Book Review: Aphrodite and the Rabbis

When I started researching Judaism, the first thing I learned was that I didn’t know anything about Judaism. It turns out that Judaism-in-the-Bible (the one I was familiar with) and modern Judaism are pretty different.

Visotzky’s Aphrodite and The Rabbis: How the Jews Adapted Roman Culture to Create Judaism as we Know it explores the transition from Biblical to Rabbinic Judaism. If you’re looking for an introductory text on the subject, it’s a good place to start. (It doesn’t go into the differences between major modern-day Jewish groups, though. If you’re looking for that, Judaism for Dummies or something along those lines will probably do.)

I discussed several ideas gleaned from this book in my prior post on Talmudism and the Constitution. Visotzky’s thesis is basically that Roman culture (really, Greco-Roman culture) was the dominant culture in the area when the Second Temple fell, and thus was uniquely influential on the development of early Rabbinic Judaism.

Just to recap: Prior to 70 AD, Judaism was located primarily in its homeland of Judea, a Roman province. It was primarily a temple cult–people periodically brought sacrifices to the priests, the priests sacrificed them, and the people went home. There were occasional prophets, but there were no rabbis (though there were pharisees, who were similar.)  The people also practiced something we’ll call for simplicity’s sake folk Judaism, passed down culturally and not always explicitly laid out in the Mosaic Law. (This is a simplification; see the prior post for more details.)

Then there were some big rebellions, which the Romans crushed. They razed the Temple (save for the Western Wall) and eventually drove many of the Jews into exile.

It was in this Greco-Roman cultural environment, Visotzky argues, that then-unpracticeable Temple Judaism was transformed into Rabbinic Judaism.

Visotzky marshals his arguments: Jewish catacombs in Rome, Talmudic stories that reference Greek or Roman figures, Greek fables that show up in Jewish collections, Greek and Roman words that appear in Jewish texts, Greco-Roman style art in synagogues (including a mosaic of Zeus!), the model of the rabbi + his students as similar to the philosopher and his students (eg, Socrates and Plato,) Jewish education as modeled on Greek rhetorical education, and the Passover Seder as a Greek symposium.

Allow me to quote Visotzky on the latter:

The recipe for a successful symposium starts, of course, with wine. At least three cups, preferably more, and ideally you would need between three and five famous guests. Macrobius describes a symposium at which he imagined all the guests drinking together, even though some were already long dead. They eat hors d’oeuvers, which they dip into a briny sauce. Their appetite is whetted by sharp vegetables, radishes, or romaine lettuce. The Greek word for these veggies is karpos. Each food is used as a prompt to dig through one’s memory to find apposite bookish quotes about it. … Above all, guests at a symposium loved to quote Home, the divine Homer. …

To kick off a symposium, a libation was poured to Bacchus Then the dinner guests took their places reclining on pillows, leaning on their left arms, and using their right hands to eat. Of course, they washed their fingers before eating their Mediterranean flatbreads, scooping up meats and poultry–no forks back then.

Athenaeus records a debate about desert, a sweet paste of fruit, wine, and spices. Many think it a nice digestive, but Athenaeus quotes Heracleides of Tarentum, who argues that such a lovely dish ought to be the appetizer, eaten at the outside of the meal. After the sumptuous meal and the endless quotation of texts… the symposium diners sang their hymns of thanksgiving to the gods. …

All of this should seem suspiciously familiar to anyone who has ever attended a Passover Seder. The traditional Seder begins with a cup of wine, and blessings to God are intoned. Then hands are washed in preparation for eating the dipped vegetables, called karpos, the Greek word faithfully transliterated int Hebrew in the Passover Haggadah. Like the symposiasts, Jews dip in brine. The traditional Haggadah recalls who was there at the earliest Seders: Rabbi Eliezer … Rabbi Aqiba, and Rabbi Tarphon (a Hebraized version of the Greek name Tryphon). The converation is prompted by noting the foods that are served and by asking questions whose answers quote sacred scripture. …

Traditionally the Passover banquet is eaten leaning on the left side, on pillows. Appetites are whetted by bitter herbs and then sweetened by the paste-like Haroset (following the opinion of Heracleides of Tarentum?) Seder participants even scoop up food in flatbread. Following the Passover meal there are hymns to God.

Vigotzsky relates one major difference between the Greek and Jewish version: the Greeks ended their symposiums with a “descent into debauchery,” announced api komias–to the comedians! Jews did not:

Indeed, the Mishnah instructs, “We do not end the meal after eating the paschal lamb by departing api komias.” That final phrase, thanks to the Talmud of Jewish Babylonia, where they did not know Greek, has come to be Hebraized as “afi-komen,” the hidden piece of matzo eaten for desert.

The one really important piece of data that he leaves out–perhaps he hasn’t heard the news–is the finding that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically about half Italian. This Italian DNA is primarily on their maternal side–that is, Jewish men, expelled from Judea, ended up in Rome and took local wives. (Incidentally, Visotzky also claims that the tradition of tracing Jewish ancestry along the maternal line instead of the paternal was adopted from the Romans, as it isn’t found in the Bible, but is in Rome.) These Italian ladies didn’t leave behind many stories in the Talmud, but surely they had some effect on the religion.

On the other hand, what about Jews in areas later controlled by Islam, like Maimonides? Was Rome a major influence on him, too? What about the Babylonian Talmud, written more or less in what is now Iraq?

Modern Christianity owes a great deal to Greece and Rome. Should modern Judaism be understood in the Greco-Roman lens, as well?

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Book Review: Aphrodite and the Rabbis

  1. >Just to recap: Prior to 70 AD, Judaism was located primarily in its homeland of Judea, a Roman province.

    We know this to be false, because the majority of the Jewish people stayed in the Babylonian exile and did not return to the Land of Israel. About 50,000 reutrned with Sheshbazzar, Nehemia and Ezra. The vast majority of the Jewish people, including most of the noble families, stayed in Bavel. Thus, we see Reish Lakish (a Jew from the Land) refusing to take the hand of Rabba Bar Hana (a sage who had come from Bavel) 800 years later (Yoma9b):

    Reish Lakish was swimming in the Jordan River when Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and gave him a hand to help him out. Reish Lakish said to him: My God! I hate you Babylonians, as it is written: “If she be a wall we will build a silver turret upon her, if she be a door we will cover her with boards of cedar” (Song of Songs 8:9). This is the meaning of the verse as it applies to the Jewish people: Had you rendered yourselves a solid bloc like a wall and all ascended to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra, you would have been likened to silver, which rot does not infest, in the sense that you would have merited experiencing the Divine Presence in all its glory. Now that you ascended like doors, and only some of you came to Eretz Yisrael, you are likened to cedar, which rot infests, and you merit experiencing only partial revelation of the Divine Presence.

    >It was primarily a temple cult–people periodically brought sacrifices to the priests, the priests sacrificed them, and the people went home. There were occasional prophets, but there were no rabbis.

    We know this to be false, because Josephus, who lived prior to 70AD, talks about the Pharisees as representatives of the authentic Torah tradition. We also know that Jesus, who lived two generations prior, talks about the “Teachers of the Law”, who “sit in the seat of Moses”-and “rabbi” means “teacher.”

    > These Italian ladies didn’t leave behind many stories in the Talmud, but surely they had some effect on the religion.

    Au contraire. The Talmud tells us that, paradoxically, during the most intense Roman persecutions, aristocratic Romans were converting at the highest rates (for instance, Onkelos, whose translation is one of our classics, was the emperor’s nephew.) And they are mentioned specifically, for instance, the various stories of the conversations had by an anonymous “matrona” (i.e., Roman upper class lady) with Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eliezer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_ben_Halafta#Bible_Chronology)

    Again, there is no principal difference between the Conservative and Reform movements, only one of degree, and Visotzki is not exactly an objective scholar. When he discusses Romans and Greeks, it’s not really them he’s speaking about but today’s Americans. If the ancient Jews, the rabbis, were influenced by Romans and Greeks and decided what the Torah was based on based on their convenience and surroundings, it is okay for the modern Conservative Jews to do the same. This is the essence of the Conservative ideology.

    He gets basic facts wrong (see above,) so how can you trust him to get the details right? And how can you trust someone who not only has a bias but won’t at least nod to it?

    Like

      • For an English-language insight on the history of Judaism and Jewish thought, I recommend anything by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

        For instance:
        http://amzn.to/2xmjQxY
        http://amzn.to/2wYuWJm
        http://amzn.to/2waupVs

        Generally, if the subject interests you, the best way to get a taste is to find someone to learn Talmud with. There’s a thing called Daf Yomi, which is to say, people learn one page of Talmud a day, and that should be enough to get a feel for it. I came from a secular, academic background, and for me it was like no other learning experience I’d ever had. In the process of learning, you get the historic context, linguistic context, free discussion, questions and answers on how something is relevant today, etc.-it’s very free flowing but structured. And there’s something about it where you feel that you’re basically doing the same thing as the people whose discussions you’re learning were doing 2000 years ago, because the Talmud is a conversation that hundreds or thousands of people are having across time, and when you learn it, you become part of the conversation on some level.

        As an aside, it’s interesting that our two main religious texts are an extended monologue (the written Torah) and an extended multilateral conversation.

        Like

  2. Good post. __I am enjoying this series. Please keep on.


    >Just to recap: Prior to 70 AD, Judaism was located primarily in its homeland of Judea, a Roman province.

    We know this to be false, because the majority of the Jewish people stayed in the Babylonian exile and did not return to the Land of Israel. About 50,000 reutrned with Sheshbazzar, Nehemia and Ezra.

    Yes, this was in the 5th century BC. We are talking about 70 AD. We have to take into account a) the rate of assimilation of those Babylonian Jews into Babylonian religion and culture b) the migration of Babylonian Jews to Judea during the Second Temple period. You provide an example and the Qumran litterature has another example.

    In addition, regardless of the number of Jews outside Israel, the focus of the religion was in Judea, where the Temple was. The Torah was full of laws describing this Temple religion and only the Torah and the Prophets were recognized for all the branches of Judaism.

    >It was primarily a temple cult–people periodically brought sacrifices to the priests, the priests sacrificed them, and the people went home. There were occasional prophets, but there were no rabbis.

    We know this to be false, because Josephus, who lived prior to 70AD, talks about the Pharisees as representatives of the authentic Torah tradition. We also know that Jesus, who lived two generations prior, talks about the “Teachers of the Law”, who “sit in the seat of Moses”-and “rabbi” means “teacher.””

    Please, look up the dictionary for “PRIMARILY”. The Temple as the way for forgiving sins was not replaced by the Pharisees, whose laws were complementary to the Temple religion and not a replacement for it (as with the later rabbis). In addition, the Pharisees were only one of the Jewish sects, along with the Saduccees and the Essenes. Their oral laws were not recognized by other sects.

    In addition, most of the people didn’t belong to any of these sects (the same way most people today don’t belong to any theological school). They performed the Temple rituals and practised a basic Temple Judaism.

    Josephus was close to the Pharisees and tried to give them an importance that they didn’t have back them. I admit that Visotzky has bias but Josephus had bias too. There is nobody devoid of bias.

    He gets basic facts wrong (see above,) so how can you trust him to get the details right? And how can you trust someone who not only has a bias but won’t at least nod to it?

    Nice try to trash a whole book based on a few details that you disagree in a review of this book. Everybody has a bias but yours is very obvious. It seems that this post touched a nerve.

    Every fact has to be assessed and compared with the different sources. And 95% of authors (probably more) have a bias and don’t nod to it. Let trash all ancient history and most of modern history. How could you trust Caesar in “Commentarii de Bello Gallico”. Caesar was writting to his followers, for Jupiter’s sake. Let’s trash all the information about the Gallic Wars and let these wars remaining in mistery.

    and Visotzki is not exactly an objective scholar. When he discusses Romans and Greeks, it’s not really them he’s speaking about but today’s Americans. If the ancient Jews, the rabbis, were influenced by Romans and Greeks and decided what the Torah was based on based on their convenience and surroundings, it is okay for the modern Conservative Jews to do the same. This is the essence of the Conservative ideology.

    Completely irrelevant for a discussion about history. About bias, see above. Let’s stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem attacks. Even Hitler was right when he said the sky is blue.

    Like

    • >We have to take into account a) the rate of assimilation of those Babylonian Jews into Babylonian religion and culture b) the migration of Babylonian Jews to Judea during the Second Temple period.

      These are both matters of pure conjecture. What we do know for certain is that Reish Lakish had the distinct impression that, had the Jews of the Babylonian exile come up en masse, the Jews of his day would not have had their problems with the Romans. Which implies pretty clearly that even in his day, the Jews living in Israel were significantly fewer than those living outside of it, and that this disparity put them at a disadvantage when it came to fighting the Romans.

      >The Torah was full of laws describing this Temple religion and only the Torah and the Prophets were recognized for all the branches of Judaism.

      Recognized as what? Without an Oral Torah, you can’t fulfill much of the written one. For instance, all the written one says about meat is that if you want to eat it, you must slaughter it “as I instructed you.” And nowhere in the Written Torah do instructions on slaughter appear.

      >In addition, regardless of the number of Jews outside Israel, the focus of the religion was in Judea, where the Temple was.

      This did not change even after the fall of the Temple, as the focus of actual Judaism is always Jerusalem (meaning, the Temple.) It is mentioned in all our prayers, repeatedly, we face it when we pray, we mention it when we marry, it is discussed in all the high holidays.

      > The Temple as the way for forgiving sins was not replaced by the Pharisees, whose laws were complementary to the Temple religion and not a replacement for it (as with the later rabbis).

      Not sure what the point is here. Obviously, the Temple allowed us to sacrifice, which is an important component of national forgiveness. However, the main component of forgiveness is not the sacrifice itself, and this is not something invented by the rabbis, but explicitly stated by the prophets over and over and over:

      1 Samuel 15:22: And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

      Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

      Psalm 51:16-17 For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

      Amos 5:21-24 “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

      Micah 6:6-8 “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Jeremiah 7:22-23 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

      Psalm 40:6-8 In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

      And of course the Yom Kippur service and tachanun are based heavily on Moses’ repentance for the whole people in the desert, which had nothing to do with sacrifices.

      So the rabbis did not invent anything new in this regard.

      While the first Temple stood, the Jewish people sinned and failed to repent, to such a degree that the Temple sacrifices were worse than useless. God destroyed the Temple and exiled the surviving Jewish people to Babylon. There, they repented, and God allowed them to return to the Land (which opportunity a relatively small fraction took advantage of) and rebuild the Temple.

      Then, half a millennium later, for the sins of the Jewish people, the Second Temple was destroyed, and the surviving Jews exiled. The survivors repented, etc.

      Along comes Visotzky and says that the first time, those Jews living in the Babylonian exile without a Temple didn’t invent anything drastically new and were able to return, three generations later, and take up where they’d left off. But the second time, for some reason, they invented a new religion. Without any evidence to this assertion!

      >In addition, most of the people didn’t belong to any of these sects

      Josephus and Jesus(!) both say that the Pharisees represented the authentic Torah which was followed by the majority of the Jewish people.

      >Josephus was close to the Pharisees

      Josephus was also a priest, meaning that he just as easily could have been a Sadducee. Further, at the time he was writing, he was closer to the Romans, having become completely alienated from the Jewish people.

      >and tried to give them an importance that they didn’t have back them.

      Assuming bad faith on the part of a primary source writing about events he lived through. Not to mention that you have no other, competing primary source to rely on as to how much importance the Pharisees had-you only have conjecture, which is not very well founded.

      > How could you trust Caesar in “Commentarii de Bello Gallico”.

      Caesar was a primary source, writing for an audience which, if it was not composed of eyewitnesses to the events described, could easily find such eyewitnesses and confirm with them. Visotzky is not a primary source, writing about events which are only documented by a small handful of primary sources, for an audience which neither has access to eyewitnesses nor is generally familiar with the primary sources, and casting aspersions on those sources’ veracity or not even acknowledging them.Everything he writes is complete conjecture and speculation, of necessity, and he has a bias you can see from space, which he does not acknowledge, casting himself as an objective scholar. I mean, Caesar vs. Visotzky is apples and oranges.

      > Even Hitler was right when he said the sky is blue.

      Yes-because anyone can go outside and verify for himself, and there is a principle (a Talmudic one) that we do not presume people to lie about facts which are easily verifiable. Further, Hitler had no incentive to pretend the sky was anything other than what it was. And nobody disagreed with him regarding the sky’s color. None of these conditions applies to Visotzky.

      Like

  3. Here’s a more concise take on the Jewish religion. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    The Jews have been thrown out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any great numbers. Of course it’s always…”somebody else fault” or “those people were evil”, and yet…every single one.

    To notice this outstanding fact means that “your observant”..Oops, no it means you’re an anti-semite or evil. I wonder why they were thrown out. Could the tale of the Jews leaving Egypt clue one in. Maybe. They said they were slaves in Egypt yet they left with all the gold and silver in Egypt.

    “Exodus 12
    35And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: 36And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.”

    Ripping people off from the beginning.

    Let’s add how every war the USA is in right now is directly started by the Jews and their attacks on us. I can prove this by one simple fact. Building #7 on 9-11, It fell the same speed as a rock dropped in mid air for roughly 108 feet. There’s only two variables to falling objects on Earth. Gravity and the resistance to falling the object is subjected to. Gravity operates EXACTLY the same on the rock and the large building. The other variable is the resistance to falling. Since the rock would fall with only AIR holding it up and the building fell exactly the same this means the building only had AIR holding it up. Well we all know the building wasn’t floating in air. The only conclusion is the bottom was demoed out from under it. This doesn’t take massive science or anything but common sense to see. I think it’s the biggest mistake the Jews have made…ever.

    It’s makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where they were light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

    Here’s a video of reporters going into building #7 AFTER the North tower supposedly fell on it and destroyed it sufficiently enough for it to collapse completely. Look at :54 you see the #7 for the building on the door.

    Now you’ve seen video of the inside where there is NO massive damage to make all four sides of the building fall. You want pictures of the back? Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building. So you can’t say it’s the South side and we have plenty of video and pictures of the North side of building #7 pictures with no damage at all.

    Here’ another NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.

    (Watch the reporter pan up at 2:54. You can clearly see the whole building is not on fire. This side shown is the North side of building #7. Later you can see the fires mostly around three or four floors only and in isolated spots.)
    If the fires were hot enough to melt steel then why isn’t the glass in the windows melted? Glass melts at an extremely lower temperature that steel. Ever put a metal can and a glass bottle in a campfire? The glass bottle melts but the steel can will still be intact. These fires were no hotter than a campfire. One last video of all sides from 23 angles also showing the miraculous collapse.

    Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    If you can prove different go ahead but I know you can’t. The facts are irrefutable that certain sections of our security in this country are compromised and are actively killing our citizens.

    Want to really read about the Jews try.

    Read chapter 19 about Stanley, a psychopath. You can see a lot of things the Jews do in this chapter of an individual repeated at large in society.

    http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley.pdf

    Eustace Mullins – The Biological Jew

    https://archive.org/details/Mullinseustace-TheBiologicalJew1967Incl.Biblio.pdf

    The Controversy of Zion-Douglas Reed

    https://archive.org/details/DouglasReedTheControversyOfZion

    The Jewish Strategy – Revilo Oliver

    https://archive.org/details/TheJewishStrategy

    You Gentiles – Maurice Samuel

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/yougentiles.pdf

    I’ve read all these it’s a good start. Extremely good is the listed below but they cost money.

    Kevin B. MacDonald
    Prof. MacDonald’s books are very, very good. Here’s the two I read.

    “The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements”

    “Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism”

    Lots of Prof. MacDonald’s writing at,

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net

    Here’s a great movie that shows the full behavior of the Jews in the propaganda film put together by Goebbels.

    “Jud Suess” 1940.

    http://archive.org/details/JudSuess_487

    The more you watch the Jews the more you will learn everything is in this short movie.

    What Jews do is very simple. They move to a territory. A wealthy Jew gets in good with the wealthy Gentiles. He moves into banking. Other Jews move in. They use their connections for business intelligence and they use banking so that other Jews slowly buy up businesses. They slowly take over the communications networks. Papers, magazines, etc. They use these to promote each other and punish their enemies. Example. If someone says something bad about the Jews in their paper all the Jews will boycott the papers advertising. After they control the papers and a lot of the business they start controlling the politicians. They do this with money and blackmail. The key is they work as a group and have NO morality. They will do anything for power and money. There are many things a White guy won’t do because they feel immoral or weak or it doesn’t fit their image or whatever. There is nothing what so ever a Jew will not do. Almost all western politicians are blackmailed. I would guess at least 90% of those on important committees. Look at Pres. Clinton’s trips to an island where underage girls were. You think he’s the only one? There’s books full of stuff on this. Look at the British and all their underage problems. It’s everywhere. If you’ll look closer there will always be a Jew in the center of these scandals. You have to look they frequently cover it up but he or she be there.

    I think the reason the press goes completely nuts over underage girls and how it’s the worst thing in the world is they want to scare the living hell out of those they are blackmailing. Look at Rotherham. The truth is they don’t give a fuck about those girls or they wouldn’t let this go on.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/26/rotherham-child-sex-exploitation-capital

    Voltaire on the Jews,
    ”They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race…”

    Like

      • Yes he did but it wasn’t from talking about building #7. Why he called me agent I think stems from a disagreement. I support Alt-Right types, all of them including Nazis, to publicly protest. He says that it’s stupid and attacks anyone who protest as stupid. Well I agree that it might not be the safest thing to do but I don’t believe in discouraging and making fun of Alt-Right types when they are attacked in public protest. I think that’s wrong. From his perspective maybe???? he thinks I’m advocating violent protest, which I’m not, (although while not advocating it I’m not against it if it comes down to it, maybe that’s the problem. It works for BLM so it should be good enough for me). Truthfully I’m not sure why he thinks I’m an agent. Maybe he doesn’t and has other motives which are not public. I agree with him that I’ve gotten wound up at times and said things that I’m not ashamed of but that were not helpful to causes I’m for. What I’m mainly about and for is a White tribalist. I’m WN but not a Nazi. I support limited enfranchisement Republican Democracy. Limits would be only those that owned property or could pass intelligence test or possibly only those married with children. Mostly I’m concerned about competency and any number of levels of such could be concerned. I’m not rigid on the measurements only that we have some. A good compromise might be to have the House a much larger franchise and the Senate a limited franchise.

        James LaFond is NOT a WN. I didn’t used to be a WN but 9-11 and my understanding that there has come a point that Whites will no longer control the USA soon have prompted me to consider that if all the races are going to pick sides then I might as well pick my own. It would be different if all the races were seeming to be combining in some fairyland Cum ba yah experience but it appears to me that all the other races are becoming more, not less aggressive to Whites. Whether that’s a good idea or not is irrelevant and I see no other rational path in the matter. Choosing nothing while everyone around you makes choices IS a choice.

        The reason I still talk about building 7 is fairly obvious. It’s undisputable that it was demoed in some manner. There’s no other action that could have brought the building down like this. That the others were demoed is obvious also but I admit it’s not as crystal clear.

        Here’s an astoundingly good short video by a mechanical engineer on the other buildings. It probably one of the best I’ve seen. It’s very to the point and sticks to the facts as can be seen.

        An interested factoid. The outside columns were sized to withstand 2,000% of the load of the building. This was because of wind loads. Wind loads on a large building FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh any other loads. Just imagine them by using one load as an illustration. Go down the road at 70 MPH and stick your hand out the window. A fairly high force from the wind. Not imagine a a 12″ x 12″ square and hold that out the window to catch the air at speed. It’ a larger force. Now multiply that force times the square footage of the whole of the sides of the twin towers, then double it for 140 MPH hurricane force winds and the number is massive. That’s what they designed the building to stand up too.

        To anyone that reads this Baruch is an Israeli settler perched on Palestinian land. (or so he says), so he doesn’t care for me to much. Notice in all I wrote his only response is to attack me personally. He won’t argue facts.

        Like

      • What do you care if he lives on Palestinian land? You live on Native American land. The whole world lives on conquered land, but somehow it’s only illegitimate when whites live on conquered land (Jews are whiter than Palestinians.) You’re using your enemies’ framing. It’s not in your own interests to concede the frame.

        Like

      • “…The whole world lives on conquered land, but somehow it’s only illegitimate when whites live on conquered land (Jews are whiter than Palestinians.) You’re using your enemies’ framing. It’s not in your own interests to concede the frame…”

        Good point but the idea I was trying to covey, without using a page full of references, is his dedication to Jewish causes. He is way far from impartial. I might have framed it better by stating it as I just did.

        Like

      • I need to add, the double standards of Jews who are doing the most God awful things to Palestinians while attacking Whites in the US, (for anything and everything), is another thing that I meant to convey. It gets complicated but to someone who is, we say Jew wise, what I said immediately conveys a great deal of information by stating where he lives.

        As for there being a difference between me in the USA and him in Palestine. I didn’t personally have anything to do with the death of the Indians but the attacks in Palestine are going on now. I’m certainly against the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and everywhere else we are.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s