Genetics assign your sex at conception, not birth.

Have we not descended into sheer madness, collective insanity on a massive cultural and social scale?

Aye. Every day we’re bombarded with examples, in such profusion that they hardly register in our minds anymore. It takes something surrealistically demented to stand out, like the following.

The Times (U.K.), a mainstream news source, reports: “Environment Agency strips ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from its policies.”

It goes on, “Bosses at the quango [a hybrid government-private organization] showed off their inclusive credentials when applying for a scheme for top UK employers run by the LGBT lobby group Stonewall.”

The agency has replaced the banished terms “mother” and “father” with the all-inclusive “primary carer.â€�

The Times continues, “For access to its buildings, it said that workers could request ‘more than one passcard … in order to be able to express different identities on different days.’ ”

The quango requires not only employees but suppliers and contractors to undergo an inquisition. “The Environment Agency also confirmed that it questioned potential suppliers and contractors about their policies on ‘homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and harassment.’ ”

Agency directors are not exempt from the all-seeing eye. To complete “unconscious bias training,” they must lie down on the couch at regular intervals and probe their unconscious minds for heresy.

A staff survey asked employees to confirm whether their gender identity matched the “gender I was assigned at birth.â€� I would have thought genetics assigned their gender at birth, and is grumpy about changing it afterward, but it’s now optional.

“Funding for 7,000 rainbow lanyards was provided by a sponsor to improve LGBT support ‘visibility,’ and the Environment Agency was also represented at Sparkle, a trans Pride event,” The Times said.

Read all the juicy details at https://archive.md/MwFG3. Welcome to life as she is lived without benefit of common sense, or sanity.

The Christian God has a two-word name, but Cathay chooses to be more general.

In fact, He has a one-word name: God.

Besides, I’m sure you already know that if the Word Made Flesh had had an imperial Roman driver’s license, it would not have read “Christ, Jesus (NMI).”

Apropos names, the author’s name is spelled Cathey, not like the old name for China.

Well with any luck there will be another “Civil War” here in the US.

Of course this time it will probably more closely resemble the one in Spain in 1936.

In any event, it will be quite refreshing to put a bullet in your cunt head or preferably a bayonet in your belly. Of course if we’re really lucky your nigger pets will do it for us…lol

You sound like a man in need of Marcion.

The God of the Testament of Jesus Christ is not only different from the God of the Jews, he is its diametric opposite. Enjoy the Antitheses from the Sermon on the Mount, and endeavor to ignore the hebraic encrustations appended thereto. Jesus not only contradicted Mosaic Law, he upended it completely.

Shouldn’t we try to ascertain what is true, just, and practical wherever our reason, experience, observation and evidence lead us?

Presumably God expects us to use the intellect and moral intuition he gave us in that fashion, rather than unthinkingly accept the “faith� and practices of our ancestors?

Both questions should be answered in the affirmative, with the first being objectively true and the second being more subjective, depending on one’s belief in God. I would further agree with the premise of your entire comment, although the tone sounds like you are trying to provoke a response from someone who feels compelled to defend his faith.

Religion steps in where society has failed the individual. Most people are conditioned by public schools to respond to authority, and children are not taught how to evaluate reality and draw their own conclusions. For this reason, many people go to church to improve themselves and be a good person. It is easier to identify ourselves with the label of religion than it is to determine for oneself what it means to live a good life.

In this way, monotheism can be said to foster a slave mentality, as people tend to resign themselves to powerlessness. When God’s will takes primacy, one’s own agency and power to influence outcomes becomes secondary. Adults have the capacity to be the masters of their own destiny, so religion may have a stronger appeal to old women and children.

In ancient Greece, philosophy was not an academic pursuit. If someone couldn’t make a good argument, then they would be laughed out of the room, even if they had some credentials on a piece of paper. The approach was dialectic, which helps us to examine our own minds and arrive at a clarity of thinking.

With maturity, a person can perceive God as a uniting force and the source of all, rather than as a being who controls everything. We can outgrow the children’s stories, labels, and need for credentials, but this requires the bravery to stand on our own two feet, rising or falling on our own merit

Shouldn’t we try to ascertain what is true, just, and practical wherever our reason, experience, observation and evidence lead us?

Presumably God expects us to use the intellect and moral intuition he gave us in that fashion, rather than unthinkingly accept the “faith� and practices of our ancestors?

For example, would you want the bulk of Muslims of this world to remain Muslim because their ancestors were?

To their credit, the Muslims at least have a passage in their quran where Mohammad supposedly said that men should NOT follow beliefs just because their ancestors did:

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/170/

Of course, that was a self-interested statement by a man trying to convert as many people as possible to his cause, but no less valid as a result. Notice that this doesn’t seem to apply to Muslims in reality. Despite the verse where Mo supposedly said “there is no compulsion in religion�, someone leaving islam is to be murdered for his “apostasy�, particularly if he publicly renounces islam or urges others to do so.

Of course, if christians purport to believe that the entire bible is the word of God, then they must also murder people who leave the religion or urge others to do so. Self-professed christians rarely know about this clear, detailed command in “deuteronomy�, even churchgoers. They can get nasty, defensive and evasive when it’s pointed out to them:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013&version=NKJV

Then there’s good ol’ “loving jesus� “the saviour� vowing that when he “returns� to earth, he will have everyone hauled before him who doesn’t wish to be ruled by him, and have them murdered in front of him. See the “gospel� of luke. So even when christians try to say “no no, see, the NT supersedes the OT�, they’re still stuck with vicious scumbag jesus’s own words as alleged by their “new� testament.

These abrahamic cults are all sick. The only way for a man who’s nominally in one of these cults to live a just, kind life is to simply not follow many of their “commands� because he doesn’t know about them or because he rejects them.

When will men not blindly follow the cults of their ancestors? Even more important, when will men finally stop believing that God wants them to murder or hurt other men for not believing or living as they do?

So answer me this, why should I respect a mythology foisted on Europeans hundreds of years ago?

Unless an individual chooses to adopt a certain faith, be it the tradition of their ancestors or another tradition, there should be no compulsion. Forced conversions are a horrible thing.

Yet if someone chooses to sever their ties with the past, such as those born in the American South who reject Confederate heritage, and also doesn’t believe in God, that person becomes an isolated individual. Lacking traditions to fall back on and define oneself, such people can be like blank slates. Most of them cannot resist being dominated by the ideas society is pushing on them.

How else can we explain why Americans who reject traditional Christianity and condemn America as an irredeemably racist country, adopt beliefs that are counter to their own self-interest interest, such as by supporting sexual degeneracy, sterilization (transgenderism), and replacement migration?

Fascism and National Socialism are reactive defenses by nations against the disease organism of the Khazar Mafia.
The relentless demonization of these effective cures to the cancerous fake jew is just another form of attack on healthy people.

Not for nothing that the real enemy of globalism is normal healthy behavior.
Liberalism is a mental disorder that can be spread by misinformation to gullible individuals or induced by brainwashing methodologies.

It really is a cult of true believers led by ruthless schemers. Jim Jones was a piker compared to organized “liberal” organizations.
Globalism is a suicide cult run by Satanism.

None of these useful idiots are aware that they are going to be killed by their actions.
All of dese nuts are convinced they will get something that they can’t get themselves.

Whether it’s money, power and fame for the top tier terrorists, or free stuff for the rest of the rabble, there are baits that trap them in their roles.
You need some cheese to get the rats.

Is Satan really evil? Sure He doesn’t like mankind, but that doesn’t mean He is evil per se.
His role is to tempt mankind and test their Faith.

What if the story of Satan being cast out of Heaven is not true but a Big Lie?
Paradise Lost is a poem by John Milton and is not in the Holy Bible.

Imagine if the whole story was just made up of recycled legends of wars between gods. The angels that were cast out were thrown out for mating with women and spawning a race of giants known as nephilim. These nephilim gave birth to false gawds that bullied men and demanded worship. These false gawds were always fighting each other and they were the ones who spawned the legends of the war in Heaven.

What if Satan used these legends to pretend He was cast out to get the evil people to trust Him?
What if the contracts that sell your soul are just a brilliant honey trap and sting operation?

The leaders of the opposition are not the best and brightest by a long shot are they?
If Satan was trying to set Himself up as the King of the World, would He pick such trash to be His generals and proconsuls?

The best way to defeat the enemy is to lead them yourself. The easiest way to get someone to trust you is to pretend to be on their side.
These prophecies are not fulfilled by random chance, but by centuries of planning and hard work.

You seriously underestimate Satan if you believe that this is the best He could do for Himself.
Look at the sad sacks of crap that are in the top positions of this glorified suicide cult.

Now that you have sex change perverts involved, it is not much different from those weirdos that cut off their penises to go to an invisible starship.
Globalism is a mix of feel good Jim Jones and kooky sci fi freak Suicide Cult!

Agreed. A well written article but it merely describes the symptoms of disease, not the underlying causes.

If you feel that you need some fictional sky-daddy to give your existence meaning, that is your business. My thinking is that if you are going to base your entire world-view on mythology then you are no different to the other loonies.

Truth, reason and logic are the only antidote to the current insanity. A return to a previous (admittedly more palatable) delusional state is not going to help significantly. The true heritage of Western civilisation is from the enlightenment and religion is not the way forward.

Christianity is particularly pernicious, a slave religion intended to induce compliance, submission and acceptance of injustice. The message is, it doesn’t matter what happens in your life because the Sky-daddy will make it all good in the afterlife. I never really understood the reverence for what is essentially some other people’s mythology. The ‘God’ of the Old testament is an infantile, Jewish supremacist, genocidal maniac (a more thoroughly evil being can hardly be imagined) The New testament is a mishmash of Judaism and Confucianism, filtered through several languages and heavily doctored in the 5th century by people who were probably more interested in control than truth.

So answer me this, why should I respect a mythology foisted on Europeans hundreds of years ago?

To me, religions are simply a sort of personification of the cultural values of the society that invented them. The Greeks, Romans and Vikings etc invented warlike Gods because they were warlike people. The Jews invented a Jewish supremacist, genocidal maniac ‘God’ because that is what they were like at the time (and some of them evidently still are)

So do we really need to return to a religion that preaches dumb submission? Take a look around at the state of Europe and tell me that is what we need.

indeed an amazing piece. All the woke, anti-White, anti-male, anti-Western Civ satanism Cathey describes is no more or less than terminal

Jewification. Yet

the J-word is nowhere to be found.

solving the Jew-problem depends, first and foremost, on having the courage to

Name the Jew.

Thank you, good point. But beyond the Confederacy, do you notice a connection between people who reject their heritage and people who believe that anything is permissible? Cathey argues that belief in God leads one to act in a moral manner, but it seems that remembering one’s past also plays a role. Perhaps the connection is that practicing the faith of our ancestors goes hand in hand with respecting our heritage

In 1893 the former CSA General Jo Shelby opposed displaying the Confederate flag in a July Fourth parade in Kansas City. He said it was too inflammatory a symbol to resurrect in the reunited nation. He called such displays “waving the bloody shirt”, repeating the unprincipled Republican politician Ben Butler’s phrase for sectional antagonism manipulated by unprincipled politicians.

Those former insurgents who clung to the past were called “hard shells” and “bitter-enders”, and bitter they remained to the end, increasingly isolated in a south growing prosperous as part of a free Union, freed from the chattel slavery that had held down white men’s wages. A great many former rebels came to acknowledge their good fortune in shaking off the Richmond tyranny and returning to their proper national loyalty. It would be their grandchildren who would so heartily embrace the “moonlight and magnolias” fantasy version of the antebellum south, many years later, in the first decades of the 20th century.

The descent into madness portrayed in this article is nowhere to be found where I live and where most Americans live. It is focused on madness in our institutions that have been corrupted. I am tired of such articles.

The Belloc passage is good, but I think Marlowe exposed our obvious enemy a few centuries earlier in his play “Rich Jew of Malta.” “We have found the beast and pared its nails and now take it in our arms, fondle it, write plays to flatter it; it is visited by princes, affects taste, patronizes the Arts and is the only liberal gentleman-like thing in Christendom.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Sokal was years before Boghossian. 1996.

Also Dostoevsky made a very common logic mistake.

If God does not exist then everything is permitted. This is not the same as:

if, and only if, God does not exist then everything is permitted.

It’s a great book anyhow.

Cathay refers often to “god.�
But whose god, what god?

The Christian God has a two-word name, but Cathay chooses to be more general. Perhaps he is trying not to alienate potential readers, or to include other monotheistic faiths in his analysis.

The vagueness weakens his argument, because it is possible for someone to believe in a god that does not want a moral or peaceful society. Not all gods are good.

Cathay writes:

For the rejection of God as He desires to be known and obeyed through his Word, His law, and through His church does not result in a secular utopia, a kind of secular parousia or Heaven-on-Earth. The revolutionary madness is, as Dostoevsky declares, a form of possession of men who have misshapen and empty souls which have then been occupied by demons, by evil.

While he includes Christian terminology, it does not necessarily follow that revolutionary madness is a form of demon possession. There are examples of doctrine relating to God that is interpreted to make people act in evil ways.

If Cathay is arguing that the end of the West will occur unless it reembraces Christianity, why doesn’t he just say so?

Points well taken, Suetonious.

OTOH, Cathay refers often to “god.”
But whose god, what god?

The god Yahweh? Not for me, thanks.
For years we chanted David’s psalms in Latin. Seduced by the beauty of Gregorian chant and community, we never realized we were reciting as prayers words calling for the destruction of children, the conquest of other peoples, the destruction of anyone and everyone who failed to conform to the psalmist’s version of god.

The god of Abraham, to whom all must give worship and in preference for whom all other gods must be destroyed?
I reject.
In my estimation, in that sort of Abrahamism lies the destructive seed of authoritarianism, of power-madness.

Surely this would not be the worst moment experienced by humanity in its history. Our ancestors were able to resolve worse crises according to time and means. But in reality white racism and white greed in times of nuclear weapons and their known lack of civilized human feelings and lack of scruples increase the level of risk.

But in the long term, evil always ends up defeated as has happened throughout history, when it is analyzed that since the last century with several important massacres of the whites such as the two world wars, the invasion of Palestine, the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, the results were never as expected, millions of human beings were murdered without advancing the Western criminal agenda.

And this time the same thing will happen, the human animals will manage to resist and with the help of a few white people the murderous Nazi-racist agenda must be paralyzed to change the world because the human race has actually evolved to have a better world, not to breed parasites.

LoL at this article!

It paints the Westâ„¢ as being a dystopic prison for freethinkers does not mention that the system is in service of Zionism, the ADL spies on Americans and kills civilians no one ever mentions the murder of Alex Odeh and gets away with it https://psmag.com/news/kings-garbage-76228
college life making fun of Zionism get charged with the first anti-extremism faqs written in American history, a Reconstruction era law that exists in only two states and was last used over a hundred years ago and had been used less than five times in history https://responsiblestatecraft.org/northwestern-students-gaza-parody/
https://theintercept.com/2023/11/17/public-defender-gaza-legal-aid-bronx-defenders/ they silence critics
https://archive.is/nmJH7 they are moral monsters
https://mailchi.mp/8570b92c93e0/adl-defines-genocide-and-civil-disobedience-within-the-fbi-10244169 they are in league with the FBI

The 1984 deepstate that controls America is Zionist and this dumb motherfucking moronic shithead author doesn’t mention it.

everyone read this book on Kahane https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=1B09BFF949811485059A38E409E3DCBF

look at how zionist have complete control and politicians suck up to them
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestine-ryanair-apologises-flight-attendant-calls-tel-aviv-occupied https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/california-senator-says-calling-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-is-dehumanizing-language/ https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/13/gaza-cease-fire-san-francisco-resolution-london-breed/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/2/muslim-mayor-blocked-from-white-house-eid-celebration
they entrap people https://theintercept.com/2023/12/18/fbi-nypd-catfishing-terrorism-sting-hamas/ completely ungrateful bastards https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/military/article274293225.html

The article cites a Confederate flag day ceremony in North Carolina, but it is disrupted by a rabble of protesters. They were likely fired up by leftist college professors and cable news, without actually putting much of their own thought into it. Many of the disrupters were likely from the South, so they were protesting their own heritage.

The author also speaks of the Iron Curtain falling across Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War Two.

For while the post-war Communists essentially maintained certain inherited standards of behavior, for instance, supporting large families and traditional marriage, our elites continue to push the boundaries of what was once thought normative and acceptable in every area of human endeavor, even under Communism.

It is interesting to note that many of the former Soviet bloc countries are presently socially conservative. These countries are defending against mass foreign immigration and trying to defend the unique traditions of their country. A recent poll in Germany revealed that strong support for the anti-immigrant political party falls almost exactly along the lines of East Germany, which was once behind the Iron Curtain.

The article argues that an individual’s notion of good and bad, and right and wrong, is largely derived from faith in God. This is a fair argument, because faith gives us a higher ideal for which to strive. Yet the debate should also include a discussion of our connection to the past, since respect for one’s heritage seems to play a role in moral behavior.

If a movement wants to redefine good and evil, and establish what us permissible behavior, then it is often necessary to have a clean break from the past. We saw this in places like Russia and China, where society tried to start over and millions of innocent people were killed in the process. Something similar is happening in America, as seen in the protest against the Confederate flag and various statues that have been toppled.

No people— except maybe the Germans— have suffered so much from the Jews as the Russians. For a a thousand years and the hate from the Jews still continues.

“. . .I know that in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs — about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of the states.� -Dostoevsky in his Diary published in March 1877

Start a counter-historical society/movement.

Prepend it with the slogan “challenging everything you think you know.” and “no stone unturned”, and “asking hard/uncomfortable questions because truth demands it and history is preserved by it.”

That hedges you against accusations of “racism” and “nazism/antisemitism” because
it grounds your cause strictly in discussion of the factual.

Anyone that then challenges you appears to challenge you, not on reasonable grounds, but because they object to fact-finding itself.

In otherwords, however controversial, anyone that challenges you, legitimizes you.

This “neutrality” is therefore the answerto nihilism.

Nihilism pushes against everything to define itself. Ideologically it has no “center”, which is why it falls apart when not *directly* pushed against by *ideological* force. The force of reason isn’t *active and aggressive*, yes it *asserts* but it doesn’t *impose*. The “facts are as the facts are”, and the truth follows from the conclusions and counter-conclusions. Only the clever manipulation of *argumentation* dictates the course otherwise.

In this way neutrality with assertion–the rebirth of reasoned debate, acts to pull nihilism, as like fenrir on a chain, away from its stated end goal, back to its roots in western liberal reasoning.

Unpacking the deception of this sentence could fill volumes:

But Jews were no different than other Europeans in their desire for mammon by way of peddling human flesh.

The first sign of untruth is the unrelenting disgust Jews have for this concept:

…Jews were no different than other Europeans…

The second sign is how that phrase rings akin to “My fellow white people” the twitter blue checks by the thousands have been caught using since Trump’s election/Charlottesville to vilify Euro descended as “racist”, and the countless twitter account bans of whites who retweeted the mfwp tweets along side other tweets from the same individual claiming Jewishness.

By 1492, which proceeds the Reformation because the Jews had not reached Amsterdam yet to begin printing counterfeit “Bibles” yet, the Catholic Church had banned slavery and the culture had compliantly accepted the ban as evidenced by the prime reason for suspicion of Columbus’ Jewishness was his bring of New World natives back to Spain as slaves.

The goyim here at UR are wise to Jew deception.

“Shut it down! The goyim know.”

Strange coincidence. I reading this book now. Half way through Chapter 5. Russians write long books. What’s with having a thousand cast, it’s bewildering.

Piotr is a product of bad parents. His dad is a pathetic pussy hat wearing boomer. His mother, a masculine control freak bully. Piotr as rapist, seems motivated like Raskalnikov (Crime & Punishment). I cringe at every French quotation: insecurity.

Glad to know Russia has embraced the problem and are building Orthodox cathedrals through the land. To fend off the second wave of Bolshevism coming from the USA.

“Your diversion toward trying to show that Jews in the U.S. were no worse than whites in regard to slave holding and dealing illustrates how cucked you are by (((them))).”

It would be other than surprising for Jews (or any other displaced group) who ended up in a place (Cape Verde) searching for economic opportunities. But Jews were no different than other Europeans in their desire for mammon by way of peddling human flesh. There is no “moral continuum” here–slavery is immoral and unjust. Whites, Jews, blacks, Asians, indigenous groups–the individuals who practiced it engaged in atrocities on equal footing.

Furthermore, there is no diversion. It’s called offering the proper historical context. I noticed that you did not challenge the facts as offered by the historians. That was a wise move on your part. And, the word “cucked” is outdated and literally means nothing to me. Try harder next time to think of a more intellectual stimulating comeback, or “dig” as they used to call it.

My comments were directed at showing Jews as major participants in African slavery for growing sugar prior to the discovery of the New World, i.e., on the Cape Verde Islands. Among all types of slave labor, sugar plantations had the highest mortality. When the Portuguese colony of Pernambuco was established in northeastern Brazil, Jews from Cabo Verde set up sugar plantations there. The material below continues the story to the Caribbean sugar islands.

Although the sugar trade in the Americas was initially dominated by the Portuguese Empire,[6] the Dutch–Portuguese War would cause a shift which would have knock-on effects for the further growth of the sugar trade in the Caribbean and particularly the production of rum (made from sugar cane juice).[7] In 1630, the Dutch seized Recife near Pernambuco in what is today Brazil (the Dutch called this New Holland after they took over) and this territory included some sugar plantations worked by African slaves who had been brought to the territory earlier. Some of the slave plantation owners were Cristão-Novo, i.e. “New Christian” Sephardic Jews who had been forced to convert to the Catholic Church.[7] As the Portuguese Inquisition was in operation and the Dutch Calvinists were generally more tolerant of Jews, they were happy to side with them over the Catholic Portuguese and remained in the area operating their substantial sugar-orientated slave plantations, now under Dutch sovereignty.[7] They even founded the first public synagogue in the Americas there in 1636; the Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue.

Further north in the Caribbean, the Protestant Kingdom of England was beginning to challenge the interest of the Catholic powers in the region such as the Spanish Empire and the Kingdom of France, taking control of a number of islands, including Jamaica and Barbados.[7] One of these men, Colonel James Drax who had interests in Barbados, visited Dutch Brazil in 1640 and purchased a triple-roller sugar mill and a set of copper cauldrons (used for turning sugar cane into molasses, i.e. sugar cane juice used in rum production).[7] This technology, although originating in Sicily had spread to the New World and had been improved on by the Sephardim and the Dutch.[7] After 1654, the Portuguese had taken the territory back and pushed the Dutch out of Brazil. Many of the Sephardic Jewish sugar plantation owners fled to English-controlled Barbados, supported by Francis Willoughby and set up the Nidhe Israel Synagogue.[8] In competition with English merchants and due to accusations of favouring the Dutch in the sugar trade (who continued to control Curaçao), Jews were originally not allowed to own more than two slaves in Barbados, but aided the sugar plantations in other ways, bringing their expert knowledge of technologies in cultivating rum from the sugar cane and working as merchants, supplying them with African slaves to work the plantations,[9] helping to make Barbados the sugar capital of the Caribbean and the rum capital of the world.[7][10] By 1706, the laws against Jews owning sugar plantations in Barbados has been dropped.[7]

Your diversion toward trying to show that Jews in the U.S. were no worse than whites in regard to slave holding and dealing illustrates how cucked you are by (((them))).

“They also invented the use of gang-labor, i.e., driving the slaves at a relentless pace, in sugar cane cultivation.”

Your source does NOT state specifically it was a Jew or Jews who invented it. You are making an inference here. Try again.

As far as America is concerned…

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/slavery-and-the-jews/376462/

“Martin, in one of his endorsements, made a startling assertion concerning slave ownership by Jews: “Using the research of Jewish historians, the book suggests that based on the 1830 census, Jews actually had a higher per capita slave ownership than for the white population as a whole.� The Secret Relationship does in fact approach making that suggestion, and since the claim would appear to be a pivotal one, it is worth examining.

In order to assess such a claim, one must resort to details. Martin’s purported actuality is wrong on its face if applied to the “white population� of the United States “as a whole,� because in 1830 only a handful of white northerners still owned slaves. Jews were concentrated in the North, and they constituted a very small minority there. Even if the statement is taken as applying only to the states in the American South that had not adopted gradual emancipation laws, it remains badly flawed. A careful and honest footnote in The Secret Relationship reveals that “Jewish scholars� had concluded that Jews in the South lived mostly in towns and cities. Neither this book nor Martin’s explains the significance of this fact.

In actuality, slave ownership was much more common in southern urban areas than in the southern countryside. The relatively high proportion of Jewish slaveholding was a function of the concentration of Jews in cities and towns, not of their descent or religion. It is also the case that urban slaveholders of whatever background owned fewer slaves on average than rural slaveholders, including those on large plantations. Thus the proportion of slaveholders has never been an accurate measure of the social or economic importance of slaveholding, unless it is assessed on a broadly regional or state-by-state basis. In this instance, as in so many others, the statistical data do not stand up and cry out their own true significance.�

Now, from 1709-1807, there are 934 recorded voyages in which Rhode Island merchants were responsible for procuring 106,000 slaves. Now, Jews arrived in Newport as early as 1658. On the eve of the Revolution, they were estimated to be around thirty families. According to historical records used (e.g. naval office shipping lists, censuses, tax records) that identified merchants and planters as Jewish, there were 347 slave ships sent to Africa by Rhode Island slave traders from 1761-1774, with 21 being funded by Aaron Lopez, a Portuguese Jew. That means 326 voyages were underwritten by non-Jews during this time frame. Of course, Jews played a role in the peddling of human flesh. The extent in this particular case is nominal compared to other ethnic groups.

Moreover, according to Bertram W. Korn’s research (Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South, 1789-1865), census records and slave purchasing documents show that southern Jews:

“who owned slaves were concentrated in cities, not in the plantation districts containing ninety percent of the enslaved population. For example, there were only four Jews – less than one-tenth of one percent – among the 11,000 Southerners who in 1830 owned fifty or more slaves….Another statistical indication of Jewish ownership of slaves, probably more accurate in terms of proportions than the census returns, are references to slaves in Jewish wills. Over the years, Professor Jacob R. Marcus has assembled at the American Jewish Archives, one hundred and twenty-nine wills of identifiable Southern Jews who died during the period of interest. Of these, 33 refer to the ownership and disposition of slaves. [That would mean 96 did NOT own slaves] This would mean, if it is a reliable index, that perhaps one-fourth of Southern Jewish adults were slave owners. [That would mean three-fourths Southern Jewish adults were NOT slave owners]. It is instructive that this matches the federal figures for the 1860 census, namely, that three-fourths of the white population of the South were not slave owners. Equally important, however, is the fact that only one-seventh of Southern Negroes were domiciled in towns and cities.�

According to David Brion Davis, Professor of History Emeritus at Yale University, he writes:

“To keep matters in perspective, we should note that in the American South, in 1830, there were only 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves. Even if each member of this Jewish slaveholding elite had owned 714 slaves—a ridiculously high figure in the American South—the total number would only equal the 100,000 slaves owned by black and colored planters in St. Domingue in 1789, on the eve of the Haitian Revolution…Of course, some Jews were involved in the slave trade. Every European Western nation was. There were also some regions in which the slave trade was more accessible to Jews—Rhode Island, Newport, Holland, to name a few striking examples. The Dutch Jews weren’t persecuted, so there were quite a few who were involved.�

Jews have been exploiting blacks since first buying them from the Arab Muslims on the West Coast of Africa and transporting them trans Atlantic in “Middle Passage�, and have not stopped to this day.

Jewish involvement in African slavery goes back further than sugar plantations in Pernambuco, Brazil. Before that they were involved in the same activities in the Cape Verde islands prior to 1492 and in Iraq during the Middle Ages. They also invented the use of gang-labor, i.e., driving the slaves at a relentless pace, in sugar cane cultivation.

Hebrew and Portuguese inscriptions on the tombstones in the small Jewish cemeteries throughout the islands indicate that the majority came from the Moroccan cities of Tangier, Tetouan, Rabat, and Mogador (now Essaouira), bearing distinctive Sephardic names such as Anahory, Auday, Benoliel, Benrós, Benathar, Benchimol, Brigham, Cohen, Levy, Maman, Pinto, Seruya and Wahnon. These families landed primarily on the islands of Santo Antao, Sao Vicente, Boa Vista and Sao Tiago where they engaged in international commerce, shipping, administration and other trades. The Jews prospered in Cape Verde and were often considered pillars of the local economy.

Sugar cultivation made 9th-century Iraq into a slave society.

The great discovery in Brazil in the second half of the 16th century was the gang labour system, which was so cost-effective that it made Brazilian sugar cheaper in Europe than the sugar produced in the islands off Africa. A plantation using gang labour could produce, on average, 39 percent more output from comparable inputs than could free farms or farms employing non-gang slave labour. The secret of success was that slaves could be driven, whereas free labour could not; this led to the creation of very profitable gangs of slaves supervised by white overseers and Black drivers. Tobacco and coffee cultivation also used gang labour, but cultivation of these crops was less physically demanding than that of sugar and cotton and led to much lower mortality rates than did sugar and rice.

The Jews in the Sugar Industry of Colonial Brazil
Arnold Wiznitzer
Jewish Social Studies
Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1956), pp. 189-198https://www.jstor.org/stable/4465456?seq=1

Expletive Deleted: “Part of the reason for this inability was that they couldn’t manage coal boiler fires due to their truly pathetic ironworking technology, inferior to almost any (Gaulish, German or Persian) barbarian’s.”

http://dtrinkle.matse.illinois.edu/MatSE584/articles/steel_greece_rome/steel_in_ancient_greece_an.html

See especially the last section, “Limitations of Steel Development and Applications”.

They had centuries to work such problems out, but didn’t. So again, I think it was more to do with their view of the world than a purely technical issue it appears nobody even tried to solve.

The steamy spinny thing Hero devised was used to power some fairground-tier toys. What stopped the ancients from making big, useful stuff from this knowledge was the relative cost.

They didn’t use much coal, even on the east end Hadrian’s Wall where it more or less lies about on the surface and on the shore. Compared to the expense of 200 gallons of gruel, a big whip, and 50 slaves to dig, pull or lift some materials, mining that stuff to power (imaginary) machinery wasn’t cost effective. Also it stunk like Hades, unlike wood.

Part of the reason for this inability was that they couldn’t manage coal boiler fires due to their truly pathetic ironworking technology, inferior to almost any (Gaulish, German or Persian) barbarian’s.
Like trying to handle fusion without a tokamak.
Bronze (which they were actually very good at) boilers wouldn’t last a week, probably melt before you’d even got a brew on, and would bankrupt you.

The inability to pour and cast, or even use (water-hammers) to pound out wrought iron sheet for the putative engines. And that iron-mastery depended, in the end, on huge amounts of roasted coal (coke), as the English found out after they had hacked down and charcoaled most of the trees on their reef for making bronze cannons and plate armour or whatever.

Zoom-Copter: “The “expert on the Jewsâ€� …”

?

I’ve made no such claim.

Zoom-Copter: “Ok, now I get the irony …”

Only now? LOL. Your little propeller must be spinning furiously.

[Nazism] it borrowed nihilism’s immorality (“if you can’t beat ’em join ’em�) and embraced its materialist messianic-millenarian idolatry, transposed into a different key. So at the end of the day it was just another flavor of post-religious nihilism.

Large claims demand large proofs, Dr. Barrett.

What evidence do you offer to support the above claim?

The “expert on the Jews” doesn’t know that “zoom-copter” was the product the Israeli spies before 9/11 (“art students”) used to sell in malls around NJ and NYC and the kike– in thick Hebrew accent– would throw the dumb thing to make it go in a circle and draw a crowd around around him just like his push-cart peddling ancestors in Russian Empire selling amulets of “the blood of a Christian child” complete with rabbinical certificate.

Ok, now I get the irony in you giving yourself title of “Doctor,” you really are an asshole. And you act like beating the kikes at their own game and claiming a spot at an elite uni is a source of shame? Sorry we can’t all go to community college and then transfer credits to Liberty University to act as Jerry Falwell’s pool boy as you did…

Libertarian and “free market� economics embraced by conservatives are built on just as much horse manure as liberalism.

And somehow you think that I am conservative or liberal?

Even if I quote the Bible, you somehow impute that I am a bible thumper? There are nuggets of wisdom to be found everywhere if you look, and if you but think and are willing.

I am accusing you of not being a deep thinker…sophomoric. I wouldn’t be wasting so much time on you if I didn’t see something. You could be a deep thinker in future. At least you are trying and involved, which is more than most people. I’m giving you a kick in the butt, and so is GeeBee; you are getting more attention than most. If you remain intransigent and dogmatic in your current views, then you will not be able to advance.

Hudson has noticed that most of the Bible has to be rewritten, as the words used to describe concepts don’t relate to what is actually taught.

If you were not “stuck”, you would have noticed that the quotes I gave you were related to debt and credit, but instead you went off on a tangent trying to find some sort of wedge issue.

His latest book, and “forgive them their debts” is a wake-up call to Christians, where they are worshiping false doctrine.

https://michael-hudson.com/2017/12/he-died-for-our-debt-not-our-sins/

If you don’t follow debt/credit relations of mankind, then you are lost when trying to understand history.

https://michael-hudson.com/2017/12/he-died-for-our-debt-not-our-sins/

___________________
The Christianity we know today is not the Christianity of Jesus,� says Professor Hudson.

Indeed the Judaism that we know today is not the Judaism of Jesus either.

The economist told Renegade Inc the Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our sins even as we forgive all who are indebted to us’, refers specifically to debt.

“Most religious leaders say that Christianity is all about sin, not debt,� he says. “But actually, the word for sin and debt is the same in almost every language.

The jugular of the left is race, not economics. Libertarian and “free market� economics embraced by conservatives are built on just as much horse manure as liberalism. That is my worldview here and I am certainly confident in it.

At the risk of patronising you once again, I feel that neither Mefobills nor myself would cavil at your statement regarding Libertarian economic policies. I would, however, caution you that when you observe that ‘The jugular of the left is race, not economics’, you would be on firmer ground if you differentiated between those among the rank and file of ‘the people’ who profess to be ‘of the Left’, and those who actually pull the puppet strings. For sure, the average Leftie thinks he, she (or it) is devoted to protecting their pets imported from the Dark Continent. The reality, of course, is that the puppet masters merely use what Revilo P Oliver memorably described as ‘biological refuse’ to fulfil the old ‘divide-and-rule’ ploy. They divert attention away from the results of their extractive and exploitative system of rake-off from the productive sector, which sees what Michael Hudson calls ‘suck-up’ (as opposed to the classic ‘trickle down) from labour to capital, and disguise it beneath an entirely bogus appeal to the altruism of these idealistic Lefties in the form of channelling their energies into defeating the straw men of ‘inequality’, ‘racism’ and ‘White privilege’.

Or in other words, the real matrix of power that today finds it convenient to espouse the traditional leftist constituency, is every bit as wedded, and indeed more so, to ‘economics’ than are so-called ‘Conservatives’. Always follow the money. And always note whom the main recipients of the money are.

The Jewish holy book is the Talmud. The Talmud was written AFTER the Temple fell. The TALMUD antecedents are Kabala and relate closely to Hillel and the Pharisee class.

Yea nice try. You ascribed Deuteronomy to the wrong book while being arrogant and condescending.
Here is a basic reader for you:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/deuteronomy/

The New testament supersedes the old testament, using the doctrine of Supersession.

That is the argument used when Christians don’t want to follow something in the old testament.

They will however teach from Genesis and tell children that the creation account and flood are historical events because the old testament is the word of God.

If you question those events using the new covenant argument then you will be berated.

The will also use the old testament to criticize homosexuality but then ignore the shrimp rules.

None of this adds up. Seems like a game of pick and choose.

You have no idea what I am talking about, as you are sophomoric, and confident in your incomplete and false worldview.

My worldview here is based on what should be an obvious conclusion which is that conservatism has completely failed to stop the left. I don’t see the point in letting people like you set the direction of the GOP or anything in politics for that matter. Conservative boomers have completely fumbled the football and it’s hilarious that they try to blame “nihilists” as if tax cuts ‘n abortion was ever a solid political strategy.

The jugular of the left is race, not economics. Libertarian and “free market” economics embraced by conservatives are built on just as much horse manure as liberalism. That is my worldview here and I am certainly confident in it.

Zoom-Copter: “I DID get accepted to Havard- Brown- Princeton- UVa- Williams- Amherst ( waitlisted at Yale … ”

Very impressive! And it makes sense, too. I’ve been picturing you as a guy wearing a propeller beanie, hence your nick, “zoom-copter”. You need the propeller to cool that massive brain of yours.

Zoom-Copter: “I still can’t get over what a fucking moron you are …”

LOL. Welcome to my fan club, propeller boy.

Adûnâi: “But was it a common idea in the Middle Ages, when traditional Christianity was omnipotent?”

I don’t know. But after Rome fell, few read the Bible, as few could even read. So deep was the Christian rejection of reason and intellect that St. Ambrose, Augustine’s teacher, was considered a genius because he could read without moving his lips!

Adûnâi: “Please, read a few sections from The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire. Your remark is nonsensical. I didn’t even consider the next paragraph important, that’s why I hid it under the “MOREâ€� tag. ”

Oh, that was you? I thought it was a moderator, since I’ve mentioned before that I don’t read past MORE buttons. Those won’t work without javascript, and I don’t use that.

The art of not reading is a very important one. It consists in not taking an interest in whatever may be engaging the attention of the general public at any particular time. When some political or ecclesiastical pamphlet, or novel, or poem is making a great commotion, you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public. A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones: for life is short.
– Schopenhauer, Parerga et Paralipomena

Based on your quote, it seems to me like Carrier is anachronistically projecting his ideas about science into ancient times. This dream interpreter of his engaged in inquiries that resembled modern science without actually understanding why he was doing it, which defeats the purpose. In the larger picture, the greatest proof of this lack of a scientific worldview is the lack of technological progress generally back then. For example, Hero of Alexandria invented a steam powered “aeolipile”, but it was never used for anything.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/aeolipile

If there had existed a scientific worldview in ancient times, then surely it would have been.

Mr. expert on the Jews doesn’t get his Jewish Holy books right but wants to label me sophomoric and lecture me on how the Old Testament isn’t Jewish.

The Jewish holy book is the Talmud. The Talmud was written AFTER the Temple fell. The TALMUD antecedents are Kabala and relate closely to Hillel and the Pharisee class.

The New testament supersedes the old testament, using the doctrine of Supersession.

You have no idea what I am talking about, as you are sophomoric, and confident in your incomplete and false worldview.

> “…anything that happens hastens Jesus return and rule on Earth…”

That is indeed what I missed. But was it a common idea in the Middle Ages, when traditional Christianity was omnipotent? “Everything the god does is good because it’s the god” is more of a Hanbali Muslim idea. Whereas Catholics are famous for trying to structure society under feudalism and help the poor with their charity. They do not seem like welcoming the power of Satan in the world.

> “There is no science of dream interpretation.”

Please, read a few sections from The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire. Your remark is nonsensical. I didn’t even consider the next paragraph important, that’s why I hid it under the “MORE” tag. But if you insist…

The fact that he was chasing a phantom is not relevant to the point. Even modern scientists have done that, and still do on occasion. It is far more important to observe that even a diviner thought cautious, extensive, and organized empirical research was necessary to his field and would lead to worthwhile improvement in its accuracy and usefulness over time.

Expensive education? Nope. Atctime I applied i was guaranteed admission to the joint NYU MD/JD grad program so long as SAT over 1500- high school GPA over..3.8 or whatever, and you had to maintain a 3.5gpa to keep scholarship and guaranteed admission to both schools. I DID get accepted to Havard- Brown- Princeton- UVa- Williams- Amherst ( waitlisted at Yale but New Haven is about as charming as Detroit so no great loss– but why get into that obscene debt when I hadca sure thing at 2 of the top LS and MS in the country for free? One or BOTH and no debt?

I still can’t get over what a fucking moron you are- but then youn”cannot fix stupid.” Oh well. I did try to explain why you came off as a hard-on by granting yourself and honorific (“ironic” or not) but alas- stupidity and obstinacy? NEVER gonna fix that. Take care

You’re missing the point, which is that from the Christian perspective, anything that happens hastens Jesus return and rule on Earth, and therefore is a good thing.

This is probably the worst aspect of evangelical Christianity.

There is an apocalyptic sect that actually wants the US to become Sodom to fulfill a prophecy.

They cheer on the destruction of the US because it brings them closer to the apocalypse.

Evangelical Christianity really needs to go. It’s the worst. They brainwash their children into believing the world is out to get them and that the country will be turning into some den of decadence and faggotry as part of God’s plan. So why bother trying to change it?

Yes, you meet the definition of sophomoric:

Definition of sophomoric
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
a sophomoric argument

Says the guy that tried giving me a history lesson on how Deuteronomy is from the Talmud when it is from the Torah. Talk about overconfident of knowledge and poorly informed.

Mr. expert on the Jews doesn’t get his Jewish Holy books right but wants to label me sophomoric and lecture me on how the Old Testament isn’t Jewish.

You and half the posters at Unz need a basic course entitled : Bible basics 101: Yes the Jews wrote most of it.

Now stay away from that shrimp. Or does New Covenent have you covered? You guys can debate it. That is what is amusing about modern conservative Christian arrogance. They are so confident in their knowledge of Jewish Holy books that they argue with each other almost immediately over anything as seen here.

Zoom-Copter1: “… I don’t rely on a good reputation gleaned from my username …”

LOL. This idiot thinks I have (or even want) a good reputation around here. So true that lawyers aren’t the sharpest knives in the box.

Zoom-Copter1: “How original, never heard that one before.”

I thought something on your level would appeal to you.

Zoom-Copter1: “You can’t reason with a moron who is convinced he is correct. ”

Indeed.

Sounds like you’ve had an expensive “education”, but I think you’ve been defrauded. Put it to use and sue for your money back!

Oh, i neglected to acknowledge the lawyer joke! How original, never heard that one before. And you didn’t even go for the classic Shakespeare line: “First thing we do is we kill all the lawyers.” And I’m neither an ambulance chaser nor shyster of any sort. Unless you personally own a massive, multi-billion dollar,focean-going freight company, neither you nor any other regular person has reason to curse me.

Upon further reflection, given that this is a site where (many times) the majority of articles ARE written by academic doctors, how in the hell is one to assume giving yourself a fake title of “Dr ” is sarcasm? You can’t reason with a moron who is convinced he is correct.

>newb
Look at this dumb fuck who doesn’t realize that each time I change locations and am using phone or i-pad, I get messages that “your username is on record but does not match email on record.” Thus forcing a change in username. I’d hazard a decent guess i have been here longer than you– however, since I don’t rely on a good reputation gleaned from my username,I’m happy to start as a “newb” here whenever since my posts still hold up as they are liked/enjoyed (rarely disliked) based on content, nothing else.

Your “excuse” still makes no sense and you are still just as pretentious an asshole. Notice you didn’t put “Robert Morgan! Binman” as username and your defensiveness and attempt at an ad hominem that has nothing to do with my point proves my initial assessment correct– you are in way over your head with people far more intelligent/learned than you are and thus your use of the title of “Dr” in username is your pathetic attempt to make up for that.
Not only are you not very clever based on your posts I’ve read– which could be forgiven, as stupidity is no crime- you are also flat-out boring, which is a “hanging offense” in my book. You take care now, “Dr.”

p.s.– the mark of an intelligent man? To be able to say to another man when he has a reasonable point: “You know, if I’m giving off that impression, maybe you are correct then! Thanks.” The mark of an undereducated moron is defensiveness and ad hominem insults. You fall into latter category.

Zoom-Copter1: “… After my name shall I add “M.A.,] J.D.?… I, for example. have an M.A. in Marine Biology before I decided to go an (almost) totally different direction and get my JD in the law of the sea, i.e. Admiralty. …”

LOL at this dumbass who thinks I am using my real name!

Hey newb, what do you call 10,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start.

Mr. Morgan.
You do know it seems a bit pretentious and just outright…well..,uslessness when you add;;”Dr ” before your name on a site like this? After my name shall I add “M.A.,] J.D.?

I did some work in Malta for about 7 months dealing with admiralty law, and there all lawyers put the title of Dr. before their name.

I, for example. have an M.A. in Marine Biology before I decided to go an (almost) totally different direction and get my JD in the law of the sea, i.e. Admiralty. Which is a hell of a lot more complicated that most could imagine.

Anyway friend, My point is that you might want to skip the honorific before your name on here since LOTS of us on here have advanced degrees but would feel silly mentioning it.

HERE, one is genuinely judged by the content of his post and what new info or arguments, what he he brings to the table. A shitty post by a PhD is still…just a shitty post.

A vety good post by a dude who is otherwise maybe down on his luck and sleeping rough but brings something new to the table in terms of looking at something from a new angle is worth a lot more than a stale doctorate trying to coast off his honorific.

My point? DROP THE “DR” ASSUMING IT WILL GIVE YOU UNEARNEDED RESPECT. & GRAVITAS! AND WILL MAKE YOUNGER PEOPLE AFRAID TO VERBALLY CONFRONT YOU HERE. IF YOUR DOCTORATE IS WORTH THE PAPER IT IS PRINTED ON, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SHORT WORK OF ANYONE WITH THE HUBRIS TO DIRECTLY CHALLENGE YOU ON SOMETHING RELATED TO YOUR Speciality– so why the need to advertise yourself as “-doctor!?”

Join the rest of us gladiators in intellectual blood-sport “winner takesball” with no title or reputation to fall back on.

Adûnâi: “Are you not confusing the secularised version for the original? … It is quite common for Christianity to expect the state to worsen, not improve. ”

You’re missing the point, which is that from the Christian perspective, anything that happens hastens Jesus return and rule on Earth, and therefore is a good thing. It isn’t in that case necessarily tied to material improvements in the human condition. Their gaze is fixed only on the end of history, when Jesus’ return to reign will result in heaven on Earth for a thousand years, so you might say that they were the original “worse is better” people.

Adûnâi: “… he researched the science of ‘dream interpretation’ … ”

There is no science of dream interpretation.

> “…the words ‘peddling’, ‘junk’ and ‘money they don’t have’. These are the essence of Modernism. They encapsulate the triumph of mercantilism and thus materialism.”

If the money is as fake as the belief in the equality of races and sexes, then what is materialist about such a system? It is pure idealism, Christian wishful thinking. It is no materialism if the ideology of the society lies in the denigration of matter and the worship of an idealist lie, of an immaterial god of préstige and of universal love.

It might seem like philosophical niggling, but I believe materialism to be blood & soil by definition, for anything else is idealist suicide. A society must first exist – as a racial collective. If economy or human rights are put above survival, a demise is at hand.

> “Everything that happens is supposed to be building to that “wonderfulâ€� conclusion…”

Are you not confusing the secularised version for the original? Traditional Christians believe the world to be irreversibly corrupted by Satan and thus it can never be made good – outside of recreating it in the End Times. It is quite common for Christianity to expect the state to worsen, not improve. See Tolkien’s philosophy – utter pessimism, with a childlike eucatastrophic ass-pull at the end. Where was this “progress” in the millennium of church supremacy? It started after the Renaissance.

> “…all are echoes of this originally Christian belief.”

Inventions happen. We should not hold our praise when praise is due. It might be true that Galileanism uncovered a new weapon in the control of man’s psychology. If it was the zealotry of this Jewish creed that allowed for the Holocaust to happen, so the merrier! It is clear that the Mongoloids remained stagnant, our only comparison.

> “I haven’t read Carrier’s book…”

It’s an amazing read, and available on libgen. I highly recommend. Chapter 3.10:

In the 2nd century A.D. a professional dream interpreter named Artemidorus of Daldis sought to make a science of his art. As documented in his lengthy treatise Interpretation of Dreams, he researched the science of ‘dream interpretation’ by consulting not only every book on the subject he could find, but the “much-despised� street diviners as well, thus showing no aversion to interacting with craftsmen in his pursuit of knowledge (see chapter 4.6), nor any isolation from philosophers or competing schools of thought.1115 He continually added to this ‘science’ with his own research, conducting countless interviews of live subjects in order to build a database, and then test hypothesized correspondences between the content of dreams and a dreamer’s subsequent fortunes. And from this he sought to develop an empirically-based system of divination, which he believed should be increasingly freed of superstitious nonsense, and could be improved over time with ever more research.

Photo: Non Fui, Fui, Non Sum, Non Curo, found on many ancient Romans funeral monuments, translated as: “I was not; I was; I am not; I care not.”

And no, they weren’t atheists. Theism does not mean belief in an afterlife. You sound completely void of of any understanding about history or theology. Fact is, you’re projecting your own atheism; the Romans considered you Christians to be athiests, because you rejected the old gods and goddesses.

“…the persecutors of the Christians coined a new word to describe those who denied the very existence of the old gods and goddesses—the Christians were condemned as ‘atheists.’

“Christian atheism excited rumor….”

Jonathan Kirsch (2004) God Against The Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism. Viking. p. 109.

I am nothing like you and there is no reason to patronize me.

Yes, you meet the definition of sophomoric:

Definition of sophomoric
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
a sophomoric argument
2: lacking in maturity, taste, or judgment
sophomoric humor

soph•o•mor•ic s�f″ə-môr′ĭk, -m�r′-►
adj. Of or characteristic of a sophomore.
adj. Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment.
Of or pertaining to a sophomore or a sophomore class.

> “I’m damn near in love with this girl– hates Indians, negroes, Mexicans, but never got into JQ with her.”

I may sound cringe and be unwelcome, but nobody will say this otherwise – picking your girlfriend according to your interests is cuckoldry. That’s not what a man would do. The fact that a chad like yourself lowers himself to such is a testament to the wretched state of this dreadful race.

Our ancestors had marriages arranged for them. Our ancestors considered women meat. Even moderns have in essence molded their women to their fancy – the dominant liberal fetishists have created an independent woman… You want a trad wife, unable to see that you should not be seeking a woman, but creating a woman – by seizing power.

This freedom of expression meme is incredibly queer.

I shall reply quite briefly, as I must attend to preparing our supper as my wife has pulled a muscle in her groin and I have insisted she sits down and takes it easy. Your point concerning theory and practice being oft separated, in terms of Traditionalism, is well exemplified by something that I have posted before on this site more than once. It is an extract from a speech made in the House of Commons by Britain’s only Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (albeit one he made some years before he achieved high office). It was made in support of retaining the Corn Laws, in the debate about their repeal in 1842. Disraeli knew that only the corn laws stood between the last vestiges of Traditionalism in England and the final triumph of Modernism, and thus the commercial interest. He said:

When [in 1066] the Conqueror carved out parts of the land, and introduced the feudal system, he said to the recipient, “You shall have that estate, but you shall do something for it: you shall feed the poor; you shall endow the Church; you shall defend the land in case of war; and you shall execute justice and maintain truth to the poor for nothing. It is all very well to talk of the barbarities of the feudal system, and to tell us that in those days when it flourished a great variety of gross and grotesque circumstances and great miseries occurred but these were not the result of the feudal system; they were the result of the barbarism of the age. They existed not from the feudal system, but in spite of the feudal system. The principle of the feudal system, the principle which was practically operated upon, was the noblest principle, the grandest, the most magnificent and benevolent that was ever conceived by sage, or ever practised by patriot.â€�

Anthony Ludovici (I seem to be quoting him rather a lot of late, but he’s more than worth it) made this same point in his work A Defence of Aristocracy (second edition, 1933), in which he accused the British aristocracy of often abrogating their paternalistic role, in the face of this same plague of commercialism and mercantilism that was luring them away from their feudal duties. In this same regard, I was much struck by the words of a grand old lady, Olive Cook, when I read, many years ago, her treatise on the English Country House, when she remarked on this same phenomenon, writing:

There is no lack of evidence for the practical application of this new philosophy. It was with an eye to material benefits that many landowners became promoters of the emigration movement. They did not themselves become colonists; their object was to create a permanent market beyond the Atlantic for English goods in exchange for the products of the New World. The institution of the money-market, after an Act of Parliament had legalised the lending of money at interest, was but one sign of the times. The notion of using money to beget money appealed to merchants and shopkeepers; but it also encouraged a new and eventually disastrous tendency in landowners – to live from investments instead of from the judicious management of their estates. Men who looked upon property as a source of profit and not, as they had hitherto done, as a means of maintaining a given state of society, embraced every opportunity of increasing their land, buying up needy squires, a process analogous to the absorption of small businesses by large, which has contributed to the malaise of the modern industrial world. The dukes of Bedford added manor to manor, acre to acre until they were so ‘spacious in the possession of dirt’ that most of Bedfordshire seemed to be theirs.

In essence, all of this impacts on what I wrote in my previous (and admittedly lengthy) comment. As soon as the merchant has more money than the king, the merchant will be the de facto ruler and the people will begin to suffer. The fault lies with the unbridled triumph of mercantilism.

Traditionalism (i.e. governance mostly by kings) enshrined the essential connectivity and mutual responsibility between the throne and the poorest serf. Under this system, privilege (and thus power) entailed responsibility. The French phrase noblesse oblige is often used to describe it. It is, in essence, aristocratic paternalism, whereby the highest discharged a duty to protect and care for the lowest. Thus, always providing that this system worked well (and of course it didn’t always do so) what emerged were functioning, coherent, Hobbesian ‘organic societies’ with harmony in all their parts (as Oswald Spengler memorably put it). Under Modernism – which is the primacy of money and thus materialism – what we see are societies that resemble a body afflicted with cancer, where cells begin to attack one another until it dies.

In other words, the age-old links cementing the throne within the ambit of societal cohesion is broken. Today’s ruling oligarchs have zero sense of responsibility towards the ‘proles’. On the contrary, they exploit them at every turn and couldn’t care less when they are overtaken by debt, depression and despair. Indeed theirs is a peculiar type of tyranny that actually seeks these outcomes among the ordinary people, wedded as the oligarchy is to peddling the notion that people must be persuaded to buy junk they don’t need using money they don’t have. I repeat: a man’s worth today is measured by his tawdry little status symbols. Note my last sentence but one: the words ‘peddling’, ‘junk’ and ‘money they don’t have’. These are the essence of Modernism. They encapsulate the triumph of mercantilism and thus materialism. These three avenues of exploitation of the masses by oligarchs constitute rich and fertile ground for the Zuckerbergs, the Gates, the Bezos, the Singers, the Adelsons and the Dorseys.

Anyhow, I must cook – Adieu!

You are wrong once again, as I have three kids. Children back in Ancient times certainly knew how to respect their elders. I would not characterize kids as Squalling, completely egocentric, and obnoxious, unless they have not been disciplined.

Learn to hit the reply button, doc.

I Just HAD to post a second reply to your lengthily and astute comment. About the topic of Traditionalism, “Throne and Alter” vs liberalism, modernity:

This is an extremely interesting topic which I am still wrestling with myself. On one hand, As a Christian I see the benefits of Alter and Throne. Theism, and virtue, are infinitely superior to atheism and hedonism. Historically, there were kings like Alfred the Great of Wessex; he protected his people from the Heathen army, and then made a gracious peace after winning victory. There were also kings like Peter the great, who had his only son tortured to death after swearing an oath to pardon him. In short, the historic system of Christendom was certainly not all bad, but if we are honest with ourselves, their was a huge amount of bottomless cruelty, greed, and evil propagated by the THRONE AND ALTER THEMSELVES. I live in Guatemala, and the exploitation, torture, and genocide of the allegedly heathen Maya by the allegedly Christian whites is enough to bring a man to tears. It continues right up to the present day. Where do we draw the line between God-ordained hierarchy and godless exploitation… or are we oversimplifying a topic which needs to be looked at from other angles?

(I realize that the world is not binary and highly complicated. nevertheless, these two systems are often presented as antagonists, and I think this is an interesting topic and i would like to hear what some of our seasoned commentators think about it)

stevennonemaker88: “I’ve been polite so far …”

Only if you call refusing to engage with what is being argued polite. Furthermore, it’s apparent neither you nor Jesus spent much time around children if you think they are humble. Squalling, completely egocentric, and obnoxious is more like it; and also, lacking wisdom and the ability to think logically. If that’s your ideal, you are indeed a good Christian. LOL.

Thanks for your reply, and I very much suspect that there is far more that unites you with the likes of Mefobills and myself than which divides us. I was very much like you ten years ago (I am in my sixties by the way), when I was reading online ‘Right-wing’ content at sites like Takimag and Breitbart, among others. I found myself astonished at the level of blame being hurled at the Jews by writers at Takimag, whereas this sort of thing was actually an ‘offence’ that usually led to a permanent ban at Breitbart.

I am nothing like you and there is no reason to patronize me.

Your friends here view themselves as educated and yet they clearly lack any sense of European history pre common era. Feel free to re-read this thread if you doubt that. Half the posters here don’t even want to acknowledge that the Old Testament is Jewish in origin.

I have no problem with criticism of the Jews as a group. There is no confusion on my part. In fact I don’t think WW2 can be understood without analyzing Jewish influence in Europe before the Nazis. The public schools teach an intellectually dishonest version where Hitler creates resentment of the Jews from ether.

But there is also intellectual dishonesty at Unz regarding Jews and Western history.

You can write a 10k word essay but you cannot cover what is an illogical position whereby Jews are always to blame for Western society’s wars and yet Western society had wars well before the Romans conquered Judea.

This dishonest take on history ends up absolving Anglo tyrants and warmongers. Napoleon’s bloodlust in the name of equality and democracy now falls on a small group of Jewish financers. His bloody invasion of Spain or his Russian failure can now be blamed on Jews. How convenient.

The main problem here is that you are forced to take the position that Anglo leaders were only responsible for themselves before Jewish influence. If Hannibal leaves a trail of bodies from the Alps to Italy then it was by his own volition as a war general gambling his nation’s fate. Napoleon’s merciless warring against his European neighbors? Oh that was the French revolution and caused by Jews. Wilson’s unneeded entry into WW1? Jews again. Even Lincoln’s war is blamed on the Jews which was before the waves of Jewish immigration. Again you must take the position that only Western leaders of antiquity can be greedy or start wars for glory. Everyone since year zero was merely victims of Jewish conspiracy.

This is actually very similar to blaming Whites for everything that is wrong with Africa. In the public schools it is taught that Whites ruined Africa through colonialism. Well was Africa a utopia before then? That isn’t discussed. Even though colonialism is over we still see Whites blamed for every single mistake that Black leaders make. If someone like Mugabe ruins his country we see Western media reverting to blaming colonialism even though he was a dictator that killed Whites. Blacks are absolved of responsibility by blaming Whites. As with blaming Jews for every war you end up taking irrational positions whereby White colonial spirits or a global White conspiracy must somehow be to blame even if you can’t explain cause and effect.

Perhaps you can convince yourself that it all still makes sense. It may all work out in your mind but to the outsider this is all madness. It’s absurd to argue that all wars after year zero were Jewish in origin while ancient Rome and Greece just happened to have similar wars with parallel motivations and without any Jews involved. As with blaming Whites for Africa you have to ignore a long period where your blame group had no involvement. That leads to irrational arguments as seen in this thread.

I think that you and Mefobills actually are mostly in agreement. He is not saying the Jews are solely responsible for EVERYTHING like some posters do. What he is saying is that their influence runs deeper than you are giving them credit for, and I think he is correct.

Very good comment! I actually agree with many of the things John Johnson says, and also with what mefobills, Schuetze, and other’s post.I would simplify it to say that: There is a group of wealthy jews who have historically been destructive parasites in their host culture. Today, They are exceedingly wealthy, powerful and global; and form the core of the New World Order. HOWEVER; that does not mean that the jew is the root of all evil, or that the world would be a peaceful utopia without them. Historically, whites have been guilty of a huge amount of evil (like all races) and have by and large gone along with and even promoted the globalist, jewish agenda. It is wrong for whites to have a “shit-don’t-stink” mentality about themselves, just as it is wrong for people to pretend that wealthy jews are victims and not the core of the NWO.

I already thoroughly and politely explained this to you. Matthew 18:3 is not about wisdom, or reason, or wearing diapers, or sucking on a pacifier to be like a child. It is about humility, as explained by the VERY NEXT VERSE: “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” I also thoroughly and politely explained to you that scripture is not meant to be interpreted dogmatically, literally, and without common sense.

I’ve been polite so far, but you might want to reconsider insulting other’s intelligence when you haven’t even figured out how to hit the “Reply” button. Even your “anon” friend has figured THAT out….”Doctor”.

Thanks for your reply, and I very much suspect that there is far more that unites you with the likes of Mefobills and myself than which divides us. I was very much like you ten years ago (I am in my sixties by the way), when I was reading online ‘Right-wing’ content at sites like Takimag and Breitbart, among others. I found myself astonished at the level of blame being hurled at the Jews by writers at Takimag, whereas this sort of thing was actually an ‘offence’ that usually led to a permanent ban at Breitbart.

I began, slowly but surely, to understand what you already concede – ‘that international finance executives are disproportionately Jewish and that Jews in Europe were once moneylenders as it was forbidden for Christians. That moneylending undoubtedly created a powerbase that certainly exists today’. It’s a start. But there is a great deal beyond what lies on the surface of this empirical analysis. As Mefobills has demonstrated, many of your cherished ‘examples’ of ills that have beset the West being Judenfrei are, on deeper analysis, not merely cheered on by these people, but in many cases planned and executed by them.

In the ancient world, for example, the Jews in Alexandria at the height of the Roman Empire, were causing immense problems to the Roman imperium, as Emperor Claudius’ Letter to the Jews at Alexandria, of A.D. 41 made clear. In it, he wrote:

“I command the Jews not to agitate for anything beyond that which they have hitherto enjoyed, and not from henceforth, as if they lived in two cities, to send two embassies — a thing which never occurred before now – nor to intrude themselves into games and elections, but to profit by what they possess and to enjoy in a city not their own an abundance of all good things, and not to introduce or invite Jews who make voyages to Alexandria from Syria or Egypt, thus compelling me to conceive the worst suspicions; otherwise I will by all means take vengeance upon them, as fomenting a general plague upon the whole world.�

This proclamation from Claudius was in response to riots between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria, and is illustrative of a profound lack of mystery regarding so-called ‘anti-Semitism’ down the ages. For Claudius, peace in the city would be restored only if the Jews ceased certain negative behaviours: agitating for special privileges (“to agitate for anything beyond that which they have hitherto enjoyedâ€�); attempting to circumvent established political practices (“to send two embassies — a thing which never occurred before nowâ€�); attempting to enter and disrupt the cultural life of the Alexandrians (“to intrude themselves into games and electionsâ€�); attempting to manipulate the demographics of the city (“to introduce or invite Jews who make voyages to Alexandria from Syria or Egyptâ€�); and exploiting their diaspora status to cause problems internationally (“fomenting a general plague upon the whole worldâ€�). These basic premises of Jewish financial and political acquisitiveness, cultural intrusion, disregard for political norms, propensity to demographic warfare, and exploitation of being essentially rootless, have been the mainstay of all conflict involving Jews both before and ever since Claudius, with extraordinarily little variation in themes, and it is of little surprise to add that the Jewish community of Alexandria was finally ‘extinguished’ by Trajan’s army during the ‘Kitos War’ of 115-117 CE.

What of more recent examples which you cite? The hidden role of Jews in fomenting the French Revolution has been pointed out by Mefobills. Yet this was merely a step along the way. A far earlier – and in many ways more profoundly influential – revolution was ‘The Grand Rebellion’ in England, of 1642, which culminated in the execution of King Charles I. A hideous and despicable act, yet one in which a powerful king, ruling over a country from which Jews had been banished since Edward I sent them packing in 1290, was replaced by Oliver Cromwell as ‘The Lord Protector of England’. One of his first acts was to readmit Jews into the land. A coincidence? Perhaps, but there is evidence that the Grand Rebellion was funded from Amsterdam. Certainly, it was just one of many subsequent examples of powerful monarchies being replaced by parliamentary governments (achieved at the point of the sword in this instance: Cromwell seizing power in what was to all intents and purposes a military coup).

Sorry about your father’s ordeal but glad at least he didn’t have to go in pain. This was early 00s you said? I also recall nurses from around that time as being beings either white pigs or blacks, but I swear a good 70% of them here where I am in nyc area are solid 8s these days.. A number of poles/balts, and many of the natives are in early 20s and cute.
Was trying to convince my favorite one– in early 20s– not to go to Miami for next 5 days but to try to see if she could change it for somewhere like siesta key or longboat key on gulf coast. Miami is all concrete, Cubans, and coke. I’m damn near in love with this girl– hates Indians, negroes, Mexicans, but never got into JQ with her.

My personal dr. Is an old guinea with protection (from local PD anyway) as his family is known to be mobbed up and have been since 40s. I wish I could mention some of the figures I see in his office regularly without doxxing.

stevennonemaker88: “… the Bible is strongly in favor of Wisdom, as I have previously explained. What you quoted is NOT IN ANY WAY against reason or wisdom.”

Your 1100 word screed is too error-filled and ridiculous to dissect in detail, but it would be interesting to hear you explain (in less than another 1100 words, I hope) how becoming like an ignorant, irrational child is supposed to help you get to heaven, if reason and wisdom are valuable to Christians. Also, observe that in the Bible, Jesus reasons with no one. He doesn’t engage in a search for truth. He doesn’t argue or persuade. He simply proclaims himself the truth, take it or leave it. Christianity stresses the primacy of faith over reason. Reason and wisdom are devalued to the extent that the stupidest person ever to walk the face of the earth, perhaps even stupider than stevennonemaker88 (if that’s imaginable), will attain to heaven in place of a wise man with no faith in Jesus. Christianity succeeded to the extent that it did only because its entry requirement of faith was much easier for people to meet than wisdom, which was rare back then, and even in shorter supply today. It was a clever marketing gimmick, certainly, but not one that demonstrated any respect for rationality.

Adûnâi: “How is the idea of progress related to the notion of the after-life?”

It’s indirectly related to the Christian idea of heaven, which in their mythology is taken for granted as a desirable destination for everyone, to arrive at which is the purpose of life. The myth of Progress also borrows quite a bit from the Christian idea of history ending with the triumphant return of Jesus to rule for a thousand years over his subjects on Earth, as foretold in the Bible. Everything that happens is supposed to be building to that “wonderful” conclusion, i.e., we can expect things get better and better until they’re finally perfect. The secular interpretation is the same thing, only Jesus-less, and paradise arrives as the result of technological development. The thousand-year Reich, the eventual withering away of the state in Marxism, the role played by the singularity in transhumanism — all are echoes of this originally Christian belief.

Adûnâi: “I’m surprised you’re not making that old argument that the Romans allegedly worshipped Nature so much, they must have considered technology blasphemous. Either way, as Richard Carrier puts it in his book The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire (2017)”

I haven’t read Carrier’s book, so I can’t criticize it, except to say that it’s hard for me to understand how there were any “scientists” at all before the discovery of the scientific method. If you read what passes for science back then, you find very little that resembles what we know today by that name. Aristotle, for example, who is frequently cited as some sort of early scientist, says that women have fewer teeth than men. Apparently it never occurred to him to actually look and count them. Much of the written material consists of “so-and-so says this” and “so-and-so” says that, but there’s very little that I’ve ever seen in the way of hands-on investigation or experimentation.

stevennonemaker88: “The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Persians, etc all strongly believed in the afterlife and took it very seriously. ”

Wrt to Greeks and Romans, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Read what Catullus wrote again. Does “perpetual sleep” sound like an afterlife? His was the informed view. Greek atomism didn’t allow for the existence of anything but atoms and the void. Epicurus’ and Democritus’ materialism left no room for such superstitious nonsense as an afterlife. Epicurus was very influential and against the very idea. He wrote:

“Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.”

Pythagoreans believed in reincarnation, but that isn’t an afterlife in the Christian sense. Socrates ponders the question in Phaedo and seems to come down on the side of reincarnation, but also expresses uncertainty. Marcus Aurelius accepts something similar to the Epicurean view. In Bk VII he writes:

“32. OF DEATH : Either dispersion if atoms ; or, if a single Whole, either extinction or a change of
state.”

The closest thing to the Christian idea of heaven in the ancient world was the mythic isles of Elysium. But that was usually thought to be only the abode of heroes like Hercules or Aeneas.

But by all means go back to blaming Jews while quoting Bible versus written by Jews on a website owned by a Jew. So sorry to break up the party.

There you go again making false attributions.

Ron is a free thinker, and the fact that he is a jew doesn’t automatically make him the enemy of humanity.

There are many fine and upstanding Jews. The top Jews, call out dissenting Jew as being “self haters.” It is a form of control.

Ron is the spiritual cousin of Baruch Spinoza (1632-77). Spinoza was a member of Amsterdam’s Jewish community and one of the great philosophers of the day. He was also a former student of Rabbi Ben Manessah.

The political nature of the Jewish publishing houses, then refused to publish Spinoza. Spinoza was especially critical of the Jewish attempts of subterfuge to undermine Dutch and English society. At the time Manessah was printing Bibles at what would today cost in the millions of dollars.

Ask yourself why Jews would publish Bibles.

Spinoza clearly rejected the teachings of Judaism, and even so, he was offered 1000 Florin’s a year if he would conform to Jewish rules and behaviors, and announce so in public.

Spinoza was cursed and then expelled from the community in 1656 and then suddenly died at the age of 35. Suicided perhaps?

Spinoza noted that the Jews of Amsterdam were using the printing press to push a narrative, and also that they were rigging the stock market, and further that they had maneuvered to own 25 percent of Dutch East India Company.

Here is Ron Unz on Hitler:
https://russia-insider.com/en/history/hitler-saved-europe-ron-unz-how-western-allies-almost-went-war-against-ussr/ri27017

By the way, Charles Bausman, the publisher of Russia Insider has made a conscious decision to NOT IGNORE THE JEW, otherwise he cannot understand history or reality.

If you grow a pair, you can be brave like Spinoza or Unz.

All irrelevant to the main point which is that none of this had anything to do with the Jews or usury.

You are a knuckle-head.

I was explaining how those wars were not related to Jewish usury. You challenged me on that point, and it seems you are constantly trying to squirm out and shift when confronted.

You seem to think I am unbalanced an unable to see things, that I am irrational.

Your hand waving about Carthage aside, I consider Rome to have been monetarily astute in the beginning under King Numa, and then later they made many mistakes, ultimately leading to the dark ages – which in turn was the greatest depression.

Gold had been consecrated to the vaults, and land had been enclosed into Latifundia.

You are probably correct in most things you wrote, and possibly in all of them.

Although I live in Brazil, I think that, with minor changes, the situation is the same.

But the difference is that I do not extrapolate from that reality an irrational conspiracy theory where Jews have been behind all Western wars and left-wing movements.

I don’t do that, but at the same time I’m not willfully looking away from Jewish inputs.

If you talk about the French Revolution and leave the Jacobins out of account, then don’t expect others to take you seriously. So, here is a case where you willfully look the other way, and then you proclaim people like me to unbalanced and irrational.

At best you have a sophomoric view of the world, and you don’t like people who know more than you calling you out.

Jacob Frank proclaimed himself to be reincarnated from the Jewish Messiah Sabbatai Zevi. Zevi in turn turbocharged the Kol-Niedre, so that pre-crime was sanctioned. Pull on that thread to update your understanding of the French revolution.

It is you who are unbalanced and “stiff necked.” Gee-Bee gave you some reading materials and homework, I expect you to pull-head-out-o-rectum, and educate yourself.

His reading material for you is decidedly not what your boomer clown-world professors would have prescribed.

I get it that you are rejecting clown world. But, you are drawing improper conclusions, and leading many of the two digit IQ Unz readers astray.

You are seemingly disparaging pseudo-history, but then deny the Carthaginians were Semitic? Their language was a close relative of Hebrew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language

Yes their language was Semitic in origin but the Phoenicians were not Semitic.
https://phys.org/news/2016-05-ancient-dna-phoenician-carthage-european.html

In all fairness it is probably still taught that they were Semitic. There has been a desire on the part of liberals to make them Arab and even Black.

In what way did three titanic wars spanning a century with millions of casualties constitute “playing fair�? Carthage attempted to conquer Syracuse and invaded Hispania, do you honestly believe the fate of Rome would have differed from that of Carthage in the case of a Jewish victory?

The were playing fair by meeting all the demands of Rome from the peace treaty of the second Punic war.

Carthage was not at all a threat to Rome at the time. In fact they wanted protection from Rome against King Masinissa.

The Romans asked the Carthaginians to hand over their weapons and then they proceeded to slaughter them.

All irrelevant to the main point which is that none of this had anything to do with the Jews or usury.

> “They were not Semitic and their destruction had nothing to do with piracy. Phoenician colonists founded Carthage and we know that through DNA testing.”

You are seemingly disparaging pseudo-history, but then deny the Carthaginians were Semitic? Their language was a close relative of Hebrew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language

> “The Carthaginians were trying to play fair but the Romans wanted to wipe them out and not let them rise again to fight another punic war.”

In what way did three titanic wars spanning a century with millions of casualties constitute “playing fair”? Carthage attempted to conquer Syracuse and invaded Hispania, do you honestly believe the fate of Rome would have differed from that of Carthage in the case of a Jewish victory?

> “The ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t think that the future would tend to be better than the past, and in fact thought of the past as better than the present. Their “Golden Ageâ€� was the past.”

Then what did people strive for if not for better times? Are you implying Roman statesmen did not take pride in expanding their civilisation to the bounds of the Oikumene? That their learned men did not take note of the steady scientific progress from Archimedes and Hipparchus through Ptolemy and Galen? Religion-wise, they might not have been Hegelians, but Stoicism did posit the world to be knowable and rational, thus not one sorrowful fall as seen among the Galileans.

> “They didn’t have a cult of Progress, and also didn’t expect heaven to arrive after they were dead.”

How is the idea of progress related to the notion of the after-life? I’m surprised you’re not making that old argument that the Romans allegedly worshipped Nature so much, they must have considered technology blasphemous. Either way, as Richard Carrier puts it in his book The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire (2017),

…it often appears that Roman scientists brought their fields to the most advanced levels ever achieved until the dawn of the Scientific Revolution, which took up where the Romans left off.

Libertarians are very vocal in the commentariat of this site, but judging from the low popularity score of the only two libertarian writers on this site (Ron Paul and Ilana Mercer, who by the way diverge a lot on some topics), I’d say the hardcore types are not the majority of readers.

On paper this is may be true but modern conservatism is heavily influenced by libertarian theory.

ConInc has been promoting libertarian economic theory for decades. They want zero intervention when it comes to health care and they also promote charter schools as a solution to public schools.

But as I have mentioned many times this outlook is based on race denial. Charter schools were already tried in Black areas. They would never discuss this on Fox News or other Con Inc outlets as it goes against the orthodoxy. They can’t talk about race and they also can’t admit that sometimes the government is in fact useful. They already drank too much libertarian poison and have no where to go. I don’t say this because I want to kick them in the teeth. I say this because I really don’t want to live in a one party country but that is where we are headed if conservatives do not move to populism.

Modern conservatism is basically stuck in a loop. You can see this in numerous threads on Unz including this one. Conservatives still talk about charter schools and market allocated health care. I was called a poor nihilist in this thread for taking the position that all workers should be covered.

This is libertarian thinking at work. They have a hard time with complex issues where cutting back government regulation hasn’t worked as a solution. You can’t even discuss these issues without getting called names. It’s very similar to liberal solutions regarding race. If you point out what hasn’t worked they call you a racist and try to depict your motivation as suspect.

I feel that poor old John Johnson is like many of us were not so long ago, which is to say before we had that epiphanic moment when we slapped our foreheads and cried out loud: “My God! So this is what it’s really all about!� There comes a point, in other words, where careful and relevant research always leads to that moment.

I’m younger than most of you and in fact went deeper into politics after catching numerous boomer professors trying to pass lies as truth.

I take reality for what it is. I am fully aware that international finance executives are disproportionately Jewish and that Jews in Europe were once moneylenders as it was forbidden for Christians. That moneylending undoubtedly created a powerbase that certainly exists today.

But the difference is that I do not extrapolate from that reality an irrational conspiracy theory where Jews have been behind all Western wars and left-wing movements.

The French Revolution was certainly not Jewish and created the foundation of secular egalitarianism. Members of the French upper class were executed in the name of equality and we still have revolutionaries that think they can fix all the inequalities of the world. Liberals and left-wingers still refuse to believe a natural hierarchy exists and their extreme elements would send us to re-education camps if they could.

I don’t blame the Jews for our problems because I have met too many Whites that want to believe equality exists where it simply doesn’t. It’s not even an intellectual process for them. On an emotional level they want equality and don’t really care about how valid an argument is. The idea that races can have differing group abilities like dog and horse breeds is absolutely terrifying to them. They would much rather put us on trains and shut down the internet than face that reality.

But by all means go back to blaming Jews while quoting Bible versus written by Jews on a website owned by a Jew. So sorry to break up the party.

…What does this have to do with my comment?

The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Persians, etc all strongly believed in the afterlife and took it very seriously. Trying to paint them as toga wearing atheists is ridiculous.

The sacking of Carthage was also not Jewish as we know it, but Carthaginians were a Semitic people, and they did operate a piracy system

They were not Semitic and their destruction had nothing to do with piracy. Phoenician colonists founded Carthage and we know that through DNA testing.

The Carthaginians were trying to play fair but the Romans wanted to wipe them out and not let them rise again to fight another punic war.

Had nothing to do with Jews or banking or usury. It was about a stronger nation wanting to finish off a competitor while they were weak.

So you are complaining about the Jews and then quoting them? You do realize that Deuteronomy was written by Jews, right?

Sophomoric drivel.
…
To distill it down for you, the Pharisee class wrote the Talmud.

You are calling me sophomoric while being condescending and yet you get the book wrong. Deuteronomy is part of the Torah, not the Talmud.

Jews wrote Deuteronomy. Sorry if that disrupts some weird proto-Aryan fantasy take on the Bible.

Atlas Shrugged – Written by a Jew
Deuteronomy – Written by Jews
Catcher and the Rye (one of my favorites)- Written by a Jew

Most Biblical texts and libertarian essays were written by Jews. I’m so sorry, I’ll send a card.

The analogy you make in this article, brilliant, Kevin!

The Devils was one of the very Dostoevsky writings which I hadn’t read. So I ordered it after reading your article and being impatient I’ve started to listen to it until the book comes. Not only is the novel true genius in itself, but the similarity to the situation in the US today are really remarkable. ….. I mean the analogy works only up to a point of course, Dostoevsky’s characters for the most part seem to be far better read than your average antifa enthusiast. The most striking aspect for me so far in the novel is the indulgences of the “intellectuals” for the whims of the youth, which seems capable, like it actually did in Russia, to unleash a deluge which will wash them all away, as you’ve pointed out in your article.

Thanks a lot.

There certainly are many different interpretations and sects of Christianity.  This is the case with most systems of belief.  As I originally stated, the topics of Philosophy and Religion are almost infinitely complex.  There is also much error in most churches and intentional subversion of Christianity. (the scofield bible, etc) There are many Nihilistic “Christians” that are full of lies and foolishness. such is human nature.

Oh really? Who appointed you spokesman for Christianity? Christianity has been torn by conflicts about what constitutes “real� Christianity for two thousand years. There are nearly as many interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians. But it’s quite obvious, in any honest reading of the NT, that Christianity rejects this world and its values and instead places its hopes in an imaginary next, a utopia, the so-called kingdom of God. To establish this, we have only to consult the words of the crucified rabbi himself.

Christianity is not based only on the NT. Christianity considers the Old Testament as part of scripture. The bible states that God made the world, and his creation was very good. Certainly Christians look forward to a new heavens and a new earth. Mankind in general is corrupt. Christians aught to reject arrogance, greed, perversion, cruelty, dishonesty, laziness, etc. Christians aught to embrace honesty, hard work, excellence in everything they do, integrity, humility, justice, etc.

Wealth: I don’t think that there is practically anyone on this website who would not agree with the fact that Greed and the quest for extreme wealth is highly destructive and one of the primary causes behind the collapse of the west.  That does not mean ALL wealth is bad.  Having enough material things is good and necessary, but it is not the primary goal of our existence or life.  This is common sense, and backed up by scripture.  
1 Timothy 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.

Pride: Pride can certainly be bad. In the sense of arrogance, ego, hypocritical, self righteous mentality. Not in the sense of self respect, integrity, attention to detail, etc. As I already quoted above, Paul stated he was proud of his pupils.

Against reason and even the possibility of wisdom:

Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
– Matthew 18:3

the Bible is strongly in favor of Wisdom, as I have previously explained. What you quoted is NOT IN ANY WAY against reason or wisdom. Like most parables, the meaning can be layered and complex. Most of Christ’s teachings do not stand alone; they are dependent on other teachings and context. The primary meaning of the verse you quoted is the importance of humility.

Acts 6:3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.

Against strength:

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
– Matthew 5:39

This is not a prohibition of self defense or of strength. Self defense is a duty and a right. Strength is a valuable and important attribute. God himself is called the Almighty. Much of scripture is highly figurative and poetic. Christ also said:

Matthew 18:8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.

how does your foot cause you to sin? does it have a separate brain? how exactly does someone tear out their own eye or cut off their own limbs? it is not even physically possible in most cases. Obviously, he is speaking in a figurative, poetic fashion.

Rejection of reason in favor of faith:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
– John 14:6

This has nothing to do with rejecting reason.

Rejection of the world and its values generally as the dominion of Satan:

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.�

8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’
-Luke 4:5-8

This teaching is highly poetic, and not to be taken in simplistic, dogmatic terms. Satan masquerades as God, but he is NOT God. His words are lies, and his offers are hollow. Hence the historic term “devil’s bargain”. This verse does not in any way support your point. Jesus is God, and already has all authority and splendor, over HIS OWN creation. The world is corrupted, and full of lies and sin. But it is still God’s world.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

You argument hinges entirely on misinterpreting certain Bible verses to make them say ridiculous, self contradictory things. IF you interpret all of Scripture literally and dogmatically, you end up with a collage of bizarre, perverted contradictions. This is why to make sense out of the Bible and to find the God Given wisdom within it, you must interpret it in context and in harmony with the rest of the bible, with conscience, common sense, and historical perspective. To illustrate this point, I leave you with the below quote. It is not a contradiction.

Proverbs 26:
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

In many of his novels he rails against the Catholic Church. His knowledge of the Catholic Church, however, came largely from the French socialists who had such a profound influence on him in his youth.

Dostoevsky viewed the Catholic Church as an institution that had abandoned its spiritual beliefs in a quest to give mankind earthly happiness. He has the Catholic Grand Inquisitor state to Christ in The Brothers Karamazov, “You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race?�

Dostoevsky related his sense of how the Catholic social preoccupation worked. “The Catholic priest searches out some miserable worker’s family and gains their confidence. He feeds them all, gives them clothes, provides heating, looks after the sick, buys medicine, becomes the friend of the family and converts them to Catholicism.� This sense of the socially obsessed Catholic Church which places earthly comfort before redemptive suffering and peace on earth before peace of soul must make any post-Vatican II Catholic uncomfortable in its precision. The only error when applied to the Novus Ordo Church is that the priest would no longer attempt to convert the family. The sentimental socialism of the nineteenth-century French intellectuals whom Dostoevsky came to despise found a happy home in the post-conciliar Church.

With his insistence on suffering and salvation, the supernatural and sacrifice, Dostoevsky echoes many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. With his prophetic vision of a possessed Russia unleashing her demons into the world, he echoes the prophecies of Fatima, and not only those prophecies that already come to fruition. The above quoted words from the deathbed of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky in Demons conclude with the following remarks:

But the sick man will be healed and “sit at the feet of Jesus�…and everyone will look in amazement…. Dear, vous comprenez apres, but it excites me very much now…. Vous comprenez apres…. Nous comprendrons ensemble.

Russia will be healed; Russia will sit at the feet of Our Savior and the whole world will be amazed. “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to mankind.� The Brothers Karamazov , Dostoevsky has the wise elder Father Zossima on the brink of the grave say, “This star [the image of Christ] will shine forth from the East.� The same promise has been given us by Our Lady and we who suffer here in the maelstrom of the modern atheistic, materialistic world still await that glorious moment.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_fa_white.html

The Mystery of Russia

Dostoyevsky saw catholicism as one of the sources of soul corruption in the West.
“Better an atheist than a catholic�. His words.

Dostoyevsky lived his life like a catholic but he didn’t know it.

His interaction with catholics involved polish people. He did not like polish people. He was one bad word away from a death sentence in a cold gulag. If he had said anything positive about catholics he would have been shot in his sleep by a jew agent sent by the State. That is Russian history.

No offense to Russians but their spirituality compass is, off.

Deep souls maybe, but their spirituality compass is off.