Trump has a good chance

I, and Trump, have always expected that at some point the Cathedral would change the rules to block him because racism.

But now it looks as if they are comfortable with him as Republican candidate, because supposedly Hillary can beat him.

Hillary is a stupid drunken carpet munching bitch.  No matter what polls may say, people are only saying they will vote for Hillary because they know that that is what they are supposed to say.   If Trump becomes Republican candidate, as is highly likely if nothing extraordinary and obviously undemocratic is done to stop him, and if he then starts to lead on Hillary, and then the government does something extraordinary and undemocratic to stop him, that is likely to lastingly discredit democracy.

Mass immigration, and the ensuing fall in living standards and rise in rape and murder, has caused the half boiled frog to show ominous signs of twitching.  The standard response to a twitching frog is to allow the outer party, the conservatives, the appearance of power so that they can conserve the gains made by the left until the frog calms down and the left can resume boiling the frog.

Standard operating procedure would be Trump wins, illegal immigration is halted, legal immigration, like that which brought in the recent jihadi mass murderers, continues, jihadi terrorism continues and escalates, then in eight years illegal immigration quietly resumes again despite loud announcements to the contrary.

But as the left moves ever leftwards, it becomes harder for them to pull off their standard operating procedure.  They are reluctant to slow down just because the frog is showing signs of life.

So, predicting Trump gets the Republican nomination, predicting that he easily outpolls Hillary, predicting that he will win unless the government does something undemocratic to stop him, which it well may, predicting that if elected, he will find the permanent government highly uncooperative, and that anything he manages to do, will be quietly undone.  Predicting high risk of crisis that the left causes, and does not need to cause, that just as they are engaged in proxy war with Russia and are spoiling for open war with Russia for absolutely no sane reason, they are spoiling for proxy war and open war with the American voter for absolutely no sane reason.

To state the same prediction in different words:  Either Trump wins or the left does something considerably crazier even than the crazy stuff we have recently seen to stop him.

Tags:

175 Responses to “Trump has a good chance”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    What I almost added to this comment to “Ahote”, ( http://blog.jim.com/war/how-to-genocide-inferior-kinds-in-a-properly-christian-manner/#comment-1175730 ) was that even Mr Trump knows how to sell people an idea, himself in this case. It should be a need and that is shown right on the cover of his book “Crippled America”. Getting things done, especially in the face of the Cathedral’s state religion of Political Correctness, means more than handing someone the blue print of what one prescribes as the best model. It means exposing their weakness, and being the good guys, by the grace of God, it is a true weakness and not a Big Lie.

    A.J.P.

  2. Alrenous says:

    >and then the government does something extraordinary and undemocratic to stop him, that is likely to lastingly discredit democracy.

    https://twitter.com/Alrenous/status/635153927038717952

    Thing is, Trump can beat the permanent government.
    “I am going to do X.”
    “I have been unable to do X because the bureaucracy has blocked me.”
    Heck, it doesn’t even have to be true. Voters will believe him. Voters don’t understand civics – it doesn’t even have to be something POTUS can legally do.

    Do you think Trump will roll over? If he doesn’t, then the bureaucracy has to give him everything he wants, when he wants it. I don’t think they’ll roll over either, so basically this goes down in flames no matter what happens.

    • Alrenous says:

      How likely, do you think, was the Roman Republic not really a Republic for quite a few years before it officially gained an Emperor?

      I’ve been thinking we’re in the Empire period already, because duh. The Empire called itself a republic, the senate still met. This is starting to look a lot like Sulla, though. As per Spengler, as per ruin/nation, stuff takes a lot longer than it seems it should take.

  3. Kgaard says:

    Trump has said repeatedly that he will be the best friend Israel ever had. So what is the problem? What other issue really matters to the elites? At root, are not the elites really one-issue players (or close enough). Trump’s program is not all that drastic outside immigration, which even the elites probably recognize at this point needs to calm down …

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Kgaard”,

      White Genocide is the biggest issue, actually. Jewish Palestine might be an issue, but it’s as much of a proxy for self-hatred, ie. caring about the distant rather than the close-by, as it is an issue about the survival of the Palestinian state.

      I don’t recommend using the 20th Century name for Palestine by the way as it takes away from the religion, the Christian religion.

      A.J.P.

      • jim says:

        Caring about Palestinians is caring for far over near, or allying with far against near. Since no one actually cares about far, this is a reliable indicator of evil. And if Jews had lost the war and were being screwed over by Palestinians, I would say the same thing about caring for Israeli Jews.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Jim”,

          Well, yes. In fact, I have even enjoyed reading your arguments in the same vein previously at this site, which I found to be quite fair.

          I do not, however, enjoy the argument you are making now, precisely for the fact that it reads a meaning into my comment which I did not put there… “Palestine” has been the name Christians have used for the region for centuries if not millenia. Romans called it “Palestine”, I think. And certainly Germans by the 13th Century were using that name, referencing Palestinalied (umlaut over the second “a”) and the British Emprire two centuries ago also did. As best as I can tell, the reason for this is because they were conserving the name “Israel” for God-believing Christians and Christendom.

          Again, “Israel” is the name for Christians and Christendom, not for a geographic region regardless of who’s living there. More info.: “Israel” was the name given to the great patriarch Saint Jacob when he waa chosen by God, therefore it cannot be otherwise than a name given to God’s chosen. (And you know who that is, you only need to check your Book of Common Prayer)

          Pop quiz: What’s the second line of the famous carol that begins “Come O Come, Emmanuel”? It’s a song sung by Christians, from a Christian perspective…

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            No. We have nothing to do with the ((patriarchs)) and their Jewing. If you must take inspiration from the ((old testament)),

            And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

            And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

            by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

          • jim says:

            I did not intend to accuse you of caring for Palestinians.

          • ron says:

            @AJP

            I didn’t know that your people thought like that about us.

          • B says:

            >“Israel” is the name for Christians and Christendom

            Sure. “‘America” is the name for Obamaland.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Do you then accuse me of attempting to appear to care about Palestinians? Then I’ve thoroughly demolished such a possibility of an appearance at this point, I should think. All in a day’s work, my friend…

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Do you then accuse me of attempting to appear to care about Palestinians?

              I have lost track of who is accusing who of thinking what. We seem to be mind reading each other’s mind reads.

              No I did not think you were kissing palestinian ass, and did not intend to accuse you of kissing palestinian ass.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re supposed to say that, “B”. I appreciate the traction you’ve given my argument.

          • B says:

            Stealing is wrong.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            B.,

            Oh, I’m sorry. Has something gone missing? :^)

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Attempted theft is also wrong.

            And when you don’t know what to do with the thing you attempted to steal, that’s just criminal stupidity.

            It’s like watching a primitive steal a van and wrap it around a tree because he can’t comprehend how it works. And then emerge from the smoking wreckage, wearing his penis gourd, and stand there proudly with his splayed toes, proclaiming he is the registered owner.

            “No, no, this my vehicle registration!”

            “You’re holding that upside down, buddy.”

          • Jack says:

            Being obsessed with feces is also wrong, and anecdotal evidence confirms Jews are obsessed with poop, constantly, and what’s more, often sexually. Check-mate, rabbi B.

          • Morkyz says:

            Just because a some memes choose to change host, doesn’t mean anyone was stealing, and catholicism is older than judaism anyway.

          • ron says:

            @B

            I’m going to be in Tel Aviv for a job interview this thurs. I think you work in that area, would you like to grab a beer?

          • Eli says:

            @Jack:
            And I thought it was the spotless, pure Germans who were obsessed with the smearing crap genre. Heil Scheiße?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Jews like to say that they’ve outlived many nations in the past, but the Talmud itself is not really that old. Would Jews be prepared to re-write the Talmud if it meant their survival?

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              The Talmud rewrites the Torah, so, yeah, sure.

              The Talmud is so large that one does not even need a rewrite. One just selectively emphasizes certain passages, ignores all the other passages, and then deduces whatever one wants from inconsistencies within the selected passages. As you know, you can deduce anything you want from a contradiction, and the Talmud contains a very large pile of contradictions.

              So one just whips up a religion suitable for the times, deduces it from the Talmud, decorates it with a few random distinctively Jewish symbols, and declares it to be Judaism. Jews do it all the time.

          • B says:

            >anecdotal evidence confirms Jews are obsessed with poop, constantly, and what’s more, often sexually

            Sure. We also eat babies.

            Jews: “we wash our hands after going to the bathroom.”

            Retards: “u r obsessed with poop!”

            Jews: “uh, you guys seem to be dropping like flies from various diseases. Maybe try washing your hands?”

            Retards: “da jooos r obsessed with poop and they gave us all dysentery!”

          • B says:

            Peppermint, nice to see you quoting scripture. But why not the rest of it? What does the future hold for Esau? Let’s ask Obadiah:

            6 How is Esau searched out! How are his hidden places sought out!
            7 All the men of thy confederacy have conducted thee to the border; the men that were at peace with thee have beguiled thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread lay a snare under thee, in whom there is no discernment.
            8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and discernment out of the mount of Esau?
            9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau by slaughter.
            10 For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
            11 In the day that thou didst stand aloof, in the day that strangers carried away his substance, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
            12 But thou shouldest not have gazed on the day of thy brother in the day of his disaster, neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.

            18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.

          • B says:

            >The Talmud rewrites the Torah, so, yeah, sure.

            In the same exact way that a nuclear power plant’s SOP rewrites a physics textbook. I guess the engineers and operators are being dishonest when they look in the SOP for guidance on what to do in a given situation rather than sitting down with the textbook and deriving everything from first principles.

            >The Talmud is so large that one does not even need a rewrite.

            The majority of the Talmud deals with things that have no relevance to everyday situations, for instance, how to bring sacrifices at the Temple, how a king is crowned, various anecdotes, things like that. The parts that deal with everyday situations are not particularly long, especially compared to a typical legal codex.

            >So one just whips up a religion suitable for the times, deduces it from the Talmud, decorates with a few random distinctively Jewish symbols, and declares it to be Judaism. Jews do it all the time.

            You are such an expert in so many fields-fighter aircraft, Judaism…

            It’s amazing, though, how despite this supposed total ease with which we just whip up new religions every Monday and Thursday, the Jews of Yemen, North Africa and Eastern Europe, who split 2500 years ago or more, maintained complete interoperability in every area of life. Kashrut, marriage, the laws of family purity, Shabbat, tefillin, the holidays, you name it. If it’s kosher in Yemen, it’s kosher in France, Russia, Italy, Morocco, Turkey, everywhere. Very strange.

            What is actually going on is that you are projecting the facile dishonesty with which Christians rework their religion according to convenience, so that we can see that divorce is banned by the Catholics, accepted by the Anglicans, no big deal to the Protestants, etc. Or the fast days, or baptism, or everything else. Thus we see Christians considering other Christians not Christian at all. For instance, the attitude of the Protestants towards the Catholics, or of the Amish/Hutterites to the rest of the Christians, or the Mormons and everyone else.

            • jim says:

              >The Talmud rewrites the Torah, so, yeah, sure.

              In the same exact way that a nuclear power plant’s SOP rewrites a physics textbook.

              The Talmud blows off the Old Testament rules on sex and marriage, and comes up with a completely new, unrelated, and entirely incompatible set of rules.

              Then the Talmud reinterprets those rules in unreasonable ways.

              Then it reinterprets its reinterpretation.

              And then the rabbis reinterpret that Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic rules that blow off the Old Testament rules.

              And then the rabbis blow off that rabbinical reinterpretation of that Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic rules that blow off the Old Testament rules and issue a new and unrelated set of rules.

              And, so that the latest rules can plausibly be called Jewish, you decorate them with little details from the Old Testament like a man plucking off his shoe, and giving it to his neighbour.

            • jim says:

              Jews of Yemen, North Africa and Eastern Europe, who split 2500 years ago or more, maintained complete interoperability in every area of life. Kashrut, marriage, the laws of family purity,

              Actually they did not. Rather, high status Ashkenazi Judaism replaced low status North African Judaism in the same way high status progressivism calling itself Christianity replaces low status Christianity.

              The North African treatment of women was pretty much illegal in Israel. You denigrated, ridiculed, and criminalized North African Judaism just as progressives denigrated, ridiculed, and criminalized traditional Christianity.

              Further they did not split 2500 years ago. They split 1600 years ago at the earliest, most likely they split during the crusades, a thousand years ago.

              The reason you are reluctant to take the temple back is that if you have the temple back, you have a duty to make one version of Judaism the state religion of Israel, in place of progressivism, and each Rabbi eyes each of the other Rabbis uneasily, knowing that a lot unresolved disagreements would have to be resolved.

          • B says:

            Ron,

            I am in the greater Tel Aviv area on a daily basis for work, but can’t do Thursday-I try to get home in time to light as early as possible during Hannukah.

            Would be happy to grab lunch Thursday in the general area of Geha Junction.

          • B says:

            >The Talmud blows off the Old Testament rules on sex and marriage, and comes up with a completely new, unrelated, and entirely incompatible set of rules.

            What a scholar you are. Which rules do you mean, specifically? Please quote, with a source.

            >And then the rabbis reinterpret that Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic rules that blow off the Old Testament rules.

            Yes? Which rabbis, and where do they do that?

            >And then the rabbis blow off that rabbinical reinterpretation of that Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic reinterpretation of the Talmudic rules that blow off the Old Testament rules and issue a new and unrelated set of rules.

            That sounds TERRIBLE. I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a source.

            >And, so that the latest rules can plausibly be called Jewish, you decorate them with little details from the Old Testament like a man plucking off his shoe, and giving it to his neighbour.

            As usual, you skimmed something, didn’t understand it, and now misquote it to attempt to bluff that you have some sort of grasp on the subject matter. He doesn’t give it to his neighbor-he gives it to the neighbor’s DONKEY, of course.

            >Rather, high status Ashkenazi Judaism replaced low status North African Judaism in the same way high status progressivism calling itself Christianity replaces low status Christianity.

            More projection. The Moroccans, Algerians etc. have their religious authorities, customs, etc. None of these have been replaced, or are being replaced. The North Africans are quite proud of all this. Had someone attempted to impose Ashkenazi customs on them, there would have been a huge stink. Fortunately, since Sepharadim and Ashkenazim are in agreement on all the major points-marriage, divorce, Shabbat, kashrut, family purity, holidays, etc.-there was never any need to impose anything on anyone.

            >The North African treatment of women was pretty much illegal in Israel.

            What North African treatment of women? If you are talking about polygamy, nobody ever claimed that the polygamous marriages of North African Jews were not kosher. These marriages were infrequent to begin with and there have been very few new ones, but nobody ever claimed that they were not halachically valid.

            >Further they did not split 2500 years ago. They split 1600 years ago at the earliest, most likely they split during the crusades, a thousand years ago.

            Not so. The Babylonian Exile happened 2600 years ago. A small fraction of the exiles came back to the Land of Israel. Ashkenazim come from them. Most Jews stayed in Babylon, where they had their own religious authorities, customs, etc. From there, some went to North Africa and some went to Yemen and some went to Persia and Afghanistan.

            • jim says:

              >The Talmud blows off the Old Testament rules on sex and marriage, and comes up with a completely new, unrelated, and entirely incompatible set of rules.

              What a scholar you are. Which rules do you mean, specifically? Please quote, with a source.

              We have done this repeatedly, and you just bareface lie, denying the undeniable.

              Old Testament. Women are property, not in the sense that you can do anything you like to them, but in the sense that pets are property. Women are not thought of as rightly possessing any agency, nor as competent to rightly exercise any agency. No distinction between rape and seduction, except that in the case of seduction into illicit sex the woman gets punished as well as the man.

              The Old Testament correctly assumes that women rather like successful rape and are apt to fall in love with their rapist. Bad rapist behavior is not the initial rape, but dumping the woman when he is done, and/or raping that is another man’s property. It is primarily a property crime against the man who rightfully owns the woman, and only a crime against the woman to the extent that the rapist dumps her when finished.

              Talmud: First version. Women have limited agency, to be exercised under male supervision. For a man to rape a woman is morally different from a man seducing a woman. Rape, rather than abandonment, is itself a crime against the woman – which treats female protestations and rationalizations more seriously than they deserve.

              Subsequent versions all over the place on female agency, some granting women alarmingly great agency, others not so much. All versions grant women substantial agency, but differ radically in how much, varying from pretty much like Islam to pretty much like twenty first century progressivism, reflecting the surrounding culture going back and forth between permissiveness and patriarchy.

              >Further they did not split 2500 years ago. They split 1600 years ago at the earliest, most likely they split during the crusades, a thousand years ago.

              Not so. The Babylonian Exile happened 2600 years ago. A small fraction of the exiles came back to the Land of Israel. Ashkenazim come from them. Most Jews stayed in Babylon, where they had their own religious authorities, customs, etc. From there, some went to North Africa and some went to Yemen and some went to Persia and Afghanistan.

              And, returning, built the temple, and having the temple, exercised authority over other branches of Judaism, as we can see in communications between the far flung branches of Judaism and the temple authorities – as for example the polytheistic Jews of Elephantine asking the monotheistic Jews of Israel for permission for this and that religious practice.

              Judaism is supposed to be a state religion, and when, due to the vicissitudes of war, it ceases to be, it lacks authority. Because the Jews in Israel had a state and a state religion, they were able to bring Jews and Hebrews all over the world, far beyond the boundaries of state of Israel, back into line.

              And you could do this again today had you the will to do so.

          • B says:

            >Women are property, not in the sense that you can do anything you like to them, but in the sense that pets are property.

            Oh, Prophet Jim has had another Revelation. Earlier he was explaining that in the Torah women were like a chest of drawers, but now he has had an epiphany-rather, they were like a pet cat. Presumably, you could sell your wife, or a female war captive you’d had sex with? No? Why is that?

            >Women are not thought of as rightly possessing any agency, nor as competent to rightly exercise any agency.

            Where does it say that? Which exact “thou shall” or “thou shall not”?

            Or do you want to derive women’s supposed lack of agency in the Torah from your personal interpretation of various Biblical stories? In that case, you’d have to explain G-d telling Abraham to listen to his wife, and Rivka having the final word with regards to her marriage to Isaac, and Devorah the Prophet, and the Daughters of Zelophehad.

            >No distinction between rape and seduction, except that in the case of seduction into illicit sex the woman gets punished as well as the man.

            Which is to say, has agency. You can’t punish someone who has no agency.

            >Talmud: First version. Women have limited agency, to be exercised under male supervision. For a man to rape a woman is morally different from a man seducing a woman. Rape, rather than abandonment, is itself a crime against the woman – which treats female protestations and rationalizations more seriously than they deserve.

            Where does it say that? Please quote the specific tractate of the Talmud, with page number.

            >Subsequent versions all over the place on female agency, some granting women alarmingly great agency, others not so much. All versions grant women substantial agency, but differ radically in how much, varying from pretty much like Islam to pretty much like twenty first century progressivism.

            Which versions? What do they say specifically? Quotes, please.

            >And, returning, built the temple, and having the temple, exercised authority over other branches of Judaism, as we can see in communications between the far flung branches of Judaism and the temple authorities – as for example the polytheistic Jews of Elephantine asking the monotheistic Jews of Israel for permission for this and that religious practice.

            Elephantine is not Babylon.

            Communications do not imply authority.

            The communities of Bavel had, for instance, the Exilarch.

            There was no authority mechanism by which the Jews of Israel could impose their will on those of Bavel, except for the Great Assembly…but you don’t believe the Great Assembly existed.

            >Judaism is supposed to be a state religion, and when, due to the vicissitudes of war, it ceases to be, it lacks authority. Because the Jews in Israel had a state and a state religion, they were able to bring Jews and Hebrews all over the world back into line.

            Could you please give me an example of the Second Temple-era Jewish authorities of Israel imposing their will on the communities of Babylon? With a source and everything.

            • jim says:

              The laws of the Old Testament on women and sex are perfectly clear, and treat women as property, and as psychologically and emotionally incapable of competently exercising agency in sexual and reproductive matters. And if they were not perfectly clear, we have various bible stories showing how these laws were applied in practice, which stories show that these laws meant what they said, and said what they meant.

          • Eli says:

            @B and Jim:
            I’m most definitely not the epitome of an expert, but I do have some interest in understanding Judaism, at least through historical prism.

            I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with the idea of Halakha unraveling, and certain practices, including concerning treatment of women, changing between, say, 100 BC and 1000 AD or further on.

            Moshe Koppel wrote “Meta Halakhah,” which to me, a former CS/physics undergrad with fascination in math foundations, seemed like a good read, explaining that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with written laws incorporating truth, as circumstances provide the context in which it is revealed. Tradition gets carefully updated.

            Further, a proposal on Jewish State’s involvement, by Moshe Koppel:

            http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2013/07/a-modest-proposal/

            I think his basic idea is that Judaism gained a lot from being a portable, distributed-community kind of religion. A forceful involvement of the State in communal affairs would degrade this unique advantage, and lead to other problems. I find Koppel’s position echoed by historical evidence presented in Shaye Cohen’s “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society)”, as well as illustrated in this fascinating paper: http://www.jewishrecon.org/resource-files/files/Shaye%20Cohen%20-%20the%20Matrilineal%20Principle%20in%20Historical%20Perspective.pdf

            (if the link doesn’t work, look for Shaye Cohen and matrilineal).

            I don’t know about how Koppel views the idea of recreation of Third Temple and Sanhedrin, but it might be an orthogonal issue.

            • jim says:

              I think his basic idea is that Judaism gained a lot from being a portable, distributed-community kind of religion. A forceful involvement of the State in communal affairs would degrade this unique advantage, and lead to other problems.

              No doubt. But that the state religion of Israel is progressivism causes problems also, and Judaism is supposed to be a state religion. There is something distinctly fake and inauthentic about a non state Judaism. When the second temple was built, the warriors did not have much state political control beyond the city walls of Jerusalem, but the priests gradually gained religious authority over Jews dispersed all over the world, as we see in the letters between the Jews of Elephantine, and the Jews of Jerusalem.

              Because there is something phony about non state Judaism, all religious Jews supposedly want the temple back – but do they?

              Supposedly, Judaism being non state is just a temporary emergency expedient, and they all piously want the temple back.

            • jim says:

              Moshe Koppel wants want Israelis supposedly have – a secular state in which religion is a private matter: The libertarian ideal, the enlightenment ideal. Trouble is that in practice you get a theocratic state in which the official religion is progressivism.

              Israel is an unprincipled exception to progressivism. It is an apartheid state. And unprincipled exceptions always get abolished sooner or later.

              You always get a state religion. When the United States was formed each of the thirteen states had its own separate and independent official state religion. The American Mormon War and the American War between the States were holy wars in which a single state religion was imposed on all the states of the Union.

              State religions tend to be obnoxious, for the reasons that the enlightenment points out. But I would say that Anglicanism from the Restoration to the Regency was pretty innocuous, as state religions go.

              Judaism has been a non state religion for a nearly two thousand years, but it has always pretended to be a state religion in which the state has unfortunately and temporarily gone missing.

          • peppermint says:

            We can do better than be cargo cult priests. The word religion doesn’t even have one clear meaning.

            Middle class people want to signal their comfort level, to impress each other and women. They do this by calling for the genocide of their kind. They also want to signal reliability to their fellow men, and do this by repeating the most audacious lies.

            Women, from unmarried women on Facebook to older catladies on Facebook, want to signal their purity. They do this by repeating propaganda.

            Once everyone has a sense of who is signaling what with their speech acts, it becomes possible to put political speech into context and ignore it properly.

          • Eli says:

            >Moshe Koppel wants want Israelis supposedly have – a secular state in which religion is a private matter: The libertarian ideal, the enlightenment ideal. Trouble is that in practice you get a theocratic state in which the official religion is progressivism.

            I, too, got the feeling that Moshe Koppel’s strong emphasis on community and non-state involvement in community affairs smacked of libertarian idealism of sort. Maybe I misunderstood.

            Nonetheless, it seems there is a lot of minutiae on which various Jewish communities disagree, even within Ashkenazi Jewry. Hence, any statewide jurisprudence by the, presumably, explicitly Jewish government of future Israel will need to be limited to a “core” of what constitutes Judaism.

            Just how I see it.

            • jim says:

              Moshe Koppel notices that progressivism is theocratic, but neglects to draw the obvious conclusion.

              Private Judaism tends towards excessive holiness, which would be a great nuisance in a state religion. A state religion should not compete on holiness. Since it is the official religion it should not need to, but the trouble is you get competition for posts within the state religion, which is apt to lead to a holiness spiral, and state enforced holiness spirals are apt to be quite deadly.

              The merry monarch solved this problem adroitly by making it high status to ridicule anyone holier than the King, and, notoriously, the King was not very holy.

              The original Hebrew religion avoided the problem by making priesthood hereditary in the male line. The religion of Saga Period Iceland made priesthood private property, which could be purchased or inherited. Japan also makes shinto priesthood private property which should be passed down in the family but can be purchased. Note the interesting combination of a state religion with private property rights in that religion. Compare with feudalism where you have private property rights in legal jurisdiction. This stabilizes the state religion against excessive holiness.

          • Eli says:

            First, I don’t view “excessive holiness” as a big problem in Judaism, private or not. Maybe you have some evidence that can convince me otherwise?

            Secondly, I would probably agree that power struggle (maybe that’s what you really meant?) could ensue. Historically, we have witnessed examples of power struggles between Jewish kings, kings and priests and power struggles between the elite Aaronites/Sadducees (priestly group of the Temple) and, likely forefathers of Pharisees/today’s Rabbis, the Levites.

            I will readily admit, however, to be an idealist. I believe in two things:

            1) A society guided by Halakhah can overcome petty power conflicts to arrive at workable arrangement.

            2) Being pro-tech, we will be able to harness very high energy sources and grow civilization indefinitely. A lot of power struggle issues can be resolved when people seek power inwardly, by growing their own families, clans.

            3) For any irresolvable matters, it’s possible that local conflicts can be adjudicated by King, even the King has to do some killing to convey a point (alas). Do hope though, it’ll not come to that.

            • jim says:

              First, I don’t view “excessive holiness” as a big problem in Judaism, private or not. Maybe you have some evidence that can convince me otherwise?

              Excessive holiness cannot be too serious a problem in a non state religion, since if one Rabbi is too keen on hair shirts, the congregation is apt to wander off to a rabbi with a rationale for not wearing hair shirts. This generates the elaborate system of stringencies and leniencies – one Rabbi creates a fence around something prohibited, expanding the prohibition, the next rabbi creates a fence around the fence, the next rabbi, pokes loopholes in the fence.

              Excessive holiness was a very serious problem the last time Judaism was a state religion, in that the Jews would not take yes for an answer from the Romans. The wars between the Romans and the Jews occurred because the Jews were stubborn, extreme, and unreasonable.

              Neighbors of Synagogue sacrifice chickens. Jews riot. Roman government intervenes to stop the sacrifice of chickens. Refusing to take yes for an answer, Jews murder Roman governor. Romans impose mild collective punishment. Jews ridicule mild collective punishment. Romans go Roman on the Jews.

          • B says:

            >The laws of the Old Testament on women and sex are perfectly clear, and treat women as property,

            Repeating yourself endlessly is not the same as proving your point with sources, or responding to my bringing of sources which disprove your point.

            Since, in typical Christian fashion, you neither have a grasp on the source material nor context, you just repeat your assertion, occasionally attempting to support it with a quote taken out of context, while ignoring both the context and the many instances that contradict your assertion.

            • jim says:

              Repeating yourself endlessly is not the same as proving your point with sources,

              You have demonstrated total immunity to sources and evidence. I don’t debate with habitual liars.

          • B says:

            >The merry monarch solved this problem adroitly by making it high status to ridicule anyone holier than the King,

            What are you gibbering about? The prophets were holier than the King, rebuked the King on occasion, and certainly were not ridiculed.

            >notoriously, the King was not very holy.

            Yes, that is why we see King David as a religious figure and a prophet, and why we read his Psalms every day, multiple times. That is why we read King Solomon’s Proverbs and pray for the return of the Temple which he merited to build.

            The problem with non-Jews attempting to understand Judaism is that they model it on their society and values, and ignore everything that doesn’t fit (most of it.)

            >The original Hebrew religion avoided the problem by making priesthood hereditary in the male line.

            The priests had no major legal powers. I don’t know of any example in the Torah of priests who were acting as such making legal decisions for the people. Eli, for instance, was a legal authority based on his personal stature, not his priestly status.

            • jim says:

              >The merry monarch solved this problem adroitly by making it high status to ridicule anyone holier than the King,

              What are you gibbering about?

              Stuff that ignorant morons are unlikely to understand. Try googling “the merry monarch”

          • B says:

            Some royal British degenerate of no relevance to the subject matter.

            As I have said, the problem with non-Jews attempting to understand the Torah is that they try to map it onto their society and mores and cut off that which does not fit (most of the important bits.)

            • jim says:

              Some royal British degenerate of no relevance to the subject matter.

              No relevance that you know of or are willing to understand.

          • Ron says:

            @B

            @Jim

            Jim, I’m assuming you have mine and B’s email addresses because the system requires it, can I ask you for a favor? Could you please send my email address to B? I would rather not post it on an open forum because of spambots.

            Of course, I would understand if you’d rather not, it’s a weird request. But thanks in either case.

          • B says:

            >Neighbors of Synagogue sacrifice chickens. Jews riot. Roman government intervenes to stop the sacrifice of chickens. Refusing to take yes for an answer, Jews murder Roman governor. Romans impose mild collective punishment. Jews ridicule mild collective punishment. Romans go Roman on the Jews.

            This is not what the sources say happened. Since I previously brought you those sources (after you misquoted them,) I have to assume you are not ignorant but rather a liar.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Peppermint Papist”,

          What’s it like being so ignorant?

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            AJP: Let’s hold up these hook-nosed heroes of a parasite race as our sacred figures instead of our own heroes like Paul Bunyan, Ben Garrison, and the Moonman, because foreign acting heroes can be rallied around

            Peppy: jewloving faggot cuck tard

            AJP: igna’int raciss cragga mufugguh

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Hell is forever!

          • peppermint says:

            see, the fact that you would put your personal comfort in the afterlife over the future of your race, especially when that future is more threatened than ever in history, is proof that you are a faggot larpy cuck

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            How long is forever, “Peppermint Papist”? That’s about one hour times, well, infinity…

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            PAUL BUNYAN

          • fnd says:

            Lol Ben Garrison hates neo nazis like urself

    • John Jones says:

      After his last speech to the Jews, I think Donald may be meaning by “Best Friend” that he is really going to do what’s in their best interest in the long run, which of course they never do for themselves because they always think that blowback does not exist for them.

  4. Dave says:

    The Federal government is currently banned from hiring persons with felony convictions. The Obama administration plans to remove this ban because it disproportionately excludes blacks and Hispanics.

    Trump should not restore the ban when he takes office. Instead, he should make clear that any department that disobeys his orders will see its staff immediately increased 50% by hiring black felons for minimum wage plus anything they can steal, and anyone who complains will be fired for racism.

  5. Chip Harding says:

    Seems a bit optimistic to imagine that Trump really wants to win the election, and much more so to imagine that Trump in office would be particularly inclined to provide the product he advertised to the American people during the election. I really can’t see why he’d do that. Has he ever shown any signs of being a man of great principle in the past? Chopped down any cherry trees?

    I don’t see it. He’s kicking the Overton window a few inches in the right direction. That’s more than we thought we’d get this year. But we’re still doomed, and one politician can’t possibly hope to persuade Cthulhu to swim left any slower. Faster, maybe. Not slower.

    Doomed. Dee oh oh em ee dee DOOMED. Like the Romans.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      It’s easier to be defeatist when you’ve given yourself no chance. Dee Eee Eff Eee Aye Tee…

    • jackmcg says:

      Why wouldn’t you assume Trump really wants to win the election? He’s giving speeches every night all over the country, he has a phenomenal ground game, qualifying for ballot in every state he can so far, and it is not a good business move to come out as hard right wing, he was dropped by Macys and NBC – it won’t help his bottom line.

      Really, you had an excuse when he first announced since he teased candidacy in the past before pulling out, but at this point if you’ve been paying any attention at all, you are forced to admit that Trump is in it to win it. There is no other conclusion.

  6. BobbyBrigs says:

    The question I’ve been pondering, what does Trump want? American elites generally don’t hold formal public office.

    • peppermint says:

      I don’t care, I just want to see an aidsfag shivering in the cold and no one giving him a blanket, a rabbi sighing and erasing another swastika from his synagogue, and a former womens’ studies professor asking me if I want fries. Trump can create the conditions for that, and maybe he mint even make me believe in something again. Hail Trump, eternal emperor of the White race.

      By the way, I like the part where he called out the filthy rat kikes and told them they weren’t going to be able to buy him. They cried oy vey, it’s anuda shoah, which they will say six million more times before the steel door toothed gas chamber is closed and gaseous cyanide is pumped in.

      Trump can not be stumped and Hillary is a shamelessly lying woman, only aidsfags and womens studies professors will vote for her. Commies can even vote for Trump and say it’s because Hillary wants a military confrontation with the Tsar to protect ISIS.

    • jim says:

      Trump wants to be president.

  7. peppermint says:

    Prairie nigger Vox Day, who is overly impressed by the conquerors’ medicine men promising eternal life if you eat the cracker every week, just released a new book, “Cuckservative”. Is it a good idea to buy it? It might trigger some people so see it being bought.

  8. Remnant says:

    Trump’s main obstacle is the nomination. If he gets the nomination, he will destroy Hillary. It will be a landslide. The mainstream doesn’t see this yet because they are still too slow to understand how formidable Trump is. Same mistake Jeb made.

    For a Republican candidate, Trump will pull record numbers of black and (yes) Hispanic voters. And that’s to say nothing of the millions of blue dog Democrats who will go to Trump. It will be a 1984 Reagan v. Mondale type landslide if Trump makes it to the nomination (and doesn’t get killed before election day).

  9. Mark Citadel says:

    I hesitate to say this, but I doubt he will be allowed the White House. Even if it comes down to extreme measures like rigging the entire election, or having him assassinated, but fortunately if they have to resort to this, we’ve already won. ‘Democracy’ will have been exposed.

    • jackmcg says:

      I agree, he has done those who claim democracy is a fraud a huge favor… if only by calling attention to the amount of shady money in politics.

      If there’s further shenanigans… he’s cockblocked at the convention, they buy faithless electors in the general, they assassinate him… well the big lie will be force-fed to the American people, raw and unvarnished.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        This is the biggest thing. Conventions aren’t decided by the primaries, they are decided by the delegates. easy enough to pull a coup against Trump using this shameless tactic because those who vote Trump are not the die-hard Republicans

        • Joe says:

          I wonder if the establishment wouldn’t be a lot better off with a President Trump than they would be with a Trump who had been clearly and publicly cheated of the nomination through shady tricks. I’m imagining the kind of base support he’d gain and the kind of righteous, indignant, revenge-seeking tear he’d be on for the next four years. I think the Republican establishment would destroy itself by doing something like that.

          I’m ready to follow Trump or the next white male demagogue who comes along promising to make sure the US remains a white country. I really don’t care about any other policies of his or how big a pompous asshole he is. There is no other issue that matters compared to white dispossession.

  10. Andrew E. says:

    What if Trump manages the nomination and the general election and accomplishes all of his main goals including a drastic cut in the size of the permanent bureaucracy (probably necessary anyway to push through his program)? All through the sheer force of his personality and a traditionalist reading of the Constitution, backed by the support of law enforcement and the military to sidestep any anti-constitutional judges, ushering in a decades long restoration of traditional America. Would then Moldbug (and neo-reaction) be proved wrong and the Founders right?

    • squf says:

      I’d really like to see a response to this comment, obviously I don’t have one to offer.

    • jim says:

      And if the Messiah arrives, some religion will be proven right.

      Trump can use the mandate of the people plus the army plus mercenaries to implement the mandate of the people in defiance of the bureaucracy and judges, as Tony Abbot did in Australia.

      But the permanent government remains in place, and pretty soon will resume frog boiling, even if Trump temporarily halts it.

      Tony Abbot was eventually removed from power. His policies remain in place, but are very slowly being white anted, subjected to slow creeping furtive attack.

      Implementing policy against the will of the permanent government is not a revolutionary act, though we can expect the permanent government to be shocked and hysterical. Removing and replacing the permanent government is a revolutionary act.

      • peppermint says:

        is Trump going to make the same mistake as Reagan, or will the Republican Party have read buffalo jockey Vox Day’s pamphlet SJWs Always Lie?

  11. Thrasymachus says:

    What JIm said, with some modification. The system is OK with Trump for the same reason they were OK with Giuliani and Bloomberg, occasionally an authoritarian but still liberal figure is needed to clean up the messes progressives leave.

    https://deconstructingleftism.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/donald-trump-and-authoritarian-liberalism/

  12. John Jones says:

    Would anyone here see the utility in a Trump-Carson ticket? Trump will shock people with the number of black and women votes he will get against Hilary.

    • John Jones says:

      p.s. The trouble will be, … with white males, who made that book for them in numbers that they should, so infected with SJW’s is our population.

    • peppermint says:

      haha, no. carson is an affirmative action nigger and that’s good enough for 99% of the country but not for Donald Trump, Emperor of the White Race

    • Just Sayin' says:

      Not really, Carson is pretty much a joke as candidate, a way for boomer evangelical cucks to signal by adopting a negro candidate instead of a negro pet, so this would be a form of affirmative action cucking.

      But I don’t really know who would be a good VP choice,

  13. Neocolonial says:

    Trump will choose the most capable second he knows.

    It won’t be an obvious choice, until he makes it.

    When he makes it, the left will scream.

    It will be someone who no one other than Trump could get away with choosing as a second.

    And Trump will make it work out in the most marvellous manner, because that is what he does.

    • pdimov says:

      “It will be someone who no one other than Trump could get away with choosing as a second.”

      Ann Coulter?

    • jim says:

      It will be someone who no one other than Trump could get away with choosing as a second.

      That would be truly great.

    • John Jones says:

      Doh! What am I saying? Whoever he chooses can only screw things up because … they’re not trump. I would look for an Alvin Barkley-type Veep. Somebody real milquetoast somebody who understands that the vice presidency is not worth a warm bucket of spit and is happy with that.

  14. Alrenous says:

    http://blog.jim.com/party-politics/trump-has-a-good-chance/#comment-1177643

    >property

    >Bad rapist behavior is not the initial rape, but dumping the woman when he is done

    > No distinction between rape and seduction, except that in the case of seduction into illicit sex the woman gets punished as well as the man.

    That’s contradictory. You can’t commit crimes against property, only against owners. Property without an owner is simply free stuff.
    Punishing someone who has no agency can’t lead to a change in behaviour, and is irrational.

    • jim says:

      > No distinction between rape and seduction, except that in the case of seduction into illicit sex the woman gets punished as well as the man.

      That’s contradictory. You can’t commit crimes against property, only against owners.

      You can commit a crime against property, in that if you mistreat a dog, it is a crime. The Old Testament protects women from mistreatment in much the same style as it protects oxen from mistreatment.

      Property without an owner is simply free stuff.

      Read the Old Testament. If you catch a woman with no owner, or an owner that does not care all that much, then you own her, same as when you catch a fish in the sea you own the fish. A woman without an owner is indeed “simply free stuff”, like a fish in the sea.

      • B says:

        >The Old Testament protects women from mistreatment in much the same style as it protects oxen from mistreatment.

        Where does it protect oxen from mistreatment? Quote, please.

        And where does it talk about an extra punishment for someone who has humbled an ox? Quote please?

        >If you catch a woman with no owner, or an owner that does not care all that much, then you own her

        Yes? Where does it say this?

        • jim says:

          You are an idiot when you want to be, and previous discussions on this topic have demonstrated that you are immune to evidence and reason.

          If someone who was willing to listen the answer asked me that question I would answer it but talking to you is like talking to a wall.

          • B says:

            No, you wouldn’t answer the question, because the things you claim are not to be found anywhere in the Torah, so you blow squid ink.

            Now explain to me again how in Judaism a man who marries his uncle’s widow gives his socks to his fellow…or was it his neighbor?

            No, I know, it was his neighbor’s donkey. That’s it, he gives the socks to his neighbor’s donkey.

            • jim says:

              That is just spam. I am leaving it there so that people can see you are spamming me, but subsequent spam will be deleted, and continual spamming will result in you being blocked.

            • jim says:

              the things you claim are not to be found anywhere in the Torah

              liar.

          • B says:

            Well, it should be pretty easy to prove me wrong by quoting, with proper attribution. The fact that you prefer to respond with insults speaks for itself.

            • jim says:

              In your own mind, nothing ever proves you wrong. Unless someone else is interested in seeing you proven wrong, not going to bother.

          • B says:

            I have been changed my mind after being proven wrong plenty of times. For instance, I was not religious for the majority of my life. Obviously, was convinced to change my mind by people who demonstrated that they knew what they were talking about.

            Just never been proven wrong by someone who has not read the sources being discussed and attempts to bluff his way through.

            Since the vast majority of your audience has not read the sources thoroughly either, and has at best skimmed them, this might work with them, but not with me.

          • red says:

            B you couldn’t even admit that the Chinese didn’t sail to America.

          • B says:

            I’m very impressed that you overcame your assburgers and dysxleia to join the conversation. Good job!

          • Eli says:

            I’d say, B’s contribution to this forum is worth at least 50% of the non- Jim comments section (the other 40 split between spandrell, r n ghost). I can’t see how his hardheadedness is more spamful than, say, peppermint’s tirades, His Royalness “Perrick” imbecilism, or less interesting than the bleating of the of the goats (possibly, including myself) who come to vent here, and play prophets, great thinkers, Warriors, vikings, judges, Kings, analysts etc.

          • BobbyBrigs says:

            Eli, B is a living advertisement for the promotion of anti-semitism.

          • peppermint says:

            I think B says interesting things. The most annoying comment from a filthy rat kike on this board was this ( http://blog.jim.com/culture/republican-party-funds-the-sale-of-baby-meat/#comment-1134887 ) from one of B’s fans. But it was really a display of the Jew mutual self promotion racket that Aryans consider massively annoying and is one reason why Aryans and Jews can’t get along in the same country. But we’re all enlightened cosmopolitans here, and this is the Internet

          • B says:

            >previous discussions on this topic have demonstrated that you are immune to evidence and reason.

            Previous discussions like the one your little Nazi buddy linked to below demonstrated that you take sources very lightly, even ones written in your own language which do not require any context. You had previously attempted to quote Unwin as agreeing with you, whereas he says the opposite of what you do. Why should anyone take your pronouncements on the Torah (which come without a quote or context) seriously if you can’t even accurately quote Unwin?

            • jim says:

              The lie that I specifically linked to as a lie: http://blog.jim.com/party-politics/trump-has-a-good-chance/#comment-1178793

              Which you have never retracted or apologized for.

              On those rare occasions when you actually get something right, I immediately admit you are right.

              You, on the other hand, never admit to being wrong, and when called on it spew insults, abuse, and additional lies, as you are doing right now, by asking “which lie”, when I had already given a link to the lie in question.

          • Eli says:

            I noted above spandrell’s contribution (and, also, I read his blog). The fact that I agreed with B and, subsequently, questioned the former’s knowledge on a particular item does not constitute disrespect in toto.

            Rest of your comment deleted for wasting the reader’s bandwidth by lying about Spandrel and the issues under dispute

            • jim says:

              You are being stereotypically Jewish

              Do you admit that you were wrong about Spandrell being ignorant of the fact that China has many incompatible Chinese languages or don’t you?

              Do you admit that B lied about Spandrell being ignorant of the fact that China has many incompatible Chinese languages or don’t you?

          • Eli says:

            @jim: maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but B never explicitly claimed that spandrell didn’t know the verbal/hieroglyphic diversion between Chinese. It is I who presumed so (possibly, erroneously), based on the fact that when B replied to him with the fact, spandrell left it unanswered.

            • jim says:

              Again, you are being stereotypically Jewish.

              Lying by implication is lying B does it all the time. I don’t have the time to correct or respond to each of his lies and I don’t expect that Spandrell has the time either.

          • Eli says:

            I rarely lie, much less on a silly anonymous blog.

            I don’t know if spandrell knew this or not. When I wrote what I wrote, I was under impression that spandrell did not know.

            Afterwards, spandrell commented that he must defend his reputation and that he, in fact knew that fact about China.

            Assuming the spandrell stated the truth, that implies that I was wrong about spandrell not knowing about hieroglyphs-oral diversion.

            I have no problem with admitting if I’m wrong.

            I still don’t understand why you removed the China TFR statement. I was in agreement with B and disagreement with spandrell back then as I am now.

            • jim says:

              I still don’t understand why you removed the China TFR statement.

              It was, like a comment from B that I also deleted, deception by distraction, bringing in issues that were irrelevant to the dispute, thus misleading the reader to lead him to believe that that the dispute was about something other than what it was, and simply wasting the reader’s bandwidth.

              Accuser:

              “Did you have sex with your neighbor’s nine year old daughter?”

              Defendant:

              “I am entirely innocent of shooting my neighbor’s dog, and proof of this is that the dog is still alive! If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!”

            • jim says:

              I have no problem with admitting if I’m wrong.

              The trouble is you don’t know if you are wrong, have not actually admitted you are wrong, and really should take the necessary trouble to find out if you were wrong. You could check whether B’s misinterpretation of spandrell’s words was plausibly honest, charitable and reasonable, whether spandrell’s words were persuasive evidence that he did not know that China had several languages whose spoken form was not mutually intelligible.

          • Eli says:

            What I should have probably done was to apologize to spandrel right when he posted that statement, negating my assumption. I didn’t.

            So, spandrel, my bad: sorry.

          • Eli says:

            You do realize that I advanced the *possibility* of spandrell being wrong about Chinese dialects-hieroglyphs merely as support for the more important point:

            Distracting irrelevance deleted

            There are lots of things I realize that distract from the issue.

            The issue being that it is insulting and absurd to suggest that spandrell was ignorant of so basic a point

          • Eli says:

            I cannot find the original argument between B and spandrell. To me, the fact that spandrell did not reply to B’s final response, on the dialects-hieroglyphs divergence appeared that that spandrell didn’t know this basic fact. And that absence of response was memorable.

            That’s what I meant by “enlightened him”

            Case closed?

            • jim says:

              I cannot find the original argument between B and spandrell.

              http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-moron-elite/#comment-1007605

              Spandrell says they spoke the same language over thousands of years, which is of course wrong if taken literally. But people of one century do not directly speak to people of another century. In context, he has to mean that Chinese of one era can and do read Chinese of another era and that that Chinese makes sense to them.

              It was unreasonable and dishonest for B to interpret a statement about Chinese of different eras “speaking” to each other as a statement about Chinese of a single era literally speaking to each other.

              In the context that spandrell is speaking of the language remaining intelligible over time, rather than distance, the only possible meaning of “speaking” is “reading and writing”

          • B says:

            >Spandrell says they spoke the same language over thousands of years, which is of course wrong if taken literally.

            Hence I wrote “They did not speak the same language, they wrote the same language.” This is a lie?

            >But people of one century do not directly speak to people of another century.

            So what? If you were sent back to Shakespeare’s time, it would take you about two days to tune your ear to their pronunciation, and you’d be done. If a Chinese person today was sent back 2000 years, practically all of the words would be different, not just pronounced differently, and he’d have to learn how to speak the language all over.

            >In context, he has to mean that Chinese of one era can and do read Chinese of another era and that that Chinese makes sense to them.

            Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who routinely accuses me of twisting texts to say what I want them to say instead of what they say.

            >It was unreasonable and dishonest for B to interpret a statement about Chinese of different eras “speaking” to each other as a statement about Chinese of a single era literally speaking to each other.

            It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

            >In the context that spandrell is speaking of the language remaining intelligible over time, rather than distance, the only possible meaning of “speaking” is “reading and writing”

            Again-this is the man who accuses me of “Talmudically misinterpreting” texts.

            The reality is obviously that when you have a pictographic script, it lends itself equally well to writing any number of languages, which can be completely different.

            • jim says:

              Hence I wrote “They did not speak the same language, they wrote the same language.” This is a lie?

              It is a lie because you “correct” spandrell for a mistaken belief you have no reason to believe he holds. You imply a lie. You lead your reader to believe something you know is not true. You lead the reader to believe that spandrell is ignorant of the fact that Chinese spoken dialects are mutually unintelligible, when you have no reason to believe that spandrell is ignorant of the fact that Chinese spoken dialects are mutually unintelligible, for spandrell is speaking of intelligibility across time, not distance.

          • B says:

            >It is a lie because you “correct” spandrell for a mistaken belief you have no reason to believe he holds.

            What gibberish.

            I am lying because I am pointing out that what Spandrell says is not technically true?

            Spandrell said that “China was stable for thousands of years, even if they had a massive war every 250 or so. They spoke the same language, wore the same clothes, and had mostly the same values for all that time.” I am pointing out that at the very least their language changed drastically, and implying that their values changed just as drastically. In short, I am questioning China’s stability over this time period.

            Now you show up with your assburgers and go “you are a liar! He meant that their script was the same!!!”

            First of all, obviously he didn’t mean that, because if he had meant that, he would have been an idiot. We Jews have the same script as the Assyrians did 2700 years ago-does that mean that Assyrian culture didn’t change over 2700 years and that we are them, or that we share values? I am writing this in the same script as Romans used-does that mean that things have been stable since they started using it?

            Spandrell is not an idiot and so obviously he did not mean this. He’s wrong, not stupid.

            >You imply a lie. You lead your reader to believe something you know is not true.

            Again, assburgers. I pointed out a distinction between what Spandrell said, which is that they spoke the same language, which if true would support his case for the stability of their culture, and the truth, which is that they wrote in the same pictographic script, which tells us nothing much about the stability of their culture.

            • jim says:

              I am lying because I am pointing out that what Spandrell says is not technically true?

              You are lying because you lead your reader to believe that what spandrell technically says is what in fact he meant, when his actual meaning is obvious in context.

              It is as if I was to correct you for saying that spandrell said it, when in fact he wrote it. You, like spandrell, just used the word “say” to mean wrote, and it was obvious in context that spandrell was doing what you just did right now.

          • B says:

            >You are lying because you lead your reader to believe that what spandrell technically says is what in fact he meant, when his actual meaning is obvious in context.

            As I said, you can take the boy out of the Party but you can’t take the Party out of the boy. Words have meanings.

          • Eli says:

            Thanks for linking in the original argument. I call one grand bullshit: you were/are trying to build a case that either I or B or both lied.

            What I’ve noticed about many, including smart people throughout my life is that they tend to see intent (including evil one), where it’s more common/reasonable to assume a mistake or carelessness. It is also obvious that when you want to see such an intent, you will see one.

            In this case, I re-read spandrell and B’s argument. I can see that spandrell meant that Chinese language stayed the same temporally. I I mistook it to mean that he also meant it spatially.

            Spandrell wrote what he wrote. He didn’t address B’s response, which was *right to the point*. Now you are getting offended for spandrell’s sake, trying to build a case to burn witches.

            • jim says:

              It is a notorious Jewish characteristic to lie blatantly and obviously, using too clever by half arguments that misuse words in complicated ways, that a clever person is not fooled by because he can see the Jew is just playing games with words, and a stupid person is not fooled by because he is too stupid to follow the game of words.

              Did spandrell think that Chinese all spoke the same dialect in the sense of being mutually intelligible?

              Spandrell’s words give no reason to believe that he did.

              Did B lead the reader to believe that spandrell thought that Chinese all spoke the same dialect in the sense of being mutually intelligible and that the knowledgeable and expert B was correcting the poor ignorant spandrell?

              That is what B led the reader to believe.

              Thus B lied, and you refuse to admit that he lied because B is playing correctly by Jewish rules. But these rules are morally indefensible and I will call out people who use them on my blog.

              B’s response was not on point but deceptive and dishonest, for B attributed to spandrell’s words a meaning that it was perfectly clear that spandrell did not intend, a meaning that made absolutely no sense in context. That is OK by Jewish rules, not OK by everyone else’s rules. And the Jewish rules are morally wrong.

          • peppermint says:

            Jesus Christ, filthy rat kike, no featherless bipeds are getting turned into lampshades. What’s happening is that Jim is angry on his blog on the Internet.

            Jim believes in a modified version of souls theory in which there are systematic inherited and racial differences in behavioral traits, but only in a few major traits like IQ and aggressiveness. B has consistently argued for what Jim would see as a Jewish exceptionalism, in which the behavioral differences between Jews and the other races are much more subtle and profound. In so doing B has demonstrated his knowledge of Jewish history and Jim has been unable to shoehorn it into a story about Whites.

            Orthodox rabbis aren’t going to publicly make gaymarriages unless so forced by a government that’s about to turn them into soap, and Jews faggots know better than to try to force the issue.

            I have a lot of Jew friends and have dated Jews, I’ve had Jew colleagues, bosses, and underlings. A few orthodox, most bacon-eating, some faggy. I’ve shaken their hands and had scales fall off in my hand, and put my hand over their arteries and felt their cold blood.

            Nazis have always agreed that Jews are exceptional. Which is probably why whoever it was said that B is the biggest living advertisement for anti-Semitism.

            The gene-culture coevolution thesis combined with a flat denial of soul theory and affirmation that physical and behavioral traits are no different suggest that, yes, Jews are different from Chinamen, despite having the same IQ and lack of aggressiveness and sneakiness.

            B is as annoying to the “market dominant minority, nothing to see here” crowd as Corvinus is to would-be right wing Christians.

            B has a reason the law against seething a kid in his mother’s blood, the kind of law you only need to set for a Jew, as you only need to tell a Chinaman not to make earrings for little girls out of cadmium, implies that you can’t put goat cheese kale and caramelized onions on an oxburger, and may in fact need two dishwashers so Satan can’t taste hipster food, but the law against eating pigs doesn’t imply that turkey bacon, designed to taste like bacon, is forbidden.

            This reason works for the Jews in ,managing their community. It is not my community so I will just mock them on the Internet for it.

            • jim says:

              Peppermint wrote:

              B has a reason the law against seething a kid in his mother’s blood, the kind of law you only need to set for a Jew, as you only need to tell a Chinaman not to make earrings for little girls out of cadmium, implies that you can’t put goat cheese kale and caramelized onions on an oxburger, and may in fact need two dishwashers so Satan can’t taste hipster food, but the law against eating pigs doesn’t imply that turkey bacon, designed to taste like bacon, is forbidden.

              This reason works for the Jews in ,managing their community. It is not my community so I will just mock them on the Internet for it.

              I think the causality is the other way around. Jews are taught that twisting the words of their holy books and lying about what they say is high status, which inclines them give the same treatment to sources, to contracts, and to the words of people they are arguing with.

              The problem is that they have adapted their religion to the times without admitting they have adapted their religion to the times, and this makes it high status to not admit stuff, to deny the undeniable. Hence chutzpah.

              We should, however keep this behavior in proportion.

              A gypsy will pick your pocket. Your black neighbor will smash his way into your car to steal your battery because his battery is flat. A Jew will not do these things.

              But gypsies and blacks do this stuff furtively, while Jews get right in your face with absolutely absurd and completely ridiculous chutzpah, as B is doing right now.

          • Eli says:

            Jim, as I’ve said, the fault is mine for mistaking it. I was the one who escalated it to mean what it did not mean. I don’t see that B did anything beyond correcting a technicality.

            I think it’s easy to find a wrong fact if you’re reading someone not in good faith, which I did at the time, because the context was something that was beyond China, and concerned an ideological issue.

            Peppermint, I’m actually heartened that you had Jewish friends etc. You almost remind me of my former Russian-Ukrainian friend from the days as pro-Marxism student in university. Said friend was a vicious antisemite. Though, I’ll give him credit, not as much as his father. Turned out, it was just envy. He was rather successful with women (not just dating), and never wasted time in online forums. He helped his race by getting hitched to a sexy slut (possibly, a former slut) and making kids (however reluctantly).

            • jim says:

              I don’t see that B did anything beyond correcting a technicality.

              In the ensuing drama, I do not hear B saying “I did not mean to imply that spandrell was ignorant of the fact the Chinese dialects are often unintelligible to other Chinese and regret that some people understood that meaning.”

              Rather I see him doubling down on leading people to believe that spandrell was ignorant and B corrected him.

          • B says:

            You’re still a typical leftist, just with the plus and minus signs reversed.

            Just like to leftists blacks gangstomping whites is a nonexistent phenomenon not worthy of mention, while microagressions by whites are not to be tolerated, to you Peppermint and AJ Prick ranting about gassing kikes and the perfidy of the Talmudic Jew is totally cool, but when I neglect to assume that Spandrell meant something other than what he wrote, to ironman his argument, that is a serious, serious microagression which reflects poorly on all Jews 🙂

            • jim says:

              to you Peppermint and AJ Prick ranting about gassing kikes and the perfidy of the Talmudic Jew is totally cool, but when I neglect to assume that Spandrell meant something other than what he wrote

              Untrue: With great regularity I tell those that rant about Jews that their rants are motivated by envy and covetousness and they do not like hearing it.

              And I don’t call you a liar because you failed to ironman what Spandrell wrote. You were a liar because the meaning of what spandrell wrote was obvious in context and you snatched one phrase out its context, and, lacking context, it had a different meaning to that which spandrell plainly intended, treating his words with the same dishonesty and disrespect as you treat your own holy books.

          • B says:

            > liar because the meaning of what spandrell wrote was obvious in context and you snatched one phrase out its context, and, lacking context, it had a different meaning to that which spandrell plainly intended,

            This is projection on your part. In context, it is obvious that the meaning of what Spandrell wrote is that China’s culture has been stable over the millennia, and this stability is demonstrated by linguistic similarities. I pointed out that aside from their pictographic script, the actual language as spoken has changed drastically, and so can’t be used to show stability.

            Now you are taking the whole thing out of context to, in some sort of convoluted Stalinist-type play, accuse me of lying because I did not assume that Spandrell meant what you think he meant, but assumed that he meant what I think he meant. This is the sort of schizophrenia that you get after having been part of a Communist organization.

          • B says:

            >With great regularity I tell those that rant about Jews that their rants are motivated by envy and covetousness and they do not like hearing it.

            Typically, you let it slide. Once every 100 comments about gassing rat kikes, you say something and let it go at that.

            • jim says:

              >With great regularity I tell those that rant about Jews that their rants are motivated by envy and covetousness and they do not like hearing it.

              Typically, you let it slide.

              And typically, when you lie I let it slide. I made a big deal out of this incident because Eli picked up on your lie.

          • B says:

            I do not lie. And if I did, I would do it somewhere where it counted, not here.

            And the proof is that the best you could come up with is this horseshit: “you lie by pretending that Spandrell meant what he wrote.”

            • jim says:

              I do not lie.

              Typical outrageous Jewish Chutzpah. You lie continually, outrageously, egregiously, and with brazen effrontery. I have gotten used to it, bored with it, ceased responding to it.

              But Jews and gentiles have a rather different definition of lying. And by your entirely dishonest and self serving definition, you have not lied. This, however, is unlikely to impress anyone except yourself.

          • peppermint says:

            wir muſſe die Juden auſrotten. Raſſenhaß macht Spaß

            (卐つ◕ل◕)つ·︻┻═━一 ᕕ(✡ᐛ )ᕗ

          • B says:

            Our definition of lying involves saying things that are not true.

            Your definition of truth is alarmingly elastic, as becomes apparent whenever you cite a source, and I check to see what the source actually says.

            Is it true that spandrell believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words?

            Is it true that spandrell said anything that would in context make a reasonable person believe that he believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words?

            The “truth” that you rely on is that spandrell said a SENTENCE FRAGMENT THAT WHEN TAKEN OUT OF THE FULL SENTENCE would lead a reasonable person believe that he believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words, but which within the full sentence is clearly referring to the written Chinese language.

          • B says:

            You have changed my comment to your own text, presumably by accident.

            >Your definition of truth is alarmingly elastic, as becomes apparent whenever you cite a source, and I check to see what the source actually says.

            This is more projection. In reality, as we see over and over again (the Elephantine Papyrii, Unwin, Josephus,) when you refer to a source and then I quote it, we see that you either badly misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted it.

            >The “truth” that you rely on is that spandrell said a SENTENCE FRAGMENT THAT WHEN TAKEN OUT OF THE FULL SENTENCE would lead a reasonable person believe that he believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words, but which within the full sentence is clearly referring to the written Chinese language.

            A reasonable person could read Spandrell’s comments, immediately above my answer, and understand the context. The context being that Spandrell was implying that there was something about the Chinese language over the millennia which implied cultural/civilizational stability. And a reasonable person would understand my objection to mean what it obviously means-that the Chinese language (as opposed to the pictographic script) went through major changes, which implies that Chinese culture also went through major changes.

            But an obnoxious autist would, of course, seize upon a detail, take it out of context, and then run around in circles chanting “you lie!”

            The fact that this is the best you could do when challenged to bring up an example of an untruth I wrote will tell any reasonable person all they need to know.

            • jim says:

              This is more projection. In reality, as we see over and over again (the Elephantine Papyrii, Unwin, Josephus,) when you refer to a source and then I quote it, we see that you either badly misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted it.

              Untrue:

              You cited the Elephantine Papyrii as proving that modern Jewish sexual practices go all the way back. I had never heard of them, but when I looked them up, I found the head of family making a contract with the groom, not the bride making a contract with the groom.

              Which legally treats as women as property and differs radically from current Jewish marriage contracts.

              Now it is clear that the head of household was concerned with the welfare of the woman, and took her feelings into account. But ultimately, it is like selling a dog. The owner of the dog likely wants the dog to go to a good home, but ultimately, the owner decides what a good home is and the dog does not.

              Now I would say that your description was a lie, in that legally, these contracts are sales. The owner of the woman sells the woman to her husband. You say “oh no, it was the truth, in that these contracts give women lots of rights, these contracts are very concerned with the welfare of the woman, blah, blah, blah.”

              Well no. It was not the truth. Because the issue was whether women were property. You cited the Elphantine Papyrii not as evidence that women have lots of rights, that their owners were very concerned with their welfare, but as evidence that women owned themselves.

              They did not.

              The account you gave of the Elephantine Papyrii was a lie, since any reasonable person reading your account would have understood you to be claiming that the marriage contracts were contracts between the woman and her husband, are akin to current Jewish marriages, when in fact the marriage contracts are contracts between the woman’s owner and her husband, a contract between two men, no matter how nice these contracts are to the property being sold, no matter how many rights the owners may give the woman.

              When you truthfully tell me about all the wonderful rights the Elephantine Papyrii grant to women, and somehow neglect to mention that these are bills of sale, are contracts between one man and another man, transferring property from one man to another, you are lying about the Elephantine Papyrii.

          • B says:

            >You cited the Elephantine Papyrii as proving that modern Jewish sexual practices go all the way back. I had never heard of them, but when I looked them up, I found the head of family making a contract with the groom, not the bride making a contract with the groom.

            You asserted that the marriage contract in Judaism is something we got from the Romans. I brought the Elephantine Papyri as an example of a Jewish marriage contract which predated the Romans in Israel by half a millennium. Those contracts are the same as the ketubah of today-the man acquires the woman for a wife (not a slave or a concubine,) and lists his obligations to her, his rights over her and the procedure for a divorce/sum he will pay her if he divorces her without a valid reason/any additional conditions.

            >Which legally treats as women as property and differs radically from current Jewish marriage contracts.

            It is first of all the same as current Jewish marriage contracts in essence, and second of all does not treat women as property. A person who is property is a slave, and we have halachot on how to buy and sell them, rights and obligations of the owner, etc., which are quite different from those of a wife.

            >But ultimately, it is like selling a dog.

            No, it is nothing like selling a dog. It is not even like selling a Jewish slave, let alone a Jewish one. If a slave wishes to leave, it is irrelevant. You do not acquire a slave by saying “you are sanctified to me. Etc.

            >Now I would say that your description was a lie, in that legally, these contracts are sales.

            It is not a sale. The woman has a guardian, not an owner. It is a marriage. A female slave is sold, but a wife is married.

            The exception is a man who sells his underage daughter to someone who wants to marry her to his son when the son turns of age. But even here the sale is one thing and the marriage is another, and the part of the Torah which discusses this situation plainly makes this clear.

            >t was not the truth. Because the issue was whether women were property.

            The first issue was whether our marriage contracts were something we got from the Romans. And plainly, they are not.

            Without acknowledging that you were wrong, you then shifted the goalposts and attempted to explain to me that the Elephantine Papyrii were different from today’s ketubot, in that today women sign ketubot as partners. They do not.

            Again, without acknowledging that you did not know what you were talking about, you shifted the goalposts and started explaining to me that women in the Elephantine Papyrii and preceding periods were property. And again you are talking out of your ass. Property can’t decide that it wants to leave and demand to leave. Property can’t inherit property. Property can’t be humbled. If someone else steals your property or misuses it, you can’t punish property, since it has no legal agency and can’t give consent.

            • jim says:

              You asserted that the marriage contract in Judaism is something we got from the Romans. I brought the Elephantine Papyri as an example of a Jewish marriage contract which predated the Romans in Israel by half a millennium.

              That marriage is a contract between the wife and a husband is something you got from the Christians.

              The Elephantine Papyri are bills of sale in which the owner of a woman sells her to the husband. They are contracts between a woman’s owner and her husband.

          • peppermint says:

            jew marriages are typically negotiated individually and contain a buyout clause?

          • B says:

            >That marriage is a contract between the wife and a husband is something you got from the Christians.

            I’m starting to suspect you of dyslexia.

            Read this again, and carefully: the modern ketubah is not a contract between a husband and a wife. The husband signs it, the wife does not.

            • jim says:

              Read this again, and carefully: the modern ketubah is not a contract between a husband and a wife. The husband signs it, the wife does not.

              If I don’t respond to your lies the first time, that does not mean I failed to read them. It just means I assume that everyone knows you are a brazen bare faced liar and nothing you say is to be believed, so no reply is needed.

              Although the wife does not sign the ketubah the witnesses record her consent. Which makes it a contract between husband and wife.

              Although it retains the form of the bill of sale that it was before Jews adopted Christian marriage and the Christian marriage ceremony, that now the owner no longer signs it or receives money, and that now consent of the bride is witnessed, makes it no longer a bill of sale, but a contract between husband and wife.

          • peppermint says:

            Aryan marriage is a contract between a husband and a wife, but it’s an implicit contract, like when you take a box of chocolate from the store and leave $9 on the counter. Nobody signs anything, the exchange of consideration makes it a contract.

            In an Aryan marriage, a woman chooses to live in a man’s house. If for some reason they don’t want a ceremony wherein a man wearing a dress says something to his invisible friend, they are still recognized by the community at large, and most governments, to be married, and have obligations to each other.

            Aryan marriages do not include a buyout clause. They are exclusive and irrevocable, except upon the death of one party.

            The sole exception to exclusivity is the Moron community, which is really Christian Identarian, and only a few decadent White empires have ever entertained the concept of divorce, ironically, under the guise of protecting women.

            Anyway, since many of the Jewish females in America are so liberated as to molest their baby siblings and then write books about it, their consent is surely effectively part of the marriage contract.

            It takes a certain amount of understanding to utterly ignore the social relations of other races, Whites immensely enjoy do-gooding, especially for the protection of women, especially to protect other people’s women from those people. It is very plausible that the Romans tried to cuck the kikes by emancipating their women and a Roman soldier showed Mary the grace of freedom.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            Your blasphemous rhetoric makes a good case why nobody should bother with logic when dealing with you…Again, politics is exciting, but it’s clear that with such rank disdain of the ideology that is in fact being employed to some effect around you, whether you admit to it or refuse to, it’s a mystery why people believe you’re able of contribuiting substantially to the conversation.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            Correction-the husband does not need to sign it, either.

            The witnesses sign it. What are they witnessing? That the man has acquired the woman for a wife, and that she consents to be so acquired.

            Again-you are moving the goalposts, saying first that we did not have marriage contracts until we got them from the Romans, then saying that the contracts have changed. But it is obvious that we had the contracts a long time before the Romans even existed, and that the basic form of the contract is the same as it was. The woman is acquired for a wife by the man, with her consent. That aspect of the Elephantine Ketubot is obvious-since the Ketubot include clauses where the women can divorce on demand. You can’t enter someone into a contract without their consent if part of the contract is that they can leave the contract at will.

        • peppermint says:

          For one thing, you’re only allowed to use goat cheese on your oxburger, and still can only have turkey bacon either way. I think.

  15. […] wins if nothing insane is done to stop him. Related: Why the media hates Trump. Related: A proposed Trump […]

  16. John Jones says:

    Genius! Genius! Genius! Reiterating that he is opposed to the Republican party: http://fox2now.com/2015/12/09/trump-im-doing-good-for-the-muslims/

    “On a possible independent run for the White House

    Trump said he was not likely to wage a third-party candidacy, but the billionaire businessman would not rule it out.

    “I think it’s highly unlikely unless they break the pledge to me, because it’s a two-way street,” Trump said. “They said they would be honorable. So far, they, I can’t tell you if they are, but the establishment is not exactly being very good to me.”

    He added, “If they don’t treat me with a certain amount of decorum and respect. If they don’t treat me as the front-runner…If the playing field is not level, then certainly all options are open. But that’s nothing I want to do…I’ll know that over a period of a couple of months. We’ll go through the primaries. We’ll see what happens, and I’ll make a determination.””

    • peppermint says:

      yeah, he said this thing about the muzzies when there was no second candidate to get polling numbers off of it but before he became the nominee. Everyone has to take a side on this, and now he knows who his enemies in the Party are

  17. St.Jerome says:

    I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I find it weird that even local media in my country (Croatia – insignificant country in every sense) started bashing Trump.
    Local newspaper published news how eagle attacked him and our state TV (we have that in this socialist shithole) paid a lot of attention to Trump’s opinion about muslims.

    I can guarantee that 95% of Croatians don’t know anything about Democrats or Republicans or other presidential candidates in USA, but now they know that Trump is bad.

  18. vxxc2014 says:

    Trump is our weapon.

    That’s all. That’s the solution he offers.

    He’s Leader as weapon for people who want to protect themselves – or get at – their enemies.

    If he falls we’ll get another, and we’ll get more leaders anyway.

    History is full of such things.

  19. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”,

    By your reckoning, is there any significance to the man adopting an Anglo-Saxon name?

  20. spandrell says:

    Control+F Spandrell gives 65 hits. I blushed.

    FWIW I meant the Mandarins spoke one language. The court koiné. They better had to if they wanted a government post. And educated gentry all over the country were expected to have some familiarity to it. They had to communicate with the government too, and people were forbidden from serving in their native land.

    Of course the peasants couldn’t talk to one another. China is 4 million square km wide. There’s half a dozen language continuums, one pretty big and mild (peasants from Beijing can more or less converse with peasants from Kunming), and some pretty messed up (peasants from Fujian can’t understand the next village up the valley).

    I don’t know what you guys are fighting about, but at any rate the moral of the story is You Don’t Argue About China with Spandrell. I know this stuff, you don’t.

    • B says:

      >FWIW I meant the Mandarins spoke one language.

      Did you mean “spoke,” as in, “what came out of their mouths”?

      • spandrell says:

        Yes, all Chinese mandarins had to assume their offices in the capital, and they had to learn to speak the standard spoken language there.

        When Jesuits got to China in the 16th century, first thing they noticed is that the mandarins and educated gentry spoke differently from the peasants, and this language was common in the whole country.

        Why do you think we call it Mandarin Chinese and not Beijing Chinese? Mandarins couldn’t serve in their hometowns, how do you think they communicated with the locals? Writing?

        • B says:

          Well, Jim has spent a lot of pixels accusing me of being a liar.

          My lie, according to him, is that when you wrote that the Chinese spoke the same language, I willfully misrepresented that as you meaning that the Chinese actually spoke, with their vocal cords, tongue and lips, the same language. According to Jim, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that what you actually meant was that the Chinese WROTE in the same pictographic script throughout the ages.

          Since you’ve just confirmed that what I said you meant was, in fact, exactly what you meant, I would say that this proves my point. Jim, I would like an apology.

          As to the validity of your point-the Chinese educated class probably spoke the same official koine. Similarly, from the 1st century CE to the 19th, most educated people in Western Europe spoke Latin (and probably Greek). Does this show us that Western Europe was STABLE during this timespan?

          • spandrell says:

            Language wasn’t my only argument, but in those terms, Latin proficiency wasn’t common at all in Europe during very large swathes of that span. And the common people were completely replaced in most of it. The Church did keep the language alive so it could grow again over time, which was cool of them I guess.

            Lots of shit happened in China over history, of course. But the language, the institutions, the genepool of the populace has been more stable than anywhere else on earth. They had their one short Volkenwanderung, but it was smaller scale and not as destructive as the one in Europe, let alone the never ending waves of Turks into the Middle East.

          • B says:

            Recently, DNA tests showed that Britain’s population genetics stayed remarkably stable despite waves of foreign invaders taking over.

            Sir Thomas Moore, for instance, was fluent in Latin, as were those of his social class. And I would not be surprised if he had a lot of genetic commonality with his counterpart in Roman Londinum. Yet lots of stuff happened in between Roman Britain and his era.

            Since we’re back at it, I suspect that the most stable place on earth WRT genetics, culture and institutions over time has been Papua New Guinea. Which suggests to me that optimizing for stability alone is not a good idea. You can have stability in grinding squalor and misery.

            • jim says:

              Recently, DNA tests showed that Britain’s population genetics stayed remarkably stable despite waves of foreign invaders taking over.

              That is not true: The DNA tests showed that the Romano British were completely annihilated and totally replaced, except for a few outlying places where Roman influence had been weak as indicated by the low penetration of Roman coins.

              However, since this result was politically incorrect, the pious interpreted the results in a manner flatly and directly opposite to their clear and plain meaning.

          • B says:

            This is a strong assertion that requires some sort of support.

            But first, where’s your admission that you were wrong to accuse me of lying?

            Didn’t you just claim that you admitted when you were wrong?

            Yeah, you did:

            http://blog.jim.com/party-politics/trump-has-a-good-chance/#comment-1178897

            “On those rare occasions when you actually get something right, I immediately admit you are right.”

            Open mouth, insert foot.

            • jim says:

              But first, where’s your admission that you were wrong to accuse me of lying?

              You lied. And your numerous Bart style explanations of why you were not lying all miss the central point – that spandrell’s words gave you no good reason to believe him ignorant of the fact that chinese speak diverse dialects, but by taking his words out context, by taking a fragment of one of his sentences out of context, you created the false appearance that he was ignorant.

          • B says:

            You’re gibbering again.

            Spandrell said that Chinese spoke the same language. I said they didn’t. You said that obviously he meant that they WROTE the same language, and by pretending he meant they literally spoke the same language, I am lying:

            “You, like spandrell, just used the word “say” to mean wrote, and it was obvious in context that spandrell was doing what you just did right now.”

            “Is it true that spandrell believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words?

            Is it true that spandrell said anything that would in context make a reasonable person believe that he believed that Chinese orally speak one language and can understand each other’s spoken words?”

            Well, Spandrell just showed up and said that what he meant was that the educated elite of Chinese did orally speak one language and could understand each other’s spoken words.

            Now you’re squirming.

  21. spandrell says:

    If someone who knows way more than you says something that sounds wrong to you, the right reaction is to assume you misinterpreted something, not that he’s wrong, and you magically know more than him about something which you don’t really know much about.

    I know this would kill 80% of internet activity, but it’s still a good idea.

  22. […] thinks Trump has a good chance so long as refrains from doing “something considerably crazier even than the crazy stuff we […]

  23. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Interview of presidential candidate Mr Robert “Bob” Whitaker

    http://www.fightwhitegenocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/All-Questions-for-Interview2.mp3

Leave a Reply