The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGilad Atzmon Archive
Pilpul for Beginners
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Americans may be surprised to learn from Alan Dershowitz that their constitution is far more intrusive and oppressive than what they and their forefathers have believed for generations. The law ‘scholar’ declared yesterday that “you have no (constitutional) right to not be vaccinated.”

Watch Video: You Have NO RIGHT to NOT be Vaccinated” – Alan Dershowitz:

One possible explanation for Dershowitz’s peculiar constitutional ‘interpretation’ is that some parts of the American constitution were actually written in Yiddish, Hebrew and Aramaic. As such, their meaning is only accessible to a small privileged segment within the American population, one that amounts to 2% or less.

But there is a far better explanation that shines light into the ‘reasoning’ offered by Dershowitz.

In a spectacularly brave Huffpost article titled What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It? author David Shasha writes, “ Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the (Jewish) sages used to formulate their legal decisions… It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as ‘Casuistry’.”

The English word ‘c asuistry’ is defined as: “the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.”

Dershowitz, is a pilpul master. He often employs peculiar reasoning in relation to moral questions especially when it comes to his own morality and conduct.

Shasha writes of the history of pilpul tradition that “the Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices.”

Pilpul, as described, is not about understanding of the law and its meaning but about the deliberate miss- interpretation of the law so it fits with one’s core interests.

Shasha points out that “even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to ‘prove’ his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.”

Pilpul is basically a legalistic exercise that is removed from truthfulness, ethical thinking or even logic. What we see from Dershowitz is a dramatic pilpul-ization of the American legal culture and ethos.

“In this context,” Shasha continues, “the Law is not primary; it is the status of the jurist. Justice is extra-legal, thus denying social equality under the rubric of a horizontal system. Law is in the hands of the privileged rather than the mass.”

In a pretty accurate description of Dershowitz’ modus operandi Shasha writes, “Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as ‘true’ that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.”

ORDER IT NOW

Shasha, obviously had Dershowitz in mind when he wrote his Huffpost article. But Dershowitz is not the only one. In Shasha’s article Noam Chomsky is equally guilty of pilpulism. “The contentiousness of the Middle East conflict is intimately informed by pilpul. Whether it is Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim who had traditional Jewish educations, the terms of the debate are consistently framed by pilpul. What is most unfortunate about pilpul — and this is something that will be familiar to anyone who has followed the controversies involving Israel and Palestine — is that, since the rational has been removed from the process, all that is left is yelling, irrational emotionalism, and, ultimately, the threat of violence.”

I agree with Shasha. The Middle East conflict has been reduced into a pilpul battle ground between Zionists and their Anti Zionist Zionist twins. The question for Americans is whether Pilpul, a Jewish Ashkenazi litigious practice that is removed from truthfulness, ethics and reason should interfere with American’s constitutional rights, way of living, politics, culture, spirit and vaccination policies.

(Republished from Gilad Atzmon by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Vaccination, Coronavirus, Jews 
Hide 193 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Pheasant says:

    ‘Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim’

    Chomsky is actually not Ashkanazi he is originally from North Africa and his family practised the Sephardic rite.

  2. Trickster says:

    The Trickster has known people who are skilled Pilpul masters only I call them Pill Bull practitioners. Rational conversation, logic, the ability to think is absent. Conversations slide into shouting matches, screaming and table thumping and even frothing out the side of their mouths. Over the years this has evolved into their family and acquaintances , rather than expend any energy having a conversation or rather a confrontation with them, keep their tongues between their teeth, maintain a blank face and neither nod up/ down or left/right.

    If the Pill Bull (PB) practitioner asks for an opinion (not that they want to hear one) the responder just gives an answer like this “Well I have not really thought about the matter so I am not in a position to give an intelligent response”. Here, the PB practitioner assumes they are right and the relationship advances to the point where opinions are not asked for ever ever again. This heads down the rocky path of them believing they are right about everything and everyone in this here universe.

    This is all well and good when the topic is whether to have Eggs Benedict with bacon or sausage. However when it comes to major decisions the PB practitioners I have encountered put themselves in devastating situations often times running up lifelong regrets and consequences. Yet they never learn !

    As for the Ivy League graduates, I have little regard for them. Its one thing to regurgitate the contents of a text book and another to THINK ! I know a few of these graduates and most times what comes out of their mouths is the most appalling nonsense. I guess like the PB practitioners they feel that their elevated degree confers superior wisdom over those who went to the community college down the road. As time goes by I come to understand why this is so. It looks like the reason could be that even if you dropped out in Junior Kindergarten, if Daddy has the bucks he can buy you into Harvard or Yale. The professors there will grant you you degree even if you are comatose and you can say you “graduated Harvard/ Yale” or whatever even though you are at most an educated donkey.

    What a state of affairs! I can now understand why religious leaders self isolate in the desert or elsewhere. When I see the drivel spouted by the “educated elite” the Trickster himself is fed up and may head into an uninhabited area for a long spell away from contemporary oracles of prudence and wisdom !

    This was a great article by Gilad and one in my opinion that should be read a few times, assimilated and pondered. Doing so is the vaccine against the twaddle of the elites and stupidity in general.

  3. Human rights treaty bodies have set up a forum in which pilpul-type cant will crash and burn in flames. You can watch preeminent experts make fools of Zionazi fanatics with the imperturbable kindness of therapists. There’s a bunch of these, for each of the treaties Israel signed fingers-crossed, and they’re all comedy gold.

    http://webtv.un.org/watch/israel-review-17th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/2782065993001/?term=

    It happens to the US too. Twin laughingstocks.

  4. One of the characteristics of pilpul is “thunderstriking” the victim of pilpul. The argument is so breathtakingly incomprehensible that the listener is thunderstruck into inarticulate bafflement. It is a skill, without doubt, and very unpleasant.

  5. So it’s simple Rabulistik.

  6. ‘..casuistry’ is defined as: The use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.

    Considering each situation on a case by case basis is classical common law as the UK had before the current creep of statutory, Roman law. Really it is quite directly democratic to create law from analysing each case according to the situation, rather than some categorical rule.

    “Casuistry: Study of cases of conscience and a method of solving conflicts of obligations by applying general principles of ethics, religion, and moral theology to particular and concrete cases of human conduct. This frequently demands an extensive knowledge of natural law and equity, civil law, ecclesiastical precepts, and an exceptional skill in interpreting these various norms of conduct. It becomes necessary to determine the degree of guilt and responsibility and weigh all the circumstances of the case, especially by taking into account all the conditions affecting motive and consent. — J.J.R.”

    http://www.ditext.com/runes/c.html

    For example, an absolute rule:

    Killing = 100% wrong/forbidden.

    You wake up, tied up, with a gun in your hand. Two options – kill one person, or 100 will be killed. Someone following the above rule, without considering casuistry, would forgo being the efficient cause of killing one, and choose to let 100 die – because he is not the killer, not the efficient cause, someone else designed the experiment, they are the cause, and it is their fault.

    Or use a relational rule:

    no killing > less killing > more killing.

    Still, what if the one life is a child, but the 100 are terminal cancer patients, each with days to live?

    Notice that neither the absolute law, nor the relational law offers a complete and consistent (Godel here) model for judging over each possible case! In this respect, casuistry is necessary, because no experience is identical, so one law can’t possibly cover each equitably, even if they only fail at the extremes. That’s why there are alleviating and aggravating aspects to sentencing.

    Here is the Buddhist law on murder for monks. https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pj3/en/brahmali

    If you scroll down close to the middle, there is a long section on case details. Buddhist law is simple, the nexus of sentencing being intention and intention only, so it doesn’t fall to bias easily.

    This is not the case for Talmudic law, when it discusses Jews and Gentiles. The important example is in the Tanya stating that ‘all Gentiles have an unclean soul, and all their actions are selfish’ (it references the Gemara), which when brought up, is restated as ‘all Gentiles who break the Noachide laws have an unclean soul’.. ok, sure – but what about Jews who break the Noachide laws? No, Jews are closer to God even if they are murderers. This is bias, and this is the derogatory casuistry you point to. From the little of the Talmud that I have scratched, I find the casuistic rulings to be fairly reasonable for Jewish to Jewish interaction, but biased against the Gentile in Jewish-Gentile interaction.

    As for Dershowitz.. He certainly has his biases, and I think in this case he is just falling to strict constructionism, as it suits him. Sure – the constitution has nothing on being injected with a vaccine. And sure, Congress could make it a crime not to be vaccinated, with the guilty being sentences to vaccination, and hey presto, it all falls in line.

    And the argument makes some sense too – what if the virus were a 90% killer, with a month incubation period, where the carrier was contagious? If the individual were tested and knew they were infected, and they still went out – wouldn’t their actions be close to manslaughter? And couldn’t the state act against them?

    Law requires casuistry, and a good judge is one who doesn’t put their own preconceptions into the case they are judging over. I would say that Dershowitz isn’t wrong, but whether he is caught in the herd panic with respect to this overactive flu, or there is something more sinister to his statements, his restriction of liberty within a pandemic falls far from where most of the citizens of the US would. I would guess, a 5, 10% killer would get most acquiescing to forced vaccinations or house arrest for the indifferent. Maybe higher, but certainly there is a line somewhere.

    • Replies: @schnellandine
    , @Skeptikal
  7. Both Chomsky and Dershowitz are seriously compromised intellectually and spiritually. Neither one should be given a fig of credibility.

  8. @Pheasant

    I am not so sure about it..however the main issue here is pilpul and from a pilpul perspective Chomsky and Dershowitz aren’t far off ..

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  9. I remember seeing Chomsky, with his pile of crumpled papers in his crumpled sweater plopping and hopping from one topic to another at lightning speed in that ADD way he has, “debating” Dershowitz, who was just screaming the same thing over and over. Kind of like the fox and the hedgeh0g.

  10. @Pampasgrass

    I can’t confirm 100% that Zizek is a Jew but I think that he is based on his obsession with Nazi Germany and fascism in general. Watch some clips on youtube and you can see some of the most absurd examples of this “technique” of pilpul-bafflegab.

  11. @Ilya G Poimandres

    Really it is quite directly democratic to create law from analysing each case according to the situation, rather than some categorical rule.

    Using, of course, Orwell’s noted definition of “democratic”. Small wonder you’re a fan of sophistry.

    The same malleability infects your understanding of the constitution:

    and I think in this case he is just falling to strict constructionism,

    Ha!

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  12. Man are you ever the gamesman. I don’t see your labeling of Pilpul as anything other then the politics of class struggle. Pilpul was the Roman senates favorite sport as the battled to justify what an emperor was. All word politics and jurisprudence is Pilpul by definition of rendering and defending an argument. Is a murder guilty beyond reasonable doubt, does not mean the person did not murder.

    Pilpul, a Jewish Ashkenazi litigious

    Really Gilad piss off with this. Ron Unz’s entire Pravda series is nothing but blowing smoke Pilpul to hide racism towards Jews.

  13. @schnellandine

    Sorry, I don’t know what Orwell said with respect for democracy (I read less than I think). I reject sophistry. If I am anything negative, it is an eristic, as I argue for the sake of arguing, rather than arguing to deceive! :p

    Just a question – an Ebola (60%ish morbidity) outbreak in the US. To what extent should the state have power to act on the individual citizen?

    Of course the question implies an autocratic state, as an evolutionary autocracy like representative democracy is.. as the end of my last reply implied, in a semi-direct democracy, where the population had at least the direct right to reject laws set by representatives, the state would be limited to what the citizenry acquiesced to.. at some level of morbidity, at some level of R0, the citizenry would react, and demand individual action. My only qualm is that Dershowitz jumps the gun by a factor of 10 or 100 with respect to where the citizenry would draw the line.. but wouldn’t it be better if it could just vote on where it wants its line to be?!

  14. Thank you, Gilad, for explaining this, because I always suspected that what might seem good in the Talmud etc. is being used to evil purposes. That does not excuse Gitten 57a though….

  15. @Fran Taubman

    Gamesman, Fran? Takes one to know one, Gameswoman!

  16. @Pampasgrass

    What you say reminds me of my experience of being a beginner go (chess too) player. You know the rules of the game, but when someone does something outside of the rules, your world collapses, and your next move becomes at best, something close to random!

    Misdirection through chaos is an excellent weapon. I don’t know if Dershowitz is on this wavelength, but he definitely does not put forth the subtleties of the law in the clip.. And extreme statements must at least be backed up by subtleties, or we are just in the realm of Daesh!

  17. @Fran Taubman

    to hide racism towards Jews

    Racism.. Judaism accepts the distinction between humans. On what basis? On the basis of action. A human who ignores the Noachide laws, a human who doesn’t, a human who keeps to the 613 commandments. Are they not different?

    And are these differences only individual? Is there not a social element? Would it be more accurate to call this ‘racism’ ‘groupism’, since Judaism accepts anyone who is not born of a Jewish mother/father, but still follows the laws?

    And then the question is – is Judaism biased in its analysis of the Gentile, as opposed to the Jew? Are there preconceptions, lacking direct evidence?

    I return to Tanya Chapter 1, and its conclusion: if a Jew breaks the Noachide laws – is their soul stricken from the list of Jewish souls, and made unclean by God?

    If so, fair game – there is no bias. Otherwise, well I can be the tooth fairy too – I at least have Dwayne Johnsons’ height!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  18. Pheasant says:
    @Gilad Atzmon

    Yes I was not trying to nitpick. One thing I know for sure is that despite his appearence and accomplishments Chomsky is not Ashkenazi.

  19. joe2.5 says:
    @Pheasant

    What bullshit. His father and mother were born in Russia and all the Chomsky families around the world come from the Ashkenazi areas and are originally speakers of the German dialect Yiddish. Any and all references indicate so. Where do you get that absurdity?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Wielgus
  20. @Ilya G Poimandres

    How is your three point shot. Maybe something in that Tayna book can help. You are one of the few people on this site that I consistently have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  21. I remember reading about David Horowitz, who is a leftist Marxist who became a NeoCon Zionist (“right-winger”). I guess that is quite a standard path. Anyway, his right-wing commentariat peers complained about him because he apparently “uses the debating tactics of the New Left” – i.e. constant accusations of impure motivation on the part of his interlocutor (e.g. “anti-Semite”, “racist”, “misogynist”), rather than actually attempting to get to the heart of the matter in question. Is that a characteristic of Talmudic pilpul argument? Such accusations seem alien to the Protestant Christian theology, which assumes that every single human is corrupted by self-interest, as a basis (meaning that it is less easy for any single person to accuse another of impurity in terms of undue selfishness/motivation).

  22. joe2.5 says:

    What bullshit. His father and mother were born in Russia and all the Chomsky families around the world come from the Ashkenazi areas and are, originally at least, speakers of the German dialect Yiddish. Any and all references indicate so. Where do you get that absurdity?

  23. @fatmanscoop

    “Is it true?” remains (ideally) central to western moral calculus. “Is it good for the Jews?” lies at the heart of Dershowitz’s moral outlook. It is the calm rationality of Athens versus the passion and hysteria of Jerusalem.

    A country can survive Hebraic psychosis when it’s in the minority and those who adhere to it do not hold positions of power in society. But when people like Dershowitz, who practice pilpul, occupy key positions, insanity throughout the body politic is, deliberately or not, advanced and with great social instability.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  24. Art says:

    Clearly, Dershowitz is another fanatical Jew, drilled deep into him in childhood.

    The difference between he and Fanny is only their words and gender (maybe?).

  25. “even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to ‘prove’ his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.”’

    This is why so many Jews are lawyers.

    Or perhaps, more distressingly, this is why Jews have reshaped the legal system to suit their particular talents. After all, no one would mistake ‘justice’ as it was practiced two hundred years ago for ‘justice’ as it is practiced now.

    This is a thought I have raised before. Many of us are aware — comfortably or uncomfortably — of the extent to which Jews dominate the system currently in place. Few seem to have ever considered how Jews have — I would assume unconsciously — reshaped that system to suit their peculiar talents.

    After all, if you’re good at pilpul, what could be more congenial than a legal system that has come to be based on pilpul?

  26. I think a more precise and detailed definition of pilpul would be useful. All I’m really taking away from this is ‘it’s bad.’

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  27. @Kolya Krassotkin

    ‘“Is it true?” remains (ideally) central to western moral calculus. “Is it good for the Jews?” lies at the heart of Dershowitz’s moral outlook…’

    Depending on how you look at it, it’s either better or worse than that. I suspect the question uppermost in Alan Dershowitz’s mind isn’t ‘is it good for the Jews’ so much as ‘is it good for me?’

    Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Alan Dershowitz is caught in flagrante delicto with one of his fifteen year old honeys. He can unhesitatingly and unequivocally confess — or he can equivocate, appeal to technicalities, etc. The former would be ‘good for the Jews.’ The latter would be good for Alan Dershowitz.

    It’s not open-and-shut — but I’d plonk my money on the latter. The man is a Zionist second — and a swine first.

    • Agree: fish, Druid
  28. @Ilya G Poimandres

    what Orwell said with respect for democracy

    He wrote in Politics and the English Language that ‘democracy’ means nothing, but is used as rhetorical window dressing to associate goodness with whatever poppycock the invoker’s shilling.

    Just a question – an Ebola (60%ish morbidity) outbreak in the US. To what extent should the state have power to act on the individual citizen?

    Since it appears you’re asking my opinion w/o regard to state edicts: No one may initiate the use of force, thus the state shouldn’t exist.

    but wouldn’t it be better if it could just vote on where it wants its line to be?!

    No.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  29. What would the drafters of the Constitution have said about the demand of the state for universal vaccination? This is of course, totally irrelevant to the Jew. The Jew has no common heritage with Americans and no genuine stake in the Constitution. For that reason, no Jew must be permitted to adjudicate any matter concerning real Americans.

    • Agree: schnellandine
  30. Tony Hall says:

    I take it from the You Tube in this post that Alan Dershowitz is moving into position as lawyer for the Bill Gates conglomerate. Both Bill Gates and Alan Dershowitz are well connected to the suicided, or murdered, or still-at-large Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein-Dershowitz-Gates. Hmmmm

    The argument introduced by Prof. Dershowitz has grave implications for the survival of the concept of citizenship as we have known it. Dershowitz’s argument points us to a very sinister place. One aspect of the horrific scenario being promoted by some very powerful interests would be to fill human beings with biodigital interfaces, with nanotechnology that would connect us more fully to the rein of Artificial Intelligence. The contest to win the battle for control of AI has become a major part of the US-China hybrid warfare which is already well underway.

    With his background in eugenics, depopulation, digital communications, and genetic modification of foods and now humans as well, Bill Gates is becoming a menace that cannot be allowed to have his advocates pilpul us into submission. He and the people he works with in the WHO and UNICEF have vaccinated significant portions of whole populations in Africa and India. These interventions have been pushed forward with cheap and dirty vaccines, many of them manufactured in China. The outcome has included sterilization, paralysis and death. Whether purposeful or inadvertent, the results have been in line with the kind of eugenic depopulation Bill Gates’ father envisaged as a former head of Planned Parenthood.

    The quid pro quo we are being offered by Gates et. al. is that the only way out of the culture of revolving lockdowns is to accept the jab of submission. We are being told the COVID-19 shot will qualify us for an “immunity passport,” the prerequisite for a radically curtailed form of conditional citizenship. The future of civilization itself is thus more or less pivoted right now on the legal issue that Prof. Dershowitz has articulated. The pilpulized argument he outlines must not be allowed to prevail.

    As the world’s undisputed vaccine czar right now, Bill Gates oversees an empire where vaccine companies bear no liability whatsoever for the injuries their products produce. This immunity from being sued has been accompanied by a epidemic of autism that moved in a relatively short time from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 40 young boys in the United States.

    The personal history of Bill Gates, therefore, cannot be divorced from the political platform he is advocating with, it seems, the backing of many governments officials, media venues, and financial resources.

    I do not agree with everything Henry Makow publishes and he has made it known he sometimes disagrees with me. With this qualification and with the introduction I offer above, here is Dr. Makow’s assessment of Bill Gates authored in 2013.

    http://tapnewswire.com/2020/04/bill-gates-porn-addict/

    • Agree: TheTrumanShow
    • Thanks: Gilad Atzmon, Skeptikal
  31. @Pheasant

    A surname ending “ski” doesn’t sound very Sephardic to me.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
    , @jujubeen
  32. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Or “sky”. But maybe to ski in the sky is the ultimate aim of the Sephardim.

  33. @Fran Taubman

    Sounds like you are an accomplished Pilpul player, Fran.

    Sir Isaac Isaacs, a better lawyer than the Dersh, made it very clear that the Jews are not a race, but here you are raising racism.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  34. @schnellandine

    So you basically say that any social agreement is forced onto the individual, even if society agrees to it directly democratically. Sure, without universal consent, those that don’t agree must acquiesce to stay within a society that rules not to their liking.

    But sometimes the individual forces themselves onto the society, and society can and should protect itself.

    I don’t get this argument because I have yet to meet anyone who argues that the state shouldn’t exist, whilst also maintaining that there should be no borders. Some people, somewhere, will organize, and against you. We are social beings, and some profit from saboutage. If your group doesn’t organize, then you are all like single celled organisms that will be fed on by something much larger.

    Representative democracy means nothing – there is still no direct access to affect the nation’s laws by the citizen, so it’s just tyranny. A great one for the representative class because they don’t have to deal with Mandate of Heaven like revolutions and executions, just polite hand overs to their friends every few years. They can fail, kill millions, but they never have to face consequences because ‘it’s the election that judges them’, supposedly. This isn’t democracy, it’s tyranny perfected.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  35. @Fran Taubman

    Play dumb or play dead. Excellent tactics from an evolutionary standpoint!

    I’ll tell you – no, a Jew who breaks the Noachide laws keeps their Jewish soul. In this way, the murderer remains equal to the sage within the faith, which makes the sage leave, and the faith remains, with only the blind fool and the amoral opportunist as followers.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  36. @Fran Taubman

    The fact that you can’t distinguish between pilpul, a manner of speech that is removed from truth, ethics and reasoning, and Western Athenian dialogue is hardly a surprise to anyone here let alone myself. However, since it doesn’t seem as if you ever going to adopt to western values and ethos, maybe you should invest in your Pilpul as your aren’t mepulpelet enough to my taste…

  37. @Pheasant

    Not that it matters, I think he is..

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  38. @Ilya G Poimandres

    Not either dumb or dead. I do not understand what you are talking about. I believe all people follow the same moral values and codes, and brake them in the same way. It is not a particular religion in charge of souls.

  39. …and so I learn. Naming a thing does not explain it, but sometimes it awakens understanding. Like ‘exitotoxin’ shortens the argument around MSG, and ‘escatology’ gave me an entirely new view on religion, so ‘pilpul’ will save me hours of mental effort trying to reconstruct the arguments I just lost. Turns out, I am easily pilpul’ed!
    Gilead, the Democratic Acoitheists for Translucent Anarchy shall raise at least a small figurine in your honour…

  40. @GazaPlanet

    The Jew has no common heritage with Americans and no genuine stake in the Constitution. For that reason, no Jew must be permitted to adjudicate any matter concerning real Americans.

    That’s where you’re wrong, GazaPlanet.
    Jews have an enormous stake in the US Constitution; in fact, they own it.
    Or at least Jews own as in run, manage, direct the taxpayer-funded US Center for the Constitution.

    Jeffrey Rosen has been director of the Philadelphia-based institution since its beginning.
    Rosen’s hero is Louis Brandeis, who, says Rosen, was the most important figure in the creation of the zionist Jewish state of Israel.

    Rosen is the public face of the Constitution center; Jews are in charge of interpreting and presenting the US Constitution to the world and especially to children.

    https://constitutioncenter.org

  41. @joe2.5

    Gee, thanks, dude! Without your very important and pertinent contribution to the issue at hand, where would be?

  42. @joe2.5

    Gee, thanks, dude! Without your very important and pertinent contribution to the issue at hand, where would we be?

  43. @GazaPlanet

    What would the drafters of the Constitution have said about the demand of the state for universal vaccination? This is of course, totally irrelevant to the Jew. The Jew has no common heritage with Americans and no genuine stake in the Constitution. For that reason, no Jew must be permitted to adjudicate any matter concerning real Americans.

    The irony is the Declaration of Independence from Britain was based in part on the Magna Carta which contains clauses limiting activities of Dershowitz-tier pariah Jews in the realm.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  44. Skeptikal says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    “If the individual were tested and knew they were infected, and they still went out – wouldn’t their actions be close to manslaughter? ”

    Uh, no.
    You would have to prove that Person A actually infected Person B.

    And if Person B were obese, you would have to pin the “negligence” label on Person B. He/She knew the risks perfectly well and and still engaged in risky behavior of being obese.

    If we are going to be specific life style choice behaviors illegal, then I think we should start with making smoking and obesity illegal.

    Alan Dershowitz is truly a terrifying individual.
    In addition to being a troll to look at.

    Now he is carrying water for Bill Gates.

    One good thing, though, is that he does present a convenient target, one that everyone can hate, to perhaps start to counterattack on Operation Universal Vaccine(s).

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  45. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    C’mon, Colin!

    I am surprised at this comment coming from an intelligent commenter.
    Gilad explained the term in quite a lot of detail.
    He provided the closest English translation of the term.
    He also provided background.

    You can also so a simple online search if you want much more info on pilpul.

  46. Tsigantes says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Why would Ron Unz want to hide racism towards jews?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  47. @Tsigantes

    He doesn’t. He just doesn’t call it racism. He calls it reason and logic, with his long winded Pravda series giving factual support of racist ideas. A base. I guess you are a Pilpul beginner and need to study the real masters.

  48. @Skeptikal

    “You would have to prove that Person A actually infected Person B.”

    That’s why I said that it would be close to manslaughter. There is no 100% killer virus, but at some level of danger to society and its system, society must act together. Leaving the solution to pure anarchy (in the sense of consent at each level), leaves aside the problem of those who don’t care for the consent of others, and act solely for themselves.

    For a sufficiently serious virus (ask society what that means in a referendum), I am happy to accept mandatory vaccination. But on different terms to what Gates wants. Medical students must study vaccinology from the get go, the vaccines must not be patentable, and must be rigorously shown to be effective and worth the risk.

    Personally, I don’t feel the need for a vaccine to this, like I don’t feel the need for a flu vaccine any given year (I’m 34 and healthy, it’s not a major Russian roulette), but if there was a serious killer out there, I’d take a vaccine from Russian doctors. I trust that they would develop something beneficial, whilst an American, even European thing imo could easily be just a profit spinner at the expense of lives – like what Gates pushes onto poor nations.

    BTW smoking seems to limit coronavirus in humans, so again there is no absolute delineation of law. https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.4

  49. @SolontoCroesus

    Per usual you have it backwards Sonoto. Let me help you out.
    The founders of the American constitution were savants, a once in a lifetime alignment of the stars to produce such prescient logic and documents. They the founders sought out Mosaic jurisprudence. It is really hard to not empathize what a dope you are SC. How completely backwards you have the story.

    https://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48955806.html

    The earliest legislation of the colonies of New England was all determined by Scripture. At the first assembly of New Haven in 1639, John Davenport clearly stated the primacy of the Bible as the legal and moral foundation of the colony:

    The amazing story of Jewish influence on the founding fathers of American democracy.

    The creation of the United States of America represented a unique event in world history – founded as a modern republic, it was rooted in the Bible, and one of its earliest tenets was religious tolerance.

    These Puritans viewed their emigration from England as a virtual re-enactment of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. To them, England was Egypt, the king was Pharaoh, the Atlantic Ocean was the Red Sea, America was the Land of Israel, and the Indians were the ancient Canaanites. They were the new Israelites, entering into a new covenant with God in a new Promised Land.

    Thanksgiving ― first celebrated in 1621, a year after the Mayflower landed ― was initially conceived as a day parallel to the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur; it was to be a day of fasting, introspection and prayer.

    Writes Gabriel Sivan in The Bible and Civilization (p. 236):

    “No Christian community in history identified more with the People of the Book than did the early settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed their own lives to be a literal reenactment of the Biblical drama of the Hebrew nation… these émigré Puritans dramatized their own situation as the righteous remnant of the Church corrupted by the ‘Babylonian woe,’ and saw themselves as instruments of Divine Providence, a people chosen to build their new commonwealth on the Covenant entered into at Mount Sinai.”
    Previously, during the Puritan Revolution in England, (1642-1648) some Puritan extremists had even sought to replace English common law with Biblical laws of the Old Testament, but were prevented from doing so. In America, however, there was far more freedom to experiment with the use of Biblical law in the legal codes of the colonies and this was exactly what these early colonists set out to do.

    “Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men as well as in the government of families and commonwealth as in matters of the Church… the Word of God shall be the only rule to be attended unto in organizing the affairs of government in this plantation.” (1)

  50. Alden says:

    Meh, whatever, the American constitution is whatever one judge says it is.

    One anti vaccine judge can rule that unvaccinated kids have the constitutional right to spread diphtheria scarlet fever whooping cough polio TB as well as measles mumps and chicken pox into every school and summer camp.

    One pro vaccine judge can rule that every person in America be forcibly vaccinated whether they want it or not.

    How do you think America legalized gay marriage, men in women’s bathrooms and discrimination against Whites the majority of the population? Judges, in many cases lower court judges.

    Every mental hospital in the country was closed down by all 9 judges of the Supreme Court O’Connor VS Donaldson, 1975.
    Like school desegregation and school bussing destroyed many public schools, O’Connor VS Donaldson 1975 resulted in hundreds of thousands of mentally disabled Americans living on the streets eating out of garbage cans, too mentally disabled to get to the welfare office, but the diabolical O’Connor VS Donaldson 1975 stands.

    I have great contempt for non attorneys who blather and blither about the constitution. Judges rule and it’s been that way since Madison VS Marbury 1804. Judicial findings and orders rule. The opinions of the taxpayers and citizens who subsidized their education and pay their salaries and the expenses of the court system mean nothing.

    Author mentioned interpreting the law. American judges don’t interpret the law. They just created new laws like gay marriage or overturn existing laws.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Disagree: thotmonger
  51. Alden says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Agree agree agree. I remember back in the mid 60s when my friends started law school. They noted that so many of the law school profs were Jews.

    I’m not going to do the research to prove how many “laws” created since 1950 were not passed by elected legislators and signed by elected presidents and governors but created by judges finding in favor of Jewish lawsuit plaintiffs.

    Jews seized the old English common law system of judges creating laws through their orders and precedents and have by passed the statutory system of laws passed by legislators.

    It’s just the epitome of futility to discuss the constitution and judge created common law VS legislative passed statutory law according to a constitution or set of rules.

    America has judge created common law in which any judge can create or overturn any law he she or it wishes.

    Just look at how the judge created common law dealt with school segregation. Brown VS Topeka 1953 ruled all children should go to their nearest school, not walk a mile to a segregated school specifically for their race.

    10 years later judges ordered millions of children to take hour long bus rides twice a day to schools 40 miles from home.

    Gay marriage; every state referendum voted against it. No state elected legislature voted for it. The elected federal congress didn’t vote for it.

    Gay marriage was legalized through the old English common law system of judges, not legislatures creating or overturning whatever laws they wish.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Loup-Bouc
  52. jujubeen says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    The “ski” ending used to be solid Polish while the “sky” could be anything from Ukrainian, Czech, Lithuanian, you name it of the eastern bloc countries. But historically the Jewish population of Poland was one of the largest throughout the late middle ages and into the 20th century, second, possibly, only to that of the Ukraine which inherited the old Khazarian empire. There was massive intermarrying between Poles and Jews over the centuries so the name endings are no longer reliable as indications of ethnicity.

  53. @SolontoCroesus

    Perhaps I misapprehended the Providential role of the Founders in foreseeing the day when it would be necessary to permit Jeffery Epstein’s island associates to inject the WHOLE PEOPLE, in submission to the children of Israel. Thank you for clearing it up for me!

  54. Alden says:
    @Fran Taubman

    This direct authenticated descendant of William Mullins, the man who financed the Mayflower expedition agrees with you about the Wanna Be Jew puritans of Massachusetts. They even ate cold food on the sabbath. They seriously considered holding the sabbath on Saturday and eating kosher food.

    But that was one small underpopulated colony of insane Wanna Be Jews who hated Roman Catholicism so much they could not bear to live in a country that still observed the Christian calendar of fiestas and horror of horrors allowed catholic music and singing in church. Their ridiculous OT laws only lasted several decades. Then common sense prevailed

    The Puritans , like the Jews were haters of Christianity and the White European peoples. They didn’t even believe Jesus is was God, the foundation of Christianity.

    Worse, they seriously believed in that pornographic homocidal genocidal collection of myths and fairy tales cobbled from the Mesopotamian Book of Gilgamesh and Greek, Persian and other myths the OT

    Fight with local Indians over hunting rights? It became “ Slay the Amaleks” Man commits bestiality with a cow? Don’t just hang the man, hang the cow as well instead of the more humane method of shooting her in the head and slitting her throat

    The puritans were not founders of democracy. They practiced theocracy dictatorship

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  55. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    And those disenfranchised legislators are perfectly happy with it. Robes rule on domestic issues and the Commander-In-Chief drones or worse any part of the globe he decides needs it, freeing up Congress to grandstand with committee investigations and shirts versus skins games like judicial confirmations. The CARES act, though, was rubber stamped 96-0 by “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

  56. @fatmanscoop

    Such accusations seem alien to the Protestant Christian theology, which assumes that every single human is corrupted by self-interest,…

    I am not sure to which “Protestant Christian theology” you refer. Puritans believed that all humans were inherently bad, while Quakers believed all humans were inherently good. The Lutheran catechism that I learned before the great split about 60 years ago certainly didn’t assume self interest was corruption, which is what you seem to suggest. There is such a thing as human frailty, whether physical or spiritual. I can’t speak for all Protestant denominations, but my understanding was that the spiritual frailty was yielding to the temptation of a sinful act. Anything beyond that is Jimmy Carter`s `lust in my heart`. Certainly nothing to be proud of, but not a sin, and not corruption by self interest.

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  57. @Colin Wright

    I agree, for the most part, however, it goes beyond that, in my opinion. There are not just an over representation of lawyers, there is an over representation of judges. The legal system today, is not based on law, it is based in connections, whether political or tribal.
    During my working life, I had the opportunity to observe both while working on cases for my employer. What floored me was that our goy lawyer had case law as long as your arm supporting the argument. The opposition lawyer stated that we were wrong and re-defined the issue as something else completely unrelated. From that point on, the (((judge))) interrupted our lawyer every time he began his counter argument to say the issue was what his co-ethnic said it was. It was overtly biased, yet the company goy lawyer saw nothing out of the ordinary. It was truly stunning.

    There is a reason people call it the jew-dicial system.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. @Alden

    I am not an expert on this, but as i understand it, it was the Pilgrims (Separatists) who arrived on the Mayflower, and the Puritans about a decade later. The Pilgrims were practicing religious freedom from the Church of England, while the Puritans were intolerant of all other religions. Throw in the Quakers, who came shortly after the Puritans and wanted total religious freedom, and you have only one sect, the Puritans, intolerant of everyone, not unlike the Jews, causing all of the problems.
    As Puritans do not believe in the holy trinity, they are not truly Christians, so it is no coincidence that Oliver Cromwell and his crazies turned to (((Amsterdam))) bankers for funding.

  59. As I understand the US Supreme Court has ruled that the state does not have the power to compel vaccination.

    Therefore, as someone whom I had time for as a US Constitutional Lawyer has now evaporated when one uses their own religion to force upon the people something that is illegal is the time US Citizens should start to be concerned.

    The person most people, however, should focus on is Bill Gates a well known Eugenist.

    If Bill Gates could not stop a virus on his MS Software what hope do we have he can rid mankind of a virus that affects humans. Perhaps it could be rightfully stated that Bill Gates is a virus that mankind should get rid of.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  60. @Fran Taubman

    Goshes, why didn’t I think to consult a kook-infested organization like AISH to figure out who most influenced drafting of US Constitution.

    Furthermore, nothing you cut-and-pasted addresses Jeffrey Rosen’s self-professed adoration of Brandeis for his work on behalf of Jews, and the fact that he is the pretty much exclusive face of US taxpayer funded National Constitution center, upon which he impresses his Jewy – Brandeis stamp.

    Finally, See Alden, #4

    https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/pilpul-for-beginners/#comment-3905669

    Helluva nice guy that I am, you are forgiven. Go forth and sin no more.

    ____
    GazaPlanet @ 53: Irony not your strong suit, eh GP?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  61. @Ilya G Poimandres

    wouldn’t it be better if [the citizenry] could just vote on where it wants its line to be?

    Voting might obtain different results, but it would not (generally) obtain an accurate reflection of social preferences. There is no ordinal voting (or vote-counting) system that can do that.

    This ‘paradox’ – that grouping individual preferences does not result in valid ‘social preferences’ – was first proposed by Condorcet in 1785, and was proved (and became a ‘known known‘) in 1950 when Kenneth Arrow published ‘A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare‘.

    The term ‘valid’ should be taken to mean “produces results that make sense”. The main problem is the issue of non-transitive preferences – A > B > C > A (where > here means “is preferred to”).

    There is nothing to say that actual social preferences would be a good thing to aim at, even if it were possible to measure them precisely. Most people are innumerate imbeciles, so they form asymptotically biased expectations of the outcomes of policy – and there is no guarantee that the biases ‘cancel out’ upon aggregation.

    Pro-democracy agitators tie themselves in all sorts of idiotic knots trying to resuscitate The God That Failed (I’m no fan of H-H-Hoppe as an economist – he’s a hand-waving essay writer – but he has a knack for catchy book titles).

    Below is my standard list of references for the various impossibility theorems that relate to voting and bureaucracy: people who aren’t aware of them need to become aware of them before being able to assess the merits of democracy. They’re not hard to understand, and they are rooted in the idea that there’s no use getting an outcome if it fails to satisfy basic ideas about ‘fairness’.

    Bear in mind that what follows analyses the ‘gold standard’: direct, unmediated, issue-by-issue voting.

    The parody version that is actually used – ‘representative’, parliamentary, policy-bundle voting has three additional layers of problems, namely:
    ① the uncertainty that policy bundles voted for, will be implemented;
    ② the likelihood that additional non-preferred policies will be implemented;
    ③ the low likelihood that policies will be implemented efficiently; and
    ④ political dishonesty about the direct and social benefits of each policy bundle.

    Voting is the ultimate shibboleth, which should not surprise anyone because it’s how the political grift is sold to the masses: if it mattered our overlords wouldn’t let us vote, and if they let us vote it’s likely that the outcome would not be ‘what the people want‘.

    References

    [MORE]

    Arrow Impossibility Theorem

    If there are more than 2 agents and more than 2 choices, ranked (ordinal) voting does not generate a valid expression of social preferences

      Arrow (1950). “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social WelfareJournal of Political Economy 58 (4): 328–346

      Geanakoplos, John (2005). “Three Brief Proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility TheoremEconomic Theory 26 (1): 211–215

    Gibbard’s Theorem

    Proves Arrow for cardinal voting: if there are 3 or more possible options and preference expression is ‘straightforward’ (no tactical voting) then it is dictatorial

      Gibbard (1973). “Manipulation of voting schemes: a general resultEconometrica 41 (4): 587–601.

    Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem

    Similar to Gibbard’s Theorem but restricted to ordinal voting

      Gibbard (1973). “Manipulation of voting schemes: a general resultEconometrica 41 (4): 587–601.
      Satterthwaite (April 1975). “Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare FunctionsJournal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217.

    Duggan-Schwarz Theorem

    Similar to G-S, but for non-empty SET of winners as opposed to single winner – e.g., voting in the Australian Senate

      J. Duggan and T. Schwartz, “Strategic manipulability is inescapable: Gibbard–Satterthwaite without resoluteness“, Working Papers 817, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 1992.

      J. Duggan & T. Schwartz (2000). “Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard–Satterthwaite generalized“. Social Choice and Welfare. 17: 85–93. doi:10.1007/PL00007177.

      Alan D. Taylor, “The manipulability of voting systems“, The American Mathematical Monthly, April 2002. JSTOR 2695497

      Alan D. Taylor, “Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation“, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition (2005), ISBN 0-521-00883-2. Chapter 4: Non-resolute voting rules.

    Holmström’s Theorem

    No incentive system for agents can be budget constrained, Pareto-efficient and a Nash equilibrium

      Bengt Holmström, “Moral Hazard in Teams“, The Bell Journal of Economics 13, no. 2 (1982), pp. 324–340. JSTOR 3003457

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  62. lloyd says: • Website

    In New Zealand, at a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan level, so much of what I read here I can relate to. Maori lawyers and activists are having a field day of Dershowitz circuitous argument. They succeed in grabbing public resources via both their own Tribunal which no Government dares contest, and the Courts which they intimidate. One could be nasty and say a number are of Jewish descent, such as Waititi-Cohen and Jackson. Did they consciously learn from Jewish practices? I would say mostly no because they are not so educated and just do it naturally as also tribalists. However, I don’t entirely dismiss the thought. Zionists can get a favourable reception among Maori tribes.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  63. I disagree with the notion that casuistry is the appropriate English equivalent to pilpul.

    Bullshit – in the sense used by Harry Frankfurter in his too-little-acknowledged pamphlet “On Bullshit is a better fit (and is and appropriately evocative).

    “On Bullshit” is one of those short booklets that everyone really ought to read – it’s only 20 hald-A4 pages.

    “On Bullshit” is the source of one of my guidestones: always look for the embedded asterisk (i.e., the thing that indicates that the thing being discussed is true but misleading – the equivalent of “UP TO 20% OFF!!“).

    Here’s Prof Frankfurter understanding the difference between liars and bullshitters (bold emphasis mine):

    It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out,or makes them up, to suit his purpose

    .

    For the essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony. In order to appreciate this distinction, one must recognize that a fake or a phony need not be in any respect (apart from authenticity itself) inferior to the real thing. What is not genuine need not also be defective in some other way. It may be, after all, an exact copy. What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made. This points to a similar and fundamental aspect of the essential nature of bullshit: although itis produced without concern with the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong

    • Replies: @Fox
  64. Svevlad says:

    There is a simple, easy way to avoid it.

    Bone-headedness.

    Pilpul works in arguments, debates and discussions.

    If you don’t have them, however…

  65. @lloyd

    Zionists can get a favourable reception among Maori tribes.

    Nope. Not even close.

    Organised Maori are the main reason that New Zealand is a reliable supporter of Palestinian sovereignty at the UN and elsewhere. Same with the Hawai’i Sovereignty movement.

    As for Maori forcing the New Zealand government to abide by its foundational document: that’s not pilpul, it’s antipilpul. It’s forcing the beneficial successors of a group of fraudsters, to compensate the descendant victims of the fraud.

    As the Waitangi Tribunal found in Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040), the Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi very explicitly did not cede sovereignty to pakeha or the Crown. The Maori version was the one read to the chiefs, and was the one they understood and agreed to. It had no term that granted the English the power to declare Crown ownership of land that Maori had not sold, but did not directly occupy. (The English did that in 1846 once word spread about contract fraud by the English in Taranaki, which made Maori stop selling land)

    The English-language version tho? Different story: explicitly did cede sovereignty.

    Now that is pilpul – as is the ridiculous pakeha (and Crown) response to being called out on it.

    So.. when pakeha got forced to the table after decades of war (and legal battles), acknowledging the deplorable behaviour of the fraudsters who bilked Maori through deliberate, outright, contract frad… Maori decided to use the system to right some grievous historical wrongs.

    Not for nothin’, but when the Crown was negotiating with the iwi about setting up the Waitangi Tribunal, they promised a system with the power to make rulings that would bind the pakeha government. Then when they actually presented the legislation they just reneged.

    Disclosure: Waitara – the starting point for the Maori Wars – is part of the traditional lands associated with my iwi (Te Ati Awa). Te Rangitāke (Wiremu Kingi) was one of my matrilineal forebears (and was the only person entitled to alienate iwi land to the Crown – a fact that the ‘government’ was told by its own advisors at the time).

    The English pulled the same shit (contracts that said different things in English and Maori) when they “acquired” North Taranaki from Kati Te Wherowhero in 1842 (the transaction was explained to him as a lease, not as relinquishing his rangatiratanga).

    This is all acknowledged, and the documents exist and are crystal clear. The Crown refuses to litigate them in open court, so Maori use the Tribunal.

    This is not contentious “He said, he said” stuff.

    Pakeha should be thankful that Maori do not settle scores a little more ‘directly’: as Hone Heke showed, 4G warfare is second nature to Maori.

    • Agree: Brewer
    • Replies: @lloyd
  66. Fox says:
    @Kratoklastes

    I did know the word Pilpul and had a meaning attached to it that is not that of deliberate construction of argument by using wordplay or sophistry. More like that of free association and rapid utterance of ideas floating into the mind and out the mouth without thinking delay. It would therefore sound a bit crazy as it could in a religious ceremony or a psychoanalytic session.

  67. @SolontoCroesus

    Just google Jefferson and the Jewish influence on the constitution. I am not a subscriber of the articles posted so I could not share them.

    Alden #4 That’s you SC. like when you adapt an anonymous ID and print my mothers obit in a comment and ask me why I never had children. That’s what I call “thunderstriking” . If it is one thing you are good at it is incomprehensibility. Could give a rats ass about Rosen.

  68. @Ilya G Poimandres

    If your group doesn’t organize, then you are all like single celled organisms that will be fed on by something much larger.

    This is a very dumb argument for permitting a state to exist – especially given the skepticism that many of the US’ own Founders had towards standing armies.

    The Pashtun have never had a state worth the name, nor a standing military. Over the last 2500 years a bunch of much larger states have had a go at stealing their shit – hilarity generally ensues.

    I don’t get this argument because I have yet to meet anyone who argues that the state shouldn’t exist, whilst also maintaining that there should be no borders.

    There should be no borders that prevent private property owners from having whoever they want on their land. In the absence of a state, the costs of hosting a rando are borne directly by the property owner – and it goes without saying that the rando has no right of ‘residency’ unless some private property owner enters into an agreement with them.

    States have dynamics that always head towards ruin – and it’s well understood why:
     • the principle-agent problem ensures that State officeholders are not interested in general welfare;
     • Holmström’s Theorem guarantees that the State cannot jointly ① stay on budget and ② operate efficiently (the way Holmström’s Theorem is resolved in practice, is by paying bureaucrats more than they’re worth and violating the budget constraint);
     • a variant of adverse selection means that the worst types of people are attracted to politics and the bureaucracy (because it’s a low-effort workplace where people are paid more than they’re worth).

    There are a dozen additional characteristics of states and bureaucracies that add (in bad directions) to those 3 things, but those 3 things are enough to set in place dynamics that lead inexorably to crisis – and then, of course, to WAR.

    • Replies: @Awash
    , @Ilya G Poimandres
  69. @Amerimutt Golems

    Magna Carta which contains clauses limiting activities of Dershowitz-tier pariah Jews in the realm

    The main ones are clauses 10 and 11 – that if a man dies in debt to Jews, ⑩ interest is suspended until his heirs are adults, and ⑪ the Jew cannot seize a widow’s inheritance in payment of her deceased husband’s debt. (⑪ also applies regarding debts to non-Jews; ⑩ doesn’t).

    Interestingly that ⑪ does not apply to the Crown.

    26. If at the death of a man who holds a lay ‘fee’ of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay ‘fee’ of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

    Typical government vermin.

    The version of Magna Carta I use is the one found here Magna Carta (modern English translation).

  70. Loup-Bouc says:

    Splendid article — more because of its humor (though not wit) and because of its use of another author’s (David Shasha’s) article (and incisive wit).

    Dershowitz’s trouble is self-blinding arrogance spiced with psychopathy — not pilpul, itself, which is a mere risible symptom.

    But, alas, Mr. Atzmon indulges in behavior that Mr. Shasha might dub pilpul. For, without legal training or legally useful linguistics expertise, Mr. Atzmon asserts, without any constitution-text, precedential, or historic premise, that, beyond any possibility of legitimate argument (or even cavil), the U.S. Constitution does bar the government’s requiring that all submit to being vaccinated.

    I, myself, will refuse to submit to being vaccinated. But my own predilection is irrelevant — just as is Mr. Atzmon’s contemning Dershowitz without adducing tenable premise.

    I, myself, despise Dershowitz for many reasons, not the least of which is his rabid support of Zionist Israel and its viciously cruel, even genocidal, maltreatment of Palestinians.

    But the mightily pertinent federal constitutional-law fact is that the United States Supreme Court has upheld mandatory vaccination — upheld it against federal constitutional attack. See, E.G., these U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905),
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11
    Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922), at pages 175-177,
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/174
    Board, Ed., I.S.D. No. 92, Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) at pages 830-831,
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/536/822

    And those decisions do not rest on pilpul (or sophistry), but on earnest and scrupulous consideration of the text and history of the pertinent provisions of the federal constitution. [Equally important: anti-vaccination arguments depend much on the concept “substantive due process,” which is, itself, susceptible to the criticism that it is pipul, since nowhere does the federal constitution or its creation’s history even vaguely intimate an idea of SUBSTANTIVE due process.]

    A good lawyer may be able to convince the federal courts that Jacobson v. Massachusetts (cited above) does not apply to the current situation, E.G., because:
    (a) for more than a few years, vaccination have borne toxic, illness-causing ingredients (like mercury) included to extend shelf-life (for drug-company profit) and if a Covid-19 vaccination is kindred, individuals ought to be spared such non-immunity-producing risk
    (b) since two studies and other evidence indicate that Covid-19 antibodies may not prevent Covid-19 virus-shedding sufficient to transmit the disease, forced vaccination may not be justifiable

    But the current federal constitutional law history renders some, arguably great, support to Dershowitz’s assertion — evil as it may be, even evil as I, myself, deem it.

    Another matter: Just exactly in what respect have Noam Chomsky’s anti-Zionist arguments been pilpul? Mr. Atzmon asserts Noam Chomsky’s anti-Zionist arguments are Zionist pilpul. But Mr. Atzmon’s assertion is mere assertion, lacking any evidence — hence, itself, pilpul.

    Sic Transit Coatimundi.

  71. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Just a few moments ago, I read Whitney Webb’s article, As Moderna’s Covid-19 Vaccine Takes the Lead, Its Chief Medical Officer’s Recent Promotion of “Gene-Editing Vaccines” Comes to Light, Unz Review (18 May 2020), https://www.unz.com/wwebb/as-modernas-covid-19-vaccine-takes-the-lead-its-chief-medical-officers-recent-promotion-of-gene-editing-vaccines-comes-to-light/

    At that article’s start, this appears:

    [MODERNA’S] CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER HAS DESCRIBED THE COMPANY’S PRODUCTS AS “HACKING THE SOFTWARE OF LIFE” AND PERMANENTLY ALTERING A PERSON’S GENETIC CODE. IF MODERNA IS POISED TO BRING THE FIRST COVID-19 VACCINE TO MARKET, A DEEPER LOOK AT HIS COMMENTS AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE WARRANTED.

    If the U.S. government tries to force the citizenry to submit to a vaccination that alters, PERMANENTLY, the vaccinated person’s genetic code, the Supreme Court — especially its “conservative” Justices (save, perhaps, the slime-bag Chief Justice Roberts) and Justices Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor — may hold the government’s attempt unconstitutional. Such official assault would invade personal integrity far more than has any previous government-forced vaccine or other U.S. government physical intrusion into the body of a citizen.

    I, myself, will endure imprisonment rather than submit to such heinous invasion of my person.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  72. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I ought to have clarified that my comment was limited to the sphere of non-criminal-law goverment action.

    Also, I owe consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200

    In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld against due process and equal protection attack a state law that provided for sexual sterilization of state-supported-institution inmates found to be “afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility.” The then-employed sterilization-methods were vasectomy and salpingectomy (surgical removal of fallopian tubes). [Buck v. Bell has suffered much severe criticism, but (astoundingly) has not been overturned.]

    Surely such sterilization is a grave assault against the victim’s physical person and against a fundamental of personal integrity. But, today, sterilization can be chemical, and reversible.

    Still, even forced vasectomy or forced salpingectomy is not extreme as would be a vaccine that altered, permanently a person’s genetic code. Such genetic alteration might affect substantially, if not the entirety of, the person’s immune-system; and the immune-system effect could produce myriad HOLISTIC influences — of organ systems, the endocrine system, the central nervous system……..because the immune-system depends on, and influences, sundry other, if not quite all other, aspects of a person’s body and biochemistry and physiology.

  73. @Loup-Bouc

    But, alas, Mr. Atzmon indulges in behavior that Mr. Shasha might dub pilpul. For, without legal training or legally useful linguistics expertise, Mr. Atzmon asserts, without any constitution-text, precedential, or historic premise, that, beyond any possibility of legitimate argument (or even cavil), the U.S. Constitution does bar the government’s requiring that all submit to being vaccinated.

    Another matter: Just exactly in what respect have Noam Chomsky’s anti-Zionist arguments been pilpul? Mr. Atzmon asserts Noam Chomsky’s anti-Zionist arguments are Zionist pilpul. But Mr. Atzmon’s assertion is mere assertion, lacking any evidence — hence, itself, pilpul.

    ding ding ding ding!!!! No one steps into hypocrisy more then Gilad. Mr. Pilpul on so many topics.
    Gilad comes up with an idea, like most of his Zionist and Jewish power ideas and engages in heavy duty Pupil to confuse people with selected facts. Most of RU’s conspiracy theories engage in the same tactics.

  74. Tony Hall says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Are Chomsky’s comments on 9/11 skepticism a representative example of pilpul? When does advocacy stoop so low that it transcends the ornamentation of sophistry, pilpullage and the like?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Druid
  75. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Alden

    America has judge created common law in which any judge can create or overturn any law he she or it wishes.

    Your assertion clashes, near-utterly, with the actual concepts, principles, and operation of common law.

    Just very rarely can common law jurisprudence support creating law or overturning law or precedent. The common law builds on precedent and almost never overturns it. Common jurisprudence allows for judicial rule-creation only where no legislative rule applies and the matter is truly one “of first impression.”

    The common law method does not overturn legislation. U.S. constitutional law, not coomon law, explains U.S. courts’ overturning legislation (holding it invalid “on its face” or “as applied”).

    The common law method requires following/respecting previous judicial constructions and interpretations of statutes. Common law courts near-never overturn previous statute-constructions or statute-interpretations.

    Those precepts derive much from the common law prnciple “stare decisis.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

  76. Awash says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Are there not policy responses that reduce the problems of principal-agent and adverse selection and make a democratic state a reasonable choice?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Kratoklastes
  77. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Tony Hall

    Your “reply” is indiscernible, or empty.

    Whatever content may be borne in the video you reference, if you believe it addresses the matter whether Chomsky uses pilpul to pretend to support a position, then YOU must show so with YOUR argument premised on pertinent evidence contained in the video and identified by you.

    • Replies: @Tony Hall
  78. @Fran Taubman

    Tx so much for the rabbinical article re Jews and the constitution.. Americans should really know where their problems begun and how deep is the occupation..

    Now, re myself and pilpul… it is more than likely that Shamir, Ron and myself, like Dershowitz and Chomsky have been subject to some Pilpul training.. … the same probably applies to Christ , Spinoza and Uriel da Costa… the difference however is that Christ, Spinoza, da Costa, Ron, Shamir and myself rebelled against this culture.

    The reason some of the greatest humanists were and are Jewish (or EX) dissenters is because before anything else, they rebelled against themselves.. against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls .. they were and are whistleblowers..the reason you are here is obviously because I blow the whistle on the culture you subscribe to …

  79. Anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curmudgeon

    c.f. the current (2020-05-20) state of the Flynn case. Same technique.

  80. Druid says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Talmud Taubman Hag has awoken again!

  81. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Ron Unz’s articles are not at issue here.

    My comment does not support your apprehension of Mr. Atzmon’s “Zionist and Jewish power ideas.”

    I did NOT render, or suggest, an opinion that could relate to whether Mr. Atzmon’s article bears instances of “hypocrisy” or whether Mr. Atzmon engages in “hypocrisy” generally, often, sometimes, or ever.

    If Mr. Atzmon decries or contemns “Jewish power ideas” (whatever that means), I might agree with him. Classical Jewish religion bears and encourages much evil, and where Jews have followed or relied manifestly upon that religion, Jews have, therefore, perpetrated much evil.

    But I do not hold that Jews are born evil (genetically evil). Of the most humane, empathic, charitable, truly good, humanity-benefitting humans, MANY have been Jews. And many Jews live ordinary lives like ordinary lives of ordinary non-Jews — lives of artists, mechanics, musicians, lawyers, physicians, office-staff, social workers, English teachers, accountants, dancers, psychologists, carpenters, plumbers……..

    Ancient Jewry included Essenes. (Jesus and John the Baptist were Essenes.) The Essene religion taught that a human must not kill, harm, enslave, or abuse any sentient creature — human or other. Essenes were vegetarians.

    Your reply suggests you suffer a bit of what you criticize in Mr. Atzmon.

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
  82. Druid says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Like you just did! You’re atrocious. Probably have no children because none in heaven wanted you as a mother!

  83. Druid says:
    @Tony Hall

    ‘I have no idea what it means”. How convenient. Such a lying hypocrite zio pos!
    Now he sounds just like a calmer version of Dershowitz. What a punk

    • Agree: Tony Hall
  84. Dumbo says:

    Hmm… I guess this explains why you can almost never engage in a serious, honest discussion about certain issues with Jews. Even if you’re well-meaning. Try discussing with a Jewish person about immigration, homosexuality, Israel, Palestine, anti-semitism, racial differences, Christianity, the Inquisition, or any other delicate theme, they will “pilpul” you to death before they give you a honest, direct answer.

  85. He can keep his panties on, but Alan should be made to submit to A) a globally televised polygraph test (e.g. Is Jeff Epstein alive? Or who had him killed? Where is Giz Maxwell now? Was their sex trafficking and black mailing ring a Mossad organization? You Israel or USA First?…), and B) blood tests for Adrenochrome/cannibalism positive.

    As for forced vaccinations it might make some sense for interstate travelers during a smallpox pandemic that has a fatality rate of >10% rather than the <0.1-0.2% with CV19. And I wonder, will those corporations, or non-profits like the Bill Gates Foundation (ha ha), be bonded against mishaps?

    p.s. An old Armenian friend once told me "They have mastered the alchemy of language." And I replied "Do you mean to say they are the supreme bullshit artists that can sell snow to the Eskimos?" To which he answered "Exactly."

  86. @Gilad Atzmon

    Tx so much for the rabbinical article re Jews and the constitution.. Americans should really know where their problems begun and how deep is the occupation..

    If anything, traditional Talmudic dogma is decidedly anathema to the protection of religious liberty embodied in the First Amendment, which is why they’re fighting tooth and nail to undermine it through Executive Order and State legislation.

    There’s a more tenable academic explanation for the origin of that cornerstone of American law, but folks like Fran aren’t really interested, seeing as how it tends to undermine the perspective that “all good things come from Jews.”

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  87. @Gilad Atzmon

    Stop with the Talmud creates deceitful people BS.
    Deceit exist everywhere in every philosophy, political structure and religion. Creating a Jewish enterprise around deceit is deceitful in itself.
    It is the basis for your J identity fiction.

  88. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Gilad Atzmon

    …[I]t is more than likely that Shamir, Ron and myself, like Dershowitz and Chomsky have been subject to some Pilpul training.. … the same probably applies to Christ , Spinoza and Uriel da Costa… the difference however is that Christ, Spinoza, da Costa, Ron, Shamir and myself rebelled against this culture.

    The reason some of the greatest humanists were and are Jewish (or EX) dissenters is because before anything else, they rebelled against themselves.. against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls….

    [Two ellipses mine. My emphasis. Loup-Bouc.]

    Your assertion, Mr. Atzmon, appears to assume that one must achieve an overarching neurotic self-loathing to attain intellectual integrity, empathic decency, and courageous honor.

    I do not see such sickness in Spinoza’s writings or those of Mr. Unz or Mr. Shamir.

    And “Christ”? I cannot estimate (or ought I say divine) the psychic structure or character of a myth.

    Jesus, however, perceived through the vision of an Essene, not a Yahweh-imprecating Jew. He did not rebel against himself, but the evil religion described most deliciously by Laurent Guyénot in his excellent Unz Review piece The Devil’s Trick: Unmasking the God of Israel, https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/

    How dispiriting the “once and future” reflex of guiltying others (or onself) “by association” (Jew-with-“Jews,” Black-with-“Negroes”……..) rather than gauging one’s quality by one’s acts.

    Oh, religion, and tribe? I am an atheist ex-patriot and contemn both human herding and all religion (even informal personal moral codes, however unique).

    A truly good man does not apprehend his goodness, and SO is good.
    A foolish man tries to be good, and SO is NOT good.

    Tao Te Ching, Chapter 38, lines 1-2 (my translation) [Tao Te Ching is philosphic, not religious. It vaporizes religion.]

    • Replies: @gaston julia
  89. lloyd says: • Website
    @Kratoklastes

    I am sure this is of no interest to Americans. That a group of smart part Maori lawyers and activists are milking the system in New Zealand on issues that may or may not be legitimate. Only smart in that environment. They never make it in a Western world of business and commerce.

  90. The funny part is how Gilad simply can’t but übers Ziel hinaus zu schießen.
    #YesAll 😉

  91. Anonymous[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @Awash

    Are there not policy responses that reduce the problems of principal-agent and adverse selection and make a democratic state a reasonable choice?

    Nope.
    Principal-Agent: There is a non-policy method that worked fairly well for quite some time — relying on “virtue”, literally “manliness” from the Latin vir (man). Basic concept was that the leader “lost his man card” if he was found to be violating a code that was not, usually, in his personal interest (e.g. leading from the front in a dangerous situation). I’d guess that it first appeared as a “warrior’s council” among the Aryans. Unfortunately, it failed badly during the World Wars (too many people died trying to keep their “man card”, and the survivors said “no more”.), and is just now (with Trump) reappearing.
    Adverse Selection: Information asymmetry is with us always, and, even worse, parties that once had superior knowledge often persist in acting as though their knowledge was superior when it is not, and lose heavily (e.g. current news media, remnants of the American Anglo-Saxon establishment in the 1960s). No real way to stop that.

    But the bigger problem is choosing “reasonable choice” as a goal. Example: The British developed their “public school” system to produce men of high virtue (in the sense above), willing to act in the public interest and risk their own lives if necessary. This worked fairly well until WW I, at which point a whole generation of these highly motivated men were killed, leaving as survivors the very lucky and the unmotivated. England never recovered, and has serious trouble in WW II with a population that largely didn’t want to re-do WW I, and so didn’t want to fight. Reality is (by definition) not described fully by abstractions, and reason relies on abstraction.

    Civilizations tend to reorganize when an previous form of organization fails. Quite often the reorganization fails also, eventually, and is succeeded by yet another reorganization — see Kyle Harper, _The Fate of Rome_, Princeton University, for a very interesting series of reorganizations by the Roman Empire to an unfavorable climate change in the late Holocene. Note that the Romans never did figure out that the climate was changing, nor did they every discover microbial life — and so never did understand the actual problems they faced.

    The example illustrates that the fundamental problem is not finding something amenable to reason, but adapting to phenomena that reason does not know exists. HBD, for example, was not understood well enough to be defended in the 1960s, yet it appears fundamental to our current difficulties as the 1960s adaptation breaks down. Since we still don’t understand HBD beyond its existence, and since the non-existence of HBD is written into law and practice of the US, our existing government and society is unable to cope with the observable effects of HBD (e.g. certain aspects of the failure of the cities).

    As with so many problems of human existence, this one goes directly into the Problem of Pain. And what we’ll get is a reorganization that minimizes current pain — same as people have always gotten, even when it meant tearing down Bronze age civilization and starting again.

  92. @AnonStarter

    Thanks for information on the Islamic – Quranic contribution to the formation of USA.

    Twenty-three plaques ring the walls of the House Chambers; they depict
    “historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law.”
    Selected by scholars, they include:
    Alfonso X, Edward I, Gaius, George Mason, Gregory IX, Hammurabi,
    Hugo Grotius, Innocent III, Jean Baptiste Colbert, Justinian I, Lycurgus, Maimonides
    Moses, Napoleon I. Papinian, Robert Joseph Pothier, Saint Louis, Simon de Montfort
    Solon, Suleiman, Thomas Jefferson, Tribonian, Sir William Blackstone

    [15 of those plaques –]

    In addition, from this presentation from the Library of Congress, we learn that Benjamin Franklin corresponded with Italian scholar Gaetano Filangieri, who composed the first compendium of “The Science of Legislation.”

    https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-5095

    Thomas Jefferson befriended Florentine wine merchant Filipo Mazzei who was invited to migrate to Albemarle County, Virginia where he established a farm adjacent to Monticello. . . .

    ” Elected to the vestry after only six months of residence in the area, Mazzei began to speak in various churches about Thomas Jefferson’s ideas on religious freedom and he signed a “petition of dissenters” that was presented to the General Assembly’s Committee on Religion. Jefferson gave Mazzei a copy of the “Rough Draught” of the Declaration of Independence, while an excerpt from Mazzei’s own “Instructions of the Freeholders of Albemarle County to their Delegates in Convention” was used by Jefferson in his attempt to institute a new state constitution.” https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/philip-mazzei

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  93. @Fran Taubman

    “I perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first Planters, whose business was not toleration but were professed enemies of it, and could leave the world professing they died no Libertines. Their business was to settle and (as much as in them lay) to secure Religion to Posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God.” – Samuel Willard, Minister, Third Church of Boston, 1681, in reply to an Anabaptist attack on Puritan state government in an “appeal to the tolerant spirit of the first settlers in Massachusetts.”

    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history . . . Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of man.” – John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America”, 1788

  94. Vojkan says:
    @Fran Taubman

    You need to work on your pilpul skills. Every time you comment, you manage to confirm the views you oppose.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  95. karel says:
    @Pheasant

    A nice detour but quite pointless if you want to cast some doubt on the accuracy of the text. The name Chomsky clearly Russian cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_(surname) was most likely assigned to people from the town of Chomsk. Chomsky means someone from Chomsk, just like the names Wiener or Prager are linked to these two cities. I do not understand why you want to spread stupid lies, which can be easily uncovered as Chomsky parents emigrated from Russia and not from Africa. Any fool can find that out.

  96. Nodwink says:

    Pilpul is the Hebrew word for “paedophile.”

    • LOL: Fuerchtegott
  97. @Kratoklastes

    Chinghis Khan did ok with Afghanistan. If the people are difficult, then genocide them – that is what a true saboteur would do.

    I’m not saying that government presents a possibility of utopia, but I would say that no government also doesn’t present that possibility.

    You can deal with the principle agent problem through semi-direct democracy, where the citizenry can reverse representative decisions, and it would help adverse selection if the citizenry could launch a by-election of their own accord, whenever the representative’s constituents felt the need to do so.

    Holmstrom’s thing sounds like asking for utopia. The problem with the state bureaucracy is that it sees its derived demand as a good, whilst it is a weight on society. It has its uses in being a regulator, and a provision of security (from destitution, to the socialist ideal).

    Regulation is going to become much more trustless with cryptotech. There are vote, warranty, guarantee coins – so the middle man becomes much less susceptible to corruption. Sure the development team must produce an unbiased tech that works, but it is all in the public sphere, and changes to the tech are public, so there is only a very limited amount of trust that needs to be placed in humans to guarantee regulation.

    Redistribution is just done wrong. Flat taxes and targeted UBIs for individual needs would remove the power of the state to decide for the individual. Taking a % of income/profit/capital-gains/inheritance and redistributing an even and universal nominal $ value to each citizen (for specific needs like food, medicine, education – all run privately) leaves the bureaucracy anaemic, without any real power. They would have to regulate industries away from monopoly where possible (not natural monopolies), but this problem exists without a state as well. It wouldn’t be Pareto efficient, but efficiency is not the only measure of successful economic policy. Universal security from destitution – enough to subsist – for each citizen offers each the chance to engage in industry to get what they want, above what they need. Very few humans are hermits or ascetics – they chase Epicureanism, hence ‘unlimited wants’.

    The issue is that when a state fails, there is war. But when there is no state, there is banditry. So rather than one big fire, there are lots of small fires. The latter, being laissez-faire, has no way of being solved. The former, requires the system of government to be limited by the Sovereign citizenry.

  98. anon[312] • Disclaimer says:

    Loup-bouc 79 is very helpful on US legal indoctrination as it gets drummed into fledgling lawyers. The exception he omits is the common law of human rights, with which US law at all levels is to come into compliance. That exception gets buried by the statist legal education in US law schools. How it works is through Constitution’s supremacy clause as interpreted by the Paquete Habana decision. The UDHR is customary international law and therefore common law, and it is directly opposed to much US law at all levels.

    The Federalist Society fights human rights law tooth and nail as “treaty law,” so most lawyers never hear a word about it. They fixate on the Charming Betsy “canon,” a string of legal nonsense puked out by hack judges to maintain arbitrary rule. Or they parrot some cant about non self-executing treaties that was dreamed up in wilful ignorance of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

    To hear a legal expert from a grown-up country teach US legal hacks law, start watching at 2:28

    http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/hrctte-110-session-united-states/

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  99. @SolontoCroesus

    Oh but it is so much worse for poor Annonstarter and the Muslim contributions to the US, then he can imagine. Thomas Jefferson was the first US president to declare war on Islam. The Barbary Wars (1801–1805). The Jihadist oh I am sorry the Pirates would hold American crews for ransom. And guess what the Tripoli Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman had to say on the subject.
    You will never guess or maybe you will. Muslims are allowed to ransom, plunder and enslave non muslims (infidels) and they will go to paradise. Sound familiar AS? I know you are out there. Nothing much has changed. Same Islam different century.

    In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
    It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise). He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.[22]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_census_of_1931

    https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-wa

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  100. @Vojkan

    I consider that a great compliment. Thank you. I present my honest opinion free of artifice and manipulation to promote my point of view. I say what I believe to be factual. If you do not agree with my viewpoint then you have understood it to oppose it, rather then opposing a fake argument designed to confuse you.

  101. @Loup-Bouc

    one must achieve an overarching neurotic self-loathing to attain intellectual integrity . .

    this is an obvious misinterpretation Gilad’s statement:

    they rebelled against themselves . . against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls . .

    Why? Just to deliver a quote from the Tao te Ching? Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing Gilad is writing about – i.e.,

    A common criticism [of pilpul] is that those who used this method were often motivated by the prospect of impressing others with the sophistication of their analysis . .

    (from the wikipedia entry)?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  102. @Pheasant

    Where did you get that idea? He actually is Ashkenazi; his father and mother were from the Russian Empire and Belarus respectively. And he himself was born in Philadelphia.

    Facts, please. Or at least cite evidence.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  103. @Colin Wright

    I’m not getting a really good sense of what pilpul is, in the specific sense of its method. If it’s rhetorical distraction, that should be easy enough to cut through with logical argument, facts, and wit. If it’s hair splitting, that should be easy enough to dismiss by establishing clear distinctions and showing that the hair splitting is irrelevant. If it’s appeals to emotion, that’s classical rhetoric. If it’s ad hominems, inflammatory rhetoric, and screaming, there’s no good reason to be intimidated by that. (Though I’ll concede the point that the anti-Semitism smear has derailed many a talented person’s career; however, there are counterarguments that can be used there, too.)

    I suppose it seems to me that pilpul is just poor legal argumentation (when it is about the law) and that one of the unfortunate facts of our society is that lawyers can bend the law to mean anything they want it to mean as long as they get enough judges to go along with them; and now with Republicans packing the courts with unqualified stooges and ideologues, that becomes easier and easier. Is this Jewish influence? Is that your point?

    But what about all the crazy legal reasoning successfully advanced during the 19th century?

    Not trying to be argumentative here.

    • Thanks: Loup-Bouc
    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @Dube
    , @Loup-Bouc
  104. Loup-Bouc says:
    @anon

    I intend that this reply-comment not join issue with any argument concerning the (Benthamian) utility or ethical morality — or goodness or evil — of the common law, its precepts, operations, philosophy, or practical effects.

    I mean that this reply comment address only certain discrete assertions of your comment.

    [MORE]

    (1)

    The UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] is customary international law and therefore common law….

    Customary law is not common law. It is a form of statutory law. Its operation depends upