Previously I remarked that Christianity is dead, save for a remnant small as a mustard seed, which is a problem, for civilizations tend to die with their animating religion. Europe was the faith, and the faith was Europe – then, later Anglicanism, while it was alive, gave us the scientific and industrial revolutions.
Islam seemed, for the most part, to be going the same way, devoured from within by progressivism, which wears Islam like a demon dressing in a suit of human skin, but late it has been showing signs of life.
Islam, unlike Christianity, never sustained civilization. The so called Islamic golden age consisted of them conquering the Byzantine Greeks and the Indians, and not immediately strangling those civilizations. Islam’s high civilization was Greeks gaining access to the work of the higher Indian races. The famous Damascus steel was actually Indian steel, and not long after they conquered India, the art of making it was lost, so those Damascus steel blades that so impressed the Crusaders were ancient heirlooms, the remnants of a fading civilization and races now lost or degenerate due to conquest.
I recently found a great deal of beautiful Islamic music. A religion that can produce such beauty, still lives. Unfortunately, if Islam conquers, the Anglo Saxon race is going to go the way of other once great races devoured by Dar al Islam. The victory of Islam is going to look a lot like Rotherham, and future Anglo Saxons a lot like today’s Indians.
Progressivism, though a live religion, is too ugly, self hating and self destructive to survive any holy war. Rotherham is England..
The problem with these songs is that they are about dying for one’s faith, rather than making the other guy die for his faith and then fucking his sister. Islam has a death wish.
Very interesting. Something I’ve noticed as well. The jihadist nasheed might be offensive to Western sensibilities, but certainly not to Western ears. The lyrics aren’t bad either. Certainly more virile than modern Christian “music.”
For the sake of our beautiful and ancient civilization, I implore you all to:
1. Learn Latin.
2. Learn “Miserere Mei.”
3. Sing it to yourself and think about great things.
Those of us who wasted entire nights playing Sid Meier’s Civilization IV while listening to this chant from the game’s soundtrack strongly agree.
“Miserere Mei” is the incipit of the 50th Psalm; do you mean to learn the psalm, or do you have one of its many settings in mind (like that of Allegri, probably the most famous)?
If group A of us Anglos were not imposing a pscho religion on the rest of the Anglos (group B), then nature would reassert itself and the filthy Pakistanis would be toast.
Ignore Islam – Anglo group B needs pounding into the ground. Step one – disrupt their power bases in the Cathedral – the media, civil service (the state) and the education sector. The rest will be easy.
Correction – **Group A needs pounding**
We’ve seen signs of this in Northern Ireland , Muslims fleeing in fear but right now people are trying the election kabuki and putting on the UKIP bit by bit.
Group A needs pounding. Correct. But group B is disheartened believing that doing the pounding will only make things worse. Too many fence sitters. The undecided will stay that way until their choice is change some things or starve.
In “The Fate of Empire”, John Glubb writes of the Abbasid Caliphate:
“Many women practiced law, while others obtained posts as university
professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period [c. 861 AD], government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”
How did a land already ruled by Islam for over 200 years ever get a “feminist movement” in the first place?
Most dying civilizations experience them.
In other words, Islam prevents feminism only insofar as it prevents civilization. We care not what our religion says about women’s rights; we only know that when bandits roam freely in the streets, our women must be kept out of sight.
Good point. Which is why during this period of low banditry Islamic states are having huge problem with their women fucking around. Interestingly enough Feminism is the cure for it’s own cancer as men themselves usually turn to banditry once they can’t acquire families. I’d expect to see a lot of this in American in the next 40 years.
That’s the great hope, but this time the feminists have massive amounts of xeno-estrogens and internet porn on their side.
Who is it who said if you’re going to get in a religious war, you’d better bring a religion? (Preferably a live, healthy one.)
Tom Kratman. “Where was Secular Humanism at Lepanto?”
http://www.tomkratman.com/Ranttuloriad.html
You need to take a gun to a gunfight, and a religion to a holy war.
Unfortunately, one can scarcely imagine today’s Christianity serving the function.
The other option is to embrace new core ideas
Rediscover pride in ones European ancestors and what remains of the ways before the Christians and others imposed their ways. It is after all in imported Middle Eastern faith and Europeans were simply colonized by Jewish ideas and Jewish derived ideas In a way the Cathedral is round #3 of this Middle Eastern colonization (Cultural Marxism is heavily Jewish) and Islam round #4 (its another Jewish sect at the roots )
Now this isn’t some Elders of Zion plot or other Anti-Semitic claptrap, rather a natural outgrowth of the desire of European leaders for more wealth. The idea being you could have Christendom (or the EU or Cathedral in modern terms) which would allow the rich to get rich and the power hungry to have more power. Starts with Constantine really wanting to rebuild the old Roman empire. In reality the healthy state for Europe is several hundred diverse polities not larger ones. As an example, Belgium needs to be Wallonia and Flanders at the minimum since they are two separate peoples with different folkways. A great many nations would benefit from similar arrangements, smaller and homogeneous is better.
One caveat, a rearranged Europe really does need a common defense pact to keep empires like Russia or some Caliphate from eating them and maybe the nations from overt war on each other. They have been relying on the US for this but its not feasible for obvious reasons, the US is screwed
I have no idea if that will work though.
I will add however Islam has signs of life but outside of the most feral people isn’t doing much better than the West. Iran arguably one of the smartest countries in that region has fertility on par with Europe (around 1.8 or so) and is much poorer. This will tend to nip them in the bud.
The others still have higher fertility but nearly everyone of them is dropping quickly. It also helps if you could call it that that there is a crossover between feminism and more radical forms of Islam. There are more than a few subsets of feminists that crave the burkha. They’ll do a nice job on Islam I think.
When Europe was subject to the Holy Roman Empire, and that “empire” going decadent, could not defend itself against Islam. It is hard to get a central authority that does not go corrupt and decadent.
Absolutely. I wonder if something akin to NATO might work, each nation provides a number of troops but each nation also has its own army. Thus you have an immediate force upfront and additional reserves large enough to prevent the upfront force from doing anything.
As a side note there seems to be a rumor that ISIL managed to get a dirty bomb into Europe . I have no confidence in this particular website but if its true and it goes off, things are going to get ugly mainly for Muslims I think.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-islamic-state-claims-radioactive-device-now-in-europe/
“One caveat, a rearranged Europe really does need a common defense pact to keep empires like Russia or some Caliphate from eating them and maybe the nations from overt war on each other.”
“Absolutely. I wonder if something akin to NATO might work, each nation provides a number of troops but each nation also has its own army. Thus you have an immediate force upfront and additional reserves large enough to prevent the upfront force from doing anything.”
They just need nuclear weapons.
before “the Christians” imposed “their ways”. Are you implying that Constantine’s mother was secretly a Judean? Or are you just disingenuously using words that imply that that different ideas must have been imposed by different people? Why, yes you are. Christianity? Islam? Cultural Marxism is the only one that is actually Jewish! Islam was founded by Mohammed and his cult. Mohammed was educated by Christian monks, not Jews.
Are Russians not European now?
Constantine decided t use Christianity as his hammer of conquest. History doesn’t record their names but millions of of Pagans were forced to be Christians or murdered from around 300 to 1000 or later so I’d guess.
And I know Christians don’t like this but uh guys Jesus was Jewish and the Christian god is JHVH the exact same God of the old Testament. A Christian or a Muslim is just a subset of Jewish convert . Its just that each side sees the other as having the most recent version and as such the others heretics. Jews vs. Christian is a internecine religious spat
And while yes Christianity borrowed from Pagan traditions, its not European but a fusion of Middle Eastern and Pagan ideas. Its only half Western if that.
As for the Cathedral its secular in that it doesn’t acknowledge God or Gods, its also a form, of Protestantism just mutated,
What I think though is the Europeans are heartily sick of Christianity and suffering from decades of PTSD (and children raised by people with PTSD) and have embraced nihilism instead of faith, Even Christianity is better that by a measure .
The “leaders” in Europe are just desperate for cheap social capital and people to rule and as adherents to the Cathedral think nothing of flooding Europe with non Europeans.
In some senses also this ecological mania is a reassertion of the sacral applied as always to nature itself . Its not healthy though and while i am not sure I think indigenous paganism, even the reconstructions might be far healthier than what we have or any attempt at “yet another” Jewish sect
Russia is an exception here , its well Russia and its pretty Orthodox right now and working OK for them for now anyway.
>indigenous paganism, even the reconstructions might be far healthier than what we have or any attempt at “yet another†Jewish sect
So neopaganism is healthy and right-wing? Well, maybe the 3% of neopagans that hold some racial ideology. And half of them are dysfunctional neo-nazis.
I’ll take
1.Restored Christianity
2.Deng Xiaoping Theory applied to American liberal democracy
Restoring Christianity from what we have now is unlikely to be easy, even with the application of state power similar to that backing Shinto in Japan.
Restoring Christianity will be difficult. But converting the population to neopaganism will be even harder.
Evangelicals should be pushed toward historic Christianity. Post-Christians, including most liberal Christians, should be pushed toward some carefully-designed propaganda system that will make them rightists.
Russia is about as Orthodox as Al Sharpton is Baptist. The real Orthodox were wiped out in the 1920s and 30s, or fled. For about 60 years, if you were in the official hierarchy, you were working with and for the KGB. And a Christian working for a militantly antiChristian organization against his flock is not much of a Christian.
Eurasian paganism sucked, which is why it lost so badly to the Abrahamic faiths everywhere it encountered them and the other Axial religions where there were no Abrahamic faiths. The only survivors were in BFE places like Kafiristan. So if the real thing sucked in its heyday, surely a play-along facsimile officiated by Varg Vikernes today, 1000 years later, would be very “healthy.” Right?
The Russian elite is not Orthodox. A significant portion of Russian commoners are. Especially rural areas, and such.
Reading up on the conflict between Icelandic paganism and Icelandic Christianity, I don’t think it sucked.
Priesthood in Iceland, like priesthood in Japan, rested on family ownership of a holy place, which tends to result in a comfortable and congenially insincere priesthood. They lost because they came up against true believers united under central authority. Needed more state backing, but their religion was anti state.
Hereditary priesthood is unlikely to get dangerously fanatical, but needs state backing against those that are dangerously fanatical.
L.O.L…. All of a sudden, the ancient Nordic pagans are coming across like hobbits. Which is about right.
The Russian peasants are not Christian either.
If you read Bulgakov’s “Notes of a Village Doctor” and other accounts of the way it was before the revolution, you can see that even back then, for most of them, Christianity was just ritual, something you did because you did it, like a mass of pagan rituals which survived alongside, like mixing menstrual blood into the food of a husband suspected of infidelity, not shaking hands across a doorway, etc.
Then the Communists showed up, made the village priests renounce their faith and killed them, desecrated the churches and made the peasants join in, which many did willingly.
That was 90 years ago.
The peasants today, well, some of them baptize their kids or hang an icon, or have a priest sprinkle holy water on their car, because it’s lucky, like sitting down for a minute before leaving the house. If this is enough to be considered a Christian, I guess they are.
An orthodox Jew should know better than anyone that shared observance of common rituals is a better social glue that shared abstract beliefs about far far away and long long ago.
So yes, they are Christian.
When I say paganism sucked, I mean that it was maladaptive in a variety of ways. Sacrificing children is maladaptive. So is empty ritual shrinery. As an engineer, you know that there are many more ways for something to fail than to work properly.
Canaanite, Druidic, Incan and Aztec religions needed to be eliminated with fire and steel. But Greeks and Norse OK.
Greek paganism was on its way out in the time of Socrates, who said that he believed in the gods at his trial
Big difference between a ritual full of deep meaning and one done for luck as a superstition. Hard to see from outside.
>Canaanite, Druidic, Incan and Aztec religions needed to be eliminated with fire and steel. But Greeks and Norse OK.
Your statement presupposes an objective morality which is above religion but somehow doesn’t translate into a survival advantage.
The reality is that you only think this because you live in a culture which owes a lot more to North European and Greek paganism/customs than to Canaanite and Latin American. Of course, the Norse practiced human sacrifice as long as they actually believed in their religion. As for the Greeks, they had the same problems in the long run as their spiritual descendants in the West-no children, mass cynicism and disenchantment, lots of perversion.
The pagan Greeks filled up much of the world, expanding far beyond the borders of Greece. When they turned Christian, the reverse happened.
The Christian Nordic nations are in the process of disappearing through self destruction. One can easily imagine how their Viking ancestors would have dealt with the problem.
Today’s male nordics are girly men, despised by nordic females, who eagerly fuck the more manly brownskinned males. Again, one can easily imagine how their viking ancestors would have dealt with the problem.
Your belief of theocracy over monarchy is really polluting your analysis here…
The corruption is from Republicanism.
Actually, my analysis consists of maintaining that “Jim” is still trolling here and that the real lesson that he tangentially impresses on the other readers is that patchwork is imperative.
“You want Christianity in Scandinavia and Greece when they can’t even control the pagan Cathedral elements there? When you cannot beat the Politically Correct elements here, in English-speaking countries?”
Not following you.
Because anyone would be able assume that pagan Scandinavia or Greece would quickly be converted by missionaries. Therefore the argument you’re using at the surface is not the actual argument.
…And the words pollution and corruption I refer to are in regards to separate ideas.
>The pagan Greeks filled up much of the world, expanding far beyond the borders of Greece. When they turned Christian, the reverse happened.
A Syrograecian or a “Greek” living in Afghanistan was a Greek in the sense that he was a Hellenist; a cultural Greek, if you will. Not genetically Greek. Christianity was the fusion of Greek high philosophy with Judaism. It turned most of the known world Greek.
>The Christian Nordic nations are in the process of disappearing through self destruction.
You’re skipping over a century or ten. Once they adopted Christianity, the Norse took over France, England, Sicily and Russia. Then their descendants took over North America and huge chunks of Asia. The US Midwest and PNW are full of Swedes, Norgs and Finns.
>One can easily imagine how their Viking ancestors would have dealt with the problem.
Their Viking ancestors’ achievements ran to holding onto their barren northern wastelands, subsisting on frostbitten miserable sheep and rotten fish covered in lye. And occasionally raiding places that were better off. Once they Christianized, things got much better.
>Today’s male nordics are girly men, despised by nordic females, who eagerly fuck the more manly brownskinned males.
This is because in today’s culture of plenty, created in large part as a result of the Christianization of Northern Europe, traits that facilitate survival through Nordic winters are not prized, and traits that go together with being human trash (flamboyancy, selfishness, promiscuity, obsession with image) are. The brown immigrants are not at all “manly” if by manliness you mean stoicism, determination, courage, etc.
Naturally, this sad situation arose as a result of progress (in the true sense of the word), and the solution is not to go back. Similarly, it’s possible that the environmentalist degenerates will bring the grizzly back to California. The solution will not be to look at how much better our distant African ancestors were at dealing with large carnivores in the area and emulate them.
The people of Nuristan, Kalash and Chitral provinces of Afghanistan are substantially descended from Greeks, which indicates a biological expansion of the Greek peoples during pagan times.
Guthrum was a pagan when he led Viking settlement in England, creating the Danelaw. He converted to christianity, and the Danelaw stopped expanding in England.
“This is because in today’s culture of plenty, created in large part as a result of the Christianization of Northern Europe, traits that facilitate survival through Nordic winters are not prized, and traits that go together with being human trash (flamboyancy, selfishness, promiscuity, obsession with image) are.”
Right, Christianity was adaptive for a while, but eventually it reshaped the people and the environment, and formerly adaptive traits became maladaptive.
Loving your enemies more can be a good strategy to bring a people together so that they can conquer more land. But we’re in a different position: we love our enemies too much. We need to love them a whole lot less. The things we need to do to them just aren’t Christian.
There is no such thing as “atheism,” which only is used to funnel people into the pagan religion of The Cathedral. It’s a type of paganism that I have already described several times (though it’s not worth repeating as paganism is awful and quite worthless).
Paganism is, indeed, the state religion of Western countries and it’s growing. The people who claim they want it only have to recognise it, no policy changes are needed!
Christianity cannot be faulted when there is a “healthy” belief system winning a war against it in white countries.
A.J.P.
Violence done for no reason or little reason, is bad. Violence done for large reason, is good.
Therefore, a religion ought not to venerate violence as a general category. And it ought not to prohibit violence as a general category.
It should speak positively of violence for large reasons. And condemn violence for no or little reason.
From my (limited) knowledge of Nordic paganism, it seems to be excessively pro-violence. Pre-leftist Christianity seems to strike a nice balance, with the occasional error on both sides.
Also, the priest class should be pacifist. Violence is power, and I think we can all agree that priests should not have the powers of a policeman or military officer.
I think Christianity was tolerably balanced after Charles the hammer, but entirely unbalanced in the direction of pacifism before Charles the Hammer. And even after Charles the hammer, it tended to be unbalanced in the direction of pacifism, for example the surrender of the knights of Malta to Napoleon.
Agreed Nordic religion was entirely unbalanced in its support for violence. Indeed this proved to be its undoing, because by asserting the right and duty to private vengeance, undermined the state, which state was unwilling or unable to protect it against Christianity.
I really like, however, Xenophon’s justification of the conduct of the ten thousand, and King Brennus’ justification for sticking it to the Romans.
>The people of Nuristan, Kalash and Chitral provinces of Afghanistan are substantially descended from Greeks, which indicates a biological expansion of the Greek peoples during pagan times.
It is a well-known fact that Greeks conquered/established cities in Afghanistan and all the way into India. Not disputing that. However, within a few generations they were absorbed into the surrounding population, leaving genetic traces and some cultural artifacts (Buddhist art is largely Greek in origin.) Hardly a success story. On the other hand, monotheism transformed the same exact regions in a total and permanent way.
>Guthrum was a pagan when he led Viking settlement in England, creating the Danelaw. He converted to christianity, and the Danelaw stopped expanding in England.
And that was the last we heard of those Christianized Norse in England. Well, until Cnut the Great and William the Conqueror took over the whole place. Funny, that.
That Greek civilization and culture declined is well known. See JD Unwin’s summary. But their greatness occurred when they were pagan, and the worst of their decline when they were Christian.
>That Greek civilization and culture declined is well known. See JD Unwin’s summary. But their greatness occurred when they were pagan, and the worst of their decline when they were Christian.
Let’s separate the genetic and cultural components of Greek civilization.
Culturally, the greatest collapse of the Greeks was during the late Roman republic, when they went from running the whole known world to being slaves. It was well known that the best use for a Greek was to buy him and have him teach your children. From there, they had a rebound resulting in the Byzantines. Needless to say, without Christianity this rebound would not have happened.
On a larger, philosophical scale, the Greeks conquered the entire world through Christianity. If the case can be made that the Cathedral is a natural descendant of Puritanism, it is even more convincing that it’s a natural descendant of Hellenism. In fact, I’d argue that it represents the ultimate triumph of the Hellenistic component of Christianity over its Judaic component. So, Christianity represents the global triumph of Hellenism.
In fact, Hannukka is coming up this week. The reason we celebrate it is not that the Maccabean revolt worked out great politically in the long run, but that without this revolt, we would have been assimilated by the Greeks culturally to the point of disappearing.
Genetically, the Greeks’ success led to their collapse demographically during the pagan period, in the standard way. On one hand, assimilation into the conquered nations, on the other hand, dysgenics. We can see the same in the US-you’ve got the founders turning into, on one hand, Anderson Cooper, on the other hand, George Prescott Bush.
That hellenic culture spread, but hellenic genes stopped spreading, is what, in my materialist worldview, I call a demon, or Moloch, a damaging system of ideas that possesses people to their disadvantage and its advantage. If it is bad for your genes, not really civilization. Child sacrifice spread the religion of Moloch, and abortion and divorce spreads the belief system of the Cathedral. Medicine and many aspects of technology, for example the Ankathera mechanism, declined and did not recover until 1500, 1700 or so.
We can accurately measure world copper production from pollution products in ancient ice. Copper production is an indicator of GDP, though it understates the growth and overstates the decline, because the world has been steadily turning away from copper to iron, and continues to do so today. However, copper pollution correlates pretty well with wrecked cargoes, which also indicate world GDP. World GDP is consistent with proposition that things started going downhill around 50AD or so, and in the west did not recover to 50AD levels until the industrial revolution.
Greeks peaked with the Ankathera mechanism. So one cannot blame Christianity for their decline – but their decline set in at about the same time as they stopped taking their pagan religion seriously, and Christianity did not fix the problem, arguably made it worse. Still has not fixed the problem.
On the other hand, failure to take their religion seriously is likely to be a symptom or moral decay, rather than a cause.
Jim, you assume that childlessness is a sign of weakness and moral decay but what about those people–and nowadays, they exist in considerable numbers–who would rather spend their money on fun and luxuries? You surely wouldn’t argue that ALL of them are women?
