black magic: roman union jack jive talk

[Richard Stanley]

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.

I think you are being too sensitive with mika's last phrase and mine.

I was using c_rcl_ j_rk as a clever and artistic Shakespearesque euphemism for circular logic if no one was going to define a baseline for what exactly we are being culturally being debased away from. If we are constantly to be stampeded into one war after another, because our culture was never informing us properly in the first place, then what is the point?

 

[Jerry Russell]

I think you are being too sensitive with mika's last phrase and mine.

Yes, Shakespeare was rather ribald, that's right. If he (she?) were reincarnated and came to our forum, I wouldn't want to have to issue a ban. So I guess I need a thicker moderator's skin.

 

[Richard Stanley]

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?

I always think that I am what I am, how about you?

As to your first sentence, I'm no longer certain what that refers to since you failed to include what I said in that regard. But, in any case, I'll put the likes of rational Jews like Gordon ahead of you and the Tanakh and the propagandist redactors that cobbled it together to justify the admitted bloody creation of Israel. All history is propaganda, and that includes the Tanakh.

yhvh had the chutzpah to personally destroy Sodom and Gomorrah after walking 'like a man' with Abraham, but the temerity to hide behind the skirts of the Levites during the forced conversion of the Canaanites, who never ate pork (according to the Israeli archeologists) long before Abraham much less Shem and Judah.

Having 'erudition' also means the ability to discern subtext instead of taking everything at face value. Except, of course, that the Tanakh says that you are a Turk, which you now have been forced to admit.

 

[Richard Stanley]

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

I should only be as obsessed with it as you are, but in the opposite direction from you, for your own sake if not everyone else.

The Christian fundamentalists, and their sponsors, are slobbering in wait for the right moment for End Times II, and this will not be good for you.

And faux Collectivist is properly concerned that the USA is spending too many tax dollars supporting Israeli Collectivism in support of people who don't now how to read their 'history' to know who they really are.

BTW, how do you have enough English erudition to know what 'erudition' means, and have such good grammar for someone who doesn't know English so well?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Never heard of him.

Try Google or Amazon.

Cyrus H. Gordon was a professor at Brandeis University. He wrote a lot of books on the Tanakh and archaeology. He got into a lot of trouble over the issue of Diffusion, in agreeing that Semites (not Jews of either variety so much) were widely dispersed over the Earth. In any case, his erudite work on examining the archaeological context of the Tanakh shows just how accurate the text is, but unlike you he didn't have selective interpretation. He would say that you are an Ashkenazi, a Turk. And he did say the Tanakh says that the descendants of Abraham are half Hittite and half Amorite.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Tanakh says that you are a Turk, which you now have been forced to admit.

I will take on the role of faux Mica for the moment, until he returns (if indeed he does). Where did Mica admit he is a Turk? He said he is a Hebrew / Israeli nationalist, but I don't recall any statement of genetic ethnicity. If he tells us he is Ashkenazi (which I don't think he's said yet) then there remains the matter of convincing him that Ashkenazi = Scythian = Turk.

BTW, how do you have enough English erudition to know what 'erudition' means, and have such good grammar for someone who doesn't know English so well?

There seems to be a rude subtext here, hinting that perhaps Mica is not who he claims to be. But, I understand that school systems in many parts of the world are excellent, and English is a widely taught lingua franca, so I don't believe you'll get much Bayesian statistical traction with this line of argument.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Nonsense.
Arab tribes practice levirate marriage to this day. Same for the Egyptians, which is probably where it was picked up by Israel.

Sorry, I misspoke in paraphrasing Gordon from memory. I should not have said "amongst other Semitic tribes".

For the record what I originally said:

The levirate marriage practice is not attested amongst other Semitic tribes, or even in Mesopotamia, but is attested in Hittite texts and India where a version of the practice is still known in modern times.

Gordon's note on pg.132 of The Bible and the Ancient Near East says:

... Levirate marriage appears in the Middle Assyrian [not before - rs] and Hittite law codes as well as in the Bible. It does not appear in Hammurapi's Code. Since it is well attested in ancient India, and crops up in the Near East only in the wake of the Indo-European invasions, it was apparently introduced, or at least popularized, by the Indo-Europeans.​

It seems that the Central Asians practiced it as well, but can't find mention about Egypt.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I will take on the role of faux Mica for the moment, until he returns (if indeed he does). Where did Mica admit he is a Turk? He said he is a Hebrew / Israeli nationalist, but I don't recall any statement of genetic ethnicity. If he tells us he is Ashkenazi (which I don't think he's said yet) then there remains the matter of convincing him that Ashkenazi = Scythian = Turk.

