. Whereas if you firmly believe something which doesn’t require you to do concrete things all the time, your belief wanes. There is no such thing as a vacuum of belief, so Progressivism steps in.

            • jim says:

              The way the human mind works is that if you do something all the time for a system of thought you half-believe in, you end up believing all the way.

              Much truth in that. Both progressivism and Christianity have the weakness that the priesthood keeps sucking up the rituals and taking them away from the laity. Thus for example recycling was taken over by the bureaucracy.

          • B says:

            >the priesthood keeps sucking up the rituals and taking them away from the laity.

            When you found your religion on the idea that rituals are silly and optional, well, you know, it’s hard to say “this far and no further” and have it stick.

            • jim says:

              When you found your religion on the idea that rituals are silly and optional, well, you know, it’s hard to say “this far and no further” and have it stick.

              The Christian position has never been that rituals are silly and optional – consider how many Christians have killed each other over issues of baptism, wine in communion, or how to cross oneself.

              Rather the position has been that rituals are essentially arbitrary, outward symbols of an inward state. But if you symbolize the wrong inward state, your inward state is probably going to be wrong.

              Thus, for example, Saint Paul on eating meat sacrificed to idols. If it looks like you are showing respect to idols, you probably are. If it does not, you probably are not.

          • B says:

            >Rather the position has been that rituals are essentially arbitrary, outward symbols of an inward state.

            When you say “essentially arbitrary,” this means one of two things.

            Either they’re arbitrary because G-d decided them. In which case from our perspective, they’re not arbitrary, they’re mandatory.

            Or they’re arbitrary because a smart guy decided we should do them.

            In the latter case, there is no reason that another, equally smart or smarter guy can’t come along and change those rituals, or just abrogate them.

            People being what they are, they tend to judge the intelligence of a guy speaking to them based on whether that guy is telling them what they want to hear. And so you get endless pandering, abrogation of rituals, etc. Not to mention the fact that if a ritual has no inherent meaning and is arbitrary, why should I give up something I want and care about to engage in the ritual? Why should I risk my life for it?

            >Thus, for example, Saint Paul on eating meat sacrificed to idols.

            Right, which is a bullshit position, as is every weaselly Christian abrogation of mitzvot. Oh, you know, it doesn’t matter what you eat, only what you say, Shabbat is for man, not the other way around, so feel free to go bass fishing, celibacy is the ideal state, go ahead and intermarry, it’s your heart you must circumcise and your penis doesn’t matter, etc.

            All this stuff went out the window almost immediately. Why not? If a guy can be G-d, why can’t another guy decide that G-d no longer means what he said? And then why can’t another guy decide that the second guy’s words are being misinterpreted and that he knows better? Ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. And there’s no moment that you can say to “stay! Thou art so fair!”

            • jim says:

              Either they’re arbitrary because G-d decided them. In which case from our perspective, they’re not arbitrary, they’re mandatory.

              Or they’re arbitrary because a smart guy decided we should do them.

              In the latter case, there is no reason that another, equally smart or smarter guy can’t come along and change those rituals, or just abrogate them.

              Christian position is that rituals were, for the most part, invented by smart men rather than decreed by God, but should outwardly reflect those inward things that are decreed by God.

              And it is a simple, embarrassingly observable, fact of history that rituals were invented by men. As, for example, your current obsession with cheese crumbs.

              Mizrahi rituals, the rituals of the majority of Israel’s population are being obliterated by higher status Sephardic and Ashkenazi rituals. Which rituals were decided by God?

          • B says:

            >Christian position is that rituals were, for the most part, invented by smart men rather than decreed by God

            Oh, really? That’s what the Catholics think about Communion? Just some cool thing some smart guy came up with? I’m thinking you’re about as much an expert on Christianity as on Judaism.

            >but should outwardly reflect those inward things that are decreed by God.

            And whether they adequately reflect them or not, or what those inward things are, are subject to endless populist revision, until you get the current position which is that Jesus loves trannies and hates homophobes.

            >As, for example, your current obsession with cheese crumbs.

            Not eating dairy and meat together was not invented by us but given in the Torah (as is the prohibition on eating unkosher animals, or animals that were not slaughtered properly). The specific details of how to separate them are legally determined. Nobody claims that, e.g., whether you should wait 1 hour or 6 between eating meat and dairy is in the Torah.

            Christianity just says it doesn’t matter if you have a bacon cheeseburger. It’s the inwards things that matter, maaaan. G-d was just kidding with all that prohibition stuff, and the part where He talks about the Jews being his people and all that. Don’t even bother reading all that stuff, maaan, just feel the love.

            >Mizrahi rituals, the rituals of the majority of Israel’s population are being obliterated by higher status Sephardic and Ashkenazi rituals.

            Oh, we’ve got ourselves an expert here. Wonderful. Which Mizrahi rituals are being obliterated, exactly? Enlighten me.

            (By the way, Mizrahim are not the majority of the population, but that’s neither here nor there.)

            • jim says:

              >As, for example, your current obsession with cheese crumbs.

              Not eating dairy and meat together was not invented by us but given in the Torah

              Oh come on.

              As I remarked earlier, every time you get less strict on human semen, you get more strict on cheese crumbs.

          • B says:

            >As I remarked earlier, every time you get less strict on human semen, you get more strict on cheese crumbs.

            Au contraire, the kind of Jews who tend to think homosexuality is ok also tend to hold your views on kashrut and Shabbat. Practically a 100% correlation.

            As for the prohibition of meat and dairy being from the Torah, everyone who has any authority on record on the issue says so, over the last 2000 years. What’s the issue?

          • B says:

            Hey, you know who else wasn’t smart enough to know that kashrut was just a bunch of stuff made up by rabbis like six years ago?

            Daniel, that’s who.

            But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the officers that he might not defile himself.
            And God granted Daniel mercy and compassion in the sight of the chief of the officers.
            And the chief of the officers said unto Daniel: ‘I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces sad in comparison with the youths that are of your own age? so would ye endanger my head with the king.’
            Then said Daniel to the steward, whom the chief of the officers had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
            Try thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
            Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the youths that eat of the king’s food; and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.’
            So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and tried them ten days.
            And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king’s food.
            So the steward took away their food, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them pulse.

            Isn’t that funny? Why didn’t he just, you know, say “in my heart, I consider this food ok,” like the Christians, and chow down?

            • jim says:

              From the time of Moses, and probably at least from the time of Israel the patriarch, Hebrews were forbidden unclean food, with the definition of unclean being somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent. But there is no indication that mixing cheese and meat was a problem in Old Testament times

              Further we can see the stringency of separation increasing all the way to double dishwashers. Going back a few centuries, we see Jews obsessing about eating nerves, but paying little attention to the possibility of cheese crumbs meeting meat grease, while today’s Jews have lots of rationales for forgetting about eating nerves.

          • B says:

            >with the definition of unclean being somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent.

            Nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about it. Again, the fact that your casual paging through the Gideon Bible leaves you confused about what different prohibitions and commandments mean doesn’t imply that their target audience, i.e., us and our ancestors, was confused about what they mean.

            >But there is no indication that mixing cheese and meat was a problem in Old Testament times

            Well then, Daniel could have just asked to have some cheese. Or some meat. Or maybe some bread. I mean, going the full vegan and subsisting on PULSE seems a bit…extreme, no? Persian food is, after all, delicious, and there were surely plenty of options to choose from.

            >Further we can see the stringency of separation increasing all the way to double dishwashers.

            You are right, Daniel didn’t even have one dishwasher, let alone two. HOLINESS DEATH SPIRAL DETECTED DURR.

            >Going back a few centuries, we see Jews obsessing about eating nerves, but paying little attention to the possibility of cheese crumbs meeting meat grease

            Oh, an expert on medieval Jewish dietary restrictions. Tell me more.

            >while today’s Jews have lots of rationales for forgetting about eating nerves.

            Really? Amazing. Where can I observe Jews eating the sciatic nerve today? How did you learn about this amazing leniency on a Biblical prohibition, of which I’ve somehow remained blissfully unaware?

          • Ion says:

            >“in my heart, I consider this food ok,” like the Christians, and chow down?
            I’m wondering if you ever read Romans, Galatians or the Epistle of Barnabas? Pauline Christians are hostile to the entire idea of a clean/unclean distinction. It’s not about the heart, it’s just categorically anti-Law.

          • B says:

            >I’m wondering if you ever read Romans, Galatians or the Epistle of Barnabas? Pauline Christians are hostile to the entire idea of a clean/unclean distinction. It’s not about the heart, it’s just categorically anti-Law.

            I did not read them thoroughly. The impression I got was that part of the Law went out the window during Jesus’ life (or at least he relied on minority opinions,) a bigger part during the lives of his followers, and then the rest of it.

            Well, when you remove the distinction between clean and unclean objects and actions, you open the door to hell. In Judaism, there is a system where every single one of man’s basic desires (food, sex, money, power) is constrained and channeled into the service of G-d, but not abrogated. This is only possible through distinctions between permitted and prohibited food, sexual relations, work, leadership acquisition and behavior. When you chuck the whole thing, you either get Stylites and other such foolishness, where natural human desires are evil and must be denied as much as possible, or degeneracy with a cross on it, Pastor Kaitlin Jenner and so forth. On the way there, you have endless infighting and mass murder, because a society can’t function without a law. If the Law is not the law, then what the law is is up for endless renegotiation based on who has power at the moment and what they’d like it to be.

          • Ion says:

            >The impression I got was that part of the Law went out the window during Jesus’ life
            The Law wasn’t abolished until after Jesus died. Or, the Christian church didn’t recognize that it was abolished until Acts 15. And there were a number of early, non-Pauline sects of Christianity that still obeyed the law, and spent their time evangelizing Jews, not Gentiles.

            Jesus argued for reinterpreting the law. He generally advised reducing strictness, following the “spirit of the law”, rather than the letter, and he loudly bashed the Pharisees.

            Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV)

            Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

            Modern Christians interpret “all is accomplished” as the death and resurrection of Jesus.

          • B says:

            >And there were a number of early, non-Pauline sects of Christianity that still obeyed the law, and spent their time evangelizing Jews, not Gentiles.

            Yes, I’m aware. There’s stuff in the Talmud that tells you how you can tell who these guys are. They were a big problem.

            >Jesus argued for reinterpreting the law. He generally advised reducing strictness, following the “spirit of the law”, rather than the letter, and he loudly bashed the Pharisees.

            Right. Well, he kind of had to, being that he had no legal leg to stand on-part of the Law is who gets to figure out how to apply it or impose strictures/leniencies, and how they can legally do this. There is no part of the Law that says some random guy with a cult can reinterpret the law. Of course, once you reinterpret the Law unilaterally to make it easier to keep, the next generation just chucks it. If your pretext is based in some kind of legalistic reasoning, the next generation will have an even flimsier pretext like “I had a dream where Jesus told me that it was cool.” Happened with the Reform and Conservative movements of the 20th century, too.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      When I’m trolling internet comment sections, I found that Russia really pisses the SJWs off.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        I think this may be temporary, and due to media agitation initiated by the state department and others. What I find hilarious is the old guard European leftists who still defend Russia to the death even when it goes against what they now believe. I have a very left wing relative who gets all his news from Russia Today!

        It goes to show how powerful the whole ‘West is evil’ narrative actually became during the first half of the counter-culture in the 60s and 70s. Even when the cultural revolutionaries won, this feeling remains, and so the die hard Left STILL hate their countries, but they have everything they ever wanted!

  9. Jack says:

    >But if they are, B’s version of Judaism is not doing a lot to encourage it.

    This, exactly this. If tomorrow 3 billion Africans, Indians, Arabs and East-Asians discover the Torah and sincerely wish to convert to Orthodox Judaism, the rabbis would accept them, as they do now those relatively few Africans, Indians, Arabs and East-Asians who’ve seen the Light, including ex-Hezbollah terrorists[1]. If I were a sinister WN, I’d encourage the continent of Africa to convert to Judaism en masse and apply for Israeli citizenship. Some 200,000 (iirc) “Ethiopian Jews” now reside in Israel. How much would be too much? 500,000? 1,000,000? 80,000,000? If in 1948 some 10 million Moroccan Jews arrived in Israel, then Israel would still be a “Jewish state” (for the 5-years-top it’d survive), albeit with an irrecognizably different cultural atmosphere. Fortunately for Israel, these are hypothetical scenarios. Point is: when B claims that Judaism isn’t genetic, he’s telling the truth.

    The whole “Judaism is a Group Evolutionary Strategy” theory advocated by MacDonald’s zealots is crap, pure and undiluted. Nope, sorry guys. Ashkenazi Jews have more in common with Germans than with Druze, despite genetic links. So far, the Jews in Israel have gotten along a-okay, though the picture B paints is far rosier than reality; Israel could afford to lose 1 million Mizrahim, but would turn into a dysfunctional Third World shithole within less than a decade if you took out some 1 million Ashkenazim – which is to say, Jews are not interchangeable with one another, and an Ashkenazi Jew who marries into a Mizrahi family is a race-traitor by all measures; if push ever comes to shove, Ashkenazim would find themselves in a position strikingly similar to that encountered by Whites in SA. [Said race-traitor’s children could be disciplined and good-mannered, but don’t hold your breath for any Nobel Prizes to grace ol’ papa’s shelf, and that’s an understatement.] B doesn’t want to admit it, but it’s an excellent thing that Muslims eradicated, by extermination or by forced conversion, plenty of Middle-Eastern Jews throughout the centuries; excellent from the Jews’ perspective, that is, otherwise B would be stuck with some 30 million Berber\Arab Jews with an average IQ of below 90, and who knows how many Ethiopians – who are just as legitimate Jews as B according to Halacha. Perhaps it’s a Divine Miracle that dozens of millions of Africans don’t rush to the Synagogues to become legitimate Israeli Jews like B. So much for “Group Evolutionary Strategy”.

    Ashkenazim by and large could really afford to be more racist. They won’t, though, so I guess Jim’s right to proclaim that the Jews are pwned by the Cathedral, for the time being at least.

    [1]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186609

    • B says:

      Billions of non-Jews will not convert, for the simple reason that the Torah demands observance of mitzvot, which is somewhat demanding and requires study, and most people are naturally lazy and hesitant to accept new requirements upon themselves. Further, most people tend to think that whatever group they were born into is superior, and need concrete and immediate material advantages to leave that group and join another one.

      I don’t know what part of the picture I painted fails to correspond to reality. Are you saying I invented my neighbors, or that I didn’t visit with them over Shabbat?

      As for the indispensability of Ashkenazim and the dispensability of the Sepharadim and Mizrahim, please spare me that horseshit.

      • Jack says:

        >Billions of non-Jews will not convert

        Right, that’s why I explicitly mentioned it’s a hypothetical scenario, which is obvious. You should be familiar with those, as the Talmud is chock-full of them. To reiterate my point: you are correct when you deny the proposition that that Judaism is gene-based. That’s not a feature, though.

        >Are you saying I invented my neighbors, or that I didn’t visit with them over Shabbat?

        This is womanese here, B. Your lovely community and anecdotal life experiences do not represent the religious Mizrahim who marry among themselves, the traditional Mizrahim who marry among themselves, the Orthodox Ashkenazim who marry among themselves, the older Russians who marry among themselves, the Arabs who marry among themselves (duh), the enclaves of Ashkenazim in kubbutzim who marry among themselves, the Ethiopians who marry among themselves, and basically all non-secular & non-sabra segments of Israeli society. Granted, the trend is toward integration, hence why you can’t have merely religious-based “tribalism” to maintain the vitality of Israeli society for years to come (or perhaps you can; jury’s still out), as that would entail the gradual dilution of barriers between 110-IQ Ashkenazim and 90-IQ Moroccans or 70-IQ Ethiopians (why not? Halacha recognizes them); considering natural population growths, the result is bound to be unpleasant.

        >As for the indispensability of Ashkenazim and the dispensability of the Sepharadim and Mizrahim, please spare me that horseshit.

        Can you read? I said “afford to lose 1 million”, not 100% and not “any percentage whatsoever” of a certain population – which, in the former case, would be at least 2.5 million for Mizrahim — and obviously with immense economic difficulty. Also, you shouldn’t juxtapose Sepharadim and Mizrahim (I certainly didn’t do that); yes, they have similar prayers, but who cares? Spanish Jews are not Arab Jews, much as Spaniards are not Arabs. I’d go further and remark that Persian Jews are by far more human-like than their North African brethren.

        Also, you think Israel would survive a single decade without Ashkenazim (included therein Russian Jews) populating it or even just managing it? You’re deluding yourself. Third Worlders do not become First Worlders. Right now, your only reason for optimism is the Ashkenazi Ultra-Orthodox reproduction rate, so, I guess there’s that. In the future, there could be Aliyah from the US of Ashkenazim. We’ll see.

      • Mackus says:

        There are about 130,000 Beta Israel “Ethiopian Jews” in Israel, but only 4000 in Ethiopia. Did really 97% of them left Ethiopia for Israel?
        Doubtful.
        Its far more plausible that a lot of black people were willing to pretend to be Jewish in order to escape poor and volatile Ethiopia.
        Just like a lot of ethnic Russians/Tatars/Poles/Whatever from Soviet Union pretended to be Jews to emigrate to Israel.

        >>most people tend to think that whatever group they were born into is superior, and need concrete and immediate material advantages to leave that group and join another one.

        Exactly. How was being able to move from communist Ethiopia or Soviet Union to mostly capitalist Israel NOT a material incentive?

        >>Torah demands observance of mitzvot, which is somewhat demanding and requires study

        They needed to learn only enough of mitzvot to be able to _pass_ as reasonably devoted Jews, not to _be_ genuinely devoted Jews.

      • jim says:

        Billions of non-Jews will not convert,

        But fifty million African non Jews might well convert. Has anyone checked out the remaining Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia to see if they are besieged by converts? Come to think of it, maybe you should check out the Ethiopian Jews in Israel to see if they look very Ethiopian.

        The difference is most noticeable with the women. Ethiopian women look hot, while the typical subsaharan African woman looks about half way between a male human in drag and a chimp.

        • B says:

          >To reiterate my point: you are correct when you deny the proposition that that Judaism is gene-based. That’s not a feature, though.

          I disagree.

          >Your lovely community and anecdotal life experiences do not represent the religious Mizrahim who marry among themselves…the Ethiopians who marry among themselves, and basically all non-secular & non-sabra segments of Israeli society.

          I live in a religious community. Everyone is religious and everyone’s a first or second generation immigrant. But, yeah, tell me how it is in non-secular and non-sabra Israeli society. Enlighten me.

          >as that would entail the gradual dilution of barriers between 110-IQ Ashkenazim and 90-IQ Moroccans or 70-IQ Ethiopians (why not? Halacha recognizes them)

          I have not been impressed by the IQ studies-they have small sample sizes. Again, in my community, of the families I listed, there are several North African developers, and I’ve met lots of Sepharadi/Mizrahi coders, engineers, etc.

          The larger point is that the Torah does not define who is a Jew (or who is a better Jew) by IQ, and its definition of wisdom is orthogonal to IQ. Having seen societies which place a heavier premium on IQ than wisdom in the Torah sense (for instance, the US intelligence community, or academia,) I can tell you that I want no part of it-that way lies madness and death. I will take an Ethiopian manual laborer who is religious over an Ashkenazi secular physicist any day as a neighbor or friend.

          >I said “afford to lose 1 million”, not 100% and not “any percentage whatsoever” of a certain population – which, in the former case, would be at least 2.5 million for Mizrahim — and obviously with immense economic difficulty.

          I am a Jew, and do not think that Israel can afford to lose any of my brothers. Maybe you sort your family members by their standardized test scores and decide whom you’d theoretically eat first in a famine based on that, in which case I feel sorry for you.

          >Also, you shouldn’t juxtapose Sepharadim and Mizrahim (I certainly didn’t do that); yes, they have similar prayers, but who cares? Spanish Jews are not Arab Jews, much as Spaniards are not Arabs. I’d go further and remark that Persian Jews are by far more human-like than their North African brethren.

          They are all my brothers, and by far more human-like than you’ve shown yourself so far.

          See, there are only two possibilities.

          Either Moshe Barazani, Eliezer Kashani, Mordechai Alkahi and Yosef Simchon are heroes of the Jewish people and you’re a nobody. Or you’re a noble high-IQ representative of the Jewish people and they are Mizrahi subhumans. So for me, the answer is obvious.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Barazani
          http://www.etzel.org.il/english/people/kashani.htm
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Alkahi
          https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Simchon.html

          >Third Worlders do not become First Worlders.

          I recommend you read 19th century descriptions of Ashkenazi Jews and their shtetls and ghettoes by the better class of European (whom I’m guessing you aspire towards.)

          >There are about 130,000 Beta Israel “Ethiopian Jews” in Israel, but only 4000 in Ethiopia. Did really 97% of them left Ethiopia for Israel?

          There used to be many more Beta Israel in Ethiopia, but centuries of persecution and forced conversions have shrunk their numbers. The ones who kept their religion were willing to make sacrifices you could not imagine to escape to Israel when the opportunity presented itself.

          >Its far more plausible that a lot of black people were willing to pretend to be Jewish in order to escape poor and volatile Ethiopia.
          Just like a lot of ethnic Russians/Tatars/Poles/Whatever from Soviet Union pretended to be Jews to emigrate to Israel.

          The Falash Mura answer to this description. But naturally the Land sifts them. The ones who do not choose to follow Torah and become part of the Jewish people will die off or leave. I see this happening in front of my eyes. All the secular ones are talking about how great it is in America and Canada. And they’re leaving, with their one or two children.

          >Exactly. How was being able to move from communist Ethiopia or Soviet Union to mostly capitalist Israel NOT a material incentive?

          What we’re talking about is conversion, not immigration.

          >They needed to learn only enough of mitzvot to be able to _pass_ as reasonably devoted Jews

          This is a high bar, much higher than for conversion to Islam or Christianity.

          >not to _be_ genuinely devoted Jews.

          Wow, man, I only wish some Jews at some point in the past had considered how you can tell whom to consider a devoted convert and whom to consider as a faker. If they had, if anyone in the history of our people had been as smart as you, they might have written their conclusions down so that a court could use them as a guide today. I guess they didn’t have your inordinately high IQ, spending all their mental energy checking for invisible insects and such.

          >But fifty million African non Jews might well convert. Has anyone checked out the remaining Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia to see if they are besieged by converts?

          It is extremely unlikely that 50 million Africans will convert. If they do, they are welcome. But conversion to Judaism is a protracted process requiring dedication and study under someone who is qualified to teach, and must be accepted by a Jewish court whose job it is to determine that the convert knows what he’s getting into, is honest and dedicated. For instance, in Northeast India, there are the Bnei Menashe, who converted and are immigrating here. The vast majority of their fellow Kuki, Mizo and Chin tribesmen want nothing to do with it, material benefits regardless.

          • Jack says:

            >I live in a religious community. Everyone is religious and everyone’s a first or second generation immigrant. But, yeah, tell me how it is in non-secular and non-sabra Israeli society. Enlighten me.

            Get out of your secluded ghetto on the hills from time to time, then. This “everyone in my immediate social circle is X, therefore the whole country is X” line of reasoning doesn’t cut it, and is femspeech. You’re lying to Jim and to his readers because you want Gentiles to be impressed with Jewish civilization, all while arrogantly hurling abuse at Western civilization. It’s pathetic.

            >I have not been impressed by the IQ studies-they have small sample sizes.

            Who gives a shit? You’re evading the issue of some Jews being capable of maintaining civilization and preserving a future for themselves, and some being incapable of it. HBD is real whether or not you choose to accept its implications.

            >Again, in my community, of the families I listed, there are several North African developers, and I’ve met lots of Sepharadi/Mizrahi coders, engineers, etc.

            Which means exactly nothing. Some Africans (Jewish or not) can into engineering, so what? On a societal level, they can’t into civilization. It matters not which Divinity they worship. They need Whites, Asians, or even Arabs to tell them how to run things properly.

            >The larger point is that the Torah does not define who is a Jew (or who is a better Jew) by IQ, and its definition of wisdom is orthogonal to IQ.

            Yep. The Torah would allow millions of Africans to “become” Jews and move to Israel, on the condition that they exhibit sincerity when “converting”. The rabbis would then rationalize the process by insisting these Africans have had a Jewish nephesh from the beginning.

            >Having seen societies which place a heavier premium on IQ than wisdom in the Torah sense (for instance, the US intelligence community, or academia,) I can tell you that I want no part of it-that way lies madness and death.

            Having seen Jewish societies that idealize “wisdom in the Torah sense” (translated to humanese as “whatever the rabbis decide is fashionable”) to the exclusion of all other considerations, one would conclude that Jewish wisdom is significantly overrated, particularly by liberal Jewish propagandists who, being embarrassed by their backward cousins, pretend that said backward cousins are just as civilized, cultural, and affluent as they are (“welfare? What welfare?”), even as those very cousins affirm and reaffirm, time and again, their determined disavowal of / antipathy toward Western civilization and culture. Like Muslims, but with high enough verbal IQ to engage in successful taqiyya.

            Gee, you must be wondering why millions of Gentiles don’t rush to become Orthodox Jews and live pauperized in secluded ghettos forever; after all, your way of life is so obviously superior to that of theirs, and totally compatible with high civilization; right?? It must be a combination of the Goyishekopfs and anti-Jewish prejudice (or Divine Intervention) that precludes them from realizing just how superior Haredim are. It’s just a strange coincidence that militantly atheist Jews established the only Jewish state, not your kind. Oh well, they were Hamoro Shel Mashiah. Talmudists can rationalize everything, up to and including the Jewishness of Hezbollah terrorists and retarded Africans, and also why they failed to bring the redemption that militant atheist Ashkenazi Jews brought in a few decades. Keep idealizing the shtetl.

            >I will take an Ethiopian manual laborer who is religious over an Ashkenazi secular physicist any day as a neighbor or friend.

            Am I supposed to give a damn? Take whoever you want as “neighbor or friend”; it doesn’t change the fact that Israel is run by Ashkenazim, and if it hadn’t been run by Ashkenazim, it wouldn’t exist. Which means that, to use your terminology, some Jews are objectively less disposable than others.

            >I am a Jew, and do not think that Israel can afford to lose any of my brothers.

            Yes, right. Go release those 1,000+ Arab terrorists so as not to lose one “brother”. Makes perfect sense, that strategy. Pouring tears about how all Jews are your brothers, including retarded African Jews, has the same effect of a White Christian pouring tears about how all Christians are his brothers, including retarded African Christians. With every word you prove Jim’s assertion.

            >Maybe you sort your family members by their standardized test scores and decide whom you’d theoretically eat first in a famine based on that, in which case I feel sorry for you.

            Butthurt detected. Lol at “standardized test scores”, though. You’re not just lying to Jim about your own country and people whilst arguing in typical female manner (“my personal life experience…”), you also lie about the content of our argument. Which is, to remind you, not about your friends, neighbors, family members, or how you decide upon them. It’s about your Torah making you susceptible to Cathedral domination, exactly as Jim posits.

            >They are all my brothers, and by far more human-like than you’ve shown yourself so far.

            One gotta appreciate how the Bs of the world stand up to support their people even as they’re shown to be flawed at best and sub-human at worst. It reminds you of how blacks support their brothas no matter what objective reality has to say about the root of their predicament. I guess it’s an emotional thing shared by some races, but not by others.

            >Either Moshe Barazani, Eliezer Kashani, Mordechai Alkahi and Yosef Simchon are heroes of the Jewish people and you’re a nobody. Or you’re a noble high-IQ representative of the Jewish people and they are Mizrahi subhumans. So for me, the answer is obvious.

            I see you’ve moved on from arguing like a woman to arguing like a black, i.e “recall brotha Moshe, he be a hero of dis country, dis proves one shuun’t judge between a brotha and a brotha hmmm”. Nah, I’ll continue to maintain that your North African “brothers” are as inferior as North Africans go, and listing all Mizrahi “heroes of the Jewish people” is as effective and persuasive as listing all successful blacks as evidence that one shouldn’t separate between one race and another.
            >I recommend you read 19th century descriptions of Ashkenazi Jews and their shtetls and ghettoes by the better class of European (whom I’m guessing you aspire towards.)

            Irrelevant, material conditions in Europe then were nothing like they are today; or, you could argue that with just the right amount of Torah study, blacks would become as prosperous as Ashkenazi Jews. One is not like the other.

          • B says:

            >Get out of your secluded ghetto on the hills from time to time, then.

            I work in a high-tech startup in Ramat Gan. Before that, I was working in a high-tech startup in Herzliya. Any further west, I’d be in the sea. But if you’d like to educate me on what secular Israeli society looks like once you’ve explained to me what religious Israeli society looks like, be my guest.

            >You’re evading the issue of some Jews being capable of maintaining civilization and preserving a future for themselves, and some being incapable of it.

            I have not observed that Mizrahi Jews are incapable of maintaining civilization. In fact, the ones I know are largely engaged in just that.

            >Some Africans (Jewish or not) can into engineering, so what? On a societal level, they can’t into civilization.

            This is an assertion that is not borne out by the reality I observe around myself. Since you are just another one in a long line of assholes inviting me to to trust Scientific Truth over my lying eyes, and since every time I’ve done that, my lying eyes have turned out right, I think I’ll decline.

            >The Torah would allow millions of Africans to “become” Jews and move to Israel, on the condition that they exhibit sincerity when “converting”. The rabbis would then rationalize the process by insisting these Africans have had a Jewish nephesh from the beginning.

            Correct. What is the problem? We’ve survived by the Torah for several millennia. Every attempt by guys like you to explain that we should reimagine the Torah according to the latest scientific wisdom lest we be overtaken by whatever emergency is right around the corner, whether it was done by the Reform, the Christian Jews or by the Hellenizers, has ended up the same way.

            >Having seen societies which place a heavier premium on IQ than wisdom in the Torah sense (for instance, the US intelligence community, or academia,) I can tell you that I want no part of it-that way lies madness and death.

            >one would conclude that Jewish wisdom is significantly overrated

            So, don’t partake. What’s the problem?

            >particularly by liberal Jewish propagandists who, being embarrassed by their backward cousins, pretend that said backward cousins are just as civilized, cultural, and affluent as they are (“welfare? What welfare?”),

            None of my Mizrahi friends, neighbors or acquaintances are on welfare. If you wish to make the case that most of the religious Jews on welfare in Israel are Mizrahi, I’ll gladly read your sources. I learned a long time ago that affluence signifies nothing. As for cultural and civilized, I have not noticed a gap. Again, should I believe my lying eyes?

            Do you have any relatives who do manual labor, by the way? Do you see them as less than your other relatives?

            >even as those very cousins affirm and reaffirm, time and again, their determined disavowal of / antipathy toward Western civilization and culture.

            I disavow and antipathize towards Western civilization and culture. Thank you, please keep your abortions, feminized men, masculinized women and the rest of it.

            >Gee, you must be wondering why millions of Gentiles don’t rush to become Orthodox Jews and live pauperized in secluded ghettos forever;

            Not particularly. You know we don’t proselytize.

            >that precludes them from realizing just how superior Haredim are.

            I am not Haredi. And most Haredim are not Mizrahi.

            >It’s just a strange coincidence that militantly atheist Jews established the only Jewish state, not your kind.

            My feelings on the matter (and actually on the Mizrahim of Israel) are summarized by Rav Kahane. To call this state Jewish is not quite correct.

            As for the militantly atheist character of its founders-Rav Kook was what, an insignificant detail? What about the Vizhnitz Rebbe, Rav Eliezer Hager, who fought in the religious units of the Haganah in 1948 and was wounded in battle? What about the Haredim who fought for Jerusalem?

            Further, how do you think it happened that when the secular Zionists came here, they were able to establish a foothold? I’ll let you in on a terrible secret: there were religious Jewish communities coming here and living here nonstop for the last 1000 years.

            >also why they failed to bring the redemption that militant atheist Ashkenazi Jews brought in a few decades.

            I have not noticed redemption around me. Maybe the glimmerings of redemption on the horizon. I notice a secular, Ashkenazi-dominated judicial system fervently defending the right of Arabs, with and without Israeli citizenship, ordering demolitions of Jewish homes, etc. I also notice that the local branch of the Cathedral in academe, the media and the NGOs is primarily Ashkenazi, and is heavily engaged in vilifying Mizrahim in exactly the same repugnant manner as you. I notice that unlike the North Tel Aviv Ashkenazi elites, the Mizrahim have no illusions about our enemies’ nature, no desire to appease them by selling out their brothers. And that this really pisses off the (heavily Ashkenazi) elites.

            >Take whoever you want as “neighbor or friend”; it doesn’t change the fact that Israel is run by Ashkenazim, and if it hadn’t been run by Ashkenazim, it wouldn’t exist.

            I am not particularly impressed with the way that the Ashkenazim running Israel are running it. As for your counterfactual, it’s irrelevant. If any nation’s technical and political elite disappeared in the middle of a war, it would cease to exist, and we are in a permanent war.

            >Go release those 1,000+ Arab terrorists so as not to lose one “brother”.

            This is against Torah. So I’d rather not.

            >Which is, to remind you, not about your friends, neighbors, family members, or how you decide upon them.

            It is exactly about that. The Jewish people is one big family, and that part of it which lives in Israel are neighbors. If you wish to explain to me that some of my family members are worth less than others because their IQs are lower, I will politely invite you to fuck off.

            >One gotta appreciate how the Bs of the world stand up to support their people even as they’re shown to be flawed at best and sub-human at worst.

            Since the alternative is to be a whore and sell out your family members based on “objective” standards, I’ll take this option. “Sorry, cousins, the standardized test the government gave says you’re dumb, so I don’t know you anymore. I’m friends with the Chinese now.” This is the exact kind of thinking that leads Americans to denounce family members for racism or transphobia or whatever. An “objective” standard is imposed from above, and the whores fall right in line.

            >Nah, I’ll continue to maintain that your North African “brothers” are as inferior as North Africans go, and listing all Mizrahi “heroes of the Jewish people” is as effective and persuasive as listing all successful blacks as evidence that one shouldn’t separate between one race and another.

            Good luck. I’ll continue to judge my brothers by the morality of their conduct and not by the likelihood that they will get a Nobel.

            >Irrelevant, material conditions in Europe then were nothing like they are today

            Even in those material conditions, shtetls and ghettoes made a poor impression on those you’d like to emulate.

            >or, you could argue that with just the right amount of Torah study, blacks would become as prosperous as Ashkenazi Jews.

            Since the HBD argument is, essentially, that in a few centuries Torah study made Ashkenazim intelligent (if I recall the 10KY Explosion right,) and that until that point the Jews were not renowned for their brains, well…

          • Eli says:

            @B:

            The 10,000 Year Explosion argues that it was, actually, *2* things *together*, not one:

            1) Jewish cohesion, referring to endogamy. Naturally, adhering to tradition, which includes rules pertaining to marriage, was the big enabler here.
            2) No less importantly: main Ashkenazi population source were the rich representatives of the community, who came from occupations like money lending, tax collection, estate management: occupations a success in which selected for brains.

            One may prefer a religious Ethiopian to an Ashkenazi physicist for a neighbor, especially if one lives in the West Bank, but it takes more than cohesion to develop a complex, high-tech civilization: it also requires selection.

            And selection requires either death/replacement (old-school, gloomy) or, at least, disparate birthrate with assortative breeding.

          • B says:

            >The 10,000 Year Explosion argues that it was, actually, *2* things *together*

            Yes, fine, and sweeps and a founder effect and all that jazz. I am personally not convinced by the book, having read the writings of the smartest guys in Sepharad (Maimonides and Nachmanides and Yehuda Halevi) at the beginning of the 2nd millennium and those of the various smartest guys in Ashkenaz several centuries of purported selection later, and not noticed a qualitative leap (for instance.)

            > it takes more than cohesion to develop a complex, high-tech civilization: it also requires selection.

            Just as it was impossible to predict ahead of time, in the year 1000 CE, that high IQ would be required to maintain civilization 1000 years later, or craft a program for developing such an IQ despite the Crusades, expulsions, Khmelnitsky and the rest of it, it is impossible to predict right now what will be required for national survival in the future and plan a program for developing it.

            Since I am religious and twice a day recite the Shema, where G-d tells us that if we keep the Torah, we will do fine, and if we don’t, we will lose our land, starve and be miserable, I assume that the Torah is His instrument for developing those traits in us which will prove essential to our survival in the future, as it has been in the past.

            >And selection requires either death/replacement (old-school, gloomy) or, at least, disparate birthrate with assortative breeding.

            We are seeing exactly that, but it’s not selecting for high IQ. It’s not selecting for low IQ, either. It’s selecting for the belief that there is a G-d, that He demands a certain standard of behavior from us, and that we can and are obliged to understand that standard through the Torah.

            I suspect that as a corollary of that selection, whatever traits we will need to survive and prosper will be selected for.

            You can take heart by the fact that the stock from which the great intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries came was comprised largely of religious fanatics who would, like me, be repulsed by the idea that you should judge humans based on their cleverness vs. their morality. And that the second they moved to a cleverness-based (positivist) worldview, the second derivative of technological advancement went negative.

            • jim says:

              Since I am religious and twice a day recite the Shema, where G-d tells us that if we keep the Torah, we will do fine, and if we don’t, we will lose our land, starve and be miserable, I assume that the Torah is His instrument for developing those traits in us which will prove essential to our survival in the future, as it has been in the past

              If, however, you suppose that the Torah operates through material consequences, (for example the Jews multiplied by superior hygiene, and in Egypt survived by superior hygiene plus a prohibition on infanticide and incest) you will notice that Judaism and the world has been changing in ways that are less apt to promote the survival of the Jews – in substantial part because Judaism is becoming progressive.

          • Jack says:

            >I work in a high-tech startup in Ramat Gan. Before that, I was working in a high-tech startup in Herzliya. Any further west, I’d be in the sea. But if you’d like to educate me on what secular Israeli society looks like once you’ve explained to me what religious Israeli society looks like, be my guest.

            I see you double-down on the your “argument from anecdote”. Do you even realize how you come across with this? “In my start-up companies all blacks, err, colorful Jews are civilized; therefore, all blacks, err again, colorful Jews, are civilized.” If that sounds convincing, wait until you get to meet actual intelligent blacks – you’d become an outright Progressive. My point was not that Jews of different races can’t get along, nor that you can’t find intelligent African Jews (obviously, if you go to where intelligent people are, you’ll find some there); it’s that, inspired by the Torah, you will maintain a racial denialism toward your people (not toward any other people, of course) that is civilizationally unsustainable.

            >I have not observed that Mizrahi Jews are incapable of maintaining civilization. In fact, the ones I know are largely engaged in just that.

            When Israel, the only semi-Jewish civilization currently in existence, is managed by a ruling class of Mizrahim, then you could assert that Mizrahi Jews, or to be more precise, North African, Yemenite, and African Jews, can maintain civilization. As for the Mizrahim that “you know”, see above.

            >This is an assertion that is not borne out by the reality I observe around myself. Since you are just another one in a long line of assholes inviting me to to trust Scientific Truth over my lying eyes, and since every time I’ve done that, my lying eyes have turned out right, I think I’ll decline.

            What “Scientific Truth”? Any unbiased observer could observe that, for some strange reason, violent crime in Israel and abroad is not committed by Rozensteins, and Nobel Prizes aren’t won by Sassouns. You don’t even trust your own lying eyes; you trust your faith in the superiority of the Jewish soul, which Africans, born Jewish or converted, possess according to Halacha. I’m not coming at you with any Theories From Above. I suggest that you hang out outside your ghetto and outside bastions of high-IQ individuals of all races; go to Eilat, if you need to, and see for yourself the inherent biological difference between African Jews and European Jews.

            >Correct. What is the problem? We’ve survived by the Torah for several millennia.

            “Jews” as a religious category have survived for long, indeed. As a civilization, not for long. As a distinct race, not for long. You could survive for millennia under Islamic rule, with no civilization, and with an average IQ of 80. If that’s what you aspire to, then by all means, go for it; the Muslims would be glad to assist you. If the Torah fails the way one could predict it’d fail, then Jews would still be here in 200 years – African Jews, with no country of their own, with no culture besides religion, and bitched around by mentally superior Gentile empires. So “Jews” would technically survive, yes. Nothing to be proud of.

            >Every attempt by guys like you to explain that we should reimagine the Torah according to the latest scientific wisdom lest we be overtaken by whatever emergency is right around the corner, whether it was done by the Reform, the Christian Jews or by the Hellenizers, has ended up the same way.

            “Donkeys live a long time,” but evolution is a much older donkey than the Torah, and if Ashkenazi genes are gradually but surely replaced with African genes, you’re on your path to lose civilization. Jews have lost civilization before, and a wise donkey would remain unimpressed with the Israeli project for the time being and considering contemporary trends. Today you’re arrogant as seemingly the Jews have proven that they’re not destined to exile; yet, you’re a few major disasters away from being back in the Galut, or one major slow-progressing disaster away. And if that happens, you’d rationalize it as usual with “God was angry at us for X”.

            >So, don’t partake. What’s the problem?

            You can’t stand critique, can you?

            >None of my Mizrahi friends, neighbors or acquaintances are on welfare.

            None of my (theoretical) black friends, neighbors or acquaintances are on welfare.

            >If you wish to make the case that most of the religious Jews on welfare in Israel are Mizrahi, I’ll gladly read your sources.

            I’m making the case that North African / Yemenite Jews, with an average IQ of 85, and Ethiopian Jews, whose IQ is in the lower 70s, cannot independently hold civilization; that Israel may become more Mizrahi and African as time goes on, and indeed, has become more Mizrahi and African as time went on; and that it therefore follows that unless Ashkenazi Jewry forms a tribalism independent of the Torah, you’ll either find yourself studying Torah under occupied Islamic rule, or as a refugee to White lands, or beheaded.

            >I learned a long time ago that affluence signifies nothing.

            You haven’t been studying too hard, then.

            >As for cultural and civilized, I have not noticed a gap. Again, should I believe my lying eyes?

            Well then, either your eyes really are lying, or you are lying, or you don’t look in the right places. Your civilized Iraqi Jews from Ramat Gan are not where you should be looking. This is ridiculous. I’ve worked with blacks, and they didn’t stab me. I guess crime isn’t racial, then?? That’s not how it works, and the fact I personally haven’t been stabbed by blacks, doesn’t mean anything; just as the fact the Mizrahim that *you know* personally are civilized, means nothing about this social element at large.

            >Do you have any relatives who do manual labor, by the way? Do you see them as less than your other relatives?

            Oh, the “what if it were your sister” type of argument. How original. I’ll restate that knowing blacks who are a-okay on an individual level doesn’t mean anything about blacks at large. But I’ll give you another answer: if I had relatives who for some reason had a completely different skin shade, different facial build, different behavior, and who are also somewhat criminal and savage, I’d conclude that either they’re not really my relatives, or if they are, I’d probably keep a distance from them. Everywhere and always, I’ll put my real, actual relatives’ interests before their interests.

            >I disavow and antipathize towards Western civilization and culture. Thank you, please keep your abortions, feminized men, masculinized women and the rest of it.

            That’s all there is to Western culture? I always thought anti-Semites were exaggerating when depicting Jewish arrogance. Also, Jews don’t lack “abortions, feminized men, masculinized women…” whatsoever. Some even dare say Jews excel at these things.

            >Not particularly. You know we don’t proselytize.

            You wouldn’t need to.

            >My feelings on the matter (and actually on the Mizrahim of Israel) are summarized by Rav Kahane.

            Ah yes, Kahane’s populist, leftist rhetoric about how all of the Mizrahim’s troubles are because the kibbutzim “took away” their Jewish identity. “Mizrahim behaving like savages? Oh, it’s because they’ve been secularized by evil Ben Gurion. Wait, you’re saying secular Ashkenazim don’t behave in this manner? HATER.” You can take this mob-stirring argument elsewhere, it won’t do here. Both Mizrahim and Ashkenazim have been exposed to secularization; the responses diverge. No, obviously this fact alone doesn’t mean secularization is good (or bad, or anything for that matter). It means that different Jewish groups are, to put it tautologically, different.

            >As for the militantly atheist character of its founders-Rav Kook was what, an insignificant detail? What about the Vizhnitz Rebbe, Rav Eliezer Hager, who fought in the religious units of the Haganah in 1948 and was wounded in battle? What about the Haredim who fought for Jerusalem?

            Yet the founders were by and large militant atheists, despite a few outliers. Pointing out the exceptions, even significant exceptions, doesn’t disprove the rule.

            >Further, how do you think it happened that when the secular Zionists came here, they were able to establish a foothold? I’ll let you in on a terrible secret: there were religious Jewish communities coming here and living here nonstop for the last 1000 years.

            Oh, you’ve been in Israel for millennia, yet it’s only when the militant atheists arrived that you finally had a Jewish state, or a state composed of Jews, or a thriving Jewish community the size of a state, or whatever else you’d call the Zionist Entity..? Awkward.

            >I notice a secular, Ashkenazi-dominated judicial system fervently defending the right of Arabs, with and without Israeli citizenship, ordering demolitions of Jewish homes, etc.

            Funny: I notice millions of Jews living more-or-less safely, with a functioning economy, secured by a heavy military and nuclear weapons. But if I extent your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess the US should be run by religious Blacks, because the White Cathedral is doing a crappy job, and replacing Progressive Whites with non-Progressive Blacks is the solution. That’s basically your argument. For some reason, I’m reluctant to participate in such a social experiment. Better just convert Whites, or replace them with different Whites, than become the GOP, or a NRx equivalent thereof.