Observing reality, the dissipation of family wealth is, to a good approximation, done entirely by women. Wife divorces husband for cash and prizes, blows it all, husband gives up working.
Jim, you seem to confuse the destruction of fortunes by mismanagement with the use of an abundant surplus to a sufficiently large fortune for fun and luxury instead of children. You seriously doubt the existence of playboys and players? You don’t think the metrosexual phenomena (heterosexuals assuming styles otherwise the preserve of homosexuals) could be related to a decadent love of fun and luxury? And if I’m right, then who are you to say that men should father children (by sanction of disapproval, fines or prison?) rather than enjoy themselves?
Most players, if the choice was available to marry a sixteen year old virgin and safely raise a family with her, would take that choice. I could perhaps have been a player, but was hampered by the fact I felt an obligation to spend every night with my wife.
>That hellenic culture spread, but hellenic genes stopped spreading, is what, in my materialist worldview, I call a demon, or Moloch, a damaging system of ideas that possesses people to their disadvantage and its advantage.
Thus my original point-Greek paganism had to go.
>If it is bad for your genes, not really civilization.
Eh. No True Scotsman. In fact, civilization creates empires, empires create decadence, decadence creates dysgenics. How could it be otherwise? If it is possible to live through tribute, the metropolitan population will never have a shortage of demagogues explaining to it that living on tribute (bread and circuses) is the most noble thing ever.
>Child sacrifice spread the religion of Moloch, and abortion and divorce spreads the belief system of the Cathedral.
Abortion and infanticide, true. Divorce-I disagree with your stance, which is the Catholic stance, and hold by the Jewish one.
>Medicine and many aspects of technology, for example the Ankathera mechanism, declined and did not recover until 1500, 1700 or so.
The Antikythera mechanism was a (cool) gadget. The question of whether the worth of a civilization is to be measured by its production of gadgets or by something else arises.
>Greeks peaked with the Ankathera mechanism.
Greeks peaked around the 4th century BCE, and everything following was inertia. Similarly, a good archaeological record of the 17th-21st centuries would show gadgets of increasing sophistication long after the peak (I think the highest density of brainpower was in the second half of the 19th century.)
>So one cannot blame Christianity for their decline – but their decline set in at about the same time as they stopped taking their pagan religion seriously, and Christianity did not fix the problem, arguably made it worse. Still has not fixed the problem.
Their pagan religion was impossible to take seriously for persons with any degree of sophistication (I mean, a pantheon with a head god who flies around raping goatherds and making it thunder? He’s got a jealous wife and a daughter who came out of his head?) without going to Platonic levels of allegorization and abstraction, because it was, well, stupid. The Greek religion of the 5th century BCE as practiced by Athenians and all forward-thinking Greeks was basically Reform Hellenism. With corresponding social results (a public that went back and forth between impiety and religious hysteria directed against its best members.)
Christianity created a different, more viable peg upon which to hang the concepts of Greek High Paganism, i.e., the philosophy they abstracted away from the abovementioned stupid religion, and by extension the Greek worldview. And thus it created the framework for the Byzantine (Greek) Empire’s 1000 year reign. Paganism was completely useless as a framework for an empire that was culturally Greek. Thus the collapse of the Pelloponesian League and Alexander’s empire, and the assimilation of the fragments of the latter by the locals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom
In short, paganism is maladaptive, and you can trace the disintegration of Christianity from within to the ideas it got from Greek high paganism.
The white race originated from the mingling of agriculturalists from the middle east, who had some acquired some genes for fair skin in during their sojourn in the colder lattitudes, and the native hunter gatherers, who had long possessed other different genes for fair skin. As the agriculturalists penetrated further inland in colder areas, they tended to become cattle herders, because harder to grow crops. At the same time, the more advanced of the native hunter gatherers were taking up herding. Two tribes of these two peoples settled their unending genocidal war with exchange of hostages, including, of course, women, and there is reason to believe that the Norse Gods are ancestral cattle herding patriarchs, who were hostages in this exchange, or received hostages, as the patriarch Israel is the father of the nation of Israel, that the Norse Gods are in fact ancestors, originating from ancestor worship.
Because these people wore clothes, and lived in harsh and cold climate, they were still subject to selection pressure for fairer skin, so produced a people with both the fair skin genes of the middle eastern farmers, and the fair skin genes of the original hunter gatherers, a race substantially whiter than either of its partially white ancestral races. The resulting race probably did not yet have the lactase gene, but substantially fairer skin gave it an advantage in the North.
In other words, it is probable that the Norse Gods are based on real people who were ancestral to the white race, and organized its formation from two less white ancestral races.
So take a bit of Confucianism, a bit of ancestor worship, decorate with ancient legends that the sophisticated understand are not to be taken literally, and you have a delightfully racist neo Norse paganism that can withstand intellectual scrutiny.
I don’t understand, are we discussing Greek and Norse paganism as they actually were, or your theoretical Greconprdic Confucianism?
If the former, they actually sucked as implemented in practice.
If the latter, no sophisticated person would dedicate his life to something like this or die for it (recommend you read about the Muslim conquest of Sindh for details on what happens when monotheists meet degenerate pagan sophisticates.)
In general the comparison with the Jewish patriarchs fails-the patriarchs had no supernatural powers and were never worshipped. A religion has to be able to attract both sophisticated and simple people. Sophisticated people tend to be sceptical of worship of the dead, especially in anything beyond hollow ritual, and you need something that people are dedicated to enough to die for.
As Greek paganism actually was, it gave us Xenophon’s ten thousand and the three hundred Spartans, which is pretty good going.
To which you correctly reply, that it was vulnerable to sophism – not that Christianity or Judaism seems very resistant to sophism. The trinity is obviously stupid, and enormously escalating, to ridiculous extremes, your compliance to long obsolete religious dietary laws is obviously stupid.
So I say, clean it up to better resist sophism.
Creating badass warriors is something every half-decent belief system does.
Adherence to our dietary laws, to the laws of Shabbat and the laws of family purity is not stupid. Rather, you are shallow for not understanding the significance. Man’s most primal instincts are the food, sex and money/power drives. By constantly making all three subservient to G-d, we make a constant and very powerful statement. And it is always the case that someone who “knows better” and stops eg keeping kosher because in our age pork and shellfish are perfectly safe and there are no goatworshippers opens himself to exploitation through sophistry. There is nobody easier to sell to than someone who knows everything and relies on himself as the ultimate authority. All you have to do is tell him what he wants to hear, and he’s yours. And that’s how the Cathedral buys you, without you even realizing it.
Meanwhile, Orthodox Jews did not seize Israel, but rather whined to the colonial powers that they be given Israel. It was secular Jews that seized Israel and today’s orthodox Jews have as their major issue military exemption.
We have not had a martial Christianity for two hundred years. You have not had a martial Judaism for eighteen hundred years.
Israel’s high asabiya does not come from Judaism, but from the fact that Israel is on Peter Turchin’s “metaethnic frontier”. It is not so much that you have a Judaism appropriate for a state on a metaethnic frontier, as you hope to build a Judaism appropriate for a state on a metaethnic frontier. Judaism is still a religion of exile, and you don’t get badass warriors from a religion of exile. Exilic Judaism is subversive of its host society, and goes right on being subversive of its host society when that society is Israel and Jews. Maybe that will be fixed in future, and you are doing your best to fix it, to bring Judaism home, and the reality of the situation is on your side – one needs to bring a gun to a gunfight, and Israel needs to bring a religion to a holy war.
But right now, it is not fixed. You are arguing for a future Judaism, not for actually existent Judaism.
>You have not had a martial Judaism for eighteen hundred years.
>Israel’s high asabiya does not come from Judaism, but from the fact that Israel is on Peter Turchin’s “metaethnic frontierâ€
THAT explains it. The metaethnic frontier. How didn’t we…excuse me, I have a Mr. Richard Burton on the line, from 1891:
“Physically and mentally the Jewish man and woman are equal in all respects to their Gentile
neighbors, and in some particulars are superior to them. The women of the better class are
strongly and symmetrically shaped; and although their beauty of feature is not that admired by
the Christian eye, debility and deformity are exceptionally rare. In grace of form and in charm
of manner they are far superior to their husbands and brothers, and indeed everywhere appears
to be a sub-characteristic feature. They are nowhere remarkably distinguished for chastity, and
in some places, Morocco for instance, their immorality is proverbial. Their grand physique does not age like that of the natives of the strange countries which they colonize and where Europeans readily degenerate, they preserve youth for ten years longer than their rivals, they become mothers immediately after puberty, and they bear children to a far later age. Their
customs allow them to limit the family, not by deleterious drugs and dangerous operations, but
by the simple process of prolonging the period of lactation, and barrenness is rare amongst them
as in the days when it was looked upon as a curse. There is scarcely any part of the habitable
globe, from the Highlands of Abyssinia to the Lowlands of Jamaica, in which the Jewish people
cannot be acclimatized morè readily and morè rapidly than the other races of Europe — also the
result of blood comparatively free from that intermixture which brings forward the inherent
defects of both parents.
The Jews also enjoy a comparative immunity from vari ous forms of disease which are the
scourge of other races. Pulmonary and scrofulous complaints are rare amongst them; leprosy
and elephantiasis are almost extinct; and despite their impurity in person and the exceptional
filth of their dwelling-places, they are less liable to be swept away by cholera and plagué than
the natives of the countries which are habitually ravaged by those epidèmics. They seldom
suffer from the usual infectious results, even where the women are so unchaste that honour seems as unknown to them as honesty to the men.
Physiologists have asked, How is this phenomenon to be accounted for? Why is the duration of
life greater among the Jews than among the other races of Europe? Is it the result of superior
organization or of obedience to the ceremonial law? The researches of those who have made
these qüestions their special study supply but one satisfactory or sufficient answer, and it may
be summed up in six words — a prodigious superiority of vital power. And all the laws attributed
to the theistic secularism of Moses were issued with one object — namely, that of hardening and
tempering the race to an extent which even Sparta ignored.”
OK, a bit loopy, especially all those aspersions on our women’s honor and our men’s honesty, but you get the picture. A prodigious superiority of vital power! Even our enemy Burton remarks upon it.
The fact is that after 1800 years of exile, we had been completely formed by galut Judaism. Yet, when the time was right, we were able to establish our own land and fight off all the surrounding nations. And this was a small portion of the world’s Jews-unfortunately, the majority had been either murdered by Germans, crushed by the Soviets or assimilated by Americans. Vital power, indeed. And this vital power and asabiyyah could not have come from anything other than Judaism which had formed us, even if the last generation before Independence rebelled against it. It rebelled, sure, but it had been formed by the previous 70 generations which had not rebelled. So you can see that all the things you call stupid, kashrut, Shabbat, etc., are exactly what enabled us to preserve our national existence and be reborn when the opportunity presented itself. Burton, by the way, understands this and remarks on it, unpleasant as he is.
Because Judaism is very complex and the Torah has 70 faces, in one situation it presents one way, in another, differently. So there is no need to reinvent it, but to let different aspects of it be expressed and emphasized as the context requires.
Tried to link some contemporary songs against anti-whites but was forbidden because the blog sees them as bugs (403). Hmm…
A.J.P.
Sorry for this bug.
If you put the links in as text, rather than as a link, should work.
Could you give an example of what you mean?
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/islam-lives-unfortunately/
You write it as plain text, and it gets automatically linkefied.
Just do what an idiot would do, rather than a computer sophisticated person would do, and it will work.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1u71oyD9ew
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orhEM2dAepU
“Jim”
We white Anglo-Saxons already Do have contemporary songs against our enemies…They are, admittedly, not as graphic as you’ve described, but that is, very likely, due to the online nature of the work thus far which would give it a less earthy quality…
“Anti-whites gotta go!”
(first link)
“‘Anti-racists,’ shut your faces!”
(second link)
At this point, there is good inspiration around us, and it’s time to get more pushing in the same direction.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Regarding the error I get, despite the error message pertaining to the inability to post links, what I found that after removing the links, the comment still wouldn’t post. But, after removing the hyper-text for italics, the comment went up. F.Y.I.
There’s Rucka Rucka Ali who makes fun of Blacks and Arabs a lot. There’s JohnnyWhiteRabbit who has a song making the accusation of White genocide. There’s Johnny Rebel years ago with songs like The Cajun Ku Klux Klan ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW3u3zaj6eQ ).
Where’s the unabashedly pro-White positive songs? Where’s the pure anti-non-White hate? It doesn’t exist. Can we really really make fun of people for not doing what would render them unemployable?
The reason Whites are all Israel-loving Jew-loving moderate Christians who quietly suggest that marriage might be a good idea and maybe ixnay the ornographypay, or babbles about freedom all day with the subtle implication that they want freedom for themselves, is that that’s the most pro-White and pro-civilization positions they are allowed to take.
allowed by who?
Moldbug mentions that the velvet glove of political correctness would not mean anything without an iron fist. He doesn’t indicate whose iron fist, because he writes to excuse the Jews, because he himself is a Jew and because excusing the Jews was in vogue ten years ago when the dissident right considered whether the Jews were actually telling the truth about their history of persecution, whether the blood libel was actually false and Hitler actually turned six million into lampshades, and most importantly whether the Jews are actually Whites as would be indicated by a strict White/Asian/African breakdown or according to the Stormfront definition of the peoples of Europe with the questionably-principled exception of Jews removed.
The iron fist inside the velvet glove of political correctness is Jewish power. Around the turn of the century it expressed itself as harassment, as seen in article 74 of The International Jew. As broadcast media grew in power, the softer but more pervasive power of Jewish dominated broadcast media was added to the soft power of targeted harassment. After 1964, it gained the power to harass by suing for “harassment” and increasingly people became unwilling even to think thoughts that the Jewsmedia doesn’t explicitly approve of lest they slip up and get fired by their employer who doesn’t want to face a “harassment” suit or an HR department filled with redguards looking for human hearts to eat.
So it’s only us who can talk about these things. People with IQs below maybe 115 or are otherwise incapable of not giving voice to their private thoughts can’t think about politically incorrect stuff except in the most conciliatory way as seen on Fox News. And we’re only anonymous at the pleasure of the NSA and probably Google.
Unless and until we can get rid of political correctness which is the manifestation of Jewish power, no mainstream discussion can be in good faith, and no musician can make pro-White music and have a career, and us Whites will keep yelling at each other over meaningless details until the last White woman goes past child-bearing age.
Anil Dash is Jewish power?
Yes, Jews are grossly are grossly overrepresented among commissars – but all groups other than white anglo saxon protestants are grossly overrepresented among commissars.
The Old Bolsheviks were almost all Jewish, and devoured each other.
It’s no surprise that the Roman Catholic objects to white people defending themselves and wants to turn the focus back to the Jewish.
“My name isn’t Alinsky, it’s Kennedy… See, I am a Christian just like you! (heh, heh, heh)”
Meanwhile, 50 years later, White Genocide is in full swing and the Supreme Court is completely Roman Catholic and Jewish. 9 out of 9
The gravy train of “de-mock-racy” is over, “Peppermint Papist” and it’s so fitting that the token Rightist party in the United States has a Roman Catholic as its figurehead as it bows to Cathedral tyranny. Of course I’m speaking about Spkr. Boehner…
“Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Vatican, And Almost Everyone Else”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/catholics-are-more-progressive-than-the-vatican-and-almost-everyone-else/
Anil Dash is not the iron fist. Anil Dash pointed out what Pax Dickinson said. Pax Dickinson’s company had to fire him instead of telling Anil Dash to go pound sand – why?
Because they feared lawsuits that would come from being a “hostile workplace”, as evidenced by continuing to employ Pax Dickinson.
Moldbug mentions that that’s the law, but he doesn’t ask who made it the law, how long it took them, why they did it. He was talking about history in broad strokes that ignore individual people – being mostly Jews – and their personal reasons – being mostly to protect the Jew from having the Jewish question posed.
Because Anil Dash is a government commissar, on the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Because Anil Dash is in a position to destroy businesses at whim by the application of state power, and from time to time does so.
Anil Dash let BusinessInsider know about Dickinson’s tweet. This would have enabled a redguard to apply, get rejected, and sue with NGO lawyers for triple damages with an open and shut case.
Anil Dash is not lying when he talks about punching up. Ching Chang Chong is not lying when he mentions mindkilling himself on a daily basis. You think this demon these men worship is mindless?
McCarthy used personal destruction against the Jews. They finally got rid of him and immediately started with the Martin Luther King stuff, and had a law enabling personal destruction of their enemies within the decade. Race, sex, and also religion and national origin to protect the Jews. Happy holidays.
He is lying. Billionaires kiss his feet, trembling in terror. Anil Dash is the government, very thinly disguised so that the state can do things that would be illegal if it did directly.
Anil Dash fully understands that the second he steps out of line he‘s out just as surely as Dickinson. He is a sorcerer worshipping a demon, he isn’t using his own power or the power of an institution he has any real control in or an ethnicity he belongs to.
Dershowitz was ready to go to bat for Zimmerman if it started to look like Leo Frank.
Anil Dash is a sorcerer worshiping a demon but as long as he speaks with the voice of the demon he’ll be obeyed because he’s expressing the will of the demon. If he steps out of line other worshipers will devour him and feed him to the demon.
In other words, he’s a commissar.
Alan Dershowitz outranks Anil Dash and the demon he worships allows him more leeway because he’s proven to be a more capable servant. Maybe the other demon worshipers try to turn on him but he’s a much tougher target.
“Islam has a death wish.”
Almost every tribal warrior creed has a cult of death that goes with it.
This cult of death is not necessarily a sign of degeneracy. It can be an indicator of strong cultural vitality, in that the masculine will not back down, and glories in that refusal to submit.
The Muslims had a decent civilization with heavy Central Asian influences during the Umayyads. But, alas, that’s been dead and gone for a long time. In general, the Central Asian Muslim civilization and its daughter in Mogul India were much more healthy and creative than anything the Arabs came up with.
Personally, I’ve never met a more repugnant group than jihadis, on every level. Any advantage in brains they had over Africans was used exclusively for evil and wickedness. No honor or integrity whatsoever. It was like dealing with packs of hyenas.
As for what the future of Islam holds-I concur with this Pakistani lady until she gets eschatological (and I think her timeline is overly optimistic): http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188474
Gil Ronen doesn’t state her timeline and her eschatological position. Are you sure you linked to the right article?
I was referring to the Paki lady she is quoting from the Nation.
But if Ronen doesn’t explain what she said; wouldn’t it make sense to directly link to the article where she *does* give her two cents?
The irony here is that for the West to survive it must reclaim its original values which overlap substantially with Islamic teachings ie: Leviticus improved, Shariah:
1. Prohibit Usury
2. Prohibit Income tax
3. Tax Unused fallow wealth (break up wealth concentration)
4. Freedom of Religion but if you dont serve in the military, you have an additional tax
5. Freedom of borders, you can leave at any time if you dont like the government, but if yu stay , you agree to their laws (Dugan’s diversity)
6. Regulate maladaptive family sex behavior, force practioners to emigrate or face the penalties
7. Freedom to divorce without penalty, just take back a disobedient spouse to hi/her tribe , father.
8. False rape accuations are punished harshly
9. Black magic -kabbalah is prohibited by pain of death
10. Child rapists can be crucified
11. Prohibit democracy, people choose a CEO, using an elected board of directors, but if he departs from the above, it is an obligation to remove him as a disbeliever (Freedom to overthrow an unjust government)
12. Freedom of voluntary marriage to more than one woman allowing sequential family formation without throwing out your first wife — improved demographics for economically successful men.
According to the Catholic Encylopedia, Islam is first century, pre trinitarian, Christianity. It is Neoreaction.
“In St. Epiphanius’s time small communities seem still to have existed in some hamlets of Syria and Palestine, but they were lost in obscurity. Further east, in Babylonia and Persia, their influence is perhaps traceable amongst the Mandeans, and it is suggested by Uhlhorn and others that they may be brought into connection with the origin of Islam.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm
Usury is essential to capitalism. Capitalism made the west great. Abolish usury, you will wind up with an Islamic style economy.
Divorce is extremely bad for reproduction, the family, and fatherhood. Men need to be able to trust that a woman will stick with them through thick and thin, for better or worse, and women need to be able to trust that a man will stick with them through thick and thin, for better or worse.
Freedom of religion is like unilateral disarmament. You are apt to find a more militant and less tolerant religion seizing the state, as in fact happened.
Black magic does not actually work. Best treated with ridicule and by forcibly lowering practitioners social status.
Female sexuality begins at ten. To the best of my observation, most sex between adult males and females with no breasts is female initiated, and targets older males with a marked and demonstrated preference for females with breasts. Are we going to crucify the ten year old girls?
