black magic: roman union jack jive talk

[mika]

The 'backsliders' were just the people who wanted to stay with the old system, where in the good ol days, Yhwh and his wife and son were just one of the regular gods.

Why do you keep peddling conjecture nonsense that is based on ignorance and malice as though it's fact? Where's the erudition in that? Do you even have an idea what YHVH means?

 

[mika]

backwater of Judea

And yet, you and yours are obsessed with it. Why is that?

 

[Jerry Russell]

According to you and yours, who are in my experience always in error and always are motivated by spite, malice, and deceit.

Three strikes, Mika, you're out. I don't know why you want to talk to us anyhow.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Rick,

Abraham, who is likely just a fictional vehicle as well as Moses et al., is otherwise described very accurately as a typical caravan merchant prince with his typical retainer of (318) armed shepherds, the 'armed host'. A typical armed caravan merchant prince operating out of the Amorite region of Urfa (Edessa) / Haran, as attested by contemporaneous clay tablets from the region. He was welcomed by the Hittites within the Hittite trading colony of Hebron and allowed to buy burial land inside the colony, only because he was ... Hittite.

I'm a little bit confused about how Abraham could be entirely a fictional vehicle, and also a Hittite. Is it possible that the Biblical story was written around some ancient tradition about a real person who was a Hittite merchant prince accompanied by an armed host? Not that we are ever likely to know the truth at this late date. We can certainly say that the story has been fictionalized, incorporated into a long narrative with an agenda, and infused with supernatural elements.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Shlomo Sand claims that Yiddish is a Slavo-Turk dialect.

Shalom Sand might have gotten this idea from linguist Paul Wexler?

https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/linguistics/The_Ashkenazic_Jews

Wexler claims that the Khazars were Turks, but I'm not so sure of that.

In Wexler's view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands (the Sorbs are a West Slavic population that still numbers about 70,000 in the former German Democratic Republic). Widespread conversions to Judaism that began in Asia Minor in the Christian era and ended with the institutionalization of Christianity among the Western Slavs in the beginning of the second millennium saved the tiny ethnic Palestinian Jewish population in the diaspora from total extinction. The major non-Jewish contributors to the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews were Slavs, though there was probably also a minor Turkic strain -- both in the Caspian-Black Sea area (the descendants of the Khazars, a mainly Turkic group that converted to Judaism in the eighth century) and in the Balkans and Hungary. In all of these areas, the Turkic population early became submerged with the coterritorial Slavs.

In addition to Yiddish terms of Slavic, Greek, Romance and German origin which express aspects of the Jewish religion and folk culture, the book shows that many elements of Ashkenazic folklore and religion themselves were of Slavic origin -- either West (Sorbian and Polabian) or Balkan Slavic. There is a lengthy discussion of the evidence for widespread conversion to Judaism in Asia Minor, southern Europe and the Germano-Sorbian lands up to the twelfth century and the reasons why pagan and Christian Slavs converted to Judaism. While historians have been disputing the extent of conversion to Judaism, Wexler thinks the linguistic and ethnographic evidence make the conversion evidence highly plausible.

 

[Richard Stanley]

No, I'm not a Karite. I'm not religious in any sense. I deeply despise all religious ritual and all religious bureaucracies. I am a Hebrew/Israeli nationalist who knows and understands the TaNaKh to be an impeccable source of history, my history.

So then you know that the Ashkenazim are not Semites.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Richard Stanley]

You'll have to forgive me, English is not my first language, nor second nor third nor forth
My understanding is that the expression "you're way off your rocker" is similar to "you're way off the mark" but also intones an emotional connotation of silliness.

I actually took no offense to "off your rocker", and I got in trouble for using the onanistic phrase of "circle jerk", which I thought was excessive.

BTW, do you think that Onan should have been killed for not fulfilling the levirate contract with his dead brother's wife? This sure is a nice 'history' that you are so proud of. That god that you despise (by impiously refusing his mandated rituals) in the history that you love has a bad record of using an iron rod on such people like you.

Since you are an expert on all such historical matters, I have been wondering if the real problem here was not that Onan spilt his seed on the ground, a euphemism for masturbation like the fun-dah-mentalists like to tell us, but that it was indeed failing to live up to the traditional business contract terms, that a marriage is, in this case polyandrous (many men - one woman).

 

[Richard Stanley]

No, I'm stating the facts and showing how ridiculous the theories which you uncritically bring forward are. What you are doing is reciting conjecture and wild false theories by corrupt personalities whose motives are malice, self-aggrandizement, and greed.

This would be the pot calling the kettle black, with the exception that I am only attributing to you that you have bought the proverbial Jonestown KoolAide.

And do you know about Jonestown, and what happened to the poor deluded people there? This was, unfortunately, a horrible parallel for what Rome and their unwitting evangelical ghouls want to see happen to the Jews of Israel (real or Ashkenazi) who continue to refuse Christ during the re-enactment of the End Times.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The Khazars were Turks. They spoke Turkish.

Shlomo Sand is a propaganda stooge and in the final analysis an ignorant moron. I know and speak Russian, Hebrew and Yiddish. Yiddish is a German dialect mixed with Hebrew words. There is no Slavo-Turk of any kind in Yiddish.

Okay then, you agree that you are not a Semite, at least by birth, but rather a Japhetic Gomerite. What then are you doing in Israel?

You are in Israel, because your parents (or grandparents) got 'hoodwinked' into believing that you are Jewish Semites, all so that you could fulfill the usual sacrificial goat role in the next stage of the global plan. As such, Ashkenazim are nothing more than the "Replacement Jews", for those real ones that either got killed off much earlier in Europe or adsorbed by various means of Romantic assimilation.

You consider that Shlomo Sand, and surely Shahak, as propaganda stooges because they, unlike you, saw through the veils of deceit.

Sand accurately described the artificial construction of the European nations, and their equally bogus ethnic goy 'nationalities'. This construction was all orchestrated by the gentil (the real societal elites), and it was also they covertly sponsored the Ashkenazi dialectic reaction to it of the false Israel national narrative. Too bad for you, mika, but Sand clearly lays out the evolution of this false construction in his historiography of it.

Sardonically (that's dark irony), all these artificial nations, including Israel were scripted in the Book of Daniel, which as every rational person today knows was bogus Maccabee propaganda backdated to the time of the Babylonian Exile (and where Nehemiah was -- accurately Cyrus' cupholder and everything that this really means).

So, yes, you go ahead and walk away from it all, better walk real far.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The TaNaKh.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/naves-topical-bible/amorites.html

This is called circular logic. And this coming from what is merely typical epic exaggeration to boost the story in the eyes of the gullible audience, like you.

Again, where is the evidence, not the Kool-Aide?

 

[Richard Stanley]

According to you and yours, who are in my experience always in error and always are motivated by spite, malice, and deceit. Simply put, your "experts" are not.

No, this is all because you mistake exaggerated fairy tales for history. Worse, like Christians (and Muslims) you glorify in all the bloody conquest then claim that your filthy history (and its god whom you don't believe in) book gave you permission. Let's just all walk away from it all, metaphorically that is, because damn if you're going to give up the blood soaked land.

Latin and latin history didn't come to existence until very late in Hebrew history (time of Hezekiah). The Latin alphabet is a derivative of the Greek alphabet, which itself is a derivative of the Hebrew alphabet.

Neither of these points address what I said. It is clear that you don't want to address them because you know that you are being backed into a corner.

Funny how the later 'Hebrew' fancy scripts are all embellished with important Egyptian hieratic symbology, which the Sabbah brothers (rabbis) clearly revealed. The so-called Hebrew merely evolved from the Phoenician 'proto-Semitic' alphabet. And yes, the Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians.

The point about Latin is that it was clearly built from the ground up, with strict and consistent rules, without being an amalgam like English or other languages. It was man-made, and like the man-made artistic embellishments to 'proto-Semitic' to turn it into 'Hebrew', the Tanakh fabricators had Josiah and his high priest use the transparent (except to you) ruse of finding the original holy book. Sometime after this was when the fabrication of your non-holy holy book history was made, generally about the same time that we're supposed to believe that Rome's fake foundational history occurred.

Sorry, please show me any evidence for Solomon and David, other than the photo of the swastika relief found in the so-called Temple Mount rubble, which I saw revealed by Ronnie Reich at UCLA some years ago. Don't worry, the swastika was a common symbol back then, in the days of the most Hellenic Hasmoneans, kin of the perverse Spartans. Those Hasmoneans who sponsored your precious book of Daniel as propaganda against their Seleucid overlords and abetted the Romans.

 

[Richard Stanley]

What does that even mean?

The Levites needed a ruse to explain to the darker skinned Semites (which you are not) why their skin was lighter than theirs. The obvious solution, accurate in your expert and admittedly biased opinion, is to have God's mere presence, exclusive to Moses and Aaron - and subsequent descendant Levite high priests, cause their skin to be lighter than theirs. You see, your Tanakh claims that Moses and Aaron were born as typical Semites, whose skin was darker than your non-Semitic skin. But because you wont take your Rome colored glasses off, you insist on claiming that you are something which you aren't.

 

[Richard Stanley]

According to you. You have no basis for this other than conjecture by ignorant personalities whose motives and politics are highly suspect, to say the least.
As I said, read Velikovsky. And just because you claim to have inherited a whole library of his books, doesn't necessarily mean you read and absorbed any in it.

I asked you to point to where I should be reading, as I have not had time to read them, and the way things are going may not ever be able to.

I am aware of his claim that Venus was emitted from Jupiter, but there are better explanations for why the Tanakh claims that the Earth's motion was altered.

If it were not so BLOODY SICK, it would be rather humerous to consider the dark irony of someone so adament about his historical accuracy, yet ignores the accurate meaning of his supposed ancestors, Japheth and Gomer, while squatting on Shem's land, which the Hebrews had to conquer - from Semites.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Rick,



I'm a little bit confused about how Abraham could be entirely a fictional vehicle, and also a Hittite. Is it possible that the Biblical story was written around some ancient tradition about a real person who was a Hittite merchant prince accompanied by an armed host? Not that we are ever likely to know the truth at this late date. We can certainly say that the story has been fictionalized, incorporated into a long narrative with an agenda, and infused with supernatural elements.

That's certainly possible. I should have stated things differently.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The Tanakh might very well be correct that the Ashkenazi were Turks.

This truly is a case where we can take the Bible authority in lieu of DNA, as I agree here with the admitted Turk, mika. Of whom I haven't seen any reason to ban him, except that he will become another massive waste of time like faux Collectivist (was).

Shalom Sand might have gotten this idea from linguist Paul Wexler?

https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/linguistics/The_Ashkenazic_Jews

Wexler claims that the Khazars were Turks, but I'm not so sure of that.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Collectivist is still a member in good standing, inasmuch as our debate with him took place before I instituted the new policies.

I don't agree at all that this entire conversation was nothing but "jive talk" or a waste of time. On the contrary, I think that in spite of his ad hominem attacks, overall Mika's participation has been useful in helping us draw out the issues, and articulate our position.

Does anyone else think I've been too harsh in banning Mika? As administrator, I do have the capability to lift the ban, and I have his email contact information. It seems unfair to throw all these rhetorical questions at him, and leave him with no capability to respond.

I banned him based on the policy that all members should be treated with respect, and ad hominem attacks should be avoided. Have I applied the policy fairly, and is it a good policy? Comments invited.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Japhetic Gomerite

Richard, I never heard of a "Japhetic Gomerite" before. But, the shoe seems to fit the Ashkenazi. Look at this from Wikipedia:

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

Gomer (גֹּמֶר, Standard HebrewGómer, Tiberian HebrewGōmer, pronounced [ɡoˈmeʁ]) was the eldest son of Japheth (and of the Japhetic line), and father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah, according to the "Table of Nations" in the Hebrew Bible, (Genesis 10).

[....]

Gomer's descendants[edit]
Three sons of Gomer are mentioned in Genesis 10, namely

• Ashkenaz
• Riphath (spelled Diphath in I Chronicles)
• Togarmah

Children of Ashkenaz was originally identified with the Scythians (Assyrian Ishkuza), then after the 11th century, with Germany.[13][14] It has been conjectured that the term in the original Hebrew was Ashkuz, but that it became Ashkenaz when the Hebrew letter waw was accidentally miscopied as the similar-looking letter nun at some early stage of the transmission.[citation needed] Irish Genealogy traces itself to Ibath, son of Gomer (thought to be a form of Riphath).[citation needed]

Ancient Armenian and Georgian chronicles lists Togarmah as the ancestor of both people who originally inhabited the land between two Black and Caspian Seas and between two inaccessible mountains, Mount Elbrus and Mount Ararat respectively.[15][16]

According to Khazar records, Togarmah is regarded as the ancestor of the Turkic-speaking peoples.[17]

 

[Jerry Russell]

Rick's "circle jerk" is more or less synonymous with Mika's headline "Jive Talk", and both these phrases are edgy with respect to the "inappropriate content" guideline. Or are they? I'm new to this moderation task, learning as I go along.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Collectivist is still a member in good standing, inasmuch as our debate with him took place before I instituted the new policies.

I don't agree at all that this entire conversation was nothing but "jive talk" or a waste of time. On the contrary, I think that in spite of his ad hominem attacks, overall Mika's participation has been useful in helping us draw out the issues, and articulate our position.

Does anyone else think I've been too harsh in banning Mika? As administrator, I do have the capability to lift the ban, and I have his email contact information. It seems unfair to throw all these rhetorical questions at him, and leave him with no capability to respond.

I banned him based on the policy that all members should be treated with respect, and ad hominem attacks should be avoided. Have I applied the policy fairly, and is it a good policy? Comments invited.

I may be wrong that he will become a waste of time. Based on his overarching love for all humanity, we might be able to get him to just 'walk away' and evangelize to the Israeli Ashkenazim that they don't have to continue in this murderous charade, which is all meant to rebound upon them. It would be an epiphany and conversion somewhat like Saul's. I imagine that he never read the Tanakh without his Rome colored glasses on, but now he's starting to digest the problem, i.e. that Jews, real or not, are always the intended scapegoats of the elites, because collectivists and other ignorant hoi polloi identically can't figure out the same problem.

Besides I wanted to ask him about what Black (a Jew) said in The Transfer Agreement about the Eastern Ashkenazi intensely hating the German Ashkenazi, and then both the Jabotinskites (now Likud) and the Jewish Agency agreeing to settle Eastern Ashkenazim in Israel using the money that the German Ashkenazi had paid to the Nazi's for their own salvation. And about the proto-Mossad collaborating with the Gestapo to round up Jews for transport to pre-Israel.

 

[Jerry Russell]

OK. I've lifted the ban on Mika, and will send him an email telling him you've asked me to invite him back. Ahh, the power of being a web site moderator .... Rick, I've also taken the liberty to lightly edit a couple of your posts, to get rid of a couple of blows below the belt. Please help me to maintain a safe, ad hominem free environment for conversation.