            >I also notice that the local branch of the Cathedral in academe, the media and the NGOs is primarily Ashkenazi, and is heavily engaged in vilifying Mizrahim in exactly the same repugnant manner as you.

            Tell me when Israeli Cathedral says anything about Mizrahi genes being responsible for Mizrahi crimes; go ahead. If anything, Israeli Cathedral attempts to recruit Mizrahim and pander to them; it’s just incompetent at it. Am I vilifying them by destroying the rosy image you’re painting by injecting a dose of reality?

            >I notice that unlike the North Tel Aviv Ashkenazi elites, the Mizrahim have no illusions about our enemies’ nature, no desire to appease them by selling out their brothers. And that this really pisses off the (heavily Ashkenazi) elites.

            So they’re useful, at the moment. May as well convert millions of Muslims to Judaism, to be good right-wing Israelis who hate Muslims, and call these converts “brothers”. And it’d work, until the last Ashkenazi decides that enough is enough, and Israel reverts to the Middle-Eastern norm of dysfunction. Or as I said before: Third Worlders do not become First Worlders. Not when left to their own, at any rate.

            >I am not particularly impressed with the way that the Ashkenazim running Israel are running it.

            I am not particularly impressed with the way that the Whites running White countries are running them. That’s not an argument against Whites.

            >As for your counterfactual, it’s irrelevant. If any nation’s technical and political elite disappeared in the middle of a war, it would cease to exist, and we are in a permanent war.

            No one needs to disappear: if in 1948, there were not some 900,000 Mizrahi Jews, but 9,000,000 Mizrahi Jews, Israel wouldn’t be established in the first place. So it’s a good thing there were only 900,000. Being emotionally invested in your fictitious cousins, you refuse to see what’s in front of you.

            >It is exactly about that. The Jewish people is one big family, and that part of it which lives in Israel are neighbors. If you wish to explain to me that some of my family members are worth less than others because their IQs are lower, I will politely invite you to fuck off.

            Your retarded brother is objectively worth less than your non-retarded brother, even if emotionally you feel equally for both of them. Those hypothetical 50 million African Jewish converts worth less than all existing Jewry combined, and those hypothetical 50 million Mizrahi Jews worth less than all Ashkenazi Jewry combined, and if your feelz are offended, so be it. It goes without saying that betting on your retarded brother against a non-retarded stranger is bad strategy. You can love your retarded brother, but don’t make him a CEO.

            >Since the alternative is to be a whore and sell out your family members based on “objective” standards, I’ll take this option.

            The alternative is to stop calling people of another race “brothers” just because you happen to share a religion, and if you disagree with that, enjoy those hypothetical 50 million African converts while they’re still hypothetical.

            >“Sorry, cousins, the standardized test the government gave says you’re dumb, so I don’t know you anymore. I’m friends with the Chinese now.” This is the exact kind of thinking that leads Americans to denounce family members for racism or transphobia or whatever. An “objective” standard is imposed from above, and the whores fall right in line.

            Listen, whore for Judaism: standardized tests have nothing to do with it. Nor does siding with any civilization because it happens to be successful, although that’s a good strategy usually. The issue is Judaism making the Bs of the world ignore race for religion, a religion which allows billions of Africans and Arabs to become part of it, or in your nomenclature, “part of the family”. So you see Mizrahi Jews as your “brothers”, even though they aren’t, and by doing so, you’re opening a Pandora’s box of racial degeneration. You’re like many White Christians who support Black Christians (“brothers”) against White atheists (“not brothers”). It cannot end well, and it probably won’t, unless your kind breeds successfully AND refrains from miscegenation. The jury’s still out on that one.

            >Good luck. I’ll continue to judge my brothers by the morality of their conduct and not by the likelihood that they will get a Nobel.

            Yes, you will continue calling people who are not your family and not your race, people who merely share your religion, “brothers” – to your own detriment. Exactly as one would predict. I’d like to see the 50 million African converts’ scenario in action, just to see the response of your kind. “Brothers!”

            >Even in those material conditions, shtetls and ghettoes made a poor impression on those you’d like to emulate.

            I’m not emulating anyone. Ghettos and Shtetls improved, by which I mean ceased, when Europeans made them improve. If you want to argue about the Whiteness of Ashkenazim, we can do that; unless you’re into melanoma-denial.

            >Since the HBD argument is, essentially, that in a few centuries Torah study made Ashkenazim intelligent (if I recall the 10KY Explosion right,) and that until that point the Jews were not renowned for their brains, well…

            Yes, B. “Well.” A fun social experiment. Let’s see what happens when Africans rush to the Synagogues, and how long it’ll take for their brains to develop to the Ashkenazi average by studying the Torah. If the experiment fails and the Jews as a civilization are permanently ruined… Well.

            • jim says:

              “Jews” as a religious category have survived for long, indeed.

              The reason for the anomalous survival of the Jews, the seemingly miraculous survival of the Jews, is that their religion commanded cleanliness, kept shit and rats away, when other people did not. Thus plagues tended to miraculously bypass the Jews (creating suspicion that they caused the plagues)

              In Egypt, they also had the advantage of rules against incest and infanticide.

          • Eli says:

            I think B does have a solid point, albeit it’s counterintuitive. You need to approach this issue with an open mind to understand.

            According to Nowak-Tarnita-Wilson paper on eusociality and inclusive fitness (http://faculty.washington.edu/beecher/Nowak%20etal%20-%20evolution%20of%20eusociality%20-%20Nature%202010.pdf), inclusive fitness — aka “genetic/racial interest” — is a bunk theory. Interestingly, Cochran says pretty much the same in his controversial “Your country is not your blood” post. In other words: cohesion is not a natural thing implied by genetic relatedness. That is, gene->cohesion is natural only for super close relatedness (think siblings, if that) and, if cohesion evolves, it can evolve by different means, including (in humans) culturally. In short, it’s not really genes->cohesion, but cohesion->genes!

            Nowak et al. give a very good argument in support of their (also, very controversial) denial of inclusive fitness. In the paper, they not merely critique inclusive fitness by itself, but also provide 5 necessary steps towards emergence of richly hierarchical eusociality, with the first step (and here’s the crux!) entailing evolution of strong cohesion between members of a same species, with said step *not* entailing genetic relatedness.

            Obviously, the main focus of that paper is evolution of eusociality, which many have considered as the ultimate expression of “genetic interest”/inclusive fitness. However, their discussion is very much applicable to evolution of human societies and functional cultures that can support said societies.

            The second step/precursor, division of labor, is obviously applicable to humans as well.

            The third step/precursor is the only step that can be skipped — which is the crucial switch for eusociality, but it is not that important for humans, unless one goes the royal brother-sister mating route I’ve previously touched upon in my other posts.

            The fourth step/requirement is resistance to parasites and rival colonies — the defense capabilities: something that has always been a force of selection in human cultures and societies. So far, Israel + Orthodox Judaism in combo is doing better overall — at least, as compared to other societies.

            The fifth step/requirement is, basically, about how productive a society is in terms of its size vs other societies. So far, the answer is fairly obvious, even just in terms of demographic growth rates.

            My own take is that intelligence and quantitative skills can only work out as an afterthought when all of the above 4 conditions are met. (I’d put evolution of IQ in the 4th requirement, btw.) I think, ultimately, if a society has a lot of cohesion, non-productive members will be reducing their reproduction, if society is *truly* in need of that. For now it seems that Israel needs as much population growth as possible, to make the nation a viable prospect. If the pressure to reproduce-for-the-sake-of-reproduction goes away, and if economic pressure is imposed, I imagine that people ill-suited for said society’s needs will concentrate on being good members of society at expense of maximizing their birthrate, thereby creating an IQ-differential on birthrates, which is what one wants to have *if* selecting for intelligence.

            Again though, fanatic cohesion on culturo-genetic level is key precursor for achieving that. Also, it seems to me that it’s hard-to-impossible, in practical sense, for any society to be pro-eugenic without being also pro-natalist. Possible in theory, but not in practice…

          • Eli says:

            Another thing: I doubt that strong cohesion necessarily implies willingness for self-sacrifice.

            No doubt, in small, simple societies (e.g. pastoral nomads) that are constantly warring with each other “cohesion” is the same as readiness to self-sacrifice in warfare, and it’s constantly tested.

            But in complex societies, cohesion may imply willingness to pay high costs to gain/retain membership in said society: potentially, at cost of reduced (though still non-zero!) reproduction for some members. It will still work out, mathematically, if cheating is strongly punished.

          • B says:

            >If, however, you suppose that the Torah operates through material consequences

            I suppose that it operates through consequences including material ones, which can’t be forecast accurately in advance.

            > (for example the Jews multiplied by superior hygiene, and in Egypt survived by superior hygiene plus a prohibition on infanticide and incest)

            This is a just-so story, made up after the fact. Just as easily, before-the-fact, you could claim that overcleanliness makes you weak, circumcision is a massive health risk, infanticide allows you to maximize the survival rates of healthy and wanted children by ensuring they get adequate resources, etc. By definition, with regards to our future, we live before-the-fact.

            >I see you double-down on the your “argument from anecdote”.

            Calm down, Sally. You invited me to leave my hilltop ghetto. I explained to you that I work in the heart of secular Israeli society. Now you say that anecdotes (i.e., the evidence of my lying eyes) are irrelevant.

            >inspired by the Torah, you will maintain a racial denialism toward your people (not toward any other people, of course) that is civilizationally unsustainable.

            My people are the Jews. What is your issue?

            >When Israel, the only semi-Jewish civilization currently in existence, is managed by a ruling class of Mizrahim, then you could assert that Mizrahi Jews, or to be more precise, North African, Yemenite, and African Jews, can maintain civilization.

            You’re making an assertion from a counterfactual. Anecdotes (i.e., what I observe in daily life) are irrelevant, but counterfactuals, an imaginary reality where an imaginary Israel managed by an imaginary ruling class of Mizrahim collapses, well, that’s another story.

            >Any unbiased observer could observe that, for some strange reason, violent crime in Israel and abroad is not committed by Rozensteins

            Arnold Rothstein, Bugsy Siegel and Meir Lansky were, of course dirty Yemenites from Sanaa 🙂

            Violent crime in Israel is not committed by religious Jews.

            >Nobel Prizes aren’t won by Sassouns.

            Serge Haroche’s father was from Casablanca, which is as we all know a small shtetl in Galicia. Likewise, Claude Cohen-Tannoudj’s family comes from Constantine, which I believe is by Vilno. Avshalom Elizur and Baruj Benacerraf are also gefilte-fish-eating Ashkentozim.

            Not that I particularly care, but you could at least try to be honest.

            > go to Eilat, if you need to, and see for yourself the inherent biological difference between African Jews and European Jews.

            As I said, I no more care about those inherent differences than I base my feelings about my brothers on their education level and income bracket.

            >Correct. What is the problem? We’ve survived by the Torah for several millennia.

            >“Jews” as a religious category have survived for long, indeed. As a civilization, not for long. As a distinct race, not for long.

            As a civilization and people, we’ve survived for 3000 years, and I predict will continue.

            >evolution is a much older donkey than the Torah

            Since I believe that the one who created evolution is the same as the one who gave the Torah, this is not a very convincing argument to me.

            >Jews have lost civilization before

            Eh?

            > yet, you’re a few major disasters away from being back in the Galut, or one major slow-progressing disaster away.

            You’re one slip in the shower away from being a cucumber or in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the neck down. What can one do? C’est la vie.

            >And if that happens, you’d rationalize it as usual with “God was angry at us for X”.

            Well, since I’m religious and believe that events have meaning beyond the purely mechanical, yes, of course.

            >None of my (theoretical) black friends, neighbors or acquaintances are on welfare.

            My examples are not theoretical.

            >>If you wish to make the case that most of the religious Jews on welfare in Israel are Mizrahi, I’ll gladly read your sources.

            >You: [no sources for assertion, lots of dire prediction and pseudoscientific bullshit]

            >Well then, either your eyes really are lying, or you are lying, or you don’t look in the right places. Your civilized Iraqi Jews from Ramat Gan are not where you should be looking.

            Please enlighten me, where should I be looking for these criminal, violent, subhuman Mizrahi Jews? Religious ones, please. Note-I’m not going to Eilat, it’s far away and the weather sucks right now.

            >Oh, the “what if it were your sister” type of argument. How original.

            No, the argument is “they are your brothers.”

            >But I’ll give you another answer: if I had relatives who for some reason had a completely different skin shade, different facial build, different behavior, and who are also somewhat criminal and savage, I’d conclude that either they’re not really my relatives, or if they are, I’d probably keep a distance from them.

            As I said, you’d throw your relatives under a bus and claim they’re not really your relatives.

            >Everywhere and always, I’ll put my real, actual relatives’ interests before their interests.

            Please let me know what you’ve done for the real, actual Ashkenazim (or the North Euros or whoever you’d like to identify with.)

            >I disavow and antipathize towards Western civilization and culture. Thank you, please keep your abortions, feminized men, masculinized women and the rest of it.

            >That’s all there is to Western culture?

            As it exists today outside museums? There’s also awful architecture and their tv shows.

            >Also, Jews don’t lack “abortions, feminized men, masculinized women…” whatsoever. Some even dare say Jews excel at these things.

            Not the religious Jews I’ve seen.

            >Ah yes, Kahane’s populist, leftist rhetoric about how all of the Mizrahim’s troubles are because the kibbutzim “took away” their Jewish identity.

            He’s correct.

            >“Mizrahim behaving like savages? Oh, it’s because they’ve been secularized by evil Ben Gurion. Wait, you’re saying secular Ashkenazim don’t behave in this manner? HATER.”

            From the description of secular Ashkenazi Ostjuden in early 20th century NYC by their contemporary Americans and Yekke Americans, it would appear that they behaved in exactly this way. Unless you wish to really make the case that Meir Lansky was from Casablanca.

            >Yet the founders were by and large militant atheists, despite a few outliers.

            So militant that they created religious draft exemptions, named half their streets for famous rabbis, etc. Come on.

            >Pointing out the exceptions, even significant exceptions, doesn’t disprove the rule.

            I’m afraid it does.

            >Oh, you’ve been in Israel for millennia, yet it’s only when the militant atheists arrived that you finally had a Jewish state, or a state composed of Jews, or a thriving Jewish community the size of a state, or whatever else you’d call the Zionist Entity..?

            Actually, if you want to go that route, it was only when the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire collapsed and there was a power vacuum that the Jews living here were able to establish a sovereign state. Are you making the claim that Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky (who by the way would have found your rhetoric abhorrent) were personally responsible for the collapse of the empires? Or did those empires just randomly collapse at the right time, speed and sequence?

            > I notice millions of Jews living more-or-less safely, with a functioning economy, secured by a heavy military and nuclear weapons.

            The military (which is quite heavily Mizrahi, by the way-Gabi Ashkenazi and Shaul Mofaz, for instance) has not been allowed to solve any of the problems in Gaza or Lebanon or YeSh as needed. It’s been restrained by a largely Ashkenazi political leadership.

            >But if I extent your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess the US should be run by religious Blacks, because the White Cathedral is doing a crappy job

            I have no doubt whatsoever that a US run by Pastor Manning would be a far superior place to live to the US as it currently exists.

            >Better just convert Whites, or replace them with different Whites

            Good luck, let me know how it goes.

            >Tell me when Israeli Cathedral says anything about Mizrahi genes being responsible for Mizrahi crimes; go ahead.

            Why would it do that? All it has to do is say refer to the Mizrahim (who vote right) as a herd of beasts, a bunch of superstitious amulet kissers, and so on. All of which we heard after the recent elections.

            >And it’d work, until the last Ashkenazi decides that enough is enough, and Israel reverts to the Middle-Eastern norm of dysfunction.

            So leave already. What are you waiting for? Or have you already run away? My Ashkenazi friends and neighbors are not leaving, and we’ll do fine without losers like yourself. Go to Idaho, build a secular Ashkenazi compound, breed your master race, let me know how it goes.

            >No one needs to disappear: if in 1948, there were not some 900,000 Mizrahi Jews, but 9,000,000 Mizrahi Jews, Israel wouldn’t be established in the first place.

            I expect it would have been established much sooner, and that YeShA would have been annexed immediately, with its Arab inhabitants being booted.

            >Your retarded brother is objectively worth less than your non-retarded brother

            I disagree.

            >You can love your retarded brother, but don’t make him a CEO.

            We are not talking about retards or CEOs. I don’t think that Ya’alon, for instance, is a better chief of staff than Ashkenazi or Mofaz were.

            >The alternative is to stop calling people of another race “brothers” just because you happen to share a religion

            Were I to do that, I would no longer be a Jew practicing Judaism.

            >standardized tests have nothing to do with it.

            I’m sorry, are you measuring IQ through telepathy? Or is your argument not IQ-based?

            >The issue is Judaism making the Bs of the world ignore race for religion

            Yes-our religion is not primarily race-based. Focusing on kinship via race is a pretty recent European concept, and it noticeably hasn’t found any reflection in national behavior. Which is good, because it’s an idiotic concept. Cochran pointed out that porcupines don’t help a rabbit when it’s attacked by a hawk, Germans had no problem wiping each other out during the 30 Years’ War, England and Germany and France have been going at it for quite some time, etc.

            >I’m not emulating anyone. Ghettos and Shtetls improved, by which I mean ceased, when Europeans made them improve.

            Yes, in the 1940s the European ghetto and shtetl improvement program showed amazing results. Prior to that, wonderful European assimilation turned out great-isn’t it wonderful that dirty Ashkenazim rocking back and forth and obsessing over superstitions, with their 10 children per family inhabiting squalid quarters became clean Germans, Austrians, French, Poles of Jewish descent, with diplomas from elite educational institutions and one or two children per family? Isn’t it great?

            Thank you, we’ve played quite enough of that game.

            >Let’s see what happens when Africans rush to the Synagogues, and how long it’ll take for their brains to develop to the Ashkenazi average by studying the Torah. If the experiment fails and the Jews as a civilization are permanently ruined…

            Oh, yes, our doom is imminent unless we chuck our religion and follow your sage advice.

          • Eli says:

            >>Your retarded brother is objectively worth less than your non-retarded brother

            >I disagree.

            Question to B:

            In Jewish law, if PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) says that a baby will be born retarded with 50%+ probability. Is it legit to not proceed with pregnancy? According to: http://www.jewishfertility.org/pgd.php , it is legit. I’d like to hear your take.

          • B says:

            Eli,

            This is a question that requires very qualified rabbis (both in halacha and in medicine) to answer. I don’t feel comfortable offering a personal opinion because of the medical complexity and moral gravity involved.

            By the way, modern medicine has raised such complex issues around sperm donation, organ donation and other areas that you need very knowledgeable and authoritative rabbis to speak in a qualified way about them. Since they frequently disagree, it’s one of those areas where we really need a Sanhedrin.

            A basic survey of the halachic opinions on abortion is here: download.yutorah.org/2011/1053/756178.pdf

            Emotionally, I emphasize with Rav Feinstein, Unterman and Zweig’s positions. But emotions are not a way of determining halacha, especially not mine.

            In this case, there is the added issue that an abortion is not being done here, rather, they are not implanting the fetus. I suspect that in this situation, authorities would be lenient.

          • Eli says:

            Thanks, B.

            This passage, in particular, is very elucidating:

            “Incredibly, despite the enormous heterogeneity of positions and
            the numerous impassioned debates, one issue emerges undisputed.
            The quality of life of the potential child is not taken into account.
            Absent from the preceding pages is any argument that one should
            terminate a diseased, malformed, or retarded conceptus in order to
            spare the forthcoming infant a life of pain or suffering. Rather, every
            argument permitting termination centers around maternal concerns
            for abortion in conjunction with an analysis of fetal status in halacha”

            The summary is quite counterintuitive for someone with mainly a secular education, like me. The assertion that quality of life counts for zilch — at least, *at first glance*, is not agreeable. In fact, whole branches of philosophy agonize over this very issue, e.g. Parfit (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/PHIL4260/Parfit%20-%20'Overpopulation%20and%20the%20Quality%20of%20Life‘.pdf) and Ben-Atar (http://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/Benatar.pdf). In fact, during college years, my position was very close to Schopehauer’s and Benatar’s.

            On the other hand, the cold hard evolutionary facts speak for themselves: if a system, no matter its internal state (vis-a-vis individual happiness, quality of life, etc), is long-term better at *sustained* growth than others, it is going to eventually win out, including the “responsibly high-quality of life”/suicidal ones. I.e. robust and sustainably life-maximizing organisms/frameworks are, thus, *objectively* better.

            In other words, if an entity ceases to exist (including for reasons of its *own* choosing, including a suicide-like cessation), another entity/entities will take its place. That is, life eternal, and exists not via a physical entity, but is something bigger, altogether unitary.

            Conclusion: life will always try to self-maximize (all the way up to its current Malthusian constraints, if we focus on biology).

            Given that conclusion, I think Judaism offers the most life-maximizing framework on one hand, and, on the other hand, it’s a framework that most closely implements Parfit’s “Perfectionism” principle, by axiomatizing certain “best things in life” (e.g. keeping cohesion, civilization, Shabbat, Passover celebrations etc) as non-negotiable, thereby offering a ray of hope to those of us (like me) hoping for a way out of Parfit’s “Repugnant Conclusion.”

            Thanks again.

          • B says:

            You can’t really quantify “quality of life,” so Parfit and co. are as full of shit as any other utilitarian, or, for that matter, as the US govt when it tries to quantify inflation through baskets: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2008/08/de-gustibus-non-computandum-or.html

            In general, to use Carlyle’s terminology, Pig-Philosophy (utilitarianism) and Chartism (quantitative analysis of things which are not analyzable in numbers) are the bane of our age and the source of all our modern troubles and atrocity.

            We can’t quantify the quality of life of existing individuals in any meaningful way.

            Example: Machiavelli, retired to his small rustic estate after the failure of his political ambitions, being stretched upon the rack and dishonorable exile from public life, writes of his day: “The evening being come, I return home and go to my study; at the entrance I pull off my peasant-clothes, covered with dust and dirt, and put on my noble court dress, and thus becomingly re-clothed I pass into the ancient courts of the men of old, where, being lovingly received by them, I am fed with that food which is mine alone; where I do not hesitate to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of their actions, and they in their benignity answer me; and for four hours I feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty does not dismay, death does not terrify me; I am possessed entirely by those great men.”

            Is Machiavelli’s objective quality of life, being as he is an old guy in 16th century Italy with dental and medical care below any reasonable standard, food that doesn’t come close to the paleo diet and a complete lack of gluten-free options, no 911 to call and so forth, lower or higher than that of a typical representative of today’s American middle class? What about the typical representative of the lower class?

            My opinion-it’s higher than that of even a typical representative of the very elite of the West. But how do you quantify that?

            And when it comes to somebody who will be born with a debilitating condition, there is absolutely no way of quantifying quality of life beforehand.

            I briefly learned Torah in a place where the guy who sat next to me was severely handicapped physically. But he was fully mentally capable, and learned Torah just like anyone else. I did not feel that he was less of a man than me. There was another guy who did not have the use of his legs-I once had to take him out of his van and carry him up several flights of stairs and get his leg braces on him so he could pray with everyone on time. But he had fire in his eyes, man!

            They had a meaningful existence, human dignity, the respect of their peers. Was their quality of life lower than that of a guy working a 9-5, then going home and playing video games, or getting a full-course divorce?

            Answer: the question is stupid and irrelevant. A man’s quality of life is between him and G-d. The idea that you can kill people or prevent them from being born in order to keep them from suffering is idiotic. In Judaism, masturbation is forbidden and a menstruating woman is tamei (ritually unclean) as is a dead body; of the various explanations, the only one I really understand is that they represent a waste of potential life, a tragedy.

            On the other hand, you might say that while it’s forbidden to destroy potential life, you have no obligation to actively cause a specific potential life to come into existence. Then you get into issues of hashchatat zeira, the destruction of seed, and so on, and so as I said, we need someone who can understand the issue in depth, from the halachic and medical aspects, and who has the greatness of soul and human sensitivity that we can trust him on such an issue, to make a decision, maybe case by case.

          • Jack says:

            >Calm down, Sally. You invited me to leave my hilltop ghetto. I explained to you that I work in the heart of secular Israeli society. Now you say that anecdotes (i.e., the evidence of my lying eyes) are irrelevant.

            I’ve said from the beginning that anecdotes are irrelevant, but you kept going at it so I accepted your frame. Bad move on my part. So: anecdotes are irrelevant, and arguing from anecdotal “evidence” is arguing like a female.

            >My people are the Jews. What is your issue?

            Yes, and since converts are Jews, and the descendants of converts are Jews, then “your people” would include every African and Arab who’d manage to persuade the rabbis that their conversion is sincere. My issue has been to demonstrate how delusional your thinking is, and I’ve succeeded.

            >imaginary reality where an imaginary Israel managed by an imaginary ruling class of Mizrahim collapses

            It’s a risk Israel can’t take, and if this imaginary reality ceases being imaginary – and according to observable trends, this may be the case – then basically you’re betting your future on the magical qualities of Torah study turning 85-IQ Jewish Arabs and 70-IQ Jewish Africans into a civilizationally competent bunch. If this hypothetical scenario seems probable to you, you’re delusional.

            >Arnold Rothstein, Bugsy Siegel and Meir Lansky were, of course dirty Yemenites from Sanaa

            There have been a few violent Ashkenazim, ergo no difference in criminality between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. In related news, there have been a few retarded Whites, ergo no difference in intellect between Whites and Blacks.

            >Violent crime in Israel is not committed by religious Jews.

            Violent crime in Israel is committed by Shas-voting kippah-wearing Moroccan and Yemenite Jews, non-Shas-voting non-kippah-wearing Moroccan and Yemenite Jews, Arabs, a minority of Slavs, and Africans (Jewish and Gentile).

            >Not that I particularly care, but you could at least try to be honest.

            I’m being dishonest by pointing out that becoming religious / secular doesn’t change the inherent biological difference between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim as manifested, among other things, in varying intellectual capacities and aggression levels? And listing all the smart Jewish Arabs you know is akin to listing all smart Africans one knows as definite proof that the Negro is equal to the human. He isn’t, and if anyone’s dishonest here, it’s you.

            >As a civilization and people, we’ve survived for 3000 years, and I predict will continue.

            You’re not “a people”; you’re a conglomerate of different peoples who’ve convinced themselves they’re “a people” by virtue of having a shared religion; you may become “a people” in 50 years when and if the biological distinction between various Jewish groups is blurred enough via miscegenation. To suggest that an African, an Arab, and an Ashkenazi belong to the same nation because they may or may not have had ancestors who worshiped the same deity is something only a Jewish brain could conceive. As for having civilization, your standards for what constitutes a civilization are, uhm, not so high apparently.

            >Eh?

            What “eh”? Jews have had no more of a civilization for 1,900 than Gypsies.

            >You’re one slip in the shower away from being a cucumber or in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the neck down. What can one do? C’est la vie.

            There’s much less uncertainty in national affairs. Demographic, racial, and cultural trends could be predicted.

            >Please enlighten me, where should I be looking for these criminal, violent, subhuman Mizrahi Jews? Religious ones, please. Note-I’m not going to Eilat, it’s far away and the weather sucks right now.

            In the markets, in the stores, on public buses, and in schools (outside your small settlement). Not dissimilar to where one can find violent Blacks. Next question.

            >No, the argument is “they are your brothers.”

            What a ridiculous argument, then.

            >As I said, you’d throw your relatives under a bus and claim they’re not really your relatives.

            Africans are not your relatives, B. And if you don’t throw them under the bus, you won’t last for long.

            >As it exists today outside museums? There’s also awful architecture and their tv shows.

            More arrogance from the culture-less Jew.

            >Not the religious Jews I’ve seen.

            No true Scotsman. Wasn’t referring only to religious Jews, though there’s no fundamental difference between religious Mizrahim and secular Mizrahim. Obviously if religion says thou shalt not kill, and a Mizrahi thug kills, then you’d say “he’s not really religious! I blame secularism!”, and thus evade the issue of Mizrahi crime.

            >He’s correct.

            If he’s correct, might as well claim all of the Blacks’ problems are due to mistreatment by racist Whites. It’s wrong on both accounts.

            >From the description of secular Ashkenazi Ostjuden in early 20th century NYC by their contemporary Americans and Yekke Americans, it would appear that they behaved in exactly this way.

            Obviously it’s no longer the case. I browse anti-Semitic websites daily, and I don’t see much complaining about Jews being violent in the same way there’s complaining about Black violence.

            >So militant that they created religious draft exemptions, named half their streets for famous rabbis, etc. Come on.

            Appeasement and nostalgia. Killing or expelling the religious Jews was not a viable political option, although the Haganah prevented them from fleeing the Holocaust to Israel, so in a way secular Zionists did indeed kill religious Jews, who’d be useless at best and dangerous at worst in the Zionist utopia, so they figured.

            >>Pointing out the exceptions, even significant exceptions, doesn’t disprove the rule.

            >I’m afraid it does.

            You’re wrong.

            >Actually, if you want to go that route, it was only when the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire collapsed and there was a power vacuum that the Jews living here were able to establish a sovereign state.

            At almost any point in the history of the Jewish exile, if all Jews (or a particularly zealous minority of Jews) decided to immigrate to Israel and rebuild the Jewish state, it would’ve happened. Yet it didn’t happen, not until the Zionist Hellenizers arrived. Without the Zionist Hellenizers, you’d still be in exile.

            >Are you making the claim that Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky (who by the way would have found your rhetoric abhorrent) were personally responsible for the collapse of the empires?

            They, among others, were responsible for bringing the revolutionary gospel of secular Gentile nationalism to the Jewish people, thereby allowing for a Jewish nationalism and a Jewish nation to arise out of dispersed, cosmopolitan Jewish communities that had nothing in common except religion and perhaps a few Middle-Eastern genes, which are not universal at any rate.

            >The military (which is quite heavily Mizrahi, by the way-Gabi Ashkenazi and Shaul Mofaz, for instance) has not been allowed to solve any of the problems in Gaza or Lebanon or YeSh as needed. It’s been restrained by a largely Ashkenazi political leadership.

            This is off-topic, but IDF had no desire to eradicate Hamas. It’s pretty convenient blaming the political leadership for this one, though. Israeli security apparatus is more left-leaning than Israeli political branch.

            >I have no doubt whatsoever that a US run by Pastor Manning would be a far superior place to live to the US as it currently exists.

            Do you even racial average characteristics?

            >Why would it do that? All it has to do is say refer to the Mizrahim (who vote right) as a herd of beasts, a bunch of superstitious amulet kissers, and so on. All of which we heard after the recent elections.

            Which means that, if Mizrahim voted the right way, the Israeli Cathedral would have no issue with them. Since they refuse to vote the right way, Israeli Cathedral is frustrated with them, and lashes out. Imagine if Blacks always voted Republican. Nothing to do with scientific racism, everything to do with politics. Of course, by lashing out at them, the Israeli Cathedral alienated them even further. So as I said: bad strategy.

            >So leave already.

            When push comes to shove real hard, your fellow settlers who are US-Israeli dual citizens will be the first to board the planes. The religious justification will be thus: “the exile apparently has not ended, Israel was not the beginning of our Redemption, let us go back to the Galut and save our skin, and wait there for the real Redemption and the Messiah.”

            >I expect it would have been established much sooner, and that YeShA would have been annexed immediately, with its Arab inhabitants being booted.

            And then after 1 year of complete dysfunction (“our shelves are not empty, for there are no shelves”), the British Mandate would return, build your infrastructure, then leave again because you’re a pain in the arse and the Arabs have oil, and you’d be defeated by invading armies and thrown into the sea.

            >We are not talking about retards or CEOs. I don’t think that Ya’alon, for instance, is a better chief of staff than Ashkenazi or Mofaz were.

            I’m not talking about individuals at all, but about whole groups, whom I metaphorized as CEOs and retards.

            >Were I to do that, I would no longer be a Jew practicing Judaism.

            Exactly. If you refuse to recognize the Jewish Brotherhood of any African or Arab who converted to Judaism (or their descendants), you’ve failed your religion.

            >I’m sorry, are you measuring IQ through telepathy? Or is your argument not IQ-based?

            You can discern intelligence (or IQ, or g) by looking into people’s eyes, or even better, by listening to them speak for a few seconds. No need for tests for measuring IQ. Your thinking is legalistic, typically.

            >Yes-our religion is not primarily race-based.

            Your religion disregards race altogether when it comes to conversion.

            >Focusing on kinship via race is a pretty recent European concept, and it noticeably hasn’t found any reflection in national behavior.

            Bullshit. The more similar (and proximate) two nations are, the more likely they are to engage in resource competition.

            >Yes, in the 1940s the European ghetto and shtetl improvement program showed amazing results.

            Indeed it has.

            >Prior to that, wonderful European assimilation turned out great-isn’t it wonderful that dirty Ashkenazim rocking back and forth and obsessing over superstitions, with their 10 children per family inhabiting squalid quarters became clean Germans, Austrians, French, Poles of Jewish descent, with diplomas from elite educational institutions and one or two children per family? Isn’t it great?

            Assimilation rarely works. The Ashkenazi Jews should have created a tribalist, race-based nation that reflects their distinct racial character. Instead, they created a cosmopolitan, religious-based nation for African and Arab Jews. It’s probably too late to amend your ways. I guess Ashkenazim truly are insane and deserve to perish.

            >Thank you, we’ve played quite enough of that game.

            Yes, you’ve been playing the “Nationalism is Hellenic” game for millennia, and so you’ve never developed actual nationalism (similarly to Blacks), because to develop nationalism, cosmopolitan & religious-based tribalism (such as Pharisaic Judaism) has to be discarded, and so you’ve alienated and illegitimized your more nationalist elements every generation, and lacking nationality, became parasites on the back of humanity, and received due treatment. Your types will keep doing the same thing, keep receiving the same results, and keep blaming the same bogeyman, ad infinitum or until some Final Solution. In the 20th century you had a chance, finally, to create authentic nationalism. Instead, you chose Africans and Arabs to be your “brothers” for religious reasons. Enjoy.

            >Oh, yes, our doom is imminent unless we chuck our religion and follow your sage advice.

            Not doom, and not imminent. You’ll either return to the Galut in a few decades, or slowly die of dysfunction. Actions have consequences, and becoming an African or an Arab nation will have the expected consequences.

            • jim says:

              >Arnold Rothstein, Bugsy Siegel and Meir Lansky were, of course dirty Yemenites from Sanaa

              There have been a few violent Ashkenazim, ergo no difference in criminality between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. In related news, there have been a few retarded Whites, ergo no difference in intellect between Whites and Blacks.

              As I am fond of saying, if an old women is beaten to death with a jack handle to steal fifty dollars, you know a black man did it. If an accountant is shot through the head because he knows what happened to the missing millions, you know a white man did it.

            • jim says:

              When push comes to shove real hard, your fellow settlers who are US-Israeli dual citizens will be the first to board the planes. The religious justification will be thus: “the exile apparently has not ended, Israel was not the beginning of our Redemption, let us go back to the Galut and save our skin, and wait there for the real Redemption and the Messiah.”

              For the religious exile of the Jews to end, there has to be the will to take back the temple mount, and make it the center, or at least the symbol, of a single official national religion. And there will not be that will as long as Israel has gay parades, etc.

              There is a very large pile of highly inconvenient law in the Old Testament and the Talmud that get reactivated when they have a Jewish state with Judaism as the official religion and no one really wants that law reactivated, because Judaism has moved on since then, becoming, like Christianity, a universalist religion.

              They are going to have to do a rewrite, to make present day Judaism more suitable for being a national religion, which would involve admitting that they have already done a rewrite.

          • peppermint says:

            The Merchant’s Guild has been following the strategy of demanding special privileges from their host population while whining about persecution since long before the Seleucid episode. In his book The Jewish Strategy, Revilo Oliver mentions their recorded behavior in Greek Egypt.

            But the big argument here is over race.

            To Corvinus and B, anyone who wants to can marry into their families and some form of epigenetics or whatever will quickly turn their offspring into civilization builders.

            To Jim and Jack, race is about populations with average traits, most importantly IQ.

            To me, a race is a reproductive community, and what those do is follow a strategy to reproduce.

            Jim understands low IQ and high IQ strategies. But the Jewish strategy and how it evolved is more complicated.

          • B says:

            >anecdotes are irrelevant, and arguing from anecdotal “evidence” is arguing like a female.

            As I’ve said, you offer me the choice between believing what my eyes see and your counterfactual scary stories.

            > since converts are Jews, and the descendants of converts are Jews, then “your people” would include every African and Arab who’d manage to persuade the rabbis that their conversion is sincere.

            Correct. Right now, my people include every descendant of a Russian peasant and Persian and Yemenite Arab who’s done so. And, you know, we’re doing OK. I mean, I really like the society we have here on the level of basic daily life.

            >It’s a risk Israel can’t take

            I beg to differ. My opinion is that stepping away from Torah is a risk we can’t take.

            >There have been a few violent Ashkenazim, ergo no difference in criminality between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim.

            There is absolutely no difference that I can detect between Meir Lanski and Co. and the Abergil family.

            >Violent crime in Israel is committed by Shas-voting kippah-wearing Moroccan and Yemenite Jews

            I’d love to see some supporting evidence for that assertion. Something? Anything?

            >You’re not “a people”; you’re a conglomerate of different peoples who’ve convinced themselves they’re “a people” by virtue of having a shared religion;

            Yes, I believe the Germans also made this startling discovery about the invented Jewish nation.

            >Jews have had no more of a civilization for 1,900 than Gypsies.

            So, we’re not a people, we have no culture or civilization and our religion is made up. Please, wise one, tell us how we can make our miserable non-existence better!

            >There’s much less uncertainty in national affairs. Demographic, racial, and cultural trends could be predicted.

            Yes, of course. For instance, it was perfectly obvious to all involved 60 years ago that the people having children in Europe today would be Kurds, Turks and Arabs, and that it would shortly be swamped with Africans.

            >In the markets, in the stores, on public buses, and in schools (outside your small settlement).

            Interestingly, I do my shopping in Rosh Haayin, the Yemenite epicenter of Israel. I have noticed no crime whatsoever, and no rudeness. Perhaps I am not looking closely enough.

            >Africans are not your relatives, B. And if you don’t throw them under the bus, you won’t last for long.

            You know, historically, we’ve outlived everyone predicting our doom if we don’t drop the Torah and start living by the trend of the day.

            >Killing or expelling the religious Jews was not a viable political option, although the Haganah prevented them from fleeing the Holocaust to Israel

            Source?

            >At almost any point in the history of the Jewish exile, if all Jews (or a particularly zealous minority of Jews) decided to immigrate to Israel and rebuild the Jewish state, it would’ve happened.

            Zealous minorities of Jews immigrated to Israel constantly throughout history and attempted to set up a national existence. For instance, the Hasidim who immigrated here in the early 19th century along with the followers of the Vilna Gaon. I am not sure how you are picturing the Jews of Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire picking up and moving to Israel and seizing national sovereignty from the Ottomans by force.

            >if Mizrahim voted the right way, the Israeli Cathedral would have no issue with them. Since they refuse to vote the right way, Israeli Cathedral is frustrated with them, and lashes out. Imagine if Blacks always voted Republican.

            Imagine if grandma had a dick and she’d be grandpa. Again, counterfactuals. I see that politically, the Mizrahim you hate have it together.

            >When push comes to shove real hard, your fellow settlers who are US-Israeli dual citizens will be the first to board the planes.

            Yes, yes, we will all go scurrying to Brooklyn. For sure. Especially those of us who are on reserve duty, or have kids on reserve duty. That’s the way it went down in 1973. Not only are we a non-people with a non-culture and a non-religion, but we are also cowards.

            >I’m not talking about individuals at all, but about whole groups, whom I metaphorized as CEOs and retards.

            History is made by individuals, not herds. And the non-Ashkenazi part of the Jewish people has proven that it can provide sufficient quantities of talented, driven, courageous individuals.

            >You can discern intelligence (or IQ, or g) by looking into people’s eyes, or even better, by listening to them speak for a few seconds.

            In that case, our conclusions are different, because I’ve met enough intelligent Mizrahim that I am not worried about the future of my country with them, as long as we keep the Torah.

            >Your religion disregards race altogether when it comes to conversion.

            Correct.

            >The Ashkenazi Jews should have created a tribalist, race-based nation that reflects their distinct racial character.

            Well, it’s not too late-land in Idaho is cheap. Go, build your perfect Ashkenazi society according to your principles. If you are correct, you only need to convince a small founding stock, a few hundred, and in a little while, there will be millions of you. That’s how we got Ashkenazim in the first place.

            >you’ve never developed actual nationalism (similarly to Blacks), because to develop nationalism, cosmopolitan & religious-based tribalism (such as Pharisaic Judaism) has to be discarded, and so you’ve alienated and illegitimized your more nationalist elements every generation, and lacking nationality, became parasites on the back of humanity, and received due treatment.

            You might have started with that and spared a lot of pixels. You know, being a self-hating Jew are regurgitating poorly digested nazi agitprop is very cliched.

            >You’ll either return to the Galut in a few decades, or slowly die of dysfunction.

            Yes, well, guys like you have been predicting dire consequences for us for a very long time if we don’t do what you suggest, and invariably, they’ve been the ones going extinct. The Germans, who were quite fond of talking about the parasitic Jew pseudonation, are now about to go extinct themselves, for instance. So I think I’ll stick with the Torah, thank you very much.

            >As I am fond of saying, if an old women is beaten to death with a jack handle to steal fifty dollars, you know a black man did it. If an accountant is shot through the head because he knows what happened to the missing millions, you know a white man did it.

            I honestly don’t see any difference between the Ashkenazi mafiosi of the first half of the 20th century and the Mizrahi ones of today, except that the Ashkenazi ones were more widespread. Bugsy Siegel and Itzik Abergil would be instantly at home with each other (and with Lucky Luciano as well.) Needless to say, to get any one of these gentlemen, who are at the top of a pyramid of street thugs and lowlifes of varying degrees of violence and intelligence, you need the rest of the pyramid.

            • jim says:

              Correct. Right now, my people include every descendant of a Russian peasant and Persian and Yemenite Arab who’s done so. And, you know, we’re doing OK. I mean, I really like the society we have here on the level of basic daily life.

              Yes, because the Ashkenazi run the place. Israel is like those Indio Latin American nations and black African nations where the place is run by people who are between three quarters white and entirely indistinguishable from white, and everyone pretends not to notice.

              And as long people go on not noticing, Israel will continue to work. But if people start really sincerely not noticing, the Ashkenazi will be bred out.

              However, I have heard a number of complaints about noticing and not breeding out. So I would guess that for the most part, people officially do not notice, but actually do notice.

            • jim says:

              >As I am fond of saying, if an old women is beaten to death with a jack handle to steal fifty dollars, you know a black man did it. If an accountant is shot through the head because he knows what happened to the missing millions, you know a white man did it.

              I honestly don’t see any difference between the Ashkenazi mafiosi of the first half of the 20th century and the Mizrahi ones of today, except that the Ashkenazi ones were more widespread. Bugsy Siegel and Itzik Abergil would be instantly at home with each other (and with Lucky Luciano as well.) Needless to say, to get any one of these gentlemen, who are at the top of a pyramid of street thugs and lowlifes of varying degrees of violence and intelligence, you need the rest of the pyramid.

              Organized crime is organized. Organization requires a better quality of criminal than individual crime – smarter, and genuinely nicer, all the way from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. They make threats after the style of Genghis Khan, rather than after the style of a black or a chimpanzee. When the Ashkenazi ran crime, crime worked better. And if today, crime is run by blacks, and works considerably worse, the top of the pyramid still tends to be smarter and more civilized than the average affirmative action black professor.

        • B says:

          Benatar is a Jew, yet he is apparently ignorant of the fact that we had this debate 2000 years ago. It’s documented in the Mishna, in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers.) They go back and forth about whether it is better for a man to have been born or not. Roughly speaking, they decide that it is better for an individual not to have been created at all. The commentators say that they mean, except that he learns Torah. In this case, as I understand it, Torah does not necessarily mean the Laws of Acquisition of a Living Animal, or any particular legalistic aspect, but more generally, higher learning, that which separates us from the animals and brings us closer to G-d.

          • peppermint says:

            …wait, you actually have rules of acquisition?

          • B says:

            We have a complete legal system. How could we not have laws covering acquisition? How do you imagine disputes involving ownership between a buyer and seller being settled, if there is no law on the matter?

          • peppermint says:

            http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

            The Ferengi in Deep Space 9 were played by Jews as Jewish characters, just like the niggers, except that the niggers were played as 1990s affirmative action niggers. The ’90s was a special time in which it was possible to put such things on TV because people literally

          • peppermint says:

            …believed that racism was over.

            Meanwhile, Stargate had this female character who was supposed to be ‘grrl power’ as ’90s men wanted their daughters to be but just looks ridiculous now

          • Ion says:

            The Ferengi are Japanese. Not Jewish. Klingons are Russian. Romulans are Chinese. Humans are the US. Vulcans are … Swedish or European, I forget which.

            At first, Star Trek was a metaphor for current geopolitics.

          • B says:

            You don’t drop Star Trek references in real life, do you?

          • Eli says:

            @B: Actually, I tried googling for “Laws of Acquisition of a Living Animal” for no avail. Could you give me a link?

            Benatar is very much correct. From a compassionate perspective, it is better to not be alive. However, from ultimately a moral perspective, one can play this game even further and conclude that since one has thought about this issue in depth and is capable of comprehension, and one is of decent character, one might as well try to continue to live and, moreover, procreate: as if one does not do so, other, possibly less noble/kind organisms/societies will take one’s place, likely creating even more suffering and evil in the world. That’s my thinking, at least.

            I disagree with you regarding Derek Parfit. Although it looks like he is non-Jewish and materialistic atheist, he is much more deep than what you give him credit for (I realize that his writing requires some concentration+time, which, given how busy everyone is, is in short supply). I don’t see any contradiction between the “Repugnant Conclusion,” “Perfection,” and Judaism. In fact, what Parfit does is *show* how *if* one does adopt a strictly utilitarian+Pig philosophy viewpoint, one is bound to get the Repugnant Conclusion, which is very much *contradictory* to the original intent/viewpoint.

            One can say, his writing indirectly but definitively supports the notion that the point of life, from a grand ruler’s/procreator’s perspective, is something else *other* than just maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering. Basically, if one wants to maximize happiness, one either has to either destroy the world altogether (which only God can, at least for now) or relinquish that very notion altogether and focus on something else (again, what? if one is smart and decent?) or realize that humanity, by pursuing happiness-as-the-end-goal, is moving towards a state where majority individuals will live materially poor/modest existence, which, to be survivable, can either mean a “permanent boot on the face” (“Elitist” view via secular totalitarianism) or, via “Perfection” can be modulated by invariant “goods” — which to me, implies cultural values, things that harness our natural proclivities for happiness, like living a moral life, being part of family, community, celebrating important cultural occasions etc.

            All of the things I mentioned, except “permanent boot on the face” (which is a non-robust outcome, btw, so unlikely to be selected for and survive!) pretty much need God in the picture.

            Yes, thanks: I’ve caught up on Moldbug’s former writings on various subjects. You & he do have a point when noting that our obsession with stats and valuations has crossed the insanity border. I still don’t take the extreme conclusion that measures like GDP/inflation-adjustment/anchoring are meaningless. Again, that is another extreme. (Let’s not forget that there are non-trivial number of obese Haredim who like tasty, if kosher, food — meaning that material wants and obsessions are real, and adherence to God doesn’t completely heal us from those. And since they are real, we do need to have good discipline in quantifying those.)

            • jim says:

              I still don’t take the extreme conclusion that measures like GDP/inflation-adjustment/anchoring are meaningless.

              Inflation adjustment would be meaningful if related to some widely produced and consumed commodity, such as hamburgers or unskilled short term labor. The Hamburger index useful. Cost of living index not useful.

          • B says:

            There’s no particular section on animals, I just made that up to prove a point. Here’s a part of the Mishne Torah where he talkis about buying stuff and some of the stuff is animals. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1363896/jewish/Mechirah-Chapter-Two.htm

            >From a compassionate perspective, it is better to not be alive.

            I disagree. Living itself is a great pleasure, as can be seen from the ends people will go to in order to keep living. It’s just that we get used to it and take it for granted, like the air we breathe.

            > what Parfit does is *show* how *if* one does adopt a strictly utilitarian+Pig philosophy viewpoint, one is bound to get the Repugnant Conclusion, which is very much *contradictory* to the original intent/viewpoint.

            Well, ok, but does it really require all the verbiage? And if you didn’t get the repugnant conclusion, would it somehow make utilitarianism ok?

            >his writing indirectly but definitively supports the notion that the point of life, from a grand ruler’s/procreator’s perspective, is something else *other* than just maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering.

            Sure. Aristotle said that if you want to be happy, don’t make happiness a goal.

            >Let’s not forget that there are non-trivial number of obese Haredim who like tasty, if kosher, food — meaning that material wants and obsessions are real, and adherence to God doesn’t completely heal us from those.

            I think their obesity is a pathology caused by an unbalanced lifestyle. Rav Kook, in Orot Hateshuvah, says that this kind of eating is caused by anger. But the problem and answer are not quantifiable-how much anger results in a calorie consumed or a pound gained?

            It’s like the studies they did where rats could administer morphine to themselves. In a typical rat cage, they became junkies. When they had an enriched environment with lots of stimuli, room and toys for play, etc., they didn’t. How do you quantify any of the relevant factors?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
            http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-park/148-addiction-the-view-from-rat-park

            >And since they are real, we do need to have good discipline in quantifying those.

            I’m not sure they’re quantifiable. For instance, taking the obesity example further, you can see that there are animals and people who do not overeat and gain weight, even in the presence of abundant delicious food. How do we quantify that? Do they find less utils per calorie? Even with the obese, I am sure that if you gave them all the food they wanted but made it bland, they would not overeat, especially if you provided them with a stimulating and interesting life and environment. But how do you quantify “interesting”?

      • B says:

        >Yes, because the Ashkenazi run the place.

        Not particularly. As I pointed out, several of the military’s chiefs of staff were Mizrahi, any governmental organization you deal with will have mizrahim, etc. etc. The stuff I like here does not depend on whether Mizrahim or Ashkenazim are running it. The stuff I don’t like is largely a legacy of the 1950s socialism which was built by…Ashkenazim.

        Most of the stuff I like involves basic human interaction, and in that regard, Israel is much better than the US.

        >However, I have heard a number of complaints about noticing and not breeding out. So I would guess that for the most part, people officially do not notice, but actually do notice.

        About half of the marriages I see are between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim/Yemenites/whatever. People tend to mate assortatively by intelligence and common interests to some degree, but not excessively so to the level of Belmont and Fishtown.

        >Organization requires a better quality of criminal than individual crime – smarter, and genuinely nicer, all the way from the top of the pyramid to the bottom.

        Eh. To run a criminal organization, you need a social base full of people who are criminal. And that means thuggish, mean and stupider than the average. For every John Gotti (who was hardly a model of refinement,) you need 10,000 guidos who desperately wish they could be John Gotti but are too stupid and impulsive to be him. In any case

        >They make threats after the style of Genghis Khan, rather than after the style of a black or a chimpanzee. When the Ashkenazi ran crime, crime worked better.

        I do not think that Abergil’s operation gave anything away to Lanski’s (except that Lanski operated in a more permissive environment.) If you mean that US crime worked better under Lanski and Siegel than it does today, perhaps it did. Certainly the Feds and local cops did not have anywhere near the toolkit they have now at their disposal then.

        • jim says:

          >Yes, because the Ashkenazi run the place.

          Not particularly. As I pointed out, several of the military’s chiefs of staff were Mizrahi, any governmental organization you deal with will have mizrahim, etc. etc.

          Window dressing.

          If you look at a well run black African country, they similarly have lots of completely black people highly visible. Yet on more careful inspection, all well run black countries have something in common. Thus while most Nigerians are black as tar, the previous and present presidents of Nigeria, while supposedly completely black, are nonetheless milk chocolate colored. And some top Botswanans, while theoretically black, are somehow indistinguishable from whites.

          • B says:

            This is an unfalsifiable assertion.

            You say that redheads are incapable of running a business.

            I give examples of redheads running successful businesses.

            You say that in reality, those redheads must have brunettes standing behind them, since it is well known that redheads are incapable of running a business.

            • jim says:

              We can falsify by checking for cases where there are no brunettes suspiciously in the vicinity. If redheads only run businesses, where brunettes are also running the business …

          • B says:

            Yes, the only way to falsify your assertion is to find an Israeli army where there are only Mizrahim. Since we only have one Israeli army, which has both Ashkenazim and Mizrahim at all levels, your assertion is effectively unfalsifiable. Which is why you must present it as absolute and immutable truth.

            • jim says:

              The middle east has always been full of wars and full of ethnic group militias. Alawites are not really Muslims, and have fought and fought well. Zoroastrians are definitely not Muslims, and have fought. Christians held Lebanon for a time. Where were the Mizrahi militias? Every fighting group of Jews, for example the Warsaw Ghetto, has had at its core Ashkenazi atheists.

          • B says:

            >Alawites are not really Muslims, and have fought and fought well.

            What? Where?

            >Zoroastrians are definitely not Muslims, and have fought.

            Where and when?

            >Christians held Lebanon for a time.

            Yes, after it was handed to them on a silver platter by first the French and then the US Marines.

            >Where were the Mizrahi militias?

            You mean like Irgun/Lehi, which was full of Mizrahim? Or the Habbanim of Yemen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habbani_Jews

            >Every fighting group of Jews, for example the Warsaw Ghetto, has had at its core Ashkenazi atheists.

            You are correct-the Yemenite Jews did not distinguish themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto.

        • jim says:

          To run a criminal organization, you need a social base full of people who are criminal.

          The crimes that organized crime does are less criminal than the crimes of ordinary criminals. Brothels, gambling, drug trafficking, loan sharking need a better class of people than mugging and burglary. Particularly the organizational part. To operate a brothel, you need IQ 105. To operate gambling or loan sharking, IQ 115. Of course your employees are likely lower IQ, but you don’t want employees the rob you, or rob the customers.

          Your typical criminal is basically a chimp, hunting and gathering in the urban jungle, and seriously inconvenienced by the fact that the stuff he gathers is owned, and the creatures he hunts are sentient.

          That we are now short of Ashkenazi criminals has led to the decline of enterprises such as loan sharking, which today’s organized criminals are insufficiently organized to handle.

          Typical organized criminal necessarily has above average IQ, and sufficient ethics and social skills to work with other people for a salary.

          • B says:

            Do you even know who the Abergil family is?

            What are you explaining the basics to me for?

            • jim says:

              Do you even know who the Abergil family is?

              What is the Abergil family supposed to prove?

              They seem like the Jewish equivalent of my observation that if an old women is beaten to death with a jack handle for fifty dollars, you know a black man did it, while if an accountant is shot because he knows what happened to the missing millions, you know a white man did it.

              The Abergil’s customers are hipsters and business leaders. They are my class of criminal, not underclass type criminals.

          • B says:

            The Abergil family set up an international drug running and extortion racket bringing in tens of millions yearly. This is on the level of the Ashkenazi criminals of the first half of the 20th century. What old women did they beat to death with a jack handle for $50? Why are you speaking out of your ass?

    • Dave says:

      So the whole “pay jizya or convert to Islam” thing wasn’t oppression so much as a selective breeding program that eventually gave the Jews a 20-point IQ advantage over their Muslim neighbors.

      • Jack says:

        Look at the “Palestinians”. If these are the descendents of Jews, then Muslims did Jews a great favore by persecuting local Jews to oblivion. Though it’s worth mentioning that not all Mizrahim are as useless as the “Palestinians”; Persian Jews, Turkish Jews, Bukharan and Georgian Jews, whilst not posessing Ashkenazi genius whatsoever, tend to resemble humans. On the other hand, Moroccan/Yemeni Jews could just as well be Arabs. I conclude that “Mizrahi” is not a praticularly useful social construct, as Eastern Jews are too divergent to be lumped together as a distinct social category.

        • B says:

          Much as American hipsters and other libs cheer as their embarrassingly backward flyover cousins are attacked by various minorities, you are happy that your Yemenite and North African cousins were persecuted by Arabs. Repugnant.

          • Jack says:

            I’m not happy about anything here, I’m stating a fact. With 30 million more Arab Jews, Israel would not exist. With 20 million more Ethiopian Jews, Israel would not exist. If tomorrow millions of Africans and Arabs discover the Torah, convert, and move to Israel – you’ve guessed it. It then follows that Muslim persecution, which allegedly hindered Jewish population growth, was “good for the Jews”, at least for Ashkenazi Jews, or for Israeli Jews who’re alive today. In the same vein, Judaism cannot save the Jews as a race (hence, calling it “group evolutionary strategy” is retarded), it can only save *itself* by latching on to different sub-groups which may or may not have originated in the Levant, as it has done so far.

            And they are not my cousins, they’re not even your cousins.

          • B says:

            >With 30 million more Arab Jews, Israel would not exist.

            I suspect it would. I operate from a religious framework. The Torah tells us explicitly what loses us our sovereignty and our land. It’s not low average IQ.

            >If tomorrow millions of Africans and Arabs discover the Torah, convert, and move to Israel

            We will be fine, assuming that their conversion is earnest.

            >And they are not my cousins, they’re not even your cousins.

            They’re not my cousins-they’re my brothers. But you renounce your family members for not having a high enough IQ to suit you. I suspect that if you don’t change your thinking, you will be extinct in a couple of generations-that is how it usually goes with guys like you.

          • Jack says:

            >I suspect it would. I operate from a religious framework.

            I know. That’s where the fallacious, delusional thinking is coming from.

            >>If tomorrow millions of Africans and Arabs discover the Torah, convert, and move to Israel

            >We will be fine, assuming that their conversion is earnest.

            You’ll be fine with 50 (or just 3) million African converts to Judaism coming to Israel? I hope you’re reading this, Jim. B’s insane.

            >They’re not my cousins-they’re my brothers. But you renounce your family members for not having a high enough IQ to suit you. I suspect that if you don’t change your thinking, you will be extinct in a couple of generations-that is how it usually goes with guys like you.

            You know nothing about my station in life. I haven’t renounced any family member based on IQ. It just happens that I don’t have African or Arab family members, and neither do you, but you believe you do, because of the Torah. So you’re fine with 50 million Africans swarming to Israel, as long as their conversion is “earnest”, because you falsely believe they’re your “brothers”. I hold no such disastrous illusions about any ethnic group.

            Lol at you threatening me with extinction when you hold the absurd position that millions of African converts to Judaism are your “not cousins, but brothers”.

            • jim says:

              Yes, insane with the characteristic Jewish craziness. Clever enough with words to delude himself.

              He thinks that keeping cheese crumbs separate from meat grease has magical effects, and refuses to understand the psychosocial mechanisms through which it operates.

          • Ion says:

            @Jim
            >He thinks that keeping cheese crumbs separate from meat grease has magical effects, and refuses to understand the psychosocial mechanisms through which it operates
            He is avoiding a mechanistic understanding of religious ritual, because that mechanistic understanding leads people toward materialism. If you talk about something as if it’s entirely material, then you start to thing about it as if it’s entirely material.

          • peppermint says:

            Judaism was never the Jewish evolutionary strategy. Jewish behavior is the evolutionary strategy, by definition. There is a continuously existing group, called the Merchant’s Guild, which for the past 4000 years that has consistently followed this strategy to parasitize White civilizations. It’s not something they’re conscious about doing, as a beaver is conscious of building a dam. It is just something that happens, as toxoplasma causes mice to be sexually aroused at the smell of cat piss, which is good for the toxoplasma.

            Similarly, the Gyppos have been behaving like Gyppos for the past thousand years.

          • B says:

            >That’s where the fallacious, delusional thinking is coming from.

            Hellenizers have been calling us delusional for a long time. Every time you look around, there’s a new batch of Hellenizers, though-seems like they just never get around to having kids, or the kids turn gay or convert or marry out or something. I guess rationalism has its limits.

            >You’ll be fine with 50 (or just 3) million African converts to Judaism coming to Israel?

            Sure.

            >You know nothing about my station in life. I haven’t renounced any family member based on IQ.

            Do you have any blue collar family members? How about criminal ones?

            >when you hold the absurd position that millions of African converts to Judaism are your “not cousins, but brothers”.

            They would be, if they existed. Which they don’t, and I doubt they will.

            >He thinks that keeping cheese crumbs separate from meat grease has magical effects, and refuses to understand the psychosocial mechanisms through which it operates.

            Oh, the psychosocial mechanisms. How scientific. So rational.

            Tell me, has your understanding of psychosocial mechanisms enabled you to have lots of kids who have lots of kids, or to live in a community which shares your values, with neighbors who treat each other like family?

            No? Funny, that. Keep at it, I’m sure it will work out soon. You’re surely clever enough. You don’t need any magical effects.

            >He is avoiding a mechanistic understanding of religious ritual, because that mechanistic understanding leads people toward materialism.

            Correct. If you sit there and have an extended and detailed discussion of the biological, social and personal pros and cons of meth, its upsides and downsides, all the stuff those squares are missing out on, you end up doing meth. It’s enough for me to say that people who do meth end up in a way that I’d rather not.

            >There is a continuously existing group, called the Merchant’s Guild, which for the past 4000 years that has consistently followed this strategy to parasitize White civilizations

            That sounds awesome. How can I join and what do they pay?

            • jim says:

              >You’ll be fine with 50 (or just 3) million African converts to Judaism coming to Israel?

              Sure.

              I was at Informix shortly before it failed. The management flooded the place with cheap Indian engineers who had no bargaining power because they were on work visas, and the management thought they were getting a good deal because they had hordes of cheap engineers.

              However while Chinese engineers on work visas were at least as good as whites, Indians on work visas were, compared to whites, quite noticeably not very good. Worse, the large number of Indians resulted in them forming caste based conspiracies. Instead of being loyal to Informix, they were loyal to the members of their caste at Informix, and each caste was busy plotting to harm each of the other castes, and any time they had left over from plotting against other Indian castes at Informix, they plotted against the whites, including the top management and shareholders of Informix.

              And I tell you a black Jew is going to be loyal to blacks, not Jews, even if you are getting the better class of black.

              In one incident my boss told me to make sure a component could be integrated with the rest of our product. So off I went to a meeting of a group of people planning that component – who were, as it happened, all Indians of a particular caste. The reaction was “Oh no, an enemy spy has walked into our meeting to make trouble for us and rat us out”.

          • B says:

            >cheap Indian engineers

            These Indians were not buying into any sort of belief system or ideology. They were engaged in a transparent commercial transaction with an employer/group that was by definition shitty (who sells out their own guys for a percentage?) Different story.

            >Instead of being loyal to Informix, they were loyal to the members of their caste at Informix

            Typical. Though you’ve gotta see where they’re coming from-Informix was committing an act of betrayal by bringing them on, and it is stupid to be loyal to someone who is a traitor.

            >And I tell you a black Jew is going to be loyal to blacks, not Jews, even if you are getting the better class of black.

            This is stupid. Ethiopian Jews HATE Eritreans, Sudanese and other Africans. Russian Jews and Jewish converts don’t particularly like Russians or Ukrainians. Mizrahi Jews severely dislike Arabs.

            Blacks in general are no more loyal to each other than whites, or than rabbits are loyal to porcupines and woodchucks.

            As for Indians, I know some Indian converts (the world champion in women’s Muay Thai lives in Kiryat Arba, and her family are Indian converts,) as well as Indian Jews (one of India’s generals in their 1970s war with Pakistan was an Indian Jew.) I also know Northeast Indian Bnei Menashe converts (Sinoburmese types.) None of them are loyal to India, or to their caste. They are completely different from an Indian engineer brought over on a work visa.

            >The reaction was “Oh no, an enemy spy has walked into our meeting to make trouble for us and rat us out”.

            Yeah, obviously. What do you expect? They’re mercenaries working for an immoral employer. Obviously, it’s Prison Rules. This has no relevance to what we’re discussing.

            I should point out that I no more expect millions of Africans to convert than I expect millions of Pashtuns to convert, though the Pashtuns are actually probably mostly Jewish, and I’d be happy to have them here. But, being a morally honest person, I live by the Torah which tells us to love the convert and doesn’t tell us to discriminate against him based on IQ or any other external factors.

            Even those who do not convert have a place if they are loyal. I think Amos Yarkoni sets a decent benchmark.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Yarkoni

          • Eli says:

            @peppermint: as a direct paternal descendant of some members of First Guild of Merchants, I find it interesting that you, in fact, are proposing that it was Tsar and his minions that were *secret* parasites upon the population.

            And which Guild are you referring to, in particular? There were at least 3 in Russia alone:

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F

            Most of their members, including in the 1st, were non-Jewish, though mine were mostly Jewish.

            And yes, I’m still waiting for Kazakhstan to return their Moscow embassy building to my family/relatives, as well as for Belarus to return a whole street in Minsk to me, personally.

          • Jack says:

            >Hellenizers have been calling us delusional for a long time.

            Jews are delusional. For instance, you’d welcome millions of Africans in your country if only they converted to your religion. That’s both delusional and suicidal. Quite like the Jews who perished in the holocaust because they refused to heed Zhabotinsky’s call. Ah well, he was a Hellenizer, so I guess they had it coming. Better die in a gas chamber (and have your children, and grandchildren, die in a gas chamber) than be Hellenist scum. Definitely not delusional.

          • B says:

            >Ah well, he was a Hellenizer, so I guess they had it coming.

            Jabotinsky was not a Hellenizer. He was raised in a non-religious family. However, he was a close associate of Rav Hillel Kook. He was also an associate of Trumpeldor, who was of Subbotnik descent. He spoke out against Hellenizer activities, such as Jewish participation in Gogol’s centennial celebration. And he developed, towards the end of his life, an appreciation for Judaism and the central place it must take in any Jewish nation’s public life: http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2014/06/who-was-jabotinsky/

            Jabotinsky never once spoke out against converts, and it is impossible to imagine him doing so.

          • Ion says:

            If some population of blacks genuinely converted to Judaism, they would either have an incredible dedication to the Jewish faith, or be very elite in terms of self-discipline, and similar virtues. Since neither of these is likely true of a large population of blacks, mass conversion is not probable.

            Either way, Israel probably would benefit to have them. If Israel imported 3 million dedicated Orthodox Jews, they’d certainly defeat the Jewish secularists, and Israel would be as Jewish as Saudi Arabia is Muslim.

          • B says:

            I’ve known a few American blacks who converted, who were standup guys. As for the mass of them, their attempt at Judaism would look something like this:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capers_Funnye

            https://youtu.be/6_BRHGoPSkk

          • Ron says:

            @B

            there is another fact that is getting lost in this debate, and that is that the Mizrahi and Ashkenazi groups intermarry among each other at a very high rate, and not just among the religious either.

            Anyone can take a walk in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and if you stop anyone you see on the street and ask them about where their families come from, you are generally going to hear that their parents or grandparents come from both sides of the Mediteranean.

            And that is also what is happening with the Ethiopian Jews. Over time, the divisions in genetic location are disappearing.

          • peppermint says:

            » If some population of blacks genuinely converted to Judaism, they would either have an incredible dedication to the Jewish faith, or be very elite in terms of self-discipline, and similar virtues. Since neither of these is likely true of a large population of blacks, mass conversion is not probable.

            and their children will not be as elite

            » Either way, Israel probably would benefit to have them. If Israel imported 3 million dedicated Orthodox Jews, they’d certainly defeat the Jewish secularists, and Israel would be as Jewish as Saudi Arabia is Muslim.

            followed by miscegenation and utter ruin

          • peppermint says:

            You will not be able to convince the smallhats to shoah themselves through mass immigration and forced integration, since they do not behave like Whites, in fact, we should respect the fact that they are not traitors. To shoah them, force them to live amongst themselves and laugh as they collapse into madness. Either that or B can rebuild the Temple, reconvene the Sand Hundred, and they can slowly evolve a different evolutionary strategy within their new environment.

          • Ion says:

            >followed by miscegenation and utter ruin

            South Africa and the American South dealt with large populations of blacks, and only fell to “utter ruin” when progressives took over their countries.

            • jim says:

              The problem is that progressives are in charge of Israel. Fix that, Israel stands a fair chance of doing OK – in part because I think that if you fix that B’s suicidal version of Judaism will suddenly become a lot less progressive.

  10. glenfilthie says:

    Well, the church is certainly in decline …but dead?

    I think a better word would be dormant.

    Consider: we are three generations deep in leftist hippy-dippy social engineering … A nd the wheels are coming off. Good men will not willingly marry and start a family. Our women are overgrown tomboys, raging sluts or sexual degenerates. Obviously this can’t go on.

    When the fall comes and the only means of survival are family and community… The social conditions will be perfect for a Christian rennaisance. One where leftists are culled at birth with a lead pipe, hopefully.

    • Red says:

      >When the fall comes and the only means of survival are family and community… The social conditions will be perfect for a Christian rennaisance. One where leftists are culled at birth with a lead pipe, hopefully.

      I don’t see it. The church has been captured by your enemies and good Christians everywhere spend their time raising other people’s children and helping out foreigners while ignoring their own. When people look for a new religions they’re going to head to the one that creates successful families and communities, not the religion that bred itself out of existence.

    • peppermint says:

      Leftists are not born but educated. They will evaporate when the k12 schools are closed. Even the most leftist homeschooled people I know show a willingness to discuss and joke about and consider things that their k12ed peers know not to discuss or joke about or consider.

    • Ion says:

      Jim isn’t saying what you think he’s saying. Christianity hasn’t stopped existing – it’s changed into progressivism. When Jim says that “the church is dead”, he means that all Christians have become progressives, and abandoned the parts of Christianity that are insufficiently progressive.

      There will be no Christian revival, because there are no Christians. Reviving Christianity is about as possible as reviving paganism. Odin will never be the national god of Sweden. Neither will Jesus. Because nobody takes either god seriously.

  11. B says:

    >Some Jews are still tribal, as B smugly reminds me rather frequently.

    I’m smug? You’re the guy who’d be fine with a dictator killing 40 million Americans if it was for your ideology.

    I do not think we are tribal, per se. We are united by a common mission, purpose and (somewhat) descent. But the descent is optional-anyone can convert. And even with those born into Judaism, it is immediately obvious when you live in my society that genetically we vary greatly. For instance, over the last Shabbat, I hung out with neighbors including:
    1) A couple where the husband is Persian (and looks quite typical for an Iranian-light skin, light eyes, round head,) and the wife is half-French, half-Tunisian.
    2) Another couple where the husband is Tunisian (typical North African Jewish phenotype,) and the wife is Russian (fair complexion, light hair.)
    3) A Yemenite couple, where the husband looks typical for the Horn of Africa/South Arabia region, very dark, and the wife looks very Middle Eastern.
    4) A couple where the husband is a Polish Jew and the wife’s family consists of French Jews, Cossacks and who knows what else from the former Soviet Union.
    5) Another couple where I don’t know the wife’s background, but the husband is the son of a Belgian convert.

    I have not noticed any tribal breakdown in how all these people interact-they make friendships, business partnerships and marriages based on affinity in outlook rather than any kind of ethnic considerations.

    >But if they are, B’s version of Judaism is not doing a lot to encourage it.

    Yes, any time now we’ll be gay marrying horses in our rebuilt temple which will be in the image Harvard Memorial Church but with stars of David. This is what happens when you don’t spend your spare energy jumping and snarling at the latest ludicrous bullshit obviously designed to provoke you.

    • jim says:

      Yes, any time now we’ll be gay marrying horses in our rebuilt templ

      If you have the will to rebuild the temple, you will have the will to refrain from gay marrying horses in it. Not really seeing the will to rebuild the temple.

      If your state religion is progressivism, you are going to wind up gay marrying horses. To rebuild the temple, your state religion is going to have to be Judaism. It is not. And Judaism, originally a state religion, has evolved away from the characteristics that a state religion requires.

      • B says:

        I’m seeing the will to rebuild the Temple in a small but growing segment of the population. And there is a larger and growing segment which will support the first. Our priority is and should be to keep these two segments growing. Everything else is a stupid distraction.

        Judaism as a state religion is the same thing as rebuilding the Temple, so, see above.

        As for those characteristics of Judaism required by a state religion-they are there. You can open the Mishne Torah, which everyone learns at some point, and see how a Jewish court system, monarchy, military etc. should function.

        They are not currently expressed in action, since the context isn’t there.

        When will the context emerge? When there is a critical mass of people who have the will to rebuild the Temple and the secular/religious education, experience (military, administrative, commercial, scientific) and personal gravitas to make it happen, and another critical mass of people willing to support them.

        Therefore, reaching that critical mass is the priority, through natural growth, people rediscovering Judaism or a more authentic Judaism, conversion, etc. and continued encouragement of religious Jews to get secular education, military service, commercial and technological experience while remaining completely observant and having kids.

        I suspect that events will precipitate sooner rather than later that require a religious leadership to stand up and run things for national survival, and not just our national survival but the continued physical existence of our Ishmaelite neighbors. The hollowing out of the American hegemon and the rise of the Islamic State in the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa suggests this to be the case-none of these places could feed themselves in the best of times. When the moment comes, we must be ready.

        In this context, spazzing out about homosexuals (beyond a principled refusal to marry them, and continued reiteration of the fact that homosexuality is absolutely forbidden by Torah) is a stupid distraction.

        • jim says:

          As for those characteristics of Judaism required by a state religion-they are there. You can open the Mishne Torah, which everyone learns at some point, and see how a Jewish court system, monarchy, military etc. should function.

          A little while ago you told me that the Torah cannot speak for itself, needs rabbis to speak for it. If all that stuff that was conveniently invalidated by absence of a Jewish state suddenly became active again, would be highly inconvenient.

          spazzing out about homosexuals (beyond a principled refusal to marry them, and continued reiteration of the fact that homosexuality is absolutely forbidden by Torah) is a stupid distraction.

          But if you don’t spaz out about homosexuals, homosexuality becomes yet one more thing of many that makes all that stuff conveniently invalidated by the absence of a Jewish state, even more inconvenient should it become active again.

          • B says:

            >A little while ago you told me that the Torah cannot speak for itself, needs rabbis to speak for it.

            As I said, practically everyone studies Mishne Torah at some point, and there are rabbis who are experts in the laws of war, the laws of the courts, etc.

            >If all that stuff that was conveniently invalidated by absence of a Jewish state suddenly became active again, would be highly inconvenient.

            Au contraire, it would be quite convenient.

            >But if you don’t spaz out about homosexuals, homosexuality becomes yet one more thing of many that makes all that stuff conveniently invalidated by the absence of a Jewish state, even more inconvenient should it become active again.

            Not really.

            Homosexuality in itself is not a politically inconvenient issue. What makes it significant politically is the fact that it is the chosen weapon of the Cathedral. The main area of effort needs to be not fighting the Cathedral on its chosen battleground (the media) with its chosen rules (yapping and snarling,) but using our strengths in a battleground of our choosing, with our rules.

            • jim says:

              >But if you don’t spaz out about homosexuals, homosexuality becomes yet one more thing of many that makes all that stuff conveniently invalidated by the absence of a Jewish state, even more inconvenient should it become active again.

              Not really.

              Homosexuality in itself is not a politically inconvenient issue.

              If you have, and apply, the death penalty for a man lying with a man as with a woman, in due course it becomes socially acceptable for men to display affection for each other, because they are unlikely to be thought homosexuals. It becomes socially acceptable for men to live together, because they are unlikely to be thought homosexuals unless they do gay stuff in public – in which case people take another look at them and they likely get executed.

              In societies that have, and enforce, the death penalty against men who lie with a man as with a woman it is very very rarely applied, either because there really are no homosexuals, or because homosexuals stay in the closet, and because such societies have behaviors that make it easy for them to stay in the closet. I think something of both. People become homosexuals because of the availability of gay sex and the unavailability of regular sex. If death penalty, few people become homosexuals, and those that do, keep quiet about it.

              But if you have people parading in the nude down the main street while engaging in anal sex in front of a cheering crowd of both sexes and all ages, while little boys waggle their buttocks, re-introducing the death penalty becomes a might difficult.

              And so it is with one hundred and one other politically inconvenient laws required by Judaism as a state religion. Public gay sex in Tel Aviv is another nail in the coffin of Judaism as the state religion of Israel. And once this nail is securely in place, progressives will start hammering the next nail. You are getting further and further away from Judaism being possible as a state religion.

          • B says:

            >You are getting further and further away from Judaism being possible as a state religion.

            Just the opposite. We are getting closer and closer, and this terrifies the local branch of the Cathedral, hence gay pride parades, the Gush Katif expulsion, and other attempts to crush us.

            Arad, for instance, was planned and built as a city where there would not be any synagogues. Now there’s one on every corner.

            Almost every kibbutz which was violently antireligious when founded now has a synagogue and more and more religious residents.

            More and more of the military’s combat commanders are religious, and the same is the case for the police.

            You can read panicky editorials in Haaretz (the local NYT) about how something must be done, soon, or “we will lose our country.”

            As I have said-you need a group of people willing to make a change and a much larger group of people willing to quietly and not so quietly support the first group.

            And then you can outlaw homosexuality, Shabbat violation and so on down the line.

        • Jack says:

          >In this context, spazzing out about homosexuals (beyond a principled refusal to marry them, and continued reiteration of the fact that homosexuality is absolutely forbidden by Torah) is a stupid distraction.

          Exhibiting disgust and revulsion at this abominable degeneration is healthy and normal. I guess religious Jews don’t feel it: they need their rabbis to command them to show up at an anti-Gay Parade protest (or to dress Mexicans as Orthodox Jewish anti-Gay Parade protestors and send them there, as it were[1]), otherwise it’s just yet another “distraction” from REALLY important issues like the strict prohibition of opening umbrellas on Shabbat[2]. At some point you’ve got to wonder if even most intelligent white-ish Jews can succeed at civilization building without a helping hand from the despicable Europeans, by which I mean, Europeans forcing them out of their obsession with superstitious minutiae regulations and into the real world.

          [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144933/Group-Orthodox-Jews-hired-Mexican-day-laborers-dress-traditional-Jewish-garb-protest-against-New-York-City-gay-pride-parade-Sunda.html

          [2]https://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?ClipDate=3/25/2008

          • Corvinus says:

            “even most intelligent white-ish Jews can succeed at civilization building”

            For the viewing audience, please define “civilization building”. What metrics are involved? Because, per usual, this phrase is vague yet repeated uttered.

            • jim says:

              “Civilization building” is best illustrated by example. Rome, the British empire. Conversely, by counter example, civilization consumption: The Congo, Detroit. If had not been for white adventurers hitting up Africa for gold, ivory and slaves, most blacks would still be stabbing each other in the jungle with pointy sticks and eating each other, small islands of people in a sea of elephants, though we see some black civilizations near the cline between white and black, in particular near Egypt, such as Ethiopia.

              Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla. There is more to race than skin color, and in aspects other than skin color, Ethiopians, like Tutsis, have substantial white characteristics. Hence their capacity for civilization building is not hugely inferior to that of whites.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Civilization building” is best illustrated by example. Rome, the British empire.”

            Corrected for accuracy–> Civilization building is illustrated by Rome, the British Empire, the Mali Empire, and the Han Dynasty. All met the criteria for civilization…large population settlements, variety of specialized occupations, beginning of science, development of art and architecture, trade over long distances, ranking of social positions, emerging technology.

            “Conversely, by counter example, civilization consumption: The Congo, Detroit”

            Detroit is part of the American civilization, not a separate entity in this particular regard.

            “If had not been for white adventurers hitting up Africa for gold, ivory and slaves, most blacks would still be stabbing each other in the jungle with pointy sticks and eating each other.”

            I should have known. You got your African history from 1950’s picture books while growing up as a lad in Southron country.

            “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.”

            That is observably false. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Your fixation on this matter is something God will definitely keep score in the context of this passage.

            Samuel 16:7–But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

            • jim says:

              Corrected for accuracy–> Civilization building is illustrated by Rome, the British Empire, the Mali Empire, and the Han Dynasty.

              The emperor of Mali lived in a large mud hut, and his furnaces did not run hot enough to melt the gold that was the foundation of his empire. He exported slaves, ivory, and gold dust, mostly gold dust, imported advanced technology and reimported his own gold coined by Arabs. Without those imports, would have been running around naked in the jungle with a pointy stick eating people.

              The emperor of Mali could not read or write. All written documents associated with the Mali Empire are written in Arabic, by Arabs, mostly by Arab slave traders. All records of the Mali empire are travelogues by Arab traders and travelers.

              It is perfectly obvious that if you walled Detroit off from America, or you had walled Mali off from Arabia, they would swiftly return to hunting each other naked with pointy sticks and eating each other.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            jim – “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.”

            Corvinus – “That is observably false. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Your fixation on this matter is something God will definitely keep score in the context of this passage.”

            Let’s turn to a neutral arbiter to settle the matter.

            http://theurbandaily.com/2015/07/04/google-image-recognition-app-accidentally-identifies-black-people-as-gorillas/

            Don’t worry they fixed it now it never identifies black women as gorillas.

            How did they accomplish this task? More training data so it could make the distinction? Improvement in the algorithm? Nope – they removed the gorilla tag.

          • Red says:

            >All met the criteria for civilization…large population settlements, variety of specialized occupations, beginning of science, development of art and architecture, trade over long distances, ranking of social positions, emerging technology.

            Civilization is actually easier to define: You build cities out of stone or brick. If you build a city that’s nothing but shaped mud, then it’s not civilization but rather children playing in the mud. Thus the Aztecs were a civilization and the mound builders of the Mississippi where not.

          • B says:

            >The emperor of Mali lived in a large mud hut, and his furnaces did not run hot enough to melt the gold that was the foundation of his empire.

            I don’t know about all that. I do know that Nigeria had its own ironworking civilization by the 7th century BC, smelting massive amounts of iron in bloomeries. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001338/133843e.pdf

            >The emperor of Mali could not read or write.

            Neither could Charles Martel. Charlemagne learned how to read in his 50s and couldn’t write very well at all.

            >All written documents associated with the Mali Empire are written in Arabic, by Arabs, mostly by Arab slave traders

            Until quite late in the game, the Europeans corresponded in Latin, to the degree that they could correspond.

          • Red says:

            >I don’t know about all that. I do know that Nigeria had its own ironworking civilization by the 7th century BC, smelting massive amounts of iron in bloomeries.

            Your own document states that Iron working in Nigeria was imported and done very badly. Probably started by some Jewish or Phoenician traders when they realized how abundant surface Iron is in Africa. Once the locals killed and ate the traders or they went home the Africans continued their “monkey see, monkey do badly” iron working without change for the next 13th hundred years. Aping civilization does not make a civilization.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The emperor of Mali lived in a large mud hut”

            You’re wrong. Mansa Musa employed the architect Ishaq El Teudjin, who introduced advanced building techniques to Mali and designed an elaborate palace for the Emperor.

            “and his furnaces did not run hot enough to melt the gold that was the foundation of his empire.”

            He didn’t need to melt the gold, that is how wealthy his empire had become. Europe came to HIM for wealth. Unfortunately, some of the whites there were greedy, violent bastards.

            “He exported slaves, ivory, and gold dust, mostly gold dust, imported advanced technology and reimported his own gold coined by Arabs.”



            Indeed. Your point?

            “The emperor of Mali could not read or write.”

            Mali culture relied on villagers being oral historians. Each village had a local person who learned their history and then was responsible for teaching it to everyone else. You do realize that this process is complex, requiring elaborate schemas? Do even know what is a schema?

            “It is perfectly obvious that if you walled Detroit off from America, or you had walled Mali off from Arabia, they would swiftly return to hunting each other naked with pointy sticks and eating each other.”

            Actually, it is abundantly clear you are an idiot. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about people simply living or living among nature. Take the advice of the Good Book.

            John 2:15-17—Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

            Psalm 116:6—The Lord preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me.

            “Let’s turn to a neutral arbiter to settle the matter.”

            I recommend going to church this Sunday and asking for God’s forgiveness. I can help you locate a fine congregation if you need me to, sport.

            “Civilization is actually easier to define: You build cities out of stone or brick.”

            You must have been writing notes in class to get the attention of the pretty mulatto girl the day when your social studies instructor was detailing ALL of the components of civilization.

            “Your own document states that Iron working in Nigeria was imported and done very badly.”

            Red, do you have a specific page number(s) as evidence to back up your claim?

            Interesting to note that the document also says “Our investigation has shown that, in the savanna region of northern Nigeria and indeed most parts of Nigeria and West Africa in general, iron technology has been widespread and abundant for over twenty-five centuries, in other words since before the coming of the Europeans, contrary to some of the early European literature to the effect that West Africans had no knowledge of iron until the arrival of the white man…The establishment of British rule in Nigeria put an end to this once prosperous local industry. Everywhere the inhabitants were forced to abandon the traditional art of iron smelting in favour of the cheaper iron imported from Europe. The arrival of the British did in fact destroy the industrial base much needed for Africa’s technological and cultural development; for the level of technological development greatly affects a people’s culture, and hence one aspect of the cultural progress of a people is contingent upon the state of its technology.”

          • Steve Johnson says:

            jim – “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.”

            Corvinus – “That is observably false. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Your fixation on this matter is something God will definitely keep score in the context of this passage.”

            Steve Johnson – “Let’s turn to a neutral arbiter to settle the matter.

            http://theurbandaily.com/2015/07/04/google-image-recognition-app-accidentally-identifies-black-people-as-gorillas/

            Corvinus – “I recommend going to church this Sunday and asking for God’s forgiveness. ”

            Shouldn’t you send the neural nets to church for forgiveness? What exactly have the neural nets done to necessitate divine forgiveness? “Thou shalt not notice things that make it obvious that Covinus and his ilk are liars”?

            Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there. The software is built to perform pattern recognition and it’s taken a ton of work to do it even nearly as well as a human and it’s already better at it than you are because it’s not intentionally blinded itself.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Shouldn’t you send the neural nets to church for forgiveness? What exactly have the neural nets done to necessitate divine forgiveness? “Thou shalt not notice things that make it obvious that Covinus and his ilk are liars”?”

            You ought to be focusing on seeking YOUR forgiveness.

            Samuel 16:7–But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

            “Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there.”

            Citing a Bible passage constitutes “weak gruel”? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Seriously, go to Church. Your fixation on things YOU consider ugl is, well, ugly in the eyes of the Lord.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            ““Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there.”

            Citing a Bible passage constitutes “weak gruel”? ”

            You’re completely incoherent as can only be expected when you’re so glaringly wrong and unwilling to face it.

            Let’s copy out the argument again:

            jim – “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.”

            Corvinus – “That is observably false. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Your fixation on this matter is something God will definitely keep score in the context of this passage.”

            Steve Johnson – “Let’s turn to a neutral arbiter to settle the matter.

            http://theurbandaily.com/2015/07/04/google-image-recognition-app-accidentally-identifies-black-people-as-gorillas/

            Corvinus – “I recommend going to church this Sunday and asking for God’s forgiveness. ”

            Steve Johnson – “Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there. The software is built to perform pattern recognition and it’s taken a ton of work to do it even nearly as well as a human and it’s already better at it than you are because it’s not intentionally blinded itself.”

            You didn’t cite any Bible passages to back up your position – you asserted that noticing things that make you look like a fool and a liar requires that the noticer ask for divine forgiveness – quite a convenient stance for a liar to take.

            How about some support for your original assertion – which to remind people – was this:

            “That [subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla] is observably false.”

            No, it’s observably true. You then assert that the LORD demands that we not observe things (which is of course not the case) – but of course your original rebuttal was about observation.

            I recommend you bite the bullet here and agree with Jim’s initial observation but try to reframe it as unimportant. You’d be wrong but at least you’d be making a somewhat reasonable argument instead of incoherently trying to change the subject and hoping that no one would notice.

            To remind everyone of how Corvinus’s actual religion has nothing to do with the texts he claims to honor you can check out his efforts at this link:

            http://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/yes-roissy-is-correct/

            This is a guy who believes that a list of over twenty prohibited sexual activities that includes “don’t fuck your mother” and “don’t fuck goats” also implies that having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women is also forbidden – but was so obvious that it didn’t need to be stated. Corvinus is fully pwned by progressivism but dresses it up with selective quoting of the Bible.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Reposting dropping a link because prior reply was lost in moderation.

            ““Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there.”

            Citing a Bible passage constitutes “weak gruel”? ”

            You’re completely incoherent as can only be expected when you’re so glaringly wrong and unwilling to face it.

            Let’s copy out the argument again:

            jim – “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.”

            Corvinus – “That is observably false. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Your fixation on this matter is something God will definitely keep score in the context of this passage.”

            Steve Johnson – “Let’s turn to a neutral arbiter to settle the matter.

            [link above – omitted here]

            Corvinus – “I recommend going to church this Sunday and asking for God’s forgiveness. ”

            Steve Johnson – “Pretty weak gruel of a rebuttal there. The software is built to perform pattern recognition and it’s taken a ton of work to do it even nearly as well as a human and it’s already better at it than you are because it’s not intentionally blinded itself.”

            You didn’t cite any Bible passages to back up your position – you asserted that noticing things that make you look like a fool and a liar requires that the noticer ask for divine forgiveness – quite a convenient stance for a liar to take.

            How about some support for your original assertion – which to remind people – was this:

            “That [subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla] is observably false.”

            No, it’s observably true. You then assert that the LORD demands that we not observe things (which is of course not the case) – but of course your original rebuttal was about observation.

            I recommend you bite the bullet here and agree with Jim’s initial observation but try to reframe it as unimportant. You’d be wrong but at least you’d be making a somewhat reasonable argument instead of incoherently trying to change the subject and hoping that no one would notice.

            To remind everyone of how Corvinus’s actual religion has nothing to do with the texts he claims to honor you can check out his efforts at this link:

            [link omitted – is from this blog]/uncategorized/yes-roissy-is-correct/

            This is a guy who believes that a list of over twenty prohibited sexual activities that includes “don’t fuck your mother” and “don’t fuck goats” also implies that having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women is also forbidden – but was so obvious that it didn’t need to be stated. Corvinus is fully pwned by progressivism but dresses it up with selective quoting of the Bible.

          • peppermint says:

            I’d dismiss Corvinus as a christcuck, except that B has similarly progressive racial attitudes. I’m sure Jack and Marc Citadel would be happy to see Corvinus and B run off together to the interfaith chapel, but, they’re good family men, who would love for their daughters to have experiences like this: http://xhamster.com/movies/536772/bryce_dallas_howard_manderlay.html

            As the CEO of Troll, Inc. once said, cucking is the thinking man’s fetish

            • jim says:

              “cucking is the thinking man’s fetish”

              Yes. What is going on here? Used to be that there was no such male fetish as cuckoldry. It so directly anti life and anti darwinian.

              Now in the case of homosexuality, there have been periods where men who preferred adult men were unheard of, but perhaps, what with the death penalty, they were deep in the closet. But cuckoldry? Pretty sure no cuckoldry fetish until the late twentieth, early twentyfirst. Now it is all over the place.

              I don’t suppose that every supporter of black immigration wants to see his wife and his daughters fucked by a big black buck, but am pretty sure that everyone who wants to see his wife and his daughters fucked by a big black buck, supports black immigration. There is something very political in this sexuality, and very sexual in this politics.

          • Corvinus says:

            “You didn’t cite any Bible passages to back up your position – you asserted that noticing things that make you look like a fool and a liar requires that the noticer ask for divine forgiveness – quite a convenient stance for a liar to take.”

            You’re getting your panties in a bunch. Jim’s entire premise–“Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla”–is observably false. You double down on stupid by stating how a “neutral arbiter” actually proves his assertion. I offered you a viable solution–go to church and seek forgiveness.

            “You then assert that the LORD demands that we not observe things…”



            That is a strawman on your part. I am asserting that the Lord demands we not observe things which are observably false. Subsaharan chicks do NOT look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla. God would NEVER assert this statement as fact or truth, nor would support one of his followers to actually believe in such a preposterous notion.

            “You’d be wrong but at least you’d be making a somewhat reasonable argument instead of incoherently trying to change the subject and hoping that no one would notice.”

            I’m not wrong on anything here.

            “To remind everyone of how Corvinus’s actual religion has nothing to do with the texts he claims to honor you can check out his efforts at this link.”

            Seriously? You want to rehash an old argument, one in which you were intellectually crucified? Wow, just wow.

            “…also implies that having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women is also forbidden.”

            
Corrected for accuracy–> In the Christian tradition, men having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women outside of marriage is forbidden.

            “Corvinus is fully pwned by progressivism…”

            [Laughs] unless you condemn Roissy’s agenda (fuck women outside of marriage, remain single, have no children) as anti-Godly masculinity, you are a bitch to progressivism.

            • jim says:

              Corvinus, your Christianity is progressivism, not Christianity.

              Subsaharan chicks do NOT look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla.

              There are some exceptions, notably the higher black races, the Ethiopians and the Tutsis have reasonably hot women. But as general rule subsaharan women look markedly masculine and ape like. Now you could argue that they are closer to humans than gorillas, and I suppose that they are considerably closer to humans than gorillas, but you have to admit, there is a distinct touch of ape about them. Maybe they look one quarter gorilla, rather than one half.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “You’re getting your panties in a bunch. Jim’s entire premise–“Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla”–is observably false. You double down on stupid by stating how a “neutral arbiter” actually proves his assertion. I offered you a viable solution–go to church and seek forgiveness.”

            A computer program built to recognize images and trained on sets of images but obviously not told that black women look like gorillas identified photos of black women as more likely to be photos of gorillas. Jim noticed the same thing. You asserted that it was observably false. My observations tally with Jim’s.

            You, on the other hand, lie and claim to not see what’s in front of your eyes.

            That book of yours say anything about telling pious lies to try to make yourself out to be holier than someone else – because it’s obvious even to a computer system that you are lying.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “
Corrected for accuracy–> In the Christian tradition, men having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women outside of marriage is forbidden.”

            More bullshit.

            You asserted that a specific list of prohibited activities in Leviticus backed up your position. That list contained dozens of specific prohibitions but not the prohibition that you claimed it did. You then backed up into saying that the reasonable inference from the list was that having sex with unattached women was prohibited. A list that specified no goat fucking or mother fucking left that item unsaid because it was so obvious.

            If you really believe that then you are a disgusting degenerate who thinks that you need to specify “no goat fucking” but everyone just knows in their bones that sex with unrelated women is wrong.

            The alternative is that you are a liar who didn’t expect to get called on your lies about the text you cited. You now try to claim that your argument was:

            “
Corrected for accuracy–> In the Christian tradition, men having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women outside of marriage is forbidden.”

            Which was not the point that was being contended at all.

            You are pwned by progressivism and totally fail to understand the Christian message about how men and women should relate. A group that built a civilization based on your insane suggestions would have its daughters mass raped by subhumans and choosing thuggish men to fuck them and leave them. That is exactly what we see now because you exactly believe in the ruling ideology.

          • peppermint says:

            » In the Christian tradition, men having sex with unattached, unrelated fertile aged women outside of marriage is forbidden.

            yes, in traditional White civilization, this is in fact discouraged. But Whites are greedy and stole Mansa Musa’s gold, so they should be replaced by Blacks who can then recreate the Black industrial base that the British destroyed along non-greedy Black civilizational lines including oral history, which the Druids even knew is better mental exercise, but the greedy Whites got rid of because they wanted to hoard books as if that would increase their knowledge.

            As a result, Jim should go to church, confess his sins, and adopt several Black children, some of whom can then breed his female relatives as a sop to his greedy White genes so he can feel like he’s a part of the inevitable Blackification.

          • Ion says:

            @Jim
            I always thought, and assumed everyone else thought, that the cuckold fetish was a variant of sadomasochism. It certainly seems to focus on how much the husband and wife are hurt.

          • Corvinus says:

            Here is my original claim—“It is true that in the Bible, the word for fornication does not necessarily refer to sex before marriage. However, the sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament through boundaries of what is considered sinful, which is covered extensively by Leviticus 18.” One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage. Do you agree that this conduct was considered immoral at that time?

            You are hung up that this prohibition was NOT listed. That’s on you.

            Those who offer tribute to Roissy is decidedly anti-Christian masculinity and progressive thinking to its core. My congratulations on contributing to the decline of Western Civilization.

            Go to church and seek forgiveness.

            • jim says:

              Old testament rules aimed at paternal certainty, which is what you need for strong families, what you need to engage men in the task of building civilization, earning a living, and defending their people.

              So a woman was supposed to sleep with one, and only one, man. And in the event of widowhood, divorce, or abduction, there was supposed to be a sufficient interval between sleeping with one man, and sleeping with the next, it being the responsibility of the abductor to hold back for a month, except for the case where a widow has no children and is inherited by the brother of her husband, in which case he is supposed to take over his brother’s duties immediately. (And yes, I know that modern Jews have different, and suspiciously twentieth century, interpretations of these old testament rules)

              However, whereas a woman having sex with multiple men creates paternal uncertainty, a man having sex with multiple women does not. Thus the old testament prescribes a profound double standard, leading to polygynous marriage.

              The New Testament encourages monogamous marriage, but does not unambiguously require it.

              Old testament rules make sense if we interpret the underlying spirit of the rules not as “sex is bad”, but rather as “fatherlessness, family breakup, and depriving a man of children is bad” and “women should not be permitted agency because it leads to fatherlessness, family breakup and denies men children”.

              Of course B does not like reference to the spirit of the rules, preferring to interpret them as prefiguring early twentieth century progressivism.

              He complains that if you invoke the spirit of the rules, you can bend them beyond recognition – though I very much doubt if anyone in the Old Testament could recognize the current Jewish rules.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            ” One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage. Do you agree that this conduct was considered immoral at that time? ”

            No and obviously not to anyone with any ability to read and think. You lack this ability because your mind is wholly consumed by progressivism.

            You’ve doubled down in providing evidence only that you are a disgusting pervert.

            This is Levitcus 18:

            “The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

            6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

            7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

            8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

            9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

            10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

            11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

            12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

            13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

            14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

            15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

            16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

            17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

            18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

            19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

            20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

            21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

            22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

            23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

            24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

            29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

            You are such a disgusting pervert that you think that a list that specifies no goat fucking and no ass fucking men and no mother fucking doesn’t have to specify “no sex with unmarried women” because you think the first three items are normal and the final item is horrifying. When items like those (goat fucking, sister fucking, mother / daughter threesomes) are included in a list then you know that list isn’t implying anything. It’s stating outright everything no matter how perverse.

            Your soul is diseased – infected with progressivism.

            You, of course, will be unresponsive to the content of this reply just as you were the last time.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jim and Steve, your white-knighting of Roissy is notable via your Old Testament explanation. Roissy, by virtue of his insistence that men not marry and not have children, but rather have sex with multiple women for pleasure, is perversion. Yet, you find numerous ways to exonerate Roissy. [golf clap]

            “You are such a disgusting pervert that you think that a list that specifies no goat fucking and no ass fucking men and no mother fucking doesn’t have to specify “no sex with unmarried women” because you think the first three items are normal and the final item is horrifying”

            That’s called a strawman, because I never said those items you mentioned were “normal”. Your diversionary tactics, Steve, are noteworthy in the eyes of God.

            Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

            • jim says:

              Its not Roissy’s fault. It is not the PUAs fault.

              When some men are powerful, and women are powerless, the powerful men do not put the women in a big brothel and share them.

              When women have all the sexual power, the women put themselves in a big brothel and force the attractive men to share them.

              As Roissy tells us, he is dancing to a tune called by women.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            You exactly implied it.

            When a list specifies “no goat fucking” and “no mother fucking” and doesn’t specify “no sex with fertile aged unmarried women” and you think “no sex with fertile aged unmarried women” is implied the only logical conclusion is that you think “no mother fucking” and “no goat fucking” are something that needs to be stated and are sins that might be tempting while sex with an unmarried fertile aged woman is so repulsive that any normal man wouldn’t be tempted by the prospect.

            You are a disgusting pervert.

            It’s not a straw man – it’s drawing the logical conclusions of your argument. You, of course, can offer no alternative interpretation and give no reason why a list that includes “no goat fucking” would leave “no sex with unmarried fertile aged women” out. My answer is quite simple – that’s not in the list because it’s not forbidden. Your answer is that it’s forbidden anyway. I outlined above the only way to get to that conclusion.

            If you don’t like that chain of reasoning come up with an alternative for why “no sex with unmarried fertile age women” is a rule but isn’t on that list. This explanation has to account for the fact that “no goat fucking” is also on that list – so “it’s implied” doesn’t work – unless you think that goat fucking is normal and natural and has to be explicitly mentioned while sex with unmarried fertile aged women is so disgusting that even goat fuckers wouldn’t consider it acceptable.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Its not Roissy’s fault. It is not the PUAs fault.”

            When Roissy calls for remaining single and not siring offspring, he and his boyzzz play a decided role in the decline of Western Civilization. Your white knighting in this regard is noteworthy.

            “When women have all the sexual power, the women put themselves in a big brothel and force the attractive men to share them.”


            Men, being supposedly the more virtuous sex, do NOT enable women to gain “sexual power” by…actively seeking to “pump and dump” them. Roissy personifies anti-Godly masculinity.


            “You exactly implied it. You are a disgusting pervert.”

            You’ve officially gone off the rails. Avoiding answering this question tells me everything I need to know about your lack of faith.

            Go to church. Seek forgiveness.

            “…would leave “no sex with unmarried fertile aged women” out”

            Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Corvinus –

            “You exactly implied it. You are a disgusting pervert.”

            “You’ve officially gone off the rails. Avoiding answering this question tells me everything I need to know about your lack of faith. ”

            I repeat – you are a disgusting pervert because of the answer you have implied to the question that you keep ducking:

            Why do you think a list of forbidden sexual practices has to include “no goat fucking” and “no mother fucking” and “no ass fucking men” but does not include “no sex with unmarried women” imply “no sex with unmarried women”?

            Do you believe this because you find goat fucking and mother fucking normal while you find sex with unmarried women abhorrent so that you think that practice is so filthy that it doesn’t need to be on the list for people to know it’s forbidden? What other possible reason is there to believe that a forbidden practice would be left off of that list when it specifies practices that men who are not disgusting perverts find to be far worse?

            That’s the first question that was asked – months ago – and you’ve ducked it since then because you have no way to answer.

            Any chump like you who won’t answer a question or respond to an argument for months doesn’t get to ask questions in an attempt to derail the discussion nor will you get anyone here to play your divide and disqualify game. Roissy / Heartiste accurately diagnoses the problems that western civilization faces. You do nothing but try to make them worse. I have no idea what his personal conduct is like because I don’t know him.

            You are a disgusting pervert whose soul is infected with progressivism.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Do you believe this because you find goat fucking and mother fucking normal…”

            No, these actions are deplorable. God knows that you are being purposely deceitful when YOU inferred that I would find this conduct moral.

            “while you find sex with unmarried women abhorrent so that you think that practice is so filthy that it doesn’t need to be on the list for people to know it’s forbidden?”

            Christians and God find sex with unmarried men and women to be abhorrent. Do you agree or disagree? Why? One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time AND the prohibitions of Leviticus 18, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage.

            Do you agree that this conduct was considered immoral at that time? Why?

            These questions you have purposely avoided for months. To put YOUR own words to the test,”any chump like you who won’t answer a question or respond to an argument for months doesn’t get to ask questions in an attempt to derail the discussion nor will you get anyone here to play your divide and disqualify game.”

            “I have no idea what his personal conduct is like because I don’t know him.”

            You are blatantly lying. Roissy advocates that men remain single, refrain from having children, and “pump and dump” women. Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

            Answer the questions.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Christians and God find sex with unmarried men and women to be abhorrent. Do you agree or disagree? Why? One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time AND the prohibitions of Leviticus 18, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage. ”

            Your inferences aren’t reasonable unless your premises are completely screwed up.

            This is a list that specifies “no goat fucking” and “no mother fucking”. No list that specifies “no goat fucking” and “no mother fucking” implies “no sex with unmarried women”. The only way that you can claim that as a reasonable inference was if you think the former pair are totally reasonable and normal practices while the latter is so abhorrent as to have no need of mention.

            You do not understand Leviticus 18 because you are not a Christian you are a progressive.

            sj – ““I have no idea what his personal conduct is like because I don’t know him.”

            corvinus – You are blatantly lying. Roissy advocates that men remain single, refrain from having children, and “pump and dump” women. Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why? ”

            Your reading comprehension doesn’t improve on newer texts either. I don’t know what Heartiste’s personal conduct is – I don’t know the man – you call this a blatant lie. Apparently you think I do know the man.

            Only trapped liars throw out the “liar” accusation so freely.

            But of course you’re trying to switch meanings and hoping that no one notices – from “condemn his conduct” to “condemn the stuff he advocates”. If you can point me to somewhere where God laid down a rule about sex with unmarried women being forbidden then maybe I’ll consider your point of view. Until then, I’ll say this – I’ve never read anything on Heartiste’s site where he advocates violating any of the rules laid out in Leviticus 18.

            You are a disgusting pervert and not a Christian.

          • Corvinus says:

            You are desperately trying to control the narrative. I will make this as simple as possible and repeat it if necessary. Hopefully you will not be deceptive. God is watching you. I pray for your redemption.

            Here is my original claim—“It is true that in the Bible, the word for fornication does not necessarily refer to sex before marriage. However, the sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament through boundaries of what is considered sinful, which is covered extensively by Leviticus 18.” One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage. Do you agree that this conduct was considered immoral at that time?

            You are hung up that this prohibition was NOT listed. That’s on you.

            Christians and God find sex with unmarried men and women to be abhorrent. Do you agree or disagree? Why? One can make the reasonable inference, given the sexual mores of the time AND the prohibitions of Leviticus 18, that a man or woman is prohibited from having sex outside of marriage.

            Roissy’s own personal conduct and his advocating is clear, since you admitted you are familiar with his work–men remain single, refrain from having children, and “pump and dump” women.

            Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

            Answer the questions.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            I’m not hung up on anything.

            If goat fucking is included in a very extensive list and sex with an unmarried woman isn’t included then sex with unmarried women isn’t forbidden. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion. That you don’t reach that conclusion shows that you’re working off of another playbook.

            That it’s not listed is highly significant. Your soul is so perverted by progressivism that you can’t see the very straightforward words as meaning what they say because it contradicts the progressive narrative.

            “Christians and God find sex with unmarried men and women to be abhorrent. Do you agree or disagree?”

            I don’t know or care what people you call “Christian” believe and what their attitudes are. Read Dalrock’s blog if you want an extensive examination of how Christian most “Christians” are. As far as God – you’ll have to give me reference other than Leviticus 18 – because that backs my position and soundly demolishes yours.

            As far as me speaking for God and condemning Heartiste maybe you should read your scriptures more closely and attend to the beam in your eye first. You are infected with progressivism. Or maybe you should just make pronouncements in God’s name. Are you actually the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople?

          • Corvinus says:

            “I don’t know or care what people you call “Christian” believe and what their attitudes are.”

            Then why are you citing Scripture and basing your argument on religion? See, you DO know what Christians believe. Answer the question–Christians and God find sex with unmarried men and women to be abhorrent, given the sexual mores of the time and the prohibitions of Leviticus 18. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

            “As far as me speaking for God and condemning Heartiste…”

            Which you have continually avoided, since I surmise you read and comment on that blog. Roissy’s own personal conduct and his advocating is clear-–men remain single, refrain from having children, and “pump and dump” women. Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

            Answer the questions.

            “Your soul is so perverted by progressivism…”

            If I oppose “goat fucking”, “mother fucking”, and “sex outside of marriage”, those beliefs represent traditionalism, NOT progressivism. You are blatantly lying again. Go to church. Seek forgiveness.

            • jim says:

              Roissy’s own personal conduct and his advocating is clear-–men remain single, refrain from having children, and “pump and dump” women. Would God not find Roissy’s actions perverted? Yes or no. Why?

              God’s Old Testament position would have Roissy seize unowned women Viking style, and deal with white knights Old Testament style, and impose at swordpoint polygamy on unowned women, causing them to become owned, where a woman is only allowed to sleep with one man, but one man is allowed to sleep with many women.

              God’s New Testament position would be to set up a Church which, like the Mormons, keeps wives and daughters under control by coordinated social pressure. Virtuous women get to participate, and are required to participate in a female mutual support network, in which they are continually exposed to the example of other virtuous women, and to the example of women respectful of male authority. Should they misbehave, they get thrown out, losing all their friends and their support network. When daughters’ hormones start raging, they are at first kept physically locked up, then required to do sexy dances with a short list of parentally preselected males eligible for marriage. They then go direct from paternal lockup to marriage.

              In both cases, God has a problem with unowned women wandering loose, rather than men taking advantage of unowned women wandering loose. Indeed, his old Testament solution is precisely for men to take advantage of unowned women wandering loose in a way that makes them no longer unowned and no longer wandering loose.

              During the reboot, I expect a fair bit of the Old Testament, after the reboot, a fair bit of the New.

          • Corvinus says:

            “In both cases, God has a problem with unowned women wandering loose, rather than men taking advantage of unowned women wandering loose.”

            Jim, you are Slobodan Milošević when it comes to torturing the text of the Bible. And that is NOT a compliment. Roissy peddles his wares to single men, NOT Christians. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, which includes sex outside of marriage, regardless of gender. Corinthians 7:2–“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Paul specifies MARRIAGE is the “cure” for sexual immorality, and absolutely called men into question for attempting to “take advantage of unowned women wandering loose”. Once married, men and women are able to fulfill their passions in a moral way. According to God, abstinence is His policy when it comes to sex before marriage.

            ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matthew 19:4-5; quoting from Genesis 1:27, 2:24). Here, Scripture clearly states that sex is for marriage and marriage is for sex. Exclusively.

            Ultimately, Heartiste promotes anti-Godly masculinity, which is defined by Kings 2:1-3–“As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn.”

            A married man and a single man are cut from the same cloth, so long as each loves the church (Ephesians 5:25), teaches their (future) offspring the nature of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), provides for their family (Timothy 5:8), and is a man of impeccable character (Timothy 2:21-22).


            “During the reboot, I expect a fair bit of the Old Testament, after the reboot, a fair bit of the New.”

            You assume 1) there will be a “reboot” and 2) if there is a “reboot”, it will follow your desired narrative. Basically, you’re playing a guessing game.

            • jim says:

              Jim, you are Slobodan Milošević when it comes to torturing the text of the Bible. And that is NOT a compliment. Roissy peddles his wares to single men, NOT Christians. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality,

              “Adultery” is related to “adulteration”: “Adultery” is any act that creates uncertainty of paternity, or obstructs a man from raising his own children and not the children of others.

              “Sexual immorality” is any act that violates or threatens to violate a man’s property right in a woman’s sexual and reproductive services.

              So if I have sex with a woman who is currently unowned, that is not adultery nor sexual immorality.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Adultery” is related to “adulteration”: “Adultery” is any act that creates uncertainty of paternity, or obstructs a man from raising his own children and not the children of others.”

            In the context of marriage, Jim, NOT single hood. Torture.

            “Sexual immorality” is any act that violates or threatens to violate a man’s property right in a woman’s sexual and reproductive services.”

            In the context of marriage, Jim, NOT single hood. More torture.

            I will give you a gold star for effort. It appears good on the outside, but it is rotten to the core on the inside.

            Again, you are torturing the text of the Bible. We are discussing single men/women, not married men/women. ONLY those whom are married and/or betrothed may have sex. Single men/women were PROHIBITED from fornicating without commitment.

            “So if I have sex with a woman who is currently unowned, that is not adultery nor sexual immorality.”

            Under the context that the man is betrothed. Torture, torture, torture.

            Corinthians 6:15-20–Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

            Apostle Paul stated the following, “lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced”. He is specifically morally condemning those men and women who are single and have sex outside of marriage.

            Recall that single men and women did NOT exist in Biblical times. Single refers to living on their own.

            Recall that single men and women were “owned” by their parents until they were married.

            Recall that single men and women could only have sexual relations when their parents approved of their impending marriage.

            Besides, if Roissy had sex with your daughter, and he refused to marry her, what would you do about it, Jim?

    • The Observer says:

      Already gay marrying, complete with unicorns.

      http://voxday.blogspot.sg/2015/07/omniscience.html

      “It’s official. I have seen EVERYTHING. A GAY JEWISH WEDDING WHERE THEY RODE IN ON A HORSE DRESSED AS A UNICORN.”

      • B says:

        Yes, all those involved are very religious, observant Jews.

        Not Cathedral conversos at all.

        Similarly, Torquemada is an example of how going to confession, eating the Eucharist and making cryptojews wear sanbenitos have become integral parts of Judaism.

        • Mackus says:

          No true Scotsman.

        • Ion says:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Israel

          >unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Israel have equal access to nearly all of the rights of marriage in the form of unregistered cohabitation status, similar to common-law marriage. In 2013, the Hatnuah and Yesh Atid parties introduced bills that would provide for civil marriage for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
          >According to a poll conducted in August 2009, 61% of Israelis supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, with 31% opposed.

          If we compare Israel to other developed countries, it’s clear Israel is following the Cathedral’s approved path. Russia and Saudi Arabia are apparently not following that path, so the Cathedral is hostile to them.

          • B says:

            We have, as I have said, a secular law which is a weird Cathedral knockoff. And a secular government which is a branch of the Cathedral. To which you retort, ah-ha! You have a secular law and government which are a knockoff of the Cathedral!

            • jim says:

              Yep, that is exactly what we do retort.

              And add to that that the atheists conquered Israel, while the religious generally want to dodge the draft.

          • Mackus says:

            >>secular law which is a weird Cathedral knockoff
            Passed my majority Jewish population, just like last referendum on gay-marriage passed by majority catholic Ireland.

            Guess Torah and being careful to not mix cheese and meat knives does wonders in protecting Israel from corruption of Cathedral.

          • B says:

            >And add to that that the atheists conquered Israel, while the religious generally want to dodge the draft.

            There were religious units fighting in 1948. And no, the religious generally do not dodge the draft. As I’ve said at least 8 times, religious Zionists are overrepresented in combat units compared to their proportion of the population.

            >Passed my majority Jewish population, just like last referendum on gay-marriage passed by majority catholic Ireland.

            You’re confused. I’m talking about the legal constitution of Israel, which is a weird knockoff of the American system cobbled together out of British, Ottoman and assorted other elements.

            There has not been any referendum on gay marriage here, nor will there be.

            >Guess Torah and being careful to not mix cheese and meat knives does wonders in protecting Israel from corruption of Cathedral.

            Look at birth rates, for instance.

          • Ron says:

            @B @Jim

            The Irgun and Lehi were cross sectional. You would see communists and rabbis in it. It was the Haganah and the rest of Ben Gurions socialists who were all atheist. They actually didn’t do very much to drive out the British and in fact helped to hunt down Irgun members at the request of the British occupation (but they avoided the Lehi because unlike the Irgun the Lehi made it clear they would target them right back. And seeing how it was the Lehi that was engaged in assassinating British officials and soldiers the threat was taken seriously). After Ben Gurion took over from the work of those two groups, he proceeded with the aid of the Haganah and the socialist apparatus, to drive them out of political society. My point is, it wasn’t the atheists who got us the country, but it was the atheists who stole it. And everything else that wasn’t nailed down or that they couldn’t pry loose.

            The religious military question is a bit more complicated, but I will make an attempt to explain it as I see it. Of course, please take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I am primarily an observer, and no expert on anything.

            As Isee it, The religious groups are effectively divided into two camps. B’s camp who are nationalists, and those who do not trust the government.

            Of the second camp, referred to as “Haredi”, in order to discourage their young men from joining a military whose purpose and intentions they did not trust (socialists were open about using the military to reshape Jewish society and attitudes), they adopted a hostile tone to the entire practice. But this tone is actually at odds with the combative nature of both the culture they live in and their own teachings. So even now there are a great many young men who quietly go to the army. These are usually young men who are clearly not suited for a life of study, and in some cases they are quietly encouraged to go by the community.

            The current brouhaha, and revival of antagonism against army service by the Haredi section of society was actually a direct response to a recent push by the government to draft their young men against their will. Had the government let the matter alone, they would have been content to quietly continue letting their young men go to the service, which leads me to suspect that was probably the intention. The “Haredi” unit was, as far as I know, doing very well and their non combatant soldiers (we call them “jobniks”) were integrated in all aspects of the military.

            Being of a more conspiratorial mindset, I suspect that someone among the socialist ruling class saw this and wanted to out a stop to it. We can’t have positive examples of a religious group interacting with the subject sof the grand experiment now can we? So they revived some of the old complaints among the secular, which threatened to force by law what the Haredi were already beginning to do anyway, which got their backs up, and which led to the revival of the old anti-military mindset.

            Well and good, except the young men who were going, are still going, the leaders of the Haredi community who were encouraging those men to go, are still sending them, albeit a little more quietly. There’s jsut a bit more yelling and harassment in both directions.

            Israel is a complicated place.

          • B says:

            Ron,

            Thanks, I agree with everything you said.

  12. Orthodox says:

    The Church is the ultimate counter-cyclical organization. Have a low enough time preference to see it in the context of a full historical cycle.

    The more the Church is persecuted, the more it becomes a tribe, so that’s going to solve itself if it’s a big issue for you.

    • k says:

      The upcoming Synod on the Family may make the situation more clear.

    • jim says:

      The more the Church is persecuted, the more it becomes a tribe

      Not seeing it. Rather, the more it is persecuted, the more it sells out.

      And it does not seem to take much persecution at all.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        There’s something oddly difficult to defeat in democracy or whatever this is…certainly broad consensus politics …that the organization that stood steadfast against Stalin and for that matter Hitler although not directly [Pius XII stopped denouncing Hitler when the war began, but from the moment it started they were hiding and smuggling out Jews] but this same organization is having difficulty adapting to a corrupt and predatory United States and Western lackeys.

        But then again who has adapted successfully? Putin and he’s besieged.

      • jay says:

        And the more it sells out the more winnowing that occurs. I guarantee there will be a faithful remnant to be the seed for the next incarnation of the church.

    • Red says:

      My observation my own Christian parents is how non tribe like they’ve become.

  13. vxxc2014 says:

    Mind you Francis is riding the Tiger. Someone has to otherwise the Meso Tiger eats the Spanish of Latin America as they are losing their grip.

  14. vxxc2014 says:

    Not completely and given leadership not even most.

    Latin American Catholics for instance have a leader and his name is Francis.

    I’m Irish Catholic and have a long history of fighting through hopeless odds to survive, even thrive through and in terrible conflicts and genocides.

    Now if I were American Protestant I’d be poking or opening my veins too [comes to the same thing].

    This gem however can’t go unremarked…

    “But progressives hate tribalism”.

    LOL. Only if you mean congenital self-loathing.

    Which Progressives are you referring to Jim? Certainly not American Progressives in 2015? Oh…you mean the Yankee’s. I’ve been trying to tell BeerKellar Confederates all week: The.Yankee’s.Are.Dead.

    Those aren’t Yankee’s insulting your Flag. Nickey Haley for instance isn’t a Yankee…never mind the New York Times, or Slate..or TNR…

    You want to know who the “Yankee” is here Jim?

    “B.” B knows it too. Oh I mean him no disrespect or Ill. But really..Jim just steer the conversation away from Tribalism and Yankees, or esp Tribalism and Progress. You’re becoming self-parodying.

    • jim says:

      I’m Irish Catholic and have a long history of fighting through hopeless odds to survive, even thrive through and in terrible conflicts and genocides.

      The recent referendum suggests that Irish Catholics are not going to survive being deemed old fashioned fuddy duddy child molesters.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        Actually that was the anti-establishment and oddly anti-clerical vote in a reaction against the molestation scandals.

        Which proves anyone’s point about democracy nicely.

        You don’t strike a blow against pederasty by legalizing gay marriage – or homosexual anything. But the Irish will have to learn hard.

        For the Irish to be at their best things have to be more terrible, like tea we’re best in hot water.

      • Ion says:

        The average IQ in Ireland is 94. May be due to Irish genetics, or brain drain, or some other cause.

        Democracy requires the ability to tell the difference between candidates, and referendums. So Democracy is not possible for Africa, because Africans need to be told who to vote for. And Democracy is arguably not possible for Ireland.

    • jim says:

      Latin American Catholics for instance have a leader and his name is Francis.

      And he is telling them to love their ladyboys.

      • Red says:

        And that Communism is the true path to salvation.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          Red,

          As to the Reds that’s the color of Meso-America’s chosen Flag.

          Leaders need Armies.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        No Jim. He is pointing North.

        He’s channeling Rodrigo Borgia aka Pope Alexander VI with “immigration”. If you look at a map of world Catholicism it’s most solid in Latin America. North America just like 400 years ago is a land of unimaginable riches with matchless geographic advantages internal and external and seemingly boundless mineral wealth. Like 400 years ago it’s in the hands of incompetent idiots.

        This also solves the problem for Latin Americans that the Spanish are losing their grip over their Meso serfs. If they can be directed North into what is a second Conquista it’s a godsend for the “Latins” who are white….like Francis.

        That’s what I meant by leader. That’s what leaders do – lead their people. Next to the conquest of North America – something the rest of the world sees now is possible – reaching out to gays and Reds is secondary politics as is Climate Change [being Green costs Francis nothing].

        As an aside he hasn’t given on Gays at all except to say God Forgives and loves them, they didn’t get gay marriage and won’t.

        As to the Reds that’s the color of Meso-America’s chosen Flag.

        Leaders need Armies.

        Watch. In 2016 when Francis visits he’ll endorse Open Borders.

        • peppermint says:

          This sounds like when Revilo Oliver described how he believed immediately after it happened how the outcome of WWII was good for America, in America’s Decline pp.54-55

      • vxxc2014 says:

        No Jim he just offered forgiveness, love, inclusiveness.

        Nothing was changed. Nor is that remotely likely.

        • jim says:

          Forgiveness involved putting on a big spectacular funeral for a ladyboy who made no repentance and died of aids while enthusiastically spreading aids.

          Francis does not preach Jesus the redeemer, but Jesus the community organizer. The Jesus of pope Francis did not die for our sins, but rather died to teach us to be nice to official victim groups.

          The Jesus of Pope Francis died to teach us the importance of global warming. We should buy carbon indulgences, rather than papal indulgences.

          Even you sincerely believe in global warming, it is pretty obvious that the global warming bandwagon is being operated by extremely evil people. Why does not Pope Francis call them out?

    • B says:

      >You want to know who the “Yankee” is here Jim?

      >“B.”

      ?

      >I’m Irish Catholic and have a long history of fighting through hopeless odds to survive, even thrive through and in terrible conflicts and genocides.

      Actually, the Irish Catholics, from post-Cromwell onwards, have a long history of cutting a deal with their bad guys and becoming their enforcers.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_Irish_regiments_of_the_British_Army

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

      The author of the Slaughter of Cities goes on about this for quite a bit, how the Irish Catholics jumped into bed with the Quakers and Puritans to screw the Polish Catholics and the other white ethnics in the protracted American ethnic cleansing campaign.

      The remarkable thing about this is that while converso Jews certainly embrace the agenda of their Cathedral masters with great enthusiasm (and a lot more intellectual vigor than the Irish, go figure,) they do this at the expense of being Jewish. You know, the typical Cathedral Jew has no kippa, speaks no Hebrew, has an Asian wife and two non-Jewish kids (meaning, he is the last Jew in his line), supports Palestinian rights and BDS, and finds those Orthodox Jews terribly embarrassing. The Establishment Irish, on the other hand, remain proudly Irish and Catholic while serving people who hate nations and religion. Go figure.

  15. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Many years ago somebody wrote that “God is Dead”. It was wrong then as is “Jim” also wrong today…

    A.J.P.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Anglicanism is Dead or at least in deep decline, but the Empire is gone so that’s to be expected.

      Christianity isn’t dead it just has no leaders in America or Europe.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Where is this interest in Anglican Christianity coming from, V.X.X.C.?

        A.J.P.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          Jim.

          It’s his preferred solution. That he doesn’t believe in.

          I myself have nothing against them.

          • jim says:

            When Church and State were one, and the state religion was Anglicanism, when Anglicanism was headed by the King, and everyone had to be Anglican to get anywhere near the levers of power, England conquered most of the world and gave us the scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions

    • Red says:

      How many children do you have? How many children, do you your children have? The churches are empty of true born children and thus are dying.

  16. Warner says:

    In places like Brazil, old-school Christianity still lives on (even in forms that are bad, like lynching-Hypatia bad):

    http://www.therakyatpost.com/world/2015/06/28/hate-crimes-shake-brazils-religious-melting-pot/

    “In 1970, just five percent of the population was Protestant. Today, the figure is 22 percent – some 44 million people.

    There are Evangelical television networks, radio stations and a political movement that is now the third-largest group in Congress.

    Known as the Evangelical Front, it opposes racial and gender equality, abortion and gay marriage.

    Religiously motivated hate crimes are not new in Brazil but “are getting worse” with the rise of Evangelicalism, said Ivanir dos Santos, a “babalawo,” or Candomble guardian of secrets.

    But the Evangelical Churches strongly reject African-influenced traditions.

    The effect is especially visible in poor communities, where Evangelicals have made especially large inroads.

    Many of the drug traffickers who rule over Brazil’s favelas, or slums, have converted to Evangelicalism – thanks partly to the pastors who preach in the country’s overpopulated prisons – and have now banned Candomble places of worship on their turf, according to Dos Santos.

    That is changing the soul of cities like Rio de Janeiro, said Helio Santos, head of the Institute for Diversity.

    “This group of neo-Pentecostalists have changed the modern culture of the city. The joy of carnival and samba has become a sin,” he said.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/afro-brazilian-religions-struggle-against-evangelical-hostility/2015/02/05/b6a30c6e-aaf9-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

    “Evangelical Pastor Tupirani Lores, 48, grew up in central Rio in a family that participated in Afro-Brazilian religions. In his early 20s, he converted to Evangelical Christianity, opening his own Generation Jesus Christ church. “The Afro-religions in Brazil, they are Satanic,” he said.

    In 2008, four members of his congregation entered an Umbanda center in central Rio and smashed statues and idols. In 2009, he and Afonso Lobato, one of those involved in the incident, were jailed for 18 days for religious discrimination after attacking Afro-Brazilian and other religions on blogs and videos posted to YouTube. In one video, Lobato said Afro-Brazilian religions were the devil’s work and their leaders homosexuals.

    In 2012, both men were found guilty and given jail sentences that they are appealing. “The question is that nobody silences my voice,” Tupirani said. “Nothing is going to stop me.””

    • jim says:

      Yes, black Christianity lives, and is nominally part of the same religion as white Christianity. But really, it is not.

      • Warner says:

        Their behavior actually reminds me of the simple zeal of recently-converted 4th and 5th century Christians (thus the reference to Hypatia). Do you think that Clovis the Frank had a very sophisticated idea of what he was converting into? The original roots of neat and tidy Western Christianity are cruder than many people (both friends and enemies) think.

        • Warner says:

          http://www.amazon.com/There-Crime-Those-Have-Christ/dp/0520286243

          “* The early monastic movement does not come off well. Zealots who wandered the country side smashing temples were almost all monks. Further, there was virtually no check on their behavior, and they saw themselves as inflicting God’s anger on His enemies. The pagan orator Libanus angrily denounced “black-robed tribes” who wandered the countryside in Syria, terrorizing peasants, begging for food and money, and generally committing banditry. The Egyptian monk Shenoute, after ransacking a prominent Pagan’s house in search of idols, was charged with crimes. His reply was “there is no crime for those who have Christ.”

          * Some famous saints had a dark side. For instance, John Chrysostom once preached that his congregants were to admonish blasphemers, and if that didn’t work, to hit them. “Sanctify thy hand by the blow.” A local synod accused Chrysostom of hitting a man and forcing him to take communion while his mouth was bleeding. Ambrose, who is perhaps best remembered for rebuking Theodosius after massacring civilians in a battle, also urged him not to prosecute monks who had ransacked several Pagan temples.”

        • vxxc2014 says:

          Hypatia wasn’t lynched by Christians as atheists with integrity often point out, she was living in the equivalent of 1980s Lebanon and her litter went down the wrong street.

          Agora is a wonderful movie but it’s not History at all, it’s 300 for Highbrows.

          • vxxc2014 says:

            “and her litter went down the same street.”

            I mean the wrong street. They pelted and not peeled her with tiles.

            No Heliocentrism either.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Heartiste, minion of Satan, observes the symptoms with horror.”

        

There is no “horror” when Christian families undertake God’s work by mentoring and/or adopting children regardless of their ethnicity or racial make-up. Heartiste, the scourge of morality indeed.

        “Yes, black Christianity lives, and is nominally part of the same religion as white Christianity.”



        Don’t be ridiculous. A white Christian and a black Christian are one in the same–their love of Christ only matters in the eyes of the Lord.

        • jim says:

          If you want a good career in progressive circles, better be incapable of noticing evil and madness. I see that you are developing the attitude you need for your career.

          • Corvinus says:

            You are the queen of intellectual contortionism, Jim. The bone of contention is not whether a group of sick individuals performed mock cannibalism, but how your boy Heartiste chomps at the bit to use black magic when defiling women. His sole purpose is pussy. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with seeking poon, but his methodologies are akin to snake-oil salesmen and are a direct affront to principles of the Good Book that you supposedly espouse.

            “Reverend Jesse Jackson, and Reverend Wright…”

            are race baiters and hustlers just like yourself.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Old testament position was that an unowned woman was up for grabs.”

            More shit flinging at the wall. Back in those good ol’days within a Christian community, singlehood did not observably exist. Moreover, families would properly vet who their daughter would “date” and/or marry. Dates would be supervised. Men would refrain from being sexual predators lest their . The Heartiste’s of the world would get their comeuppance for any deviant conduct by the community.

            God is keeping score every time you defend Heartiste.

          • Mackus says:

            >> Back in those good ol’days…
            Well. Duh. Except today are not those days.

            >>Moreover, families would properly vet who their daughter would “date” and/or marry. Dates would be supervised.
            Most of modern “christian” families do not do that.

            >> Old testament position was that an unowned woman was up for grabs.
            I presume woman who has father who actually acts like a father, and keeps an eye on her so she isn’t screwing thugs, is not “unowned”? Because she is owned by her father?

            >>The Heartiste’s of the world would get their comeuppance for any deviant conduct by the community.
            Except today they do not.

            >>God is keeping score every time you defend Heartiste.
            Does God keep score every time a woman screws PUA like Heartiste?
            Or does she get a free pass for fornication?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Well. Duh. Except today are not those days.”

            Wow, you’re astute.

            “Most of modern “christian” families do not do that.”

            African, Asian, and Central/South American Christians do, why not whites?

            “Except today they do not.”

            Right, today, they are lionized. Jim approves of putting men on that pedestal.

            Does God keep score every time a woman screws PUA like Heartiste?

            Yes, He does.

            “Or does she get a free pass for fornication?”

            No, she does not.

          • Mackus says:

            >>African, Asian, and Central/South American Christians do, why not whites?
            When whites start to as well, PUA will be no more, just like there weren’t exactly many of them century ago.
            You won’t stop mass fornication by fighting men who engage in it, but by reducing supply of easy women.

            >>Yes, He does.
            >>No, she does not.
            Good. I was making sure if you aren’t person who would make excuses for them. You are being consistent.

        • jim says:

          A white Christian and a black Christian are one in the same–their love of Christ only matters in the eyes of the Lord.

          Reverend Jesse Jackson, and Reverend Wright have characteristics that, if Jesus still lives, matter a great deal to him.

            • jim says:

              A genuinely black Christianity would be tribal with respect to black Christians, but not tribal with respect to blacks killing blacks, and would get extremely pissed with anyone, black, white, Christian, or black Christian, killing black Christians.

          • Then Rev Manning is your man. In the video linked above he advocates boycotting black businesses in Harlem.

            Here he talks about blacks being demon possessed:
            Breaking the Demonic African Ancestral Spirits
            https://youtu.be/-eZSb9dArVg

            On Katrina: “Niggers still going to be niggers until Christ gets a hold of them.” https://youtu.be/KeKN4iCbMFM

            Manning is sanctifying Harlem for Christ, and he’s going to keep preaching till he succeeds.

          • Corvinus says:

            “A genuinely black Christianity would be tribal with respect to black Christians, but not tribal with respect to blacks killing blacks, and would get extremely pissed with anyone, black, white, Christian, or black Christian, killing black Christians.”

            Your qualifier being “genuinely”. See, Christian blacks daily renounce their brethren who commit obvious sin as you described, unlike yourself with Heartiste.

  17. Erik says:

    Again? It happens from time to time; don’t read too much into it. Christianity died when the apostles were left without Jesus, and when the Roman Empire fell to barbarians, and when the feudal system ended, and when the scientific revolution happened, and wouldn’t you know it, the religion celebrating a resurrection at its heart just kept getting back up from the dead.

    • Warner says:

      “and wouldn’t you know it, the religion celebrating a resurrection at its heart just kept getting back up from the dead”

      As Jesus Christ Himself put it:

      http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-18.htm

      “And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

  18. Christendom is alive and well, that is the problem. This is why the West, which is still Christendom must destroy all traces of its former self. Alien religions are fine, because alien religions are not Christianity and hence do not tell the West what it should or shouldn’t be (or what it was). The traditionalists are a remnant of a past Christianity that Christendom has evolved past, and that is the greatest insult to Christendom.

  19. Steve Johnson says:

    According to Froude Roman paganism was already dead by the fifth decade BC.

    As to punishment, none could be too severe; but with that remarkable adherence to fact, which always distinguished Caesar, that repudiation of illusion and sincere utterance of his real belief, whatever that might be, he contended that death was not a punishment at all. Death was the end of human suffering. In the grave there was neither joy nor sorrow. When a man was dead he ceased to be. He became as he had been before he was born. Probably almost every one in the Senate thought like Caesar on this subject. Cicero certainly did. The only difference was that plausible statesmen affected a respect for the popular superstition, and pretended to believe what they did not believe.

    • Erebus says:

      Froude is dead wrong. The Roman of 50BC was superstitious and religious — and to an extent we would today find incredible. The rituals of augury and divination were taken seriously by the very vast majority of the populace, and the Gods were accorded tremendous respect.

      It’s true that Cicero was a skeptic — but this is rather blown out of proportion. Most of his criticisms were directed at the rituals of divination — and, it must be noted, he wrote in favor of divination before he wrote against it. It’s also true that (“Divus”) Julius Caesar was to some extent a religious reformer, but, especially in the last years of his life, he was highly active in the rites and rituals of the Roman religion. As Pontifex Maximus, he increased the number of pontifices, augures, and censors. This is not something that a “dead” religion would bother with. In subsequent years, Augustus — Divi Filius — was a great builder of temples and patron of Roman religious life. His guiding policy was “restoration”, and he made many attempts to restore not only Roman civic traditions, but also its ancient religious cults and rituals.

      It’s worth noting that Appius Claudius Pulcher, a Roman Consul circa the fifth decade BC, was actually mad with religion. According to Cicero, his interests included necromancy, whereby he’d attempt to call up the spirits of the dead in order to receive their prophecies. Nigidius Figulus, a contemporary and another member of Rome’s high elite, was even more famous for his intense devotion to religion, magic, and ritual.

      …And I’ve said nothing of the average Roman peasant. I’m sure that little need be said. Suffice it to say that they took their religion and their folk-superstitions very seriously indeed.

      That Christianity is dead, in comparison, seems obvious. (Islam and the cult of Progressivism are alive and kicking, though, as Jim has noted before.)

Leave a Reply