Zippy thinks usury means loans (to individuals) that don’t have specified collateral, and then says that usury is bad.
I think you would say that if a free man takes an uncollateralized loan than he himself is the collateral, and deserves to be a slave due to his demonstrated behavior.
>I think you would say that if a free man takes an uncollateralized loan than he himself is the collateral, and deserves to be a slave due to his demonstrated behavior.
That’s a good way to destroy your military foot solderer class as the Romans discovered. Credit should not be extended to individuals. From my own reading usury was an excellent source of funding that Protestants rulers used to beat Catholics but it was selling shares of future returns, not loans with interest that drove the industrial revolution.
I didn’t know you were going soft, Jim! Apparently you think Louis XIV was too harsh in the Affair of the Poisons.
Potions work. Curses don’t work, except to the extent the person being cursed believes in them.
I would agree but I unlike the Darkly Enlightened do not believe pre-emptive laws as in black drug users should be punished to pre-empt bad behavior even if bad behavior is not yet proven. If however you believe in pre-emptive laws, the belief that Satan will make you immune from the consequences of bad deeds if you honor him with a black mass seems like a perfect target.
You just keep repeating this lie, no matter how many times we point out that it is a lie.
That blacks are inferior means that they need simpler and harsher laws, and sometimes this will result in a bad outcome for a black when it would not result in a bad outcome for white. But this is not the same thing as punishing blacks because they are black.
If for, example, a black has some robitussin, he probably intends to get high on it by consuming an overdose that will cause brain damage resulting in unpredictable outbursts of violence. If a white has some robitussin, he probably intends to medicate a cough. So we should punish blacks but not whites for possession of robitussin. This is not the same as punishing them for being black.
And yes, some people should be enslaved. And we should enslave blacks for things that we should not enslave whites for. But this is not the same as enslaving them for being black.
When slavery is reinstated for those Blacks who are incapable of not doing things that are harmful to them, then they can be allowed to do drugs if their owner lets them.
The key is that you like to construct Utopias when you are an Emperor that treats people according to their race’s track record rather than their individual track record; furthermore you dance around the fact that blacks were introduced to the South as slaves and were mostly enslaved. You defend this evasion with the weird assumption that the existence of a minority of free blacks justified the existence of an intraracial majority of enslaved blacks. Sorry, Jim, but the assumptions crucial to your alternate reality are not obvious truths in the outside world!
If you treat a group of young black men the way you are treat a group of young white men, you are going to die.
Different groups need different rules.
And in practice left wing city governments wind up applying different rules to different groups as much as anyone – indeed more than anyone, because it is easier for them to get away with it. For example it is dangerous to smoke dope in San Francisco while nonwhite.
Yes you will die if you’re afraid that holding the blacks accountible will “prove” that you’re a racist. You often say that SJW rhetoric is a sanctimonious pretext to destroy people. But what if someone promoted equality under the law not as a pretext for destruction but as a sincere means to pursue justice. Then instead of making blacks masters of whites to blur disparate impacts, one would grant equal prerogatives to all and let the chips fall where they may regardless of disparate impacts.
And what if purple martian people eaters were in charge?
Near is always more salient than far. So when someone wants to harm near for the supposed benefit of far, he wants to harm near.
Thus, imperialism arose because the the English ruling class were pissed off by the newly rich colonialists. Imperialism in practice turned out not to be about civilizing the backward races, but disempowering the colonialists, often with disastrous effect on the backward races.
Similarly, the behavior of the carpet baggers showed that the war between the states was not fought to free the slaves, but to dispossess the slave owners.
H.A.,
You only push for “racial equality” in white countries. You say you are anti-racist but what you really are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
When you ONLY see this RACE problem in white countries, you are not actually talking about a RACE problem. You are talking about a WHITE problem, and you want the Final Solution.
A.J.P.
Alan, prove that I only want racial equality in white countries otherwise save the canned speech.
We can easily prove that you want open immigration only for white countries.
“Hidden Author”
You complain about hearing about the same issue again and again. But how many times have we had to hear “racist” and other such epithets from anti-whites like you?
You’re not fooling anyone, anti-white…You are out in the open.
Actually I favor immigration restrictions as key to national sovereignty. Why do I have to cater to your delusion that there are only progressives and people like you in this big 7 billion people world of ours?
Alan, why do bigots think they have the right to speak for or represent a white majority that does not support their “ideals”?
Jim, it is indeed unlikely that someone would love some stranger like themselves or their wife or their brother. I do not assert that I have such love for the strangers of the world. But a minimal goodwill to people who do not threaten you is possible. As is a sense of justice.
Strange how minimal goodwill and sense of justice to people far away and very different to oneself always seems to manifest as terror, murder, and arson.
Most recently you guys have issued a storm of propaganda for hate whitey, then withdrawn police protection in the vicinity of Ferguson, while forbidding white people to act collectively to defend themselves.
Other recent examples of minimal good will and sense of justice were the Duke rape accusation and the UVA rape accusation – seems that all these blond beasts are supposedly cruelly raping women, and it would be cruel to women to actually look at the evidence, or the character and past conduct of the accusers.
Ferguson and UVA make no sense except as manifestations of hatred and the desire for destruction, the desire to manipulate far into destroying near.
In YOUR OPINION I am a “bigot.”
You’re just saying that because I’m white.
“Bigot,” “nazi” or “raaayyyciissst” are all words you anti-whites yell to try and shut up a white person with an opinion on race.
That’s why anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
I should also note that you seem to assume that I can only have goodwill towards black people if I want them as tools to destroy white people. What if I have goodwill to black people AND white people?
OK, Alan, let me make it clear: I despise South African black criminals who attack Boer farmer families, cannibal warlords elsewhere in Africa, genocidal plundering jihadis throughout the world and murderous drug cartel gangsters in Latin America. In other words, I am consistent. Go apply your stereotypes elsewhere!
it’s good that you haven’t attached your real name to that post about hating “cannibal warlords” and the racist conspiracy theory about Boers being murdered…
Hey peppermint if you are amused that I’m too cowardly to publish my real name, publish yours!
The difference that your name is well known to the state that pays you to issue propaganda to support the destruction of whites, and a sufficiently successful campaign of terror and murder guarantees a good job academia, as for example Bill Ayers, whereas Peppermint would lose his or her job and never get another were her true name known.
“Hidden Author,”
Inside formerly white countries, anti-whites push an agenda of “diversity” which means chasing down white people. White Flight is forbidden in the same way Fugitive Slave runaways were forbidden, the anti-white policies are set to blend the flyers participating in White Flight into a new brown race where there used to be white people.
Assimilation is FORCED, and doesn’t have to be violent. Crimes happening in other continents are irrelevant to the issue of “racial equality” that you are pushing. Any white areas can be called out as “needing diversity” or “equality” and then assimilated with the millions of third-worlders that have been brought in. That means wiping out the white population that was there. It’s genocide.
I have made it abundantly clear that I differ enough for “fellow” progressives to the point that I am not really a progressive at all. Your insistence that I am probably stems from one of two motives:
1. You are trolling me, perhaps to amuse yourself by getting me to denounce progressives in one way or another.
2. Your mind is so tiny that you cannot conceive of there being any opinion or mentality among the world’s 7 billion people besides either progressivism or your kind of mentality.
Either way, unless you can explain how, on the contrary, you bring a mature, rational outlook to the table, I don’t see what further point there would be in this conversation.
Rather, I observe organized and state sponsored infiltration efforts against gamergate and pol, and before them the libertarians, for example “Critical Review”. The funding for “Critical Review” came from the state, and “Critical Review” disbursed substantial funds to numerous “libertarians” who did not appear to be at all libertarian.
When I give you a challenge question where the orthodoxy is blatantly ridiculous, but no low level person is allowed to deviate from the orthodoxy, you weasel out of it, indicating that you are under some external discipline – that there are some people you are not hidden from, that you are under some sort of external supervision. The reaction does not appear to be infiltrated, or if it is the infiltrators are being a lot more subtle about it than gamergate and pol, but it does look like you have been sent to rebut us, rather coming here under your own power.
In particular, your much repeated lie that we propose to punish people for being of the incorrect race seems intended to impress your bosses, for it is not likely to impress us. Similarly, your regular emissions of Stalinist boilerplate duckquack.
The word “boilerplate” comes from the fact that steam boilers were one of the first things to require warning tags, which tags, due to endless tedious repetition, no one ever paid any attention to, the first example of state mandated speech losing its effectiveness due to excessive repetition.
Alan, I agree that America does not have room for all 7 billion people in the world. Therefore immigration restrictions are rational even if they have a disparate impact on people of color. On the other hand, if a non-white is a citizen of the United States of America, then intermarriage is not a problem so long as it’s voluntary for both partners: genocide always has an element of coercion and if people are attracted to whites–I for one find redheads and brunettes to be very attractive in many cases–then they are well within their rights to stick to whites (only a law against such a decision would count as anti-white genocide in terms of intermarriage).
But you don’t in fact agree to the same proposition phrased slightly differently.
For example, Australia is notoriously turning around “refugee” boats in international waters, which process sometimes results in the boats catching fire, and in at least one case, possibly more, sinking while on fire. For which the UN and every human rights organization in the world has condemned Australia. .Every. .Single. .One.
In almost every case these “refugee” boats are filled with people from the ruling majority ethnic group of the land from which they started, the same race, religion, and political faction as those that own most of the land, provide most of the judges and police. In almost every case they have on the way to Australia stopped at numerous third world countries that are entirely tolerant of the race, religion, etc, of the “refugees”.
So, how do you stand on Australia turning the boats around? Does the Australian government have the right, and in fact the duty, to turn those boats around on international waters?
If you agree with the UN and every single human rights organization, you agree that the entire population of the world has the right to move to Europe, America, and Australia, has the right to move to white countries, which is in fact happening, with Switzerland, Australia, and Israel being the lone holdouts.
What’s the difference between slaves being slaves for the sole reason of being black or for the decisive reason of being black? Yes, there were other factors: Was their particular villages raided? Did the raiders seize them out of all the villagers to go to the market? Did their new white masters see fit to emancipate them?
More importantly: Can you deny that race was an important factor influencing the answers to these questions? If race was important to the point of being decisive, then isn’t being black at least one of the reasons for being enslaved? If it’s decisive, then isn’t race the basis of the system or one of the bases? And then if it’s decisive, then isn’t quibbling over whether it’s the SOLE reason hair-splitting? And it isn’t a good-faith position to call someone a liar for having an opposing position on a matter of hair-splitting.
Totalitarian Stalinist boilerplate. You mechanically repeat the lies of those who would destroy us, probably without even being aware of your own words. Duckquack. Having heard and repeated these words so often, you can no longer remember what they mean, nor are you any longer aware of what you are saying.
Very few black slaves were enslaved by raiders.
Obviously phony refugees are reprehensible for manipulating good people’s heartstrings but I wonder if I just wasted my time saying so–regardless of how many differences I point out having with progressives, you’re act like some Grand Inquisitor interrogating me on right-wing, er, left-wing deviations from the true Communist, er, Darkly Enlightened path. Notice how you seem to mimic the ever-leftward march to progressive orthodoxy with an even-rightward march to Darkly Enlightened orthodoxy, complete with appropriate sanctimony!
You are still dodging the question, the question being: Does the Australian government have the right, and indeed the duty, does every government of the formerly white nations have the duty, to turn those boats around?
They have the right to turn away the boats–only an ideologue who insists that everyone quote his manifesto would deny that what I already said amounted to such an assertion. But I would quibble about them having the DUTY to do so; such a duty only exists to the extent that the people of Australia reject the presence of the “refugees”. The sovereignty of the Australian people should be accepted whether the people want to welcome or reject incomers.
Meanwhile the Cathedral is massively delegitimizing the choice of turning away the boats, with the result that supposedly sovereign peoples everywhere, Australia and Israel being the sole exceptions, supposedly choose to not turn away the boats.
If seven billion people moving to the formerly white lands is a bad idea, surely every government has a duty to turn away the boats.
Correction, Jim: The white slave traders did not raid African villages for slaves but rival tribes did (something that people don’t mention when condemning whitey). In fact, the raiding of the countryside for slaves was systematized: Defeated tribes had to pay tribute and then when they fell short, people were collected as payment for the coercively imposed debt.
By and large, black slaves were not raided by anyone (and when they were raided, they were indeed often stolen by white pirates) Rather, they were unwanted or excess low status persons, who were sold off by those in legitimate or customary authority over them. The very large number of people enslaved by the Ashantee empire was plausibly a side effect of their vigorous efforts to bring order, productivity, and peace to a society violent, disorderly and unproductive.
The less evolved a person is, the harder it is to get him to work as an employee, motivated by hope of payment and the future accumulation of assets. Thus to get Africans productive in Africa, to get a modern economy of agriculture and prevent people from hunting someone else’s cattle and gathering in someone else’s fields, requires in Africa higher levels of slavery and lower levels of wage labor. Hence more advanced peoples, such as the Tutsi or Ashantee aristocracy, necessarily had to enserf or enslave less evolved peoples, in order to operate a more modern, higher productivity economy.
The transition to an economy that extensively uses wage labor has to go through an economy that extensively uses slave labor, to purge the gene pool of those who are temperamentally unsuited to wage labor.
This was not “raiding”, which is an attack on order, rather it was the creation and maintenance of order. Tutsi owned cattle, they owned land, and they hired herdsmen to herd their cattle. And to get everyone else to play by those rules, had to impose their rules on those who would hunt their cattle, so wound up owning Hutus as well as cattle. And they sold off some of those Hutus.
So when the Tutsi and the Ashanti established order (that you like; you wouldn’t consider a firmly established authority like the Bolsheviks because you don’t like them), did they raid resisting villages and tribes? And if they did, were the people of these villages/tribes carried away as slaves?
You use idiosyncratic definitions for “race-based” and “raid”. Of course, when developing a distinctive ideology, philosophy or religion, the invention of a special jargon comes naturally. But it is an act of bad faith to accuse people of being liars and shills just because they stick to the standard definition of words rather than use your preferred jargon.
Ashantee did not raid, they conquered.
The Tutsi account of their history (which may be self serving) is that the Hutus voluntarily joined Tutsi society at the bottom, because the Tutsi economic order provided a substantially higher standard of living. If they are making that up, the fact that they are capable of making up such a story indicates that they are a lot more highly evolved than most Africans.
I also notice that you exercise doublethink when it comes to ruling elites. Since even the most benevolent of ruling elites will step on the toes of rival elites and members of the middle class, they are bandits in your eyes–it’s only a question of whether they are “mobile” or “stationary”. But when the violence of ruling elites is unleashed against the poor or against tribal peoples or against minorities, the ruling elites are no longer bandits but just champions of law and order.
Stationary bandits provide order, and permit prosperity. Mobile bandits destroy order. You are applying Marxist class analysis, with is merely a rationalization for terror, mass murder, and the destruction of property rights, not a meaningful account of reality, merely an excuse for insane and capricious destruction.
You’re back to calling non-whites “minorities,” H.A… Why are you so anti-white?
Two questions, Alan:
1. Aren’t nonwhites a minority of the American population?
2. Why does supporting good things for nonwhites mean I support bad things for whites? Can’t I support good things for everyone?
1. Supporting good things for everyone is psychologically unrealistic, because near is more salient than far.
2. Empirically, does not happen. Those who supposedly care about far, harm near, and also harm far, even though their primary focus is to use far to harm near. For example burning down Ferguson was primarily intended to hurt whites, but it also hurt blacks. Similarly, the rape and ethnic cleansing of whites from the Belgian Congo. Obviously the primary objective was that as many white Belgian women would be raped by blacks as possible, but a secondary side effect was that the Congo became a hell hole for blacks, and has remained so. The primary intent of the anticolonialists was to harm near, harm the colonialists, but they did not care how much harm they did to far in the process.
Yes I know you praise the merits of “stationary bandits” but the fact that you use the word “bandits” implies that your view even of them is not entirely positive. And it seems to me, that what they do to the richer, better-off half of society troubles you more than what they do to the poorer, worse-off half of society. And let’s use that framework since you like to deem anything sociological “Marxist”.
Making up hate filled demonizations of your opponent is not an argument, however much it may impress your boss.
Class analysis is mere a thin rationalization for robbery, murder, and wrongful enslavement, as is obvious from the language that you use and way that you use it, and the number one victims of those who glibly mouth this rationale are those they claim to care about and protect. Mao mainly murdered peasants.
I do NOT deny that the Tutsi and the Ashanti conquered. Do you deny that raiding was one of the tactics used in their strategy for conquest? Raids and ambushes after all feature in everything military from the most primitive to the most advanced levels of sophistication. Even our government uses raids, as for example with SWAT raids to carry out drug busts or suppress prison riots. In that standard definition of the word “raid” as opposed to your jargon definition of the word “raid”, did the Ashanti and the Tutsi use raids as a military tactic?
There is no evidence contradicting the Tutsi account, that the their dominance was accomplished by peaceful means, in that Hutus preferred to be part of the Tutsi economy with no rights, rather than excluded from the Tutsi economy.
None of the known acts of violence by Tutsis against Hutus can be plausibly described as raids, rather they were the reassertion of customary dominance by killing or expelling troublesome Hutus. Hutus were treated like illegal immigrants, even if they had been in Tutsi lands for generations, and claimed to have been in Tutsi lands forever.
The Ashanti claimed authority over many of their neighbors that they arguably did not in fact dominate. So when Ashanti troops arrived, they did not perceive it as a smash and grab, but as a re-assertion of long standing and legitimate domination granted by the Gods. Maybe they raided, but if they did raid, they denied that that was what they were doing. The Gods told them to rule, and they thought that that was what they were doing. And, for the most part, that is what they were doing.
So I am pretty sure that the Tutsi did not in fact raid. They were at home, and not leaving. It was these badly behaved outsiders that needed to behave, leave, or die.
I cannot find any reference to the Ashantee raiding, other than the usual vague demonizing about the slave trade. The rationale is always “evidence of slavery, therefore raiding”, not “evidence of raiding, therefore slavery”
So there were no oppressive ruling elites before the advent of leftism? Besides you’re the one who admits that his heroes were bandits!
No one ever worries about oppressive ruling elites except they are of a different race or religion, or except that leftists are the ruling elite, and invoke an imaginary ruling elite to rationalize the murder of the peasants and the workers.
Isn’t the whole theme of this blog your contention that the Left is an oppressive ruling elite (which I would agree can be true especially if the local Left elite form a dictatorship over the nation it rules)? Isn’t the whole Left-Right dichotomy about the fact that not everyone likes the Left (leaving aside for the moment whether the Right is effective or not)?
The problem with the left is not that it is an oppressive ruling elite in the sense that Marxists think about one class oppressing the other.
The problem with the left is that it is evil and insane, that its destructiveness manifests as self destructiveness.
Evil, as imagined by the left is the bloated capitalist squeezing the workers, squeezing far for the benefit of near. Evil in reality is the coal train in the Taggart railroad tunnel through the Rockies, people destroying themselves in their efforts to destroy those nearest to them.
I reject the left right dichotomy. The left has a thousand points of doctrine, with more added every day. Whosoever disagrees with a single point, is right wing.
So if one person disagrees only with point five hundred and thirty seven, that one is a rightist, and another disagrees with only point seven hundred and eight four, then the other one is also a rightist.
Just as during the reformation, there was one Catholic Church and a thousand different protestant churches, now that communism has fallen, there is only one left remaining, but a thousand rights.
Also we don’t think that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is usefully categorized as left and right. Rather, the Democrats are the inner party, and the Republicans the outer party.
Thus, for example, if the Republicans were actually in competition with the democrats, they would have used the Martin vs Zimmerman issue to drive a wedge between Mestizos and Democrats “Qué quieres votar por el partido blanco o el partido negro?”, and similarly make use of Obama’s discipline quotas, of which the chief beneficiaries are black kids, and the chief losers mestizo kids.
And similarly, if in actual competition, would promote Ferguson to Asians. “Do you want your neighborhood to be safe, or on fire?”
I guess contemporary politics can be divided into those who want to take from far to benefit near (jihadis, nonwhite Leftists, fascists, crony capitalists, neo-reactionaries, racists of all sorts, Kahanists) and those who want to take from near to benefit far (the white Leftist Establishment). And then there’s people like me who are way far away from this battleground, suggesting that the world would be a better place for everyone if we all focused on just treatment of others instead of worrying about which team wins.
That is so frothing batshit insane that no reply is possible.
That is the Marxist doctrine that treats groups as if they were automatically cohesive, so could automatically be treated as a single conscious being, as if collective decision making was trivially easy. Your doctrine merely has to be stated plainly for its evil and madness to become apparent.
If the left had their way, would murder everyone, starting with each other.
Compare me with Scott Alexander. He gets ten times the persecution I do.
Now you’re clearly trolling me. You introduce the concepts of “near” and “far” to the conversation, I translate these concepts into the world as I know it and then you say that using these concepts is insane and destructive because groups don’t tend to be cohesive. (And it’s true that any group of people will eventually break up into factions but the assumption I made was that we were talking about groups *during their times of cohesion*.)
The world as you claim to know it is the world as Marxists know it, a world where collective action problems do not exist.
Even if you believe in that world, rather than merely mindlessly repeating official boilerplate by rote, you surely know that I don’t believe in it, nor does anyone else in the dark enlightenment believe in it.
The Case for “Jim Donald” as a Literary Persona
1. Admits to concealing the pederasty of friends and family but does not get arrested for aiding and abetting criminals.
2. Calls people to his left “Communists” like a stereotypical right-winger but uses the word “reactionary” to describe himself even though that word is almost exclusively used by actual Communists (or at the very least, pinko socialists) to describe right-wingers.
3. Trolls people. E.g. Advocates the violently imposed subordination of people who aren’t rich white straight males like the Left’s stereotypical image of a conservative would do. Then when called out on it, diverts the conversation to name-calling, disputes over jargon and moving the goalposts (e.g., the conversation goes from the discussion of group behavior to the insistence that people don’t behave as members of groups thus rendering moot the conversation began by oneself).
Your lies about me, my positions, and about anyone who is insufficiently left wing, are getting too boringly repetitious to bother refuting yet again, but I will address the issue of your Marxism, your lies about yourself.
Applying class based reasoning, reifying categories of people as if they were an individual person capable of acting as one, is cultural Marxism, the standard left edge of progressivism. When one of those categories is rich and poor, rather than women and blacks, it is plain old fashioned Marxism. You are a Marxist and cultural Marxist from the left edge, the leading edge, of progressivism.
Marxists analyze the world in terms of which side you support – rich or poor, black or white, women or men, as if such support automatically and easily translated into benefits for the side supported.
If I erred, it was not deliberate; at any rate, different values and different jargon will produce different definitions of the word “truth”. And apparently arguing for inequality among the rich and the poor, men and women, whites and blacks is NOT demonization, NOT reification and NOT malicious while arguing for equality IS. Your label of me as a Marxist or a progressive would perhaps apply if I was arguing for a blanket removal of authority. I do not; what I argue for is:
1. End abuses of authority.
2. Authority must be earned instead of being a default position in relationships between rich and poor, men and women, whites and blacks. If authority has been clearly earned, THEN allegations of demonization, reification and malice can be applied!
If someone signs your paycheck, he has already earned authority. If you say he has to earn all over again, you are proposing confiscation, which always winds up with the mass murder of those you claim to protect and benefit.
“And apparently arguing for inequality among the rich and the poor, men and women, whites and blacks is NOT demonization, NOT reification and NOT malicious while arguing for equality IS. ”
Of course it is – don’t be stupid.
If you argue that whites and blacks are equal then you’ve got a giant problem when people notice that blacks aren’t equal. Next step, someone rouses a mob to kill the whites – starting with just excusing a little rape and a few deadly hammer beatings.
Every single time. Every single time without exception and you’ve got the gall to pretend to not notice this and to posture as if you’re morally superior.
Pathetic.
Except that I don’t believe that equal opportunity necessarily leads to equal outcomes. In general, I believe that the Left complains too much about how blacks, women and the poor are disadvantaged–blacks, women and poor people need to earn their good fortune like rich white males need to. If I seem to be arguing from the opposite standpoint, it’s because I don’t think that the solution to the Left’s bad-faith egalitarianism is to celebrate the slave system of the antebellum South and hold it up as a model for the present day.
I keep asking you how many women should be vaginally impaled with large objects to attain the next increment in equality, and you keep not answering.
Suppose you repair black water fountains on the same schedule as white water fountains. Then all the black water fountains will be broken, and all the white water fountains will be working. Similarly public lavatories. Then the blacks go off to white lavatories and water fountains and break them also. Is it fair to let them do this? If unfair, then apartheid, segregation, separate drinking fountains. If fair, then ethnic cleansing as happened in Detroit and is now happening in Ferguson.
So let us look at what happened when slavery was abolished. There was a huge die off among slaves, partly due to black on black violence, no longer restrained by white masters. Mostly, however, the die off reflected a huge decline in the black standard of living. Economists had expected a huge increase in the black standard of living, because if blacks and whites freely contracted to do the same work for the same reward as before, only without whips and chains, obviously everyone would be better off, but blacks could not credibly commit to do the same work as before, or to work without theft, vandalism, and assault. Large numbers of blacks were unemployable, and it was difficult for those that were employable to find work.
For blacks who were unemployable for reasons of character, slavery was a humane, just, and appropriate solution.
Not every person who was naturally worthy of freedom was free, and not every person who was naturally a slave was enslaved, but it was a better approximation to reality than today’s Detroit.
And since then every additional increment of equality has come at higher costs, and less, if any, actual equality ensuing.
Equality comes with tradeoffs. Pretty serious tradeoffs. What tradeoffs are you willing to make?
You say you are in favor of equal opportunity without Fergusons. But we have Fergusons and don’t have equality of opportunity, and any further move towards equality is going to involve more and bigger Fergusons.
The thing is, for every measure to improve equality, you will not admit the costs. If equality is a free lunch, there is no limit to how much equality is to be enforced, and no limit to how drastic the measures to enforce it.
If someone is a member of group A, and group A is inferior to group B, he is not going to have equality of opportunity with group B because he is going to be largely hanging out with members of group A.
Let us suppose you have car full of white college kids who go to East Palo Alto to buy drugs and car full of black kids who to to East Palo Alto to buy drugs.
The black Palo Alto cop stops the car full of white college kids on some pretext, and the driver says.
All the other kids remain respectful and silent.
The cop cannot really find a problem so he lets them go with a warning.
Then the cop stops the car full of black teenagers. The driver says
Well, he still cannot really find a problem, but now he is really motivated to try. And one of the teenagers in the back keeps yelling, so the cop makes him get out of the car on some pretext or another, and the kid that he makes get out of the car starts fighting, and spills drugs all over the place, so pretty soon the entire car full of black teenagers is in jail on drug charges, violence charges, resisting arrest charges, and the car has been confiscated on a moving violation and being in unsafe condition.
So two of the kids in the car full of black kids are not going to get equality of opportunity with the kids in the car full of white kids, and they are still not going to get equality of opportunity even if you send them to Harvard and give them a PhD in hating whitey – which you probably will.
You guys keep saying that the Left wants to vaginally impale Tutsi women but it hardly advertises this desire like it advertises its “Free Palestine” campaign or even the “Free Darfur” campaign that later faded into obscurity. So Leftists are hardly under party discipline to vocally support the vaginal impalement of Tutsi women.
But in a way, it is besides the point since I am not a Leftist; I take ideas from the Left, Right and Center and apply as an independent thinker to my analysis of the world. Indeed even if Leftists wanted to vaginally impale Tutsi women, I would be less responsible for that atrocity (and yes, it’s an atrocity) than you are for the pederast rapes committed by your friends and family. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
But when Tutsi women are vaginally impaled by a left wing army funded and armed by the Cathedral left, and militarily supported by UN troops, they seem quite incapable of mentioning the fact.
And, at the same time, in the official truth, Tutsi are demonized. Tutsi are supposed to take action to heal the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis, as if Jews and Israel were supposed to make nice to Germans, but the germans were not expected to abandon Nazism.
And yet you cannot put any daylight between yourself and a policy of imposing equality by vaginally impaling Tutsi women. You react to any deviation from the Marxist world view and Maxist understanding of the world with strident and extreme abuse.
About fountains and toilets…While toilets are a tricky matter, it should be possible to put hidden fountains on fountains. Would you object to people vandalizing fountains being fined four times the cost of damage with sell-offs of personal property or even forced labor to pay the fine, if fine payment was not forthcoming? I would not!
In practice, solving the fountain problem by ensuring order and good behavior among blacks, is necessarily going to wind up looking like any of my numerous proposals for ensuring order and good behavior among blacks, which is to say, quite horrifying to the left.
“hidden fountains on fountains” should read “hidden cameras on fountains”
Hahahahaha! We talk about slavery and then you bring up paychecks!
I mention “rich and poor” because as I recall–and correct me if I’m wrong–you once praised Ayn Rand for keeping contempt for poor people from being politically incorrect. In some cases, such contempt justified; in others, it is not. Just as in some cases, the rich earned their wealth and in others they obtained fraudulently. I am well aware of the nuances that exist in the real world but you seem to make this assumption (emphasis on “seem”) that rich people are better people than the poor unless proven otherwise.
I am pretty sure you are wrong.
What seems to be happening is that whenever you see any small deviation from the standard Marxist totalitarian terrorist world view you read it as “Jim hates and despises the oppressed”.
That I think some people need to be ruled is not equivalent to hating them, it is not equivalent to wishing them harm. I just don’t think they are very good at making decisions. For example, women are in most ways nicer than men, and at many important activities, like finding the car keys, they are better than men, and on average they are as smart as men, but with smaller variance, so that at the high end, among the smartest people, women are almost always mentally inferior. However, even a very smart women is apt to make horribly bad decisions about sex and reproduction, so need to be protected from themselves.
Further, men are incapable of holding women responsible for the consequences of their conduct, so, given that we will protect them from the consequences of their decisions, have to restrain and supervise the corresponding decisions. Obviously I like women. A lot. I just don’t think they should be allowed enough rope to hang themselves.
you sure the cop doesn’t see the White kids, assume that they’re there to commit some kind of crime like buying drugs, and ask them if they’re lost?
you go to a mostly White area, the McDonalds has the soda fountains out where people can choose their own soda themselves, because no one is going to walk up and fill a bottle, and you can walk into the bathroom anywhere.
You go to a less White area, there’s a lock on the bathroom door in the coffee shops, and no bathrooms in any other kinds of stores.
You go to a marginal area, and the hipster coffee shop has a clean bathroom, while the McDonalds is disgusting inside.
So what do you do? Do you tax the hipster coffee shop to clean the McDonalds so that Blacks can find out what it’s like to have a clean bathroom, so then they can keep it clean themselves?
That experiment has been tried.
What hasn’t been tried yet? Cameras! Let’s put cameras everywhere, so that offenders can be punished. If you guys were serious about punishing offenders, Eldridge Cleaver would have been punished for ambushing and attempting to murder some police. Oh, and the whole surprise sex thing.
“Would you object to people vandalizing fountains being fined four times the cost of damage with sell-offs of personal property or even forced labor to pay the fine, if fine payment was not forthcoming? I would not!”
So what do you say when the vandals claim their actions were forced by a history of discrimination and non-inclusion in the mainstream of society? Answer: a Department of Repairing Past Injustices that will someday address and solve this problem. Until then, we will allow the vandals their cathartic release of pent up hatred.
Leftists always imagine there is a public policy solution to every problem. When failure ensues, then we just need more policy.
I don’t want to live where the police and hidden cameras are the only things keeping order.
How many differences do I have to explain between the Left and I before you guys can accept the fact that I am not a Leftist? And you guys are all, “We gotta clampdown on these niggers! We gotta clampdown! Oh, cameras! That’s horrible!”
for more on cameras and offenders being punished, check out https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/review-of-the-collapse-of-american-criminal-justice-by-william-j-stuntz/
— Well, Handle has direct experience working for an ‘innocence project’-like legal clinic, and I hope you will believe him when he tells you that the days of headline-worthy exonerations are over. Let me share a little anecdote with you. The first ‘innocence victory’ to which I provided assistance was the case of a very clearly guilty woman with a long criminal record who was sentenced to 9 months in jail for substantial larceny for which the evidence was good quality video of her committing the act. She nevertheless complained that she had insufficient time to confer with her public defender to participate in her own defense, which is, we pretend, a classic indicator of a risk of injustice.
— The particular jurisdiction in which the crime was committed had a strange rule at the time where the amount of time the defender spent with his client was not so low so as to be considered ineffective assistance of counsel, but low enough to warrant reversal of conviction in certain circumstances. Well, lo and behold, we put the motion before the judge, and the judge set our ludicrously larcenous lady at liberty!
Cameras don’t matter if they show that Blacks are causing trouble, because there’s the whole ‘equality of opportunity’ thing that we must impose.
I said that vaginally impaling Tutsi women was an atrocity but you didn’t read it just like you didn’t read me point out my differences with the Left. You only pay attention to words that confirm your pre-existing point of view.
Yes. You are in favor of equalizing Tutsis without impaling Tutsi women. And I am in favor of free pies falling from the sky. But you are in favor of equalizing Tutsis, and, much as the communists did not seem terribly surprised when liberating the peasants looked remarkably like exterminating the peasants, see no need for a change of course when equalizing Tutsis turns out to be more difficult than expected.
HA, there’s a reason people keep mistaking you for a Leftist: you never seem to say anything that a Leftist wouldn’t say.
Imagine the most ridiculous caricature of a Leftist you can: say, a vegan, lesbian-until-graduation, white woman with dredlocks and a very active tumblr account. Surely, you have some opinion that would make her shriek, cry, unfriend you, dox you, and denounce you. I’m not talking about simple disagreement, but rather something that, in her mind, would put you beyond the pale of civilized discourse. Share that opinion with us.
I notice, Jim, for all your denunciations of Communism that you use the rhetorical tactics they use–must be a skill you learned when you were a Communist agitator–in particular you aim to stay on the offensive instead of the defensive. So instead of pederasty by definite associates of yours, the conversation inevitably circles around to impalement by people implausibly associated with me. Instead of discussion of murder, plundering, rape, enslavement and collective punishment to impose imperial aristocracies, we talk about murder, plundering, rape, enslavement and collective punishment to depose imperial aristocracies.
My program is not going to result in pederasty. Your program results in impalement. It results in the children of kulaks being set on fire to force the mother to reveal where the seed grain is buried.
You say that cameras will stop crime.
I say that only a commitment to stopping crime will stop crime.
You claim to have a commitment to stopping crime.
I ask if your commitment to stopping crime comes before or after your commitment to providing equal opportunity.
You answer that that’s a not nice rhetorical trick probably learned as a Communist agitator and we should go back to discussing the Alhambra Decree and the Spanish Inquisition.
I say that the Alhambra Decree and Spanish Inquisition were much more fair and straightforward than what the Nazis did because Ferdinand and Isabella were kings and Hitler was a führer.
Ball’s in your court. Defend mob rule, a.k.a. democracy and führerism, and defend equality of opportunity, a.k.a. confiscation.
Talking about equality and liberty doesn’t make you a Communist. America talks about equality and liberty but it is not Communist. Even when that talk is laced with actual Socialism, one is not necessarily a mass-murdering Communist, see Sweden. For the record, I actually think Sweden went too far to the Left–but using the victims of Communism as a bloody shirt to tar everyone who disagrees with whichever authority or government you are loyal to merely convinces people that the Communists did not massacre people, since the thesis that everyone who opposes, say, the Emperor of Japan or the Fuehrer is a mass-murdering totalitarian Communist also sounds credible to those who already agree with the thesis (the same applies if you substitute some other traditional authority for the Emperor or the Fuehrer). But since they did massacre, persuading people that they did not counts as a bad thing.
Class theory, class based analysis, in other words, ignoring the collective action problem, does make you a communist.
The victims of communism illustrate the collective action problem. If you make the same error as they do, it will lead to the same results, and, as for example in the Boer war, in Rwanda, in the Congo, did lead to the same results.
When I said “also sounds credible” I meant “does not sound credible”.
I must be tired this late at night. I meant to say “sounds credible only” as in calling all opponents of your ideology Communists is only plausible if you already agree with that assertion.
Notice that both the traditional authorities you like and the Communist authorities you hate committed the crimes of: mass murder, rape, enslavement, mass confiscations and collective punishment. Which begs the question: Is it possible to have a stable government that does not implement such repression? I say that such a government would have to have a tradition of Burkean conservatism. While I’m not an expert on Burke, from what I’ve heard of him, he realized the necessity of change and reform but advocated that change and reform be implemented slowly. Thus one can slowly equalize opportunity without confusing it with equality of outcome because the whole point of such reform would be to steer the middle ground between upheavals of unsettled institutional injustice and a war of revolutionary extermination. Both could and often would require murder, rape, enslavement, confiscations and collective punishment while the middle ground leaves room to respect the rights of all.
>Even when that talk is laced with actual Socialism, one is not necessarily a mass-murdering Communist, see Sweden.
And yet Socialist Sweden sent large sums of money to a mass murdering socialists in East African to enable their killings.
talking about cheese does not make you a Frenchman. Our argument here is that Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, actually means terror, confiscation, and fratricide. Our evidence is the revolutionary regimes. You say that societies that have taken the slow poison of democracy and are gradually slipping into barbarism aren’t barbaric yet.
Your evidence is Sweden.
Sweden now has gang rapes, a number of regions where the police simply do not go, and during a recent outbreak of rioting the gender-integrated police were writing tickets for burnt-out cars. They have terror, not as a theoretical thing as in the US where you get fired for saying the wrong thing, but in the form of Marxists publishing the home addresses of people who said bad things on the Internet, whereupon one person’s home was bombed.
Their gender policies have gotten beyond anywhere else in the world. Not only do they have invented pronouns required for children, but Swedish feminist muttaween harass men for sitting in male postures on the subway. Of course, you probably think this is liberty and equality.
I assume by “collective action problem” you mean the difficulty of determining the collective will when the collective is made up of distinct individuals. I would argue that the collective will is not only an abstraction but that is an approximation based on the group’s politics rather than something that has any real existence. Presumably advocating all wealth to the poor (not my position but you say it is) would bring up this problem, at which point only the most horrifically violent would prevail in voicing the “true” collective will. But then creating aristocracies by having “superior” (i.e. more strategically violent) people conquer everyone else has historically involved violence too. That’s why the middle ground is preferable. People often say the middle ground is not principled, that it gives way to any of the two extremes because only the extremes have ideologically set visions of the world while the middle ground is a hodgepodge of positions. But precisely because going to the extreme in any direction whether towards traditional aristocracy or towards Pol Pot state communes involves extreme violence to overcome any contextual variation from the One True Faith–for that reason, the middle ground is the best of both worlds.
No.
You don’t seem familiar with criticisms of Marxist thought, nor very receptive to such criticisms. I get the impression that crimestop prevents you from understanding criticisms of Marxism.
Mao and Pol Pot really intended to do good to the peasants. You don’t seem particularly interested in why their good intentions failed to have the intended effect, why in fact they wound up waging the most terrible and savage war against their defeated, disarmed, and terrified subjects, nor do you notice that PC is moving towards a similar state of war for similar reasons. It really does not benefit blacks that they burn down Ferguson, nor does it benefit women that they can blow up their marriages for cash and prizes.
Obviously if someone thinks that Capitalists should operate the economy, that is not because he hates workers and peasants and wants them to suffer, and if someone thinks that the Pauline rules should apply to women and marriage, that is not because he hates women and wants them to suffer, and if someone thinks that pre civil war slavery was a pretty sound system, that is not because he hates blacks and wants them to suffer.
Sweden should stand up to political correctness and to Islamic intimidation–that much is true. But just as it moved away from old-style nationalization Socialism through the churning of the democratic process central to the middle ground of politics so too might Sweden recover from the more cultural Marxism currently prevalent. At any rate, my point was that just because a nation is ravaged by Socialism, it doesn’t mean it has been thoroughly Bolshevized and indeed so far Sweden has suffered orders of magnitude less than the USSR did.
You don’t have a clue what’s going on in Sweden:
http://www.whyileftsweden.com/?p=235
— through the churning of the democratic process central to the middle ground of politics so too might Sweden recover from the more cultural Marxism currently prevalent
you expect democracy to fix democracy when democracy makes it illegal to question democracy?
No peppermint – he just expects to pick up holiness points by being in favor of most holy mission of driving off the cliff but being against crashing into the canyon.
“But why can’t I just be in favor of equality without all those nasty consequences?”.
He comes back to that refrain again and again.
Jim, Peppermint, Red, Steve: I don’t know if we can have a productive debate when we don’t inhabit the same reality. Your jargon labels democracy as Marxist terrorist totalitarianism and equality of opportunity as equality of outcome with anyone disagreeing being a paid agent of the Cathedral hive mind.
Your reality is maintained by crimestop. To see what is in front of your nose, you need to commit thoughtcrime. No matter what we say, you translate our words into the nearest equivalent that makes sense within Cultural Marxism.
When I read your words, I understand your meanings, because I read you as a Cultural Marxist. When you read my words, you do not understand them, because you read me as if I were a Cultural Marxist, as if I thought the Cultural Marxist worldview was true, but chose to support evil instead of good.
If you understand me so well, why do you ignore the differences that I explain having between my own view and the Left’s view? You act as though the many differences of opinion that I pointed out did not exist or were even explained over the course of this debate.
You don’t differ. Affirmative action in the sense of hiring quotas, or having a lower standard for blacks and women, is illegal and always has been, or rather openly admitting that that is what is going on is illegal and always have been, and when one points to disastrous consequences of hiring unqualified people, and forcing everyone to pretend that they are qualified and work with them as if qualified, for example Google, every single leftist will deny that that is what is happening. They will claim they are merely making an extra effort to find women who are every bit as qualified as the men, even when it is spectacularly obvious that that is not what is happening and disastrous consequences ensue.
You are opposed to that form of affirmative action that is practiced everywhere and is illegal everywhere – but in any particular case, will not see what is in front of your eyes, will deny what is happening and lie barefaced about what is happening.
Whatever, Jim. I can’t force you to learn how to read.
If you named and shamed a particular concrete case of affirmative action which had particular identifiable bad consequences, you would be committing crimethink, because supposedly no actual cases exist, but opposing it in the abstract is like opposing the vaginal impalement of Tutsi women with large objects in the abstract. As Peppermint observed, you are fine with driving off a cliff, it is the hitting the bottom you object to.
How about the Army’s affirmative action for Muslims where they retained Maj. Nidal Hasan even though he was an open jihadist an then classified his jihad terrorism as mere “workplace violence”? Or, as you guys point out the way the left-wing media portrayed the shooting of the thugs Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as cold-blooded executions in order to encourage other Leftists to riot for immunity for (non-white) criminals? But those points of agreement with you guys don’t matter because the real point from your perspective is that I don’t bow down and say neo-reaction will save us from the Left’s Matrix. An even deeper point is that I keep exposing how absurd you are for whining like a baby about the Left’s degeneracy but then do nothing when it appears in the form of pederasty just because it’s against your self-interest. (Can’t any powerbroker with the ability to resist the Left argue that the risk is against his self-interest?)
OK, that differentiates you from the worst excesses of the left.
Now how about girl pilots? Female firemen? “Independence” for the congo? “Independence” for Rhodesia?
“Now how about girl pilots? Female firemen? “Independence†for the congo? “Independence†for Rhodesia?”
Girl pilots? Are you talking civilian or military? I don’t hear too much about problems in civil aviation besides terrorism and too much expensive fuel for too few customers. As for military, that opens up the whole question of whether women should be in the military in the first place. Philosophically I understand that a man almost always has to the stronger partner to keep the passion and that men should protect (decent) women in their lives anyways. With that said, I find strong (but not bitchy) women to be sexy. Practically women soldiers worked out well for the USSR and probably is working well for the Kurds. But America probably has more trouble integrating women into the military because of gender norming physical requirements and (implicit) quotas–in other words, the U.S. elite makes military policy serve feminism as opposed to Ocalan and Stalin who instead made feminism serve military policy. As for Africa, you do know that King Leopold committed mass murder in the process of extracting slave labor. I’m not saying the cannibal warlords after independence were better: changes in government both in favor and against independence have involved mass murder if not outright genocide. Africa is not called the Dark Continent just because of the natives’ skin color!
Well HA, you’re now a bit to the right of Scott Alexander. Congratulations.
Alexander brought up the Negro death cases and the rape hoaxes in order to try to excuse the Left for its propaganda and discuss how to make more effective propaganda in the future.
Incidentally, I tried to post that that was what he was doing, and pursuant to the legal restrictions on hatespeech under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he had to delete my post commenting on his behavior in light of the legal restrictions on hatespeech under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Anyway, you are still advocating for a version of the progressivism of today that lacks a list of excesses you carry around. After the recent Negro death cases, would you say that the cops are not victimizing Blacks for no reason, or would you say that you’re sure they are but the propagandists got ahead of themselves?
My comments on that also disappeared in moderation on that post.
He went fully clever silly with that post.
The reason there are so many hoaxes is because the solid cases don’t get news coverage. So the more hoaxes you see, the more certain you should be that the alleged phenomenon exists.
Gotta repair that megaphone.
This is the best comment on the thread. Islam’s principles are the closest thing to neoreaction in practice. Women under the supervision of men? Check. State religion? Check. Asabbiya? Check. And it shows what can be accomplished by a philosophy that respects natural law instead of trying to replace it with something dreamed up in Harvard. It’s no coincidence that of all the minorities and immigrants in the Western world, it is the Muslims who are seen as most likely to replace and overrun the native population.
@Jim – divorce in Islam is usually initiated unilaterally by men, and is really rare. Traditional Islamic societies marry off girls at the age of 12 or so. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, it really used to be the sword or the kuran. Mohammad was the Moldbug of his day, he created a system to beat the world and take no prisoners.
Yes and the innocent victims generated shows the justice of such a path!
HA, are you saying that Islam is not a beautiful, profoundly humane Religion of Peace?
Not a good sign. Stop exposing yourself to deranged hate site rantings and maybe you can regain your purity.
I am not a Social Justice Warrior so I don’t have to worry about maintaining politically correct purity. Look, David Icke says the royal family are lizard people and that the Moon is a projector for the Matrix cast upon humanity by the Illuminati so people are free to construct alternate realities. The key though is you shouldn’t get indignant when I deny facts that are only facts within your crazily-constructed alternate reality. It’s the considerate thing to do.
You are outraged by our shocking proposal to treat different groups according to different rules, when your fellow social justice warriors, when in power, find themselves forced by reality to furtively do exactly that.
“Islam, unlike Christianity, never sustained civilization. The so called Islamic golden age consisted of them conquering the Byzantine Greeks and the Indians, and not immediately strangling those civilizations. Islam’s high civilization was Greeks gaining access to the work of the higher Indian races. The famous Damascus steel was actually Indian steel, and not long after they conquered India, the art of making it was lost, so those Damascus steel blades that so impressed the Crusaders were ancient heirlooms, the remnants of a fading civilization and races now lost or degenerate due to conquest.”
So, in other words, Islam never sustained civilization – except for when it did. All civilizations borrow from their predecessors. You forgot the Persians and Central Asians, who at the time were probably more advanced than the Greeks and Indians. Much of the intellectual elite of the Islamic Golden Age were of Persian or Central Asian origin.
Damascus steel wasn’t just Indian; a version of the Bessemer process was known in Central Asia; archaeologists have found brick smelters used for producing proper steel in Central Asia; the Viking era ‘ulfberht’ swords were produced from steel ingots imported from Central Asia and once this source was cut off due to Turkic/Mongol invasions of Central Asia, production of Ulfberht swords stopped. Video on that topic below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM
In other words, Ulfberht swords were made from steel that ceased to be produced shortly after the makers of that steel were conquered by Islam.
The Mongols and their East Turk vassals were animists and Nestorian-Christians, respectively.
That is because progressives are disinclined to impose affirmative action where it is likely to get them killed, hence don’t impose affirmative action on civil aviation pilots, but are happy to impose it on military pilots, because they don’t care if the military get killed.
He committed mass murder in the course of subjugating the Congo. After it was subjugated, worked pretty well, a whole lot better than it works today – an argument that leftist are fine with for communist countries, “Communist country X was not too bad after date Y”, even though after the communists subjugated their peasants, did not work well.
See, that’s where I differ. You’re OK with massacres to impose white rule, progressives are OK with massacres to impose black rule and I’m standing to the side, noting that if people stopped massacring one another and struggling to dominate one another the world would be a better place for everyone. But I also know that given human nature this ideal can be only partially realized at best.
P.S. There are female pilots in civil aviation but their careers depend on competence rather than affirmative action which is the sort of integration I support. Why can’t all integration work that way instead of depending on implicit quotas? And for the thousandth time, equality of opportunity is NOT equality of outcome!!!
Then you agree that “independence” for Rhodesia, the Congo, etc, was a great and grave wrong? A crime against humanity?
Not many. One poster girl per airline, and they don’t do too much actual flying.
Whatever answer I give you’ll try to pigeonhole me into “you’re either with us or you’re with the communists” BS. Instead of picking a side in a conflict on the other side of the world, I am free here in California to ignore both sides as shitheads. Africa does not affect me; I can afford to be neutral. (Though if decent Boers or decent blacks want to flee, a very limited quota of them should enter America as official refugees.)
You also didn’t comment on women in the military. People like you–I may be wrong–dismiss women as soldiers out of hand but ignore how two very left-wing men (Ocalan and Stalin) made it work–all it took was a commitment to making feminism serve military policy instead of how in America military policy serves feminism.
“Stalin made it work” my ass.
That you guys pretend to believe that crap is one of the many reasons I call you a Marxist.
No I did not mention women in the military, because I just took it for granted it was such an obvious stupidity. I mentioned pilots, that being an area where affirmative action is getting people killed. And you still have not managed to condemn it.
Women have always been logistic support for the military, usually doing double duty as logistic support and comfort women. And that is where they should be. From time to time, progressives and commies pretend they are doing something different, but the pretense evaporates when bullets fly. Commies and progressives have never put women in the actual military, the part that gets shot at. They are not quite that demented. They just, from time to time, give women entirely unearned military honors.
When you say something supposedly right wing, you reject the implications of what you are saying. As Peppermint observed, you oppose hitting the bottom of the canyon, while continuing to favor driving off the cliff.
Obviously you haven’t heard of the female Soviet sniper who killed over 300 Axis troops. Or the female pilots the Nazis called “The Night Witches”. I don’t know about you but from my experience the word “witches” is generally used to describe female troublemakers that you’re unable to get rid of.
But the testimony to these “Night Witches” isn’t just from the Left. There’s this ultra-right Jewish blogger who advocates that the settlers secede from Israel to create a Jewish State that follows Torah instead of democracy. He’s so ultra-right that I dare say he could be called “reactionary” as you guys like to style yourselves. Here he mentions guerrilla warfare. If you’re willing to go through the long article, you can find where he discusses the pros and cons of female soldiers using his grandmother’s experience in the Soviet military. Did I link to the article already? The article can be found at: http://virtualjudah.wordpress.com/self-liberation-101-lesson-53-the-local-force-battalion/.
I have investigated sufficient poster girls that I don’t feel like investigating any more of them.
A casual check for “night witches” reveals that we don’t actually have Nazi sources that Nazis called them night witches – rather, we have Russian sources that claim that Nazis called them night witches.
His communist grandmother.
Would this be the same commenter “B”, who also wants to set up a Torah state in Israel (which strikes me as basic sanity – you need to bring a gun to a gunfight and a religion to a holy war) I pretty regularly ridicule B for having succumbed to feminism and tell him he is radically reinterpreting the plain meaning of the Talmud and the Old Testament.
I reject Communism for its collectivism and authoritanism. You however reject any modern idea that happened to be held by Communists except for collectivism (the inverse of the Communist brand) and authoritanism (dictatorship is OK when your side administers it).
While you accept the theory, reasoning and worldview that necessarily lead to collectivism and authoritarianism in practice.
As Peppermint said, you are in favor of driving over the cliff but opposed to the sudden stop at the bottom.
Do you think the communists wanted to be authoritarian? Do you think they expected to be authoritarian? Similarly collectivism is a necessary logical consequence of any moral theory that is universalist rather than egoist. If you are a utilitarian, you don’t reject collectivism.
That is why we are commanded to love our neighbor, not to love everyone in the whole world equally. The human heart is not big enough to love the whole world correctly, and winds up doing it horribly badly. The best a man can do is love his own small patch of the world.
“As Peppermint said, you are in favor of driving over the cliff but opposed to the sudden stop at the bottom.”
Hey c’mon Jim – that was me not peppermint.
Sorry, I misremembered.
Lovely phrase.
Which aptly sums up anyone who criticizes the communists for being “authoritarian” etc, without inquiring why they were “authoritarian”. (Hey, they were not authoritarian. General Pinochet Was authoritarian. Charles the Second was authoritarian. Communists were totalitarian. But Hidden Author will not inquire why they wound up totalitarian.)
— I reject Communism for its collectivism and authoritanism.
So tell me more about equality of opportunity. Do you want to ration White kids in the schools of mixed cities, or do you think that Blacks should have a worse educational experience simply because they are Black? Presumably you have a better plan in mind that avoids rationing White kids or giving more money to Black schools to hire the best Jewish Ivy League graduates as teachers, since those already don’t work, maybe you want to redefine what it means to have a good experience?
How do you know what equality of opportunity even means other than by comparing outcomes?
If, on the other hand, you don’t like the idea of equality of opportunity for Blacks, do you like equality of opportunity for dagos? Do you like equality of opportunity for the poor of one ethnicity, which necessarily implies restricting the opportunity of the rich? Finally, do you like giving the throne to the son of the King because he is assumed not necessarily superior but to have had the most opportunity in the kingdom?
There’s two psychological things at work here. One is crimestop from violations of the speech code imposed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The other is the socialist phenomenon: your personal desire not to be seen by women as inferior to your superiors. If you can break out of that mindset, then you can acknowledge things as they are.
>Would this be the same commenter “Bâ€
No.
The author of Medinat Yehuda has a phenomenal grasp of tactics and a terrible grasp of strategy. His prescriptions are basically those of the Zealots and would lead to similarly terrible results. The desire to establish a rump state in the mountains of Judah and Shomron is suicidal, and the idea that this can be accomplished by a campaign of murdering the wrong kind of Jew is anti-Judaism. This is without even bringing up the question of whether leftists terror tactics can work for a right-wing movement.
There are a couple of places where he gets it right, but I will not go into this on a public forum.
>I pretty regularly ridicule B for having succumbed to feminism and tell him he is radically reinterpreting the plain meaning of the Talmud and the Old Testament.
But you are not familiar with either, even on the most basic level. For instance, you constantly quote out of context and are completely unaware that, e.g., the elders of Israel had to confirm David as king of Israel (plain text in the Torah a couple of pages from material you quote). So while I find you entertaining and occasionally informative on other subjects, on this one, well…the Talmud says, if they tell you there is wisdom among the non-Jews, believe them, but if they tell you there is Torah among them, disbelieve them.
You are correct, and I was incorrect, but this happened only after the tribes of Israel had declared him King – I conjecture that this was the mighty men of the tribes since it seems unlikely that everyone showed up in person. You will notice that David sends Abner to tell the elders get with the program, David does not go in person.
This does indeed imply the existence of a body known as the elders of Israel, contrary to what I claimed, though it also implies that they were largely irrelevant. That the men of Judah proclaimed David King made him King. That the elders eventually came along was a formality.
However, on the issue of female agency, you are clearly wrong. Female consent was legally irrelevant. The plain wording of numerous old testament laws shows this, as does the absence of any wedding ceremony in the sense of formal witnessing of consent by the parties. Your present day wedding ceremony is stolen from the Christians, who stole it from the Romans.
>You are correct, and I was incorrect, but this happened only after the tribes of Israel had declared him King – I conjecture that this was the mighty men of the tribes since it seems unlikely that everyone showed up in person.
I’ve spent some time in a modern tribal society in Afghanistan. Tribes are not ruled by “mighty” men in any physical sense. They are ruled by elders who are acknowledged as men of integrity, honor, quality and discernment. In Israel, this necessarily meant Torah wisdom, the same way that in Afghanistan it means discernment in Pashtun tribal law/custom.
>You will notice that David sends Abner to tell the elders get with the program, David does not go in person.
He didn’t send Avner. Avner turned on his master, Sauls’ son, Ishbosheth, and went to David to negotiate a merger. He then went to go to the elders of Israel to get them on board, but was killed by Yoav on the way (incidentally, Yoav killed him cunningly in the city gate, the traditional seat of the local beit din, and the Talmud tells us that he called him aside to ask him the nuances of a halakhic question about levirate marriage annulment, and struck him with the sword when Avner went to show him how it’s done.)
>This does indeed imply the existence of a body known as the elders of Israel, contrary to what I claimed, though it also implies that they were largely irrelevant. That the men of Judah proclaimed David King made him King. That the elders eventually came along was a formality.
No. The men of Judah ANNOINTED him king over JUDAH. Incidentally, the term is “anshei Yehuda,” which is the same term used for elders-for instance, the elders of the Great Sanhedrin were called “anshei knesset gedolah.” This made him king over Judah.
Then the elders of Israel (the other 10 tribes) annointed him king over Israel, after Ishbosheth’s murder. This made him king over Judah and Israel. This was not a formality, but the seal. Without it, David would have been another strong man, like Gideon, but not a king. A king is G-d’s annointed (the term is moshiach, the same word as “messiah,” which David used repeatedly in reference to Saul when explaining why he wouldn’t kill him given the opportunity repeatedly), and obviously not just anyone can do the annointing.
>However, on the issue of female agency, you are clearly wrong. Female consent was legally irrelevant. The plain wording of numerous old testament laws shows this, as does the absence of any wedding ceremony in the sense of formal witnessing of consent by the parties.
You mentioned the Talmud. The Talmud says that the woman’s consent is required. I have no reason to think that this is something they just made up. As for the plain wording-your grasp on the plain wording is worse than mine, and mine is worse than that of the Sages. So if they say, for instance, that what the words “she is married to him” mean is that she has to consent, which is why it doesn’t say “he marries her,” then I trust them. The same way I trust them when they say, for instance, that “eye for an eye” means the price of an eye for an eye, or when they say that “you shall put these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall tie them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes” means tefillin (phylacteries.) The other way, your way, is the road to Reform Judaism or Jewish Protestantism.
Likewise, when the Sages say that a woman who finds her husband repulsive can get a divorce, though she is not entitled to the sum of money in her ketubah, or that a man can divorce his wife for burning his food (though presumably he must pay her ketubah,) I assume they know what they are talking about, and the continued existence of Jewish family life in the millennia since they codified these laws suggests they DO know what they’re talking about.
>Your present day wedding ceremony is stolen from the Christians, who stole it from the Romans.
But you are not familiar with the details of our wedding ceremony. At all.
After the tribes declared him King, implying the tribes are not represented by the elders. Either they showed up in person, or they held a vote, or, more likely, their mighty men (aristocrats or militia officers) represented them.
No I did not.
If a woman’s consent is required, has to be formally witnessed, in other words, a wedding. No weddings in the old testament.
Ring on the finger, with the mythos that the finger is closest to the heart. That is a Roman mythos, as pagan as Christmas, for which reason the Puritans from time to time tried, unsuccessfully, to suppress it. Christian marriage comes from Roman paganism, and Jewish marriage comes from Christianity, with its pagan residue at the very center.
>After the tribes declared him King, implying the tribes are not represented by the elders.
I don’t know where you’re getting this nonsense. Whom would they be represented by, dancing bears? Cosmonauts? Tribes are always represented by elders. Anshei Yehuda, meaning, the men/elders of Judah, anointed him king of Judah (which actually meant Judah and Shimon). The elders of Israel, meaning, the leaders of the other 10 tribes (actually, 9, since Levi was spread through the land and had no territory of their own,) anointed him King over them.
>Either they showed up in person, or they held a vote, or, more likely, their mighty men (aristocrats or militia officers) represented them.
Now you’re just making stuff up. How it works in a tribe is it has elders. Who may be aristocrats (whatever that means) or honored warriors, but who are elders. In the nearest thing we have to ancient Israel, Afghanistan, an elder’s authority is determined by whether he is recognized as someone who can judge properly, in other words, people come to him for arbitration.
>>You mentioned the Talmud.
>No I did not.
“I pretty regularly ridicule B for having succumbed to feminism and tell him he is radically reinterpreting the plain meaning of the Talmud and the Old Testament.” Again, you are unfamiliar with both of these, having skimmed the one looking for support for your agenda, and never studied the other. Which is fine, but why argue with me about what they say?
>If a woman’s consent is required, has to be formally witnessed, in other words, a wedding. No weddings in the old testament.
You need two witnesses for every legal contract or transaction or trial, which is explicitly required in the Torah. That a marriage is a legal contract is obvious from many parts of the Torah, not just from the Book of Ruth, where Boaz goes to the gate where the elders sit to seal the deal (and while Ruth’s presence is not explicitly stated, it’s not denied,) but also from all the places where we see a clear legal distinction between a pilegesh (concubine) and a wife.
>Ring on the finger, with the mythos that the finger is closest to the heart.
Like I said, you are not familiar with the details. The ring is not essential. Essential details include the ketubah and that the woman is wed with something of value to her. The ring is a convenient standin, but in fact if the man says, for instance, “you are sanctified to me by value of the fact that I am a righteous man,” instead of “by value of the ring,” the marriage is still kosher.
Samuel 2 Chapter 5 verses one to three appears to speak of the tribes and the elders as two different entities, but if you really insist you could argue one entity, two identifiers.
The general story of Samuel 2 is that the death of Samuel is followed by disorderly anarchy, with order coming from fighting men, heroes, militias, warlords, and aristocrats. It just does not fit with the picture that there is a council of elders that anyone pays much attention to.
The judge Samuel was theocratic power, which derived from his personal charisma and reputation for holiness. He is not replaced by anyone of religious authority. In the book Samuel 2, we see a power vacuum, disorderly anarchy, which eventually gets filled in the usual bloody fashion. Previously, Israeli anarchy had had order derived from religion, and from religious leaders such as the judge Samuel. After Samuel, the deluge.
It appears to be a contract of purchase, a contract between the former owner of the woman and the new owner of the woman. Boaz receives all that was Elimelech’s from those that had a claim to be heirs of Elimelech. Similarly, no wedding ceremony for Isaac and Rebekah. They go straight to the tent, the contract being between Abraham and Nahor, not Isaac and Rebekah.
That is rationalizing the old testament form of marriage, marriage by purchase from the father of the bride, into the new pagan derived form of marriage, marriage by contract between the man and his wife. The pagan mythos of the ring connecting to the heart, which is completely incompatible with the old testament form of marriage, shows the transition.
The alien element at the heart of your marriage ceremony is the transition from the wife bound as property, and the wife bound by contractual obligation, marriage as a purchase versus marriage as a contract.
Wow, Jim! You know more than me about female Soviet soldiers even though I looked into the matter and you did not just like you know more about Jewish law and scriptures even though he looked into the matter and you did not. It seems like your neo-reactionary philosophy is like Marxism in the sense that it is a cobbled-together metascience that makes adherents better experts on subjects than real experts. Awesome!
I know that nothing that emerges from the Soviet Union has any connection to reality. That is why they called it an iron curtain. I also recall that throughout the eighties, US academia echoed and endorsed Soviet lies, even though no one else believed them and those lies were transparently and outrageously false.
Even though I knew you were a progressive, a Marxist, and a minion of the Cathedral, I never expected you to seriously propose that anyone should actually believe the official truth on female soldiers.
You know how many female firemen died in 9/11? Women simply will not expose themselves to danger, and men simply will not make them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone who does not adhere to your ultra-traditionalist viewpoint is a Marxist.
People who still believe in stories coming out of the old Soviet Union are the nutty left wing of the rabid left. In the 1980s, believing the Soviet version of reality was well inside the Overton window. These days, not so much.
You say you researched that story, but actual research would require that you look for Nazi sources, not Soviet sources.
So the grandchildren of former Soviet personnel are also Soviet sources? Keep in mind that since the Soviet Union was both totalitarian and a state-owned economy, ALL citizens were state personnel.
Your source is not the grandchild, but the grandmother.
And her source was the Soviet State.
>Samuel 2 Chapter 5 verses one to three appears to speak of the tribes and the elders as two different entities, but if you really insist you could argue one entity, two identifiers.
Since this is what the Talmud says, and since we see “anshei” being used elsewhere to refer to elders (meaning, Sages, not geriatrics,) this is reasonable to me. To clarify, they had councils of elders at every level, from a community of a few dozen to a city to a tribe to all of Israel. So the elders of Judah anointed him over Judah, and the elders of Israel then over Isral.
>The general story of Samuel 2 is that the death of Samuel is followed by disorderly anarchy, with order coming from fighting men, heroes, militias, warlords, and aristocrats. It just does not fit with the picture that there is a council of elders that anyone pays much attention to.
Again, context. Samuel 1 starts with total subjugation of the Hebrews by the Philistines, to the point where they were not allowed metalworking implements. Obviously, in this situation a sanhedrin couldn’t function in its full capacity. Then there is a brief period of sovereign national existence under Saul, very sketchily drawn out, followed by more Philistine occupation and civil war. Then we have national sovereignty under David. Again, we get the big picture and details germane to the narrative, but no more. For instance, Ahitophel is a highly-placed advisor, who comes into the picture only with Avshalom’s rebellion and that’s all we really get from the Torah. But the Talmud tells us he presided over the sanhedrin.
>The judge Samuel was theocratic power, which derived from his personal charisma and reputation for holiness. He is not replaced by anyone of religious authority.
Again, 1) this was an abnormal situation, 2) the fact that we don’t get details about something from the Torah doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. For instance, 2 books later, Shlomo sins against G-d. G-d sends Ahiya the Prophet to tell Yerovoam that he will be king over 10 tribes. This is the first we hear of Ahiya, and he shows up a couple more times to deliver other prophecies. We don’t hear anything about him as a man, his childhood, his family, his religious teachers, etc. Not germane to the narrative. But all those things obviously existed.
> It appears to be a contract of purchase, a contract between the former owner of the woman and the new owner of the woman.
What things appear to you from your cursory reading and what they were may be different. I trust the rabbis, who say that a woman’s consent is necessary.
>Boaz receives all that was Elimelech’s from those that had a claim to be heirs of Elimelech.
Not at all. He doesn’t inherit Ruth as one would a sheep,
>Similarly, no wedding ceremony for Isaac and Rebekah. They go straight to the tent, the contract being between Abraham and Nahor, not Isaac and Rebekah.
No. We don’t get many details because they’re not germane. The details we do get show Rivka’s explicit consent as the final word.
>That is rationalizing the old testament form of marriage, marriage by purchase from the father of the bride, into the new pagan derived form of marriage, marriage by contract between the man and his wife.
No. The Talmud explains to us what the extremely contracted descriptions in the Torah actually mean in practice, what makes a marriage valid or invalid, etc.
>The pagan mythos of the ring connecting to the heart, which is completely incompatible with the old testament form of marriage, shows the transition.
This is something unconnected. You see Rivka also got jewelry. A ring is simply a convenient form of jewelry, portable value.
>The alien element at the heart of your marriage ceremony is the transition from the wife bound as property, and the wife bound by contractual obligation, marriage as a purchase versus marriage as a contract.
Marriage is a contract of acquisition, but has its own special rules which are found in no other contract, which is obviously the way it should be. One of those rules is that the woman must consent and can’t be married against her own will.
This abnormal situation seems to have persisted all the way from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod. In so far as Israel had order in that period, that order came from Kings, and frequently no order at all.
The old testament records what the elders witnessed, and what it records is Boaz inheriting Ruth as one would a sheep. It does not record Boaz and Ruth contracting with each other, or even mention her presence. It does however record that Naomi instructed Ruth to sit tight and wait for Boaz to make everything legal.
Ruth publicly consenting before witnesses is not germane? The whole story is a romance. If a wedding happened, the wedding would certainly be germane. The anonymous kinsman of Elimelech consenting before witnesses is germane, but Ruth consenting before witnesses is not germane?
Ring, heart. A contract of acquisition no longer.
>This abnormal situation seems to have persisted all the way from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod. In so far as Israel had order in that period, that order came from Kings, and frequently no order at all.
No. The order came from a functional governmental apparatus. And this apparatus included a Sanhedrin. In the time period you mentioned, the greatest Sanhedrin of all time sat in Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly
>The old testament records what the elders witnessed, and what it records is Boaz inheriting Ruth as one would a sheep.
When you buy a car, your purchase becomes sealed when you go to the DMV and register the title. But your negotiation with the seller, the test drive, money changing hands…emotionally, this may be much more significant than the title registration, and certainly the title registration couldn’t have happened without this.
>Ruth publicly consenting before witnesses is not germane? The whole story is a romance.
The story is not a romance, a bodice ripper, a crime thriller, or anything of the sort. The story is part of our Torah which is given to explain to us how we got here and where to go from here.
>The anonymous kinsman of Elimelech consenting before witnesses is germane, but Ruth consenting before witnesses is not germane?
Of course. The near kinsman didn’t “consent”-he REFUSED his legal obligation, which he’d been ignoring (do you think he didn’t know that Naomi and Ruth had come from Moav and their terrible situation?) The point is that Boaz, the ancestor of David and our past and future line of kings, was a purely righteous man, and that Ruth was a righteous woman, not to give you an “awww” moment and a warm and fuzzy feeling. Boaz didn’t marry Ruth from romantic feeling or out of lust-he was an old man and passed away before his son was born. He married her because he was righteous, because she was righteous and because it was his obligation. This is what is germane.
>Ring, heart. A contract of acquisition no longer.
The heart is nowhere mentioned in the procedure. I recommend you find Mesekhet Ketubot (plural for ketuba, the marriage contract) online, with commentaries, and read it before we return to this argument.
“According to Jewish tradition”. But according to the old Testament and history as recorded by Josephus, events proceeded as if every man of this supposed Sanhedrin was hiding under his bed hoping he would not be found by assorted Kings, would be Kings, rebels, bandits, and warlords, from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod. When there was order, Kings provided order. And when there was no order …
The story [of ruth] is part of our Torah which is given to explain to us how we got here and where to go from here.
If David got there by Ruth marrying Boaz, then it would appear a lot more germane to report the marriage than to report the disposition of “all that was Elimelech’s” – unless the only item of substantial value that was Elimelech’s was Ruth.
If he was just doing his duty, would marry Naomi, not Ruth.
Boaz was a mighty man. Pretty sure that to qualify as a mighty man you not only have to be able to afford good armor and weapons, but have to be able to whip a heavy sword around very fast.
Further, even if he was retired from being mighty, it is perfectly clear that when Ruth went to him in the night, she expected a good dicking. She did not think he was all that far past it.
Ask why the ring goes on that finger.
>But according to the old Testament and history as recorded by Josephus, events proceeded as if every man of this supposed Sanhedrin was hiding under his bed hoping he would not be found by assorted Kings, would be Kings, rebels, bandits, and warlords, from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod.
You have not read Josephus in any more detail than you’ve read the Torah. Which disposes of the reigns of kings in a couple of pages each. So details of the Sanhedrin are not recorded. Which doesn’t give you license to invent whatever you want.
>If David got there by Ruth marrying Boaz, then it would appear a lot more germane to report the marriage than to report the disposition of “all that was Elimelech’s†– unless the only item of substantial value that was Elimelech’s was Ruth.
I guess that if you wrote the Book of Ruth instead of the prophet, it would have been done right. In fact, Elimelech had land of value, which is why the near kinsman initially jumped at the chance to inherit. Details of the wedding ceremony are not germane, but the fact that there was a near kinsman and that he turned down the levirate marriage was. And the full quote is this: ‘Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.’ She is not part of all that was Elimelech’s which Boaz acquires from Naomi. She is spoken of SEPARATELY from the property. And then it says, “So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.” She BECAME his wife. Active tense.
>If he was just doing his duty, would marry Naomi, not Ruth.
For someone who is such an expert, you sure miss the point a lot. The whole point of levirate marriage is to provide an heir to the deceased. Marrying Naomi would not provide Ruth’s deceased husband an heir. Not only that, but at the beginning of the book, Naomi says she is too old to have children and even if she could, by the time they were of age to marry Ruth in levirate, too much time would have passed. You didn’t read the book, did you?
>Boaz was a mighty man. Pretty sure that to qualify as a mighty man you not only have to be able to afford good armor and weapons, but have to be able to whip a heavy sword around very fast.
This is a goyish analysis, equally at home in Arthurian legend and rap videos. A Jewish analysis is in Pirkei Avot, “Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations. As is stated (Proverbs 16:32), “Better one who is slow to anger than one with might, one who rules his spirit than the captor of a city.”” Unlike other men of valor in the Torah such as David and Shimshon, we don’t get details of Boaz’ military exploits. If there were any, they are irrelevant. He is notable as a man who was respected by his peers, who sat on the local beit din, who was well-versed in the Law and ethical to a fault.
>Further, even if he was retired from being mighty, it is perfectly clear that when Ruth went to him in the night, she expected a good dicking.
Looking for a good dicking may be how your mother met your father, but we Jews speak of our ancestors respectfully, especially those discussed in the Torah. Further, the plain text of the book of Ruth tells you that they didn’t have conjugal relations until after she became his wife.
>Ask why the ring goes on that finger.
In Jewish law the wedding ring goes on the bride’s right index finger. Perhaps we stole that from the Romans, or the Papua New Guineans or the Faroe Islanders or something.
Would you like to keep arguing? You are not really looking better informed the longer you continue.
We get several pages each of each king exercising power, and sometimes unsuccessfully attempting to exercise power. Disorder ensues from time to time. If the Sanhedrin had power, or existed at all, it would be mentioned exercising power.
As always, you are making shit up – or perhaps the Talmud is making shit up.
And, supposing the land was of value, this is the story of Ruth, great grandmother of King David, not the story of some small plot of land. If Ruth had a wedding and vows, rather than being acquired like a sheep, rather than being the only thing of value of “all that was Elimelech’s”, that part of the story would have been told, and the part relating to the land not told.
It simply undeniable, Book of Ruth Chapter four, that Ruth was acquired by inheritance like a sheep or a chest of drawers. The consent of the other rightful heirs mattered and was witnessed. That consent being given, her consent was legally irrelevant, and was never given formally and in public. No one in the Old Testament has wedding, because women are property, and their consent is legally irrelevant, the point of a Roman style wedding being to witness consent.
And every time you deny it, you look like an idiot.
Does even the Talmud tell you that Ruth and Boaz had a wedding? It sounds to me like you are hunting for scraps from the Talmud that can be read as implying they had a wedding, with almost as much stretching applied to the Talmud as you apply to the Old Testament.
To recap the evidence again: Ruth is inherited like a chest of drawers, part of “all that was Elimelech’s”, not wedded like a person. Book of Ruth chapter 4.
No wedding ceremony for Isaac and Rebekah. They go straight to the tent, the contract being between their fathers Abraham and Nahor, not between Isaac and Rebekah. Genesis Chapter 24 Abraham acquires Rebekah for Isaac. Isaac does not acquire Rebekah, just as Ruth was Elimelech’s property, not property of Elimelech’s son.
Old Testament law on marriage: A widow is inherited by the brother of her husband. There is provision for him refusing her, but no provision for her refusing him.
Rape and adultery are strictly violations of property rights. If a man seduced or sleeps with another man’s wife or betrothed, serious crime.
If he sleeps with or rapes a virgin who is not betrothed, minor crime, and he has to marry the virgin. No provision for her refusing him. If you interpret the law as having an unmentioned provision for refusing him, then the law implies that if she refuses him, he faces no penalty at all, which interpretation is absurd. The penalty for rape of a virgin who is not betrothed is marriage. No other penalty is provided, therefore the woman’s opinions on the matter are of no consequence.
If he rapes an unowned non virgin, then no problem, but the laws go to considerable lengths to ensure that all non virgins are in fact owned by someone to prevent this case from arising.
There are a hundred or so references to mighty men in the old testament, and they are clearly references to men who were great warriors, and commonly references to men who were great warriors and leaders of men, for example King David’s mighty men. They were mighty because they killed people – usually, but not always, bad people. If Boaz a mighty man, unlikely to be an elderly dodderer no longer uninterested in women.
Those who are actually winning an argument find it unnecessary to proclaim that they are winning.
Face it. The Talmud turns turns the Old Testament upside down and inside out, and to accommodate modernity, you have turned the Talmud upside down and inside out.
Obviously, some accommodation to modernity is necessary and right, but accommodating exile (which is most of the Talmud) is no longer necessary, and is wrong, and accommodating feminism will kill your people.
This is a infidel analysis, equally at home in Arthurian legend and rap videos. A Islamic analysis is in the Islamic posters I see everywhere in my city about the religion of peace and its spirituality and forbearance.
And that’s the punch line. Jim the neoreactionary says that the social progress the left claims has happened has happened. B the conservative says that G-d would not permit social progress and the way things are now is as they always were. This should be instructive to any Christians still claiming that the Papacy is immune to social change. As a Nazi, what I get out of the discussion is that the Elders of Zion have phylacteries and turn into liches at the end of their mortal threescore years and ten.
> A Islamic analysis is in the Islamic posters I see everywhere in my city about the religion of peace and its spirituality and forbearance.
No such thing as Islamic analysis. It started off as a knockoff of Judaism (sharia and halacha have the same etymology,) moved to being a knockoff of the Greeks, then Qutb brought it out of the ensuing decline by putting a turban on Communism, and now it’s nihilism in a man-dress.
>B the conservative says that G-d would not permit social progress and the way things are now is as they always were.
When I say we need to create a Sanhedrin, appoint a monarch and build the Temple, I am saying that things are now as they always were?
>As a Nazi
My neighbor has a tiny bug-eyed dog which shakes uncontrollably. Sometimes I catch it pretending it is a wolf.
>We get several pages each of each king exercising power, and sometimes unsuccessfully attempting to exercise power.
We generally get a description of how long the king ruled, his relationship with G-d, very cursory description of his foreign policy and any descendants and rebellions. That’s it.
>If the Sanhedrin had power, or existed at all, it would be mentioned exercising power.
The Sanhedring was the head of the judicial apparatus. Its function was not to exercise power in the same way as the king did.
>>In fact, Elimelech had land of value, which is why the near kinsman initially jumped at the chance to inherit.
>As always, you are making shit up – or perhaps the Talmud is making shit up.
Or perhaps you are as usual not reading the plain text, the plain meaning of which you claim to represent:
“And he said unto the near kinsman: ‘Naomi, that is come back out of the field of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s; and I thought to disclose it unto thee, saying: Buy it before them that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if it will not be redeemed, then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee.’ And he said: ‘I will redeem it.’ Then said Boaz: ‘What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi–hast thou also bought of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance?’
So, the kinsman wants to redeem the land. Boaz says, you must also acquire it FROM Ruth, and marry her in levirate marriage, to continue the line of the deceased.
>And, supposing the land was of value, this is the story of Ruth, great grandmother of King David, not the story of some small plot of land.
The point is, she is discussed SEPARATELY from the property.
>If Ruth had a wedding and vows, rather than being acquired like a sheep, rather than being the only thing of value of “all that was Elimelech’sâ€, that part of the story would have been told, and the part relating to the land not told.
They are both told. Boaz says “9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people: ‘…I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s of the hand of Naomi….Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance”. Ruth is mentioned SEPARATELY, “moreover,” not included in the property of Elimelech and sons. She is also not part of what Boaz is buying from the hand of Naomi. He is acquiring her for a wife separately, and only for the purpose of continuing the line of the deceased, as he explicitly says.
>It simply undeniable, Book of Ruth Chapter four, that Ruth was acquired by inheritance like a sheep or a chest of drawers.
>The consent of the other rightful heirs mattered and was witnessed.
You will notice that Naomi’s presence is not mentioned, nor her explicit consent, even though Boaz says he is buying the land and the rest of the deceased property from her. You would say that her consent is irrelevant, I guess. I would say that it is obvious that she was there and consented and that the Torah doesn’t waste our time with the obvious.
>Does even the Talmud tell you that Ruth and Boaz had a wedding? It sounds to me like you are hunting for scraps from the Talmud that can be read as implying they had a wedding, with almost as much stretching applied to the Talmud as you apply to the Old Testament.
You are moving goalposts. The argument is not whether they had a wedding ceremony. The argument is whether female consent was required for the legal institution of marriage as it existed then. I am telling you that it was, and that in this case it is not explicitly mentioned for the same reason that Naomi’s explicit consent is not mentioned, because the Torah is not a court transcript and doesn’t mention the obvious.
>To recap the evidence again: Ruth is inherited like a chest of drawers, part of “all that was Elimelech’sâ€, not wedded like a person. Book of Ruth chapter 4.
To recap the evidence: you can’t read, Ruth is acquired for a wife by Boaz SEPARATELY from “all that was Elimelech’s,” is not considered an implicit part of Elimelech’s property even in the earlier negotiation with the kinsman and has to be explicitly stated that to redeem the property, he must ALSO redeem her.
>No wedding ceremony for Isaac and Rebekah. They go straight to the tent, the contract being between their fathers Abraham and Nahor, not between Isaac and Rebekah.
Moving goalposts again, Jim. Dishonest. We are not talking about ceremony details. We are talking about female consent. Rivka gives explicit consent.
>Old Testament law on marriage: A widow is inherited by the brother of her husband. There is provision for him refusing her, but no provision for her refusing him.
She can refuse him, but the Torah doesn’t state this explicitly because it’s obvious. She is the benefiting party, not him. The question isn’t whether she can choose to forego her benefit but whether and how he can choose to forego his obligation.
>If he sleeps with or rapes a virgin who is not betrothed, minor crime, and he has to marry the virgin. No provision for her refusing him. If you interpret the law as having an unmentioned provision for refusing him, then the law implies that if she refuses him, he faces no penalty at all, which interpretation is absurd.
Of course this interpretation is absurd, which is why it’s yours and not that of the Talmud. The Talmud explains to us that she is regardless entitled to damages for her humiliation, etc. He is fined heavily and the fines given to her.
>There are a hundred or so references to mighty men in the old testament, and they are clearly references to men who were great warriors, and commonly references to men who were great warriors and leaders of men, for example King David’s mighty men.