It was a virtual admission, since we all know that he is schmart.

There seems to be a rude subtext here, hinting that perhaps Mica is not who he claims to be. But, I understand that school systems in many parts of the world are excellent, and English is a widely taught lingua franca, so I don't believe you'll get much Bayesian statistical traction with this line of argument.

Perhaps I went too far, but he also knew this colloquialism which got him in trouble with you. Most people that aren't comfortable at a particular language don't freely use the colloquialisms. One might take that begging forgiveness in that English is at least their 5th language still says nothing about their respective ability. OK fair enough. But then why so quickly beg forgiveness when one can readily cite what the expression 'intones' - and all in English better than most natives? Collectivist might likely rightly accuse me of being coy, or worse, for doing such.

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.​

Does such 'intoning' imply an ability to discern historical and cultural subtext? Such as say bravely exhibited by his fellow Ashkenazi, the Professors Shahak, Sand, etc.? Yet clearly otherwise lacking in your now doppleganger, where he resorts to summarily trashing Sand at least, as others did to Shahak? I'm guessing he never read either of them, .. because he doesn't want to.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Continuing as faux Mica, I want to know: where was this virtual admission of mine, where I say I'm a Turk? And furthermore, why is it so important to you? Isn't this a racist attitude on your part?

As faux Mica, I am an Israeli nationalist, and you seem to think Israel should be given back lock, stock and barrel to the Palestinians. That's what you hold against me -- that you think I'm not a Semite. Well, I (faux Mica) am a Jew, and that's what it takes to validate my nationalist claim.

You blame the likes of me, for holding on to the land of Israel? What about yourself -- when are you giving America back to the Indians?

As faux Mica, I don't need to read Sand, Shahak etc. to know that they are opponents of the Israeli nationalist cause.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'm schmart, you're smart. Sounds like a schibboleth to me.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Well now, you've caught me with my provocatively hypocritical pants down haven't you?

Continuing as faux Mica, I want to know: where was this virtual admission of mine, where I say I'm a Turk? And furthermore, why is it so important to you? Isn't this a racist attitude on your part?

Since over 90% of modern Jewry are said to be Ashkenazi, as opposed to Sephardic Semites and such, then I'm assuming you are Ashkenazi (and since you are so sensitive about it and are so certain that the DNA will be bad for you), and then as the data Jerry provided suggests, then you are a Turk. And as your Tanakh clearly states in Gen 10, certainly not Semitic. No, this is anti-racist. Why would so many Ashkenazi be saying the same thing if it was racist, because the are self-hating Ashkenazi? No because they are also interested in the truth. And as the black Americans like to say, "No Justice, No Peace."

As faux Mica, I am an Israeli nationalist, and you seem to think Israel should be given back lock, stock and barrel to the Palestinians. That's what you hold against me -- that you think I'm not a Semite. Well, I (faux Mica) am a Jew, and that's what it takes to validate my nationalist claim.

No, But I think that decision should reside with the indigenous peoples, of whom Sand ironically believes were the original Jews that mostly didn't leave during the faux diaspora from the Roman wars, and then later converted to Islam rather than continue to pay the 'other Peoples of the Book' tax.

You blame the likes of me, for holding on to the land of Israel? What about yourself -- when are you giving America back to the Indians?

I'm all for it, 100 %. Maybe they'll let me pay rent till I hopefully die sooner rather than later (sans a miracle which I don't believe in). Or maybe they'll read about Georgism and being the wise people they were, at least, they'll decide this is the most equitable choice.

As faux Mica, I don't need to read Sand, Shahak etc. to know that they are opponents of the Israeli nationalist cause.

You, like most other people, will only read material that confirms your a priori bias. Which reminds me, please provide me the cogent parts of Velikovsky to read.

More importantly, you should be asking just why the hidden powers wanted you to go to Israel to begin with. So that you could have a happy life for ever after? That this was some kind of reward for converting to Judaism to replace the Jews that had been slaughtered despite the papal desire that they need to stay alive as living examples of Christ deniers and Christ killers. No they have more plans for you, that you can not just walk away from.

I sense you are starting to have an epiphany faux mika (not Mica).

 

[Richard Stanley]

I'm schmart, you're smart. Sounds like a schibboleth to me.

I say tomato, you say schibboleth, Let's call the whole thing off.
Off with their figurative heads that is.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I say formica, you say faux Mika, why can't everybody keep their head? Seriously I don't know what Mika's problem is. There is no coherency to his message that I can see. How can he accept the Tanakh as precisely accurate history, renounce Flavian accretions, and yet also deny any respect for the Karaites and claim to despise all organized religions?

He arrived with a chip on his shoulder, which quickly unfolded into a full-bodied blast of hatred, apparently according to his preconceived plan, and his preconceived notions about us. Inviting him back felt like groveling, and was not well received in any event.

I haven't read much Velikovsky either, but from what Sweeney says about him, I can see why Mika would approve. Velikovsky based his work on the assumption that the OT accounts were completely accurate, and that everything else needed to be fit into place around his (revisionist) OT chronology.

 

[Richard Stanley]

mika likes his 'history' because even though he and his fellow self-hating Khazars have desacralized the Tanakh, in their minds, because it still serves the important function of Justification (of otherwise immoral deeds), which thus resonates with such as the American fundamentalists, faux Gentiles, whose induced mass psychosis make us pay the Israeli bills.

But as we know from our own personal immersion in the intended cradle to grave cultural and religious degradation propaganda, it is possible to have one's own serial epiphanies, over time usually, and thus wake up.

As such, mika is probably just busy soaking in his mikva thinking he will wash away the unclean things we have told him, but we have only planted seeds in the offal fertilizer that has been in his head for so long. Instead the mikva's water will only cause the seed to germinate and consume the fertilizer allowing him clarity of thought. Soon, he will realize that a huge weight of guilt has been lifted from his shoulders and he will personally bring down the evil regime in Israel and even more.

 

[Jerry Russell]

he and his fellow self-hating Khazars

I find myself wondering if it's even possible to discuss these topics without throwing around personal insults. Maybe the policy should be that insults are OK if accompanied by supporting arguments.

Or maybe you could have said "he and his fellow secular Jewish nationalists"? If you agree, I can just make the edit, and this particular piece of unpleasantness will disappear into an undifferentiated sea of electrons.

Psychologically, many people take any criticism of their deeply held ideological or religious convictions, as the exact equivalent to a direct personal ad hominem attack. I'm not sure we can do anything about that, as far as softening the blow or making our message more palatable.

As such, mika is probably just busy soaking in his mikva thinking he will wash away the unclean things we have told him, but we have only planted seeds in the offal fertilizer that has been in his head for so long. Instead the mikva's water will only cause the seed to germinate and consume the fertilizer allowing him clarity of thought.

We can only hope so. Meanwhile, I feel that perhaps rather than being critical of Jewish nationalist aspirations for survival, we should advocate more strongly for Georgist solutions and other approaches to allowing various ethnicities to co-exist in peace.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jerry said:

I find myself wondering if it's even possible to discuss these topics without throwing around personal insults. Maybe the policy should be that insults are OK if accompanied by supporting arguments.​

Maybe so. In any case I find nothing inherently wrong with being a Khazar. Rather it is perverse to deny one's true heritage once you have been confronted with the truth, especially by others of your own kind. This is a manifestation of self hatred, which should really be directed towards those who took advantage of this situation and his kind to pursue their explicitly stated global ambitions. This is a statement of the deepest tough love for mika.

Jerry said:

Or maybe you could have said "he and his fellow secular Jewish nationalists"? If you agree, I can just make the edit, and this particular piece of unpleasantness will disappear into an undifferentiated sea of electrons.​

mika is a fellow truth seeker, at the end of the day, and would, no doubt, eventually come to regret your changing of this cathartic characterization. This is no where near as bad as the catharic treatment directed at the Cathars.

Jerry said:

Psychologically, many people take any criticism of their deeply held ideological or religious convictions, as the exact equivalent to a direct personal ad hominem attack. I'm not sure we can do anything about that, as far as softening the blow or making our message more palatable.​

Exactly, so why ruin his catharsis. A baby, or animal even, who is disciplined will soon care more for his parents or other that did so.

Jerry said:

We can only hope so. Meanwhile, I feel that perhaps rather than being critical of Jewish nationalist aspirations for survival, we should advocate more strongly for Georgist solutions and other approaches to allowing various ethnicities to co-exist in peace.​

But we can do both. Jewish national aspirations are baked into the middle of the central Western false dialectic for a reason. This is why mika and his family got stuck in the armpit of the world by Jabotinsky and Macca-beebee Netanhooya who are nothing more than Romisch collaborators like the original Maccabees and Josephus, all from day one. The role is that of the controlled opposition and mika once, before this, was an unwitting tool like all the other duped goy like Collectivist. But now he is a witting tool, perhaps still in denial, but he is now worried that the Mossad and the Shin Bet might doubt his resolve. So he will commit himself to doing whatever it takes to better all humanity, by first rejecting his borrowed genocidal history. This vision has been provided to me by the divine offspring of Dogod and the FSM. None shall gainsay it.

 

[Walter Alter]

I found the brief reference to investigator Webster Tarpley in need of decryption. Tarpley has long been a close associate to genius economist Lyndon LaRouche whose ostinado against the City of London goes back generations. The LaRouche intellectual freight line needs to be seriously tackled and be brought into the discussion by anyone with an IQ above a turnip. We also need to get a handle on how deeply the game is played, and answer the question- when is the game played too deeply to derive any benefit long term or short term? Disinformation is like pathological lying, you need a photographic memory to keep from tripping yourself up. There is generally no smoking gun to support the deeper Macchiavelian intrigues because this is the playground of provocation and false flags and cutouts and aliases and deniability. The realms of plausibility need to be staked out with signs of "Achtung, Meinen!!" and a rating factor assigned to the various levels of implicitness and degrees of filling in the blanks. Otherwise we may end up hallucinating faces on Mars.

 

[Richard Stanley]

How do you coherently reconcile your ostinado (here on Postflaviana) of admiration for Christianity's benevolence to general humanity (beyond its rhetoric) with this:

"Suppose it was proven conclusively by archaeological discoveries that both Judaism and Christianity were invented by a historic counterpart of a CIA think tank? How hard is it to conceive of the establishment of a "religion" as a form of strategic psychological operations? Religion is the perfect mechanism to employ in the control of populations for political purposes. Rarely does a nation go to war without the blessing of "god"."​

Tarpley claims to be long disassociated from LaRouche, so perhaps it would better if you disengaged from character smears and instead engage with the referenced content, and how it applies to the topic, rather than starting to appear as a not so subtle backdoor apologist for what you claim to be against.

We consider coherence to be a sign of intelligence (and 'good faith'), but maybe in your 'savant' world your coherence resembles your avatar, ..... if that's really you? Which is the real you?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Tarpley and LaRouche are both rather colorful characters, who offer many interesting observations (some still in common between the two). I take issue with Tarpley's stands on technology (especially nuclear power) and I've also seen reason to suspect he has never really broken with the Catholic Church, having taken his PhD from the Catholic University of America. So I would have no problem with an "Achtung" accompanying any reference to Tarpley or LaRouche.

However -- a statement from Tarpley denouncing LaRouche in the clearest possible terms is found here (although the denunciation is not strong enough to satisfy the proprietor of the anti-LaRouche site hosting the quote):

http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-webster-tarpley.htm

My association with organizations in which LaRouche was prominent ended in 1997. Since then I have been attacked in public by him and his remaining supporters several times. Since 1997, I have had no relation whatsoever to LaRouche.

Before 1997, I was President of the US Schiller Institute USA, and served on the EIR editorial board, and the US and European Executive Committees of the Labor Committee movement.

LaRouche was jailed in 1989 for tax evasion and related infractions, but more basically for political reasons. In order to get out of jail, he agreed to operate as an asset of the US intelligence community. This led to the ouster of several leaders like myself who would not accept that capitulation. Since 1994-5, his political and economic analysis has become increasingly erratic and confused, always stressing that nothing can be done for world economic development without US leadership and control - an absurdity. He did not oppose Obama's election, but then discovered that Obama was the new Hitler. He virtually predicted the end of the world for last October 12, and it did not ensue. LaRouche is now 87 years old and needs to retire, but insists on maintaining a personality cult. HIs group has lost much of its membership and is of marginal importance within the US. In other countries there are still some who mistakenly view LaRouche as a significant domestic opposition to US financial imperialism, but this estimate is obsolete. LaRouche is increasingly irrelevant, and the quality of the group's journalistic output has collapsed to grotesque levels.