>If Boaz a mighty man, unlikely to be an elderly dodderer no longer uninterested in women.
Avraham is referred to by his non-Jewish neighbors as mighty after the death of Sarah, at which point he was 137 years old. His only explicitly described feat of arms was when he defeated the five kings who had kidnapped Lot.
Generally, the term “mighty” in a positive sense is applied only to G-d and those who follow him. When it is applied to those solely distinguished by feats of arms, without righteousness, it’s in a contemptuous way. David says:
“Why do you boast of evil, you mighty hero?
Why do you boast all day long,
you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?”
>Face it. The Talmud turns turns the Old Testament upside down and inside out, and to accommodate modernity, you have turned the Talmud upside down and inside out.
The Talmud is the only indication we have of how the commandments cursorily described in the Torah were and are actually practiced. I am unfazed by you accusing me of reading it in bad faith, because this is untrue-I’ve personally made many, many sacrifices for the truth/morality, and would certainly not twist what I believe for convenience. I am even more unfazed by your accusation against the Sages of reading the Torah in bad faith, because in this you are a mirror image of a social justice warrior accusing the Victorians of perverting Christianity, or Mao of perverting Marx-your familiarity with both is cursory and your agenda is obvious. Personally, as I’ve learned the way the rabbis of the Talmud delve into a law written in the Torah for its details, applications and implications, I’ve been struck by their honesty and intellectual depth.
>Obviously, some accommodation to modernity is necessary and right, but accommodating exile (which is most of the Talmud) is no longer necessary, and is wrong, and accommodating feminism will kill your people.
Feminism is just one more in a long, long series of stupid, destructive ideologies to arise from the non-Jewish empires. It is no different than, for instance, Ashtarte-worship, temple prostitution or Greek humanism. I have faith in the Torah, written and oral, that it takes into account human nature and all the varieties of sin and stupid, destructive ideologies.
As for accommodating exile-the Talmud, being the codification of the oral Torah, is very deep and has adaptability to both exile and national sovereignty. Your proposed solutions are all built on the neoreactionary idea that might makes right and if we just codify this, all will be good. In fact, this is stupid. The Torah repeatedly tells us that right makes right, and might without right is nothing, a foolish illusion: “G-d drags away the mighty by his power; though they become established, they have no assurance of life.” In your attempt to overthrow the foolish idolatry of the Cathedral, you create another one just as foolish. Since you are currently powerless, your ideology is not implemented, and so its flaws are invisible for now. But were it to be implemented, it would quickly be revealed as not much better than its progressive cousin.
So, princes and rebels never got judged? Never any conflict between Church and State?
In the numerous Church and State conflicts that were reported, what was this Sanhedrin doing? In the rulings on religious law, what was this Sanhedrin doing?
This is like your argument about Ruth. If Ruth became Boaz’s wife in a Romanesque wedding, rather than in a transaction concerning the property of Elimelech, of which she was the only item of value, they would report the wedding, rather than the transaction. And similarly, in a church/state conflict, an independent judicial body would be right in the thick of it.
Abraham was a leader of men. Some of those men were mighty.
It is applied in a positive sense to warriors who slay the bad guys, and in a not positive sense to warriors who slay whoever gets in their way.
If the greenery to be deployed in the Jewish harvest festival is only cursorily described, seems likely that the priest did not particularly care what greenery was deployed. As Jews have slid away from the militaristic commands to enforce religious segregation and exclusive Jewish dominion in a disturbingly brutal fashion, they compensated by getting ultra niggling uptight on the commandments that it was still possible to obey. Hence the fussiness on greenery.
Your reading of Ruth Chapter 4 is obviously and indefensibly in bad faith. Is that the reading of the sages – do they explicitly propose that Ruth had a romanesque wedding where vows were witnessed, rather than being part of “all that was Elimelech’s”? Or is that your own reading of the sages?
Your reading of the laws on rape and levirate marriage, particularly the rape of a virgin not betrothed, is obviously and indefensibly in bad faith, but I expect you have some ancient and reputable sages that agree with you. But I would like to know just how ancient those sages are that say that Deuteronomy 22 and Exodus 22 does not say what it means and mean what it says. Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 say “If you broke it, you bought it”. The virginity of the unbetrothed maiden is the property of the father, and can be sold by him to who he chooses. The rapist has damaged that property. If not a virgin, no damage.
I am inclined to suspect that the sages with a more progressive reading of Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 are not very ancient at all. How ancient are they?
And a postscriptum. The Elephantine Papyri, Jewish documents from the community in Egypt in the 5th century BCE, support what I’m telling you-women owned property, were not property, and had inalienable rights, including divorce on demand. These documents were marriage contracts, ketuboth, which are not discussed in the Written Torah but are addressed extensively in the Oral Torah. Other papyri describe practices listed in the Talmud but not explicitly written out in the Written Torah. Perhaps those Jews in Elephantine were also just making stuff up like the rabbis in Babylon and Israel 7-8 centuries later, and you are the only one who knows what the Written Torah meant. Or maybe the Jews of Elephantine in the 5th century BCE stole their customs from the Romans, who were very prominent in that time and place. You know, by way of the Christians.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/elephantine
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0018_0_18323.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3155577?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Jews serving the Persian empire as soldiers are not necessarily more representative of Old Testament Judaism than Jews serving the American army as soldiers.
>Jews serving the Persian empire as soldiers are not necessarily more representative of Old Testament Judaism than Jews serving the American army as soldiers.
Weak sauce. Somehow, the Jews living in Egypt in the 5th century BCE and Jews living in Israel in the 3rd and 4th century CE and Jews living in the 16th century CE and Jews living today all seem to have been deluded as to the nature of Torah Judaism in more or less the same way.
I guess they didn’t have the King James Version to casually skim or something. Or maybe the Christians got to them. Or the Romans. Or the Persians. Or the Egyptians. Or Social Justice Warriors. Only Jim knows the truth about Judaism. Not Jews. Occam, can you come here a sec? We need to borrow your razor.
As for Jews serving in the American military, I became religious years after I got out.
Unwin tells us that groups are always converting to feminism, then disappearing. The reverse process is very rare. The Jews and Judaism demonized in “Fiddler on the Roof” were depicted as having distinctly Old Testament views on women’s rights. The biological expansion of the Jews is driven by those groups closest to the Old Testament position.
— We generally get a description of how long the king ruled, his relationship with G-d, very cursory description of his foreign policy and any descendants and rebellions. That’s it.
— The Sanhedring was the head of the judicial apparatus. Its function was not to exercise power in the same way as the king did.
if you asked an American around 1970 to talk about the history and functioning of the US government, isn’t that what you would get?
The judges are either controlled by the king, or control the king. Since you say that their functino is not to exercise power, they are controlled by the king. Unless, of course, you have the unique G-d given government with G-d making sure powers stay separated. In which case, why did G-d consent to having His temple defiled by the worshippers of Zeus and Jupiter?
Completely at random, I take 1 Kings 1, which immediately opens with a conflict
So, what is the Sanhedrin doing? If they exist, should not Nathan go to the Sanhedrin, rather than to Solomon?
Solomon goes to his mother, and his mother goes to King David.
OK, next random (I am not cherry picking these in advance, I am picking random examples.
2 Kings Chapter one
OK, Church State conflict.
Elijah is using his personal charisma and reputation for holiness, and making his own decisions. No Sanhedrin mentioned.
These are not cherry picked examples. The whole damn old testament and the histories of Josephus is like that from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod is like that.
If there was a Sanhedrin, pretty much every event mentioned in every old testament book from Samuel 2 onwards would have involved it.
>So, princes and rebels never got judged? Never any conflict between Church and State?
No Church and State dichotomy. For instance, David was a prophet, as was Shlomo, who built the Temple. In Avshalom’s rebellion, you see Ahitophel, who was the head of the Sanhedrin, take Avshalom’s side. It wasn’t like the modern US in terms of separation of Church and State. More like the Supreme Court and President (very roughly put.) In a history that condensed the last 50 years of the US to 3 pages, would the handful of disagreements between the President and Supreme Court come up?
>In the numerous Church and State conflicts that were reported, what was this Sanhedrin doing?
If you are talking about the behavior of wicked kings like Ahav, obviously Ahav was not going to listen to any Sanhedrin or anybody else. He murdered prophets by the hundred.
>In the rulings on religious law, what was this Sanhedrin doing?
Issuing them.
>If Ruth became Boaz’s wife in a Romanesque wedding, rather than in a transaction concerning the property of Elimelech, of which she was the only item of value, they would report the wedding, rather than the transaction.
This is a strawman argument. The issue is not whether there was a Romanesque wedding. The issue is whether there was a Jewish marriage. Boaz says, I’m buying everything that was Elimelech’s and his sons, AND ALSO I am acquiring Ruth to for a wife. Not part of the property.
>And similarly, in a church/state conflict, an independent judicial body would be right in the thick of it.
In a civil war, normal institutions cease functioning.
>Abraham was a leader of men. Some of those men were mighty.
Interestingly, we get no details about these mighty men whatsoever. The Torah is not very interested in them.
>It is applied in a positive sense to warriors who slay the bad guys, and in a not positive sense to warriors who slay whoever gets in their way.
Again, it is applied to Boaz, whom we have no record of slaying anyone, and Avraham, whose main accomplishments had nothing to do with salying anyone.
>If the greenery to be deployed in the Jewish harvest festival is only cursorily described, seems likely that the priest did not particularly care what greenery was deployed.
It is this kind of attention to detail in the commandments which explains Christianity’s sorry present state. Josephus tells us that the specific plants to be used in the lulav WERE important to Jews in his time, and that they became very upset when heretics suggested otherwise. You’ve “read” Josephus, right? The Elephantine Papyri tell us that the details of Passover were likewise very important (and these are not details explicitly listed in the Written Torah, but listed in the Talmud.) Similarly, you can’t learn how to drive a car from reading the owner’s manual. Most of the essential details are not in there. You learn by practicing with someone who already knows. If at some point the chain of transmission is endangered and you set down the essential details as best as you can, your output will have many, many details which are not in the owner’s manual and are only derivable from it by someone who has all the context of what it’s like to drive.
>As Jews have slid away from the militaristic commands to enforce religious segregation and exclusive Jewish dominion in a disturbingly brutal fashion, they compensated by getting ultra niggling uptight on the commandments that it was still possible to obey. Hence the fussiness on greenery.
You, being a reformed communist, honestly can’t conceive that people would take G-d and His Commandments seriously and attempt to follow them as properly as possible in detail, so have to create a complex analysis of the REAL reasons of our attention to detail. It’s like reading Marxist analysis of how a business works, or Dworkin’s writings on the family.
> Is that the reading of the sages – do they explicitly propose that Ruth had a romanesque wedding where vows were witnessed, rather than being part of “all that was Elimelech’s�
Strawman.
>ut I would like to know just how ancient those sages are that say that Deuteronomy 22 and Exodus 22 does not say what it means and mean what it says.
In Mesekhet Kethuboth of the Mishna, redacted in the 2nd/3rd century CE, it says that the rapist must pay, aside from the set brideprice of a virgin, three fines (damages, pain and shame) if he didn’t injure her, and another two (medical costs and unemployment damages) if he did. Probably the rabbis who wrote the Mishna were misled by Buzzfeed or Jezebel?
>Unwin tells us that groups are always converting to feminism, then disappearing.
The Jewish community in Egypt had an unbroken presence from the 6th century BCE until the 20th century CE.
>The Jews and Judaism demonized in “Fiddler on the Roof†were depicted as having distinctly Old Testament views on women’s rights.
I’m sorry, I can’t really have a straightfaced discussion of Judaism using Fiddler on the Roof as a source. The actual Jews living in the shtetls of Eastern Europe followed rabbinical Judaism, with a lineage straight from the Talmud. By the standards of Barbara Streisand, this was very restrictive to women. By your standards it was very liberal. What can I say? You can’t please everyone.
>The judges are either controlled by the king, or control the king. Since you say that their functino is not to exercise power, they are controlled by the king.
They are not controlled by the king, in that he does not influence their rulings. However, if there is a wicked king who doesn’t implement those rulings, or even persecutes the Sanhedrin, this is an abnormal situation where government has broken down. When you ask what the Sanhedrin does in these situations, it’s like asking what traffic cops are supposed to do during a total civil war.
>So, what is the Sanhedrin doing? If they exist, should not Nathan go to the Sanhedrin, rather than to Solomon?
The Sanhedrin was, presumably, split. In general, deciding who the next king should be is something the previous king does.
>OK, Church State conflict.
Since the king here is wicked and is not going to listen to Torah scholars, obviously what they say is irrelevant. It’s like if the President starts sacrificing babies to Moloch and you say, “where is the Supreme Court?” A president engaged in human sacrifice obviously doesn’t care what the Supreme Court says.
>Elijah is using his personal charisma and reputation for holiness, and making his own decisions.
Eliyahu is not making his own decisions. He’s a prophet speaking for G-d. Certainly Ahav and his successor didn’t listen to prophets or have respect for G-d, so why would they listen to and respect Torah scholars? If King Menashe and King Ahaz sacrificed their own sons to idols, why would the Sanhedrin’s decisions and rulings matter to them?
Why is what Elijah says relevant, but the supposed Sanhedrin, which supposedly had the authority that we see Elijah attempting to exercise, irrelevant? Should not Elijah seek and receive Sanhedrin authority and authorization?
If the Sanhedrin existed and was taken seriously, nothing that happened from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod makes any sense.
>Why is what Elijah says relevant, but the supposed Sanhedrin, which supposedly had the authority that we see Elijah attempting to exercise, irrelevant? Should not Elijah seek and receive Sanhedrin authority and authorization?
Eliyahu is a prophet. He doesn’t need the Sanhedrin’s authorization to prophecy. The Sanhedrin’s authority and prophecy are orthogonal. For instance, if a prophet sits on the Sanhedrin, his voice counts exactly the same as though he was not a prophet, and he can’t claim prophecy as a reason his position should be adopted by the rest.
>If the Sanhedrin existed and was taken seriously, nothing that happened from the death of Samuel to the death of Herod makes any sense.
The Sanhedrin existed and was taken seriously. But its function is orthogonal to that of kings and prophets. Kings have political powers. The Sanhedrin has legal powers. Prophets have powers above legality and politics. The Written Torah which deals with the period you describe only gives us small glimpses of the legal world of the time, dealing largely with big political and prophetical events. For a very rough comparison, you have a lot more dealings with the post office, the DMV, traffic cops, the IRS and the local library than you do with the CIA and the President. They shape your daily life, and that of most people in the US. But a condensed history of the US will not have anything about the DMV and the post office. It will deal with the CIA and the President.
1. The grandchild is not just right-wing; he’s ultra-right-wing, almost a neo-reactionary like himself.
2. The grandmother might have embellished her experience to foreigners or media at the direction of the Soviet state. But amongst the privacy of her own family? Surely, after the fall of the USSR, she could be honest about her own experience. And it is *her* experience or at least, the experience of an unit she participated in.
I meant to say “like yourself” not “like himself”.
I should also add that the account of the female soldiers isn’t politically correct or socialistically egalitarian. The female soldiers killed people but as the grandchild admits women aren’t good with heavy weights (they’re a poor fit for heavy infantry). Also the female units that worked best were one-gender regiments, he goes into how gender-integrated regiments had problems. In short, not an uncritical piece of Marxist duckspeak. But you’d know that if you had read it. Oh, and also if you hadn’t arbitrarily designated mainstream political positions as Marxist.
You, and he are simply out of contact with the reality of the senses. Women run away from danger, and men decline to stop them from running away from danger. That someone in the Soviet Union told someone who told someone that women make OK soldiers is not convincing evidence of anything, let alone convincing evidence of something that contradicts everyday reality.
There are three politically correct ways to deal with the reality of differences:
(1) Deny the science of human nature and differences as a racist sexist right-wing pseudoscientific ploy. This is the Gouldite position, which is still the progressive ideological mainstream today. It’s full of delusional rationalizations in its views on the validity of this science, but it’s soberly realistic about its implications for progressivism if true.
(2) Accept this science, but deny that it has any important negative implications for liberal progressivism, so that progressives should just stop making a fuss about it and reconcile it with their ideology without changing it in any significant way. This is the Pinkerite “right-deviationist” position, which is more realistic about the factual subject matter of this science, but full of delusional rationalizations about its implications on the core ideas of progressivism.
(3) Accept the conclusion of this science that liberal progressivism isn’t going to achieve its egalitarian goals even if given complete free reign, but then double down on progressive morality and conclude that this only calls for much more radical and illiberal leftist Procrustean measures. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum! Ironically, this position (for example, in its radical feminist incarnation) is often the least delusional one from the purely factual standpoint, although clearly it is by far the most insane one overall.
All progressives adopt all three viewpoints simultaneously, shifting from one to the other as convenient, without noticing that they are contradicting themselves, endorsing all three contradictory positions, while vituperatively condemning their opponents for any deviation from any one of those mutually contradictory positions.
By and large, the women in the military program mostly adheres to proposal three. The intent is to destroy unit cohesion and grant women unearned combat honors, without actually expecting them to face danger, similar to the female firemen program.
I am not ultra right wing. Indeed the concept of ultra right wing is meaningless. Rightism is like protestantism during the Christian holy wars, and leftism is like Roman Catholicism during the Christian holy wars. There was only one Roman Catholicism, but there were a hundred protestantisms, each disagreeing with a different tenet of Roman Catholicism, and each hating Roman Catholicism marginally more than they hated each other.
Recently there used to be two leftisms, progressivism, run by the State Department through the CIA, and communism, run by the Soviet Union through the KGB, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, only one leftism remains. Everything else is by definition rightism. Indeed, by believing shit coming from the now defunct form of leftism, you are perilously close to the edge of the Overton window, and therefore in considerable danger of being an “ultra rightist” yourself. Check your New York Times. To adhere to the leftism of the former Soviet Union is now officially right wing, though when the Soviet Union was live, it was officially left wing.
You doubt that progressivism is and long has been run by the State Department through the CIA? Observe the CIA connections of Obama’s parents (his father was always CIA, his mother switched from KGB to CIA, probably for sexual reasons, and hardly noticed the change.) Similarly, recall the State Department phone call that the Russians leaked.
So, “right wing” is not being ultimately supervised by a state department or CIA handler. Thus everyone on the side of China is “Right Wing”, even though China is officially still Marxist, and in a sense, actually is Marxist. To be strictly correct: If you are in an NGO, you are left wing if ultimately supervised by the state department or CIA. If in the private sector, supervised by a diversocrat who is ultimately supervised by a professor who is ultimately supervised by Harvard.
But, back to the topic in hand, girl soldiers. You are citing a highly derived source. Derived sources are worthless. The original source is his commie brainwashed grandmother.
To conclude that russian girl soldiers were actually effective against the Nazis, you need a Nazi source.
Before Blacks were integrated into the US military by Truman, Black units like the Tuskeegee Airmen did really amazing things like do a competent job.
Their competence was proof that segregation was not necessary. As a result, the military has been desegregated, and its effectiveness has only increased.
Also, female integration was a great idea, with the obvious exception that females are physically less capable – but physical capabilities mean less and less as time goes on.
In addition, the military has stopped throwing away good soldiers just because they happen to be gay. This has strengthened it numerically and improved morale, as evidenced by asking any soldier if morale is better.
Further, the increasing acceptance of nontraditional gender identities helps soldiers somehow.
…are you done with the Marxist duckspeak? There’s a reason storytellers love telling stories about female warriors, there’s a reason females are used in guerrilla warfare, and there are many reasons that it’s absolutely ridiculous to use females in combat.
Maybe you could start doing a research project on what femininity is. Watch a bunch of nature documentaries about different species. Read old books from before this insanity took over. It might be interesting to better appreciate why the evil, stupid patriarchy was the way it was.
The Soviet Union was not just a country with an official party line. Hundreds of millions of people lived through it, and told their experiences to their friends and children. To assume they are all liars is stupid, just as it’s stupid to say anything an American says is suspect because of the Cathedral.
My friend’s father, a pilot during WW2 in the Red Army, said the female night bomber pilots were feared by the Germans and respected by their male peers. The Spiegel, which seems to be using mostly Russian sources (according to Google Translate), has a feature on them here: http://www.spiegel.de/einestages/zweiter-weltkrieg-a-948604.html
Personally, I don’t find it implausible that the USSR could have gotten together a few dozen qualified female night bomber pilots and that they could have gotten good results. It’s irrelevant to the question of whether women belong in combat-the USSR did all kinds of things, sometimes successfully, which are not examples for all to follow. In the event of a life and death struggle, the author is right-if you have to put women in combat, they should be in gender-segregated units in roles which are less physically demanding (good luck finding those in the military, where a two-man lift involves two MEN lifting an object with physical effort.)
Everyone in Russia lied in unison.
As I said, gimme a Nazi source that Russian girls were a problem for the Nazis, not a Russian source. How, in a world of lies and fear, would Russians know whether girls were a problem for the Nazis or not?
No one in Russia can be a reliable source except for what he saw with his own eyes. And each such source is drowned out by a thousand voices claiming to have seen with their own eyes what they were officially supposed to see.
>Everyone in Russia lied in unison.
How would you know?
>As I said, gimme a Nazi source that Russian girls were a problem for the Nazis, not a Russian source.
I neither read German nor have access to their divisional archives.
>How, in a world of lies and fear, would Russians know whether girls were a problem for the Nazis or not?
Don’t be obtuse. How would the Americans in Vietnam know that Carlos Hathcock was a problem for the VC/NVA in his AO and that they called him White Feather? Information filters back from the enemy all kinds of ways. Human intelligence sources, signals intelligence, prisoner interrogations…
>No one in Russia can be a reliable source except for what he saw with his own eyes.
This is no more or less true than in America.
@Jim, @B: My (Anglo-)Russian grandmother *volunteered* (*illegally*, initially) for the war effort, at 15 y.o. She worked at armament factory in her home city, Rybinsk.
Since she is pretty bright and entrepreneurial, she then became a courier between Rybinsk and Moscow, and eventually went through specialized training and became a train nurse. These trains transported the wounded and dying soldiers and officers from front line to evacuation hospitals, and would come get bombarded, with cars (and people) burned on occasion.
Her sister actually was part of a fighting, frontline battalion.
My grandmother, like others, was super-patriotic crazily supportive of Stalin, until his very death and the revealment of his crimes against people. Sometimes I joke with her, referring to her young self as Stalinjugend.
Obviously, I agree with B that being in active combat roles for women is a bad idea. However, it’s not true, as applied to military (and direct support) roles, in general.
Armies have always used women for logistics, in substantial part to give their comfort women something to do when on their feet. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is raising the status of logistics to that of the actual military. Logistics should have status comparable to that of comfort women.
Comfort women? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women, that status is very low, degrading actually. My grandmother would never volunteer, if the status of whatever she was doing was equated to *that*. And really, limiting to only two status ranks is a very primitive, idiotic way to go about such things.
Logistics is extremely important, especially in modern armies, btw. As the saying goes, “Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.” I’ll trust these guys over your stated BS: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html
Until the Crimean war, the British army generally relied on camp followers for logistics. Soldiers fought. Those providing food and such in large part were comfort women. The commanding officer of each regiment made private arrangements to keep his men fed, clothed, and armed. This frequently resulted in uniforms and weapons being less uniform than was desirable.
OK. Applying the template of British army in 1850’s to the the defending Soviets during Great Patriotic War of 1940’s is quite the stretch.
In addition, I’m still struggling to find a source that refers to women/personnel in support roles being referred to or equated to “comfort women.” So far, the closest I’ve found is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0512.html
(one mention of the word “comfort,” but not the full term as it’s defined in Wikipedia).
Could you supply?
Eli,
The Russian term was PPZh, Pohodno-Polevaya Zhena, an Expeditionary Field-Wife. There was also a lot of joking about how the females who got awarded with the Za Boevye Zaslugi medal (For Combat Achievement) were actually getting the Za Polovye Uslugi medal (For Sexual Services). Women in a male-dominated environment end up getting used, one way or the other, almost always. It’s not rocket science. Considering the amount of raping the Red Army did when it got across the border and the privations experienced by front-line soldiers, becoming the special friend of the unit leadership was a common-sense move.
In general, for every 100 women who will end up in a military environment, 20 will stay faithful to their husband who is not there, 50 will sleep with the highest-ranking/most dominant/charismatic guy they can steadily, 25 will be the battalion bicycle and 5 will actually be professional soldiers and not screw around (assuming the job doesn’t involve radical physical exertion.) It’s not surprising that of the 800K women who served in the Red Army during WW2, several dozen thousand distinguished themselves.
B,
Thanks for the statistics. The soldiers and officers that were transported, were in bad-to-horrible state, some dying before arriving to the hospital or shortly after. The train cars and hospitals were understuffed and barely equipped: not much time/energy for romance. Having said that, they did flirt with her once they were partly recovered, in hospital. In the hospital itself, where she later transferred, it was *strictly* prohibited to have any kinds of relations. You’d get fired with repercussions for random flings. (Though it was permissible to have them when patients *left* hospital, some likely ending up married as well, as result).
Keep in mind, btw, there were (and are) a lot of single, young+youngish women back in Russia, many wre of traditional, peasant background. Is your “100 women” number referring to single or married or random? In the former case, I don’t take it, with exception of the “bicycle,” as a significant sin, especially from my “vantage point” of an American bumpkin living amidst the freaky whores perusing Tinder, for some of whom sex is like crapping. Plus, where are these guesstimates coming from?
I could tell much more about my own female relatives in the GPW, but somehow don’t feel at home divulging most of my personal information on this forum. But I will summarize, that like you, essentially, say:
not everyone is/*was* a cynical whore. And PPZh was looked down upon.
I will provide just an example of integrity: my grandmother married my grandfather whom she met after the military institute, post-war. My grandfather was Jewish, and he definitely lucked out. She never left his side, even when, in early 1950’s, he lost his engineering job at the bureau — due to (mistakenly) admitting his Jewishness and that his aunt lived in the US– being essentially unemployed for at least 3 years (almost being sent to the Jewish Oblast’), and when he was sick and old (more than decade age difference between them), and despite him being a divorcee and having to support his alimony to his ex and her child, and despite the other options she could have easily pursued later, due to her good looks and academic+administrative connections. She took care of him to his very end.
>Keep in mind, btw, there were (and are) a lot of single, young+youngish women back in Russia, many wre of traditional, peasant background. Is your “100 women†number referring to single or married or random?
Random. Based on my experience with women in the US military and in general. Traditional Russian peasants were not known for outstanding chastity or moral virtues, and certainly after 20 years of Communist propaganda attacking the family and the church and massive social turmoil were not inclined to Puritanism in the general case, let alone in the extreme conditions of warfare. Keep in mind that someone 20 years old in 1941 frequently spent their childhood and teen years seeing people dying from hunger in the street and having it explained to them that there is no god and no objective morality.
Obviously, there were still plenty of people who conducted themselves with dignity and restraint, women included.
Flipping Anglo societies inside out for political favors is the reigning trend of today. It’s easy to give in to this overwhelming feeling that doom and gloom are inevitable and resistance is futile. Simply capitulating and accepting failure and death is the worst possible response. There are plenty of sound, sane, practical courses of action to take. Fighting for what’s good of humanity is a cause that gives me purpose. I won’t get into detail on specifically what I will do, but I’m not going to just miserable accept death and failure.
[…] and other values, racial double-binds, doomed boomers, a call to order, warfare in the progressive-style, Dugin on IR, deconstruction in the mosh-pit. Why capitalism really sucks (a response, in part, to […]
[…] racial double-binds, doomed boomers, a call to order, warfare in the progressive-style, Dugin on IR, deconstruction in the mosh-pit. Why capitalism really sucks (a response, in part, […]
Some real USSR level stuff going on in Sweden:
http://www.whyileftsweden.com/?p=482
Muslims gang raping an 11 year old Swedish girl:
http://www.whyileftsweden.com/?p=407
I prefer this version of the same tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWUu5L2s53g
Like a punch to the gut.
Expresses clearly the problem with this alarmingly live and healthy religion.
Also, you can easily see the difference between the live Islam and the undead imitation devoured from within from progressivism. On the whole, the live Islam is worse.
>Jim, Peppermint, Red, Steve: I don’t know if we can have a productive debate when we don’t inhabit the same reality. Your jargon labels democracy as Marxist terrorist totalitarianism and equality of opportunity as equality of outcome with anyone disagreeing being a paid agent of the Cathedral hive mind.
Hidden, you crime stop starts with your belief that all people are equal. So you propose equality of opportunity because you believe it will result in equality of outcome. When reality doesn’t line up with your belief you ignore or make up fantasies as to why it’s the case or defend the original idea despite the horrible outcomes observed in the real world. Now before you continue don’t discount this point. Let the anger resentment go, calm yourself and think rationally about what you’ve observed in the world. Let your believes go and focus on what you’ve actually seen.
I was snapped out of crime stop when I spent some real time visiting a black ghetto. Dangerous as hell, probably very stupid, but I’ve always carried myself as an intelligent man ready to kill. I learned that everything I believed about the poor, about races, and about human needs was wrong. Shitty people desperately want someone to tell them how to live right. They know that how they live is fucked up but they’re far to dumb to be able to do anything about it. The under class natural yearning isn’t towards freedom or wealth, it’s towards ownership and direction by their betters. They crave ownership like a dog craves a master. That master gives them sense of purpose and direction that their drug, violence, and random sex filled lives doesn’t. For the under class freedom is a curse of self destruction and promise of equality is endless envy and hatred of people who are better than them.
Once you give up that crime stop of equality you can experience the peace and natural sense of rightness that is fitting into a hierarchy causes. Events that used to puzzle or trouble you will fit together well and once the hierarchy is established conflict and uncertainty is at a minimum. Some people are inferior. They must be treated like children or teenagers. Some people are superior and must be deferred to for their natural higher status and they have a responsibility to guide and protect the inferior like a pet owner does towards their dogs. And all this is normal and needed for civilization to work.
Natural systems work very well when manipulated lightly. They work horribly when you try to force false things like every one is equal on them. They produce the horrors like this:
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/12/missing-miami-dade-teen-was-gang-raped-by-over-16-men/
Civilization can’t last long when equality requires white girls to suffer weeks of gang rapes by drugged up n*ggers because treating them unequally is unthinkable.
[…] has consumed Judaism, Christianity, and most of Islam, though the worst and most harmful religion, Islam, still lives and is fighting back. The martial Christianity of Charles the Hammer would serve our civilization well. The pragmatic, […]
[…] Judaism, Christianity, and most of Islam, though the worst and most harmful religion, Islam, still lives and is fighting back. The martial Christianity of Charles the Hammer would serve our civilization well. The pragmatic, […]
Avicenna, Al-Kindi, Averroes, Al-Razi? Do these names ring any bells? They were some of the most innovative thinkers in philosophy for hundreds of years.
The Muslims burned what remained of the library of Alexandria.
In order to make good quality steel, for example the famous Damascus steel that so impressed the crusaders, you need to heat iron hot enough that it melts so that the dirt floats to the top, becoming the slag, instead of remaining intimately mixed in the metal.
When the Muslims conquered the advanced civilizations of the world, the art of making good steel, and good swords, and good armor, which of all the arts of man was the one that should have survived through a dark age, was lost for a thousand years. Those blades that so impressed the crusaders were ancient heirlooms, that Muslims had stolen from their superiors.
The learning of which your write was ancient knowledge of superior civilizations, which gathered dust in Muslim libraries until Crusaders stole it and Jews under crusader rule translated it.
Alhazen was pretty much the first person to come up with a coherent theory of optics and vision, synthesising the views of Aristotle, Galen and Euclidean geometry. He was also foundational in the merging of physics and mathematics, which has come to be centrally important to the way we understand the world. His theories came to be hugely influential; to quote Lindberg, “Directly or indirectly, his De Aspectibus inspired much of the activity in optics which occurred between the 13th and 17th centuries.” He has other (significant) works in astronomy, geometry and number theory, including the first incidences of elliptic and hyperbolic geometry.
Islamic thinkers can also be seen as making strides forward in chemistry. Al-Razi, for example, organised compounds by more complex observable properties such as flammability, solubility and malleability, improved methods of distillation and extraction. He is often referred to as the first ‘scientific’ chemist, dispensing with mysticism and magic in favour of clear language and writing. Al-Razi wrote over 200 manuscripts on everything from metaphysics to smallpox – he was a famous doctor whose works were published 35 times in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries alone, and he was influential in almost every area of science he touched.
Mathematics saw advancement on many new and old fronts. Highlights include the expansion of the decimal place system to include decimal fractions, the first systematic works on algebra, work in geometry and trigonometry and progress on dealing with irrational numbers, which earlier greek thinkers had baulked at. The Arabic numeral system, adapted from Indian mathematics, is not an invention of Muslim scholars, but it’s transmission to Europe undoubtedly changed history. Al-Kindi, among many, many other works on everything from music theory to epistemology, invented frequency analysis in cryptography.
Islamic medicine systematised the learning which had gone before it and then built on top. There are a huge number of innovations to discuss in this area.
In philosophy, Muslim philosophers covered huge amounts of ground, building from the Greeks and developing new, innovative ideas and tackling a variety of old and new problems. The amount of work in this area is frankly staggering, and there are huge amounts of it that scholars simply haven’t gotten around to examining yet.
» and there are huge amounts of it that scholars simply haven’t gotten around to examining yet.
…but, over the next few decades, they will discover that quantum mechanics is presaged in the Qur’an.
Europeans have always had a tendency to claim that various things were invented by outlanders, just ask Voltaire.
I think peppermint nailed this with “over the next few decades, they will discover that quantum mechanics is presaged in the Qur’an”
Alhazen did not come up with a coherent theory of optics and vision.
Aristotle correctly understood that light hits an object, scatters in all directions, some of that scattered light enters the eye, where it forms an image. Missing from his theory was the lens in your eye. How is it that light entering the eye forms an image?
The same thing is missing from Alhazen’s commentary on Aristotle. Alhazen did not form a coherent theory of optics, he commented on what was wrong with Aristotle’s theory, which is not at all the same thing as fixing Aristotle’s theory. He commented on both theories the other theory being that the eye emits rays which contact the light at the surface of the object – but did not reconcile them, because they are irreconcilable. The eye emission theory attempts to solve the image formation problem – to which neither Aristotle nor Alhazen had a plausible solution.
No he did not. Our evidence that he improved methods of distillation is precisely the same as our evidence that he succeeded in transmuting iron and copper into gold.
Dar al Islam was then as now a bunch of primitive savages who destroyed the advanced civilizations they conquered. If Islam had ever been civilized, the art of making furnaces hot enough to melt iron and make steel swords and steel armor would not have been lost for a thousand years.
The vedic aryans of India developed algebra. Muslims smashed that civilization and destroyed that race, but preserved fragments of their knowledge gathering dust in Muslim libraries.
Islam conquered advanced civilizations and destroyed them. Crusaders, running out of stuff to loot, collected piles of forgotten old books that had been gathering dust in forgotten old libraries, had Jews translate them, which resulted in western civilization rediscovering some what Islam had destroyed. When the crusaders took Toledo, they cracked open books that had been gathering dust for a very long time.
As I said before, if once upon a time Muslims were not the same horde of subhuman mud men that they are today, they would have preserved the knowledge of making steel from molten iron.
Goethe (apparently pronounced like the weird fancy cheese that makes for crap sandwiches) had this theory about “dark rays” at the beginning of the 19th century, a hundred years after Newton’s Optics was published, after he had fixed lens design with a proper theory. In the middle of the 17th century, Huygens and Fermat were discussing wave optics and shortest path optics.
At the end of the fifteenth century, Byzantium fell, and Constantine XI said
» But you are men, men of stout heart, and you will hold at bay these dumb brutes, thrusting your spears and swords into them, so that they will know that they are fighting not against their own kind but against the masters of animals.
was that just bluster?
Revilo Oliver claims that the Western Roman welfare state destroyed the Western Roman empire. Did the same mechanism take considerably longer to destroy the East? Or did it take centuries for Christianity to wear away, not directly at their racial characteristics, but at their understanding of the world?
In the West, military technology could be advanced in semi-autonomous domains and affect the balance of power. God can tell people to copy the Bible another ten thousand times by hand and comment on the theological problem of evil or how to reconcile divine intervention in everyone’s daily life with God’s world that He ordered at the beginning of time in every detail, but, God can’t tell cannons to accept bigger loads without exploding. Thus the metallurgy that was needed for industrialization.
>Aristotle correctly understood that light hits an object, scatters in all directions, some of that scattered light enters the eye, where it forms an image. Missing from his theory was the lens in your eye. How is it that light entering the eye forms an image?
The idea that bodies emit light in every direction from every point is an innovation attributed to Al Kindi, an earlier (Muslim) philosopher. It was on this basis that Alhazen was working. To quote Lindberg:
“When Alhazen rejected the extramission theories of Euclid and Galen, it was not to defend one of their ancient rivals – the intromission theory of Aristotle or that of the atomists. Alhazen’s intromission theory was a fresh creation, addressed to problems that neither Aristotle nor the atomists had attempted to solve and based on several fundamentally new conceptions of the nature of the visual process.”
I didn’t say Alhazen formed a correct theory of optics – merely that it was coherent, free from the significant explanatory problems that previous theories had. Alhazen has an explanation for how light entering the eye forms an image – that light rays enter a ‘glacial humour’ and that this humour ‘perceives’ the ordering of various parts of forms on account of the ordering of the rays.
>…but did not reconcile them, because they are irreconcilable
I said synthesise – he took elements of each and made something new – specifically, he attempted to explain the anatomical basis of his theory (Galen) and made use of mathematics (Euclid).
>…precisely the same as our evidence that he succeeded in transmuting iron and copper into gold…
Al-Razi openly denied that he was able to do this, and said he doubted it was possible. As for improving distillation, if you don’t believe his (extremely specific) writings and dozens of secondary sources then how can I convince you of anything?
>The vedic aryans of India developed algebra…
I didn’t claim Muslims invented it. It was the first systematised study. Euclid was doing algebra centuries before the Muslims as well. There’s a reason it’s called “al-gebra” and it’s not because Muslims didn’t advance the topic.
Katz says:
“Islamic mathematicians fully developed the decimal place-value number system to include decimal fractions, systematised the study of algebra and began to consider the relationship between algebra and geometry, studied and made advances on the major Greek geometrical treatises of Euclid, Archimedes, and Apollonius, and made significant improvements in plane and spherical geometry.”
David Smith says:
“…they developed considerable originality in algebra and showed some genius in their work in trigonometry.”
By idiots.
Any fool can see that objects emit light in all directions merely by looking – for example, a house illuminated by spot of sunlight as the sun shines through a small window. In particular, Aristotle’s theory of optics takes for granted that an object scatters light in all directions.
Most of the time you attribute to Muslims stuff that they inherited from the Greeks or the Aryan indians, and the rest of the time you read into their works advances that are not there.
Alhazen did not have a new theory of optics. Aristotle’s theory was, like most of Aristotle, correct as far as it went (light scatters off the object in all directions, and some of that light enters the eye), but it failed to address the problem of how the image is formed inside the eye. Alhazen rambles on about this problem, without solving it either.
I don’t believe Alhazen’s “extremely specific” writings exist – hence my comparison with the instructions with turning lead into gold.
None of which tell us what exactly was the improvement in the art of distillation that Alhazen supposedly discovered.
The Islamic contribution to science and civilization was that some of the knowledge of the civilizations that they destroyed survived to gather dust in the libraries of Toledo, until the crusaders took Toledo and opened those books, or rather had Jews in their employ crack open and translate those dust covered tomes.
And the reason is that the crusaders first found Algebra in the book “Al Jabra” , written by a al-Khwarizmi, a Muslim. Later they found the immensely older book Arithmetica, the greek book written by Diophantus, which contained algebra rather more advanced than that of Al Jabra.
Muslim science and mathematics was Persian science and mathematics, which is to say, Aryan science and mathematics, the science and mathematics of the civilizations and peoples that Muslims destroyed. It died with Omar Khayyam, and did not live again until westerners stole those books.
The only reason that Persians today have heard of Omar Khayyam is that he became famous in the west.
After hundreds of years of incredible riches, the best the idle camel jockey aristocrats can do is…
I mean, don’t feel bad, science is hard, the Romans built a lot of stuff and the Scholastics had lots of thoughts.
I’m sure there are other discoveries of similar magnitude to be found in the literature that ISIS hasn’t burned yet. And if the antiracists don’t get demoralized and give up, soon we will be required to recognize them or be regarded as provincial and scientifically unserious. But you’re not actually fooling anyone with enough intelligence to be of consequence. There are two reasons to assign scientific priority. To make a narrative of thus and so these things were discovered, and the only reason Arabs matter there is Italians found ancient texts in translation – thus all the stars with the durka durka names – and there were a few dudes like that camera guy.
And also to get a sense of what it was possible to do when. So a few sand monkeys managed to think a few thoughts in between raping White women and memorizing the Koran. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not much.
now back to jerking off over the Islamic Golden Age
Why are so many stars called by names in sandniggerese?
Whites have a thing for pretending that ideas came from other peoples.
[…] Donald says Christianity is dead and unfortunately Islam isn’t. It’s hard to argue with this from a purely material standpoint. Yet Jim does admit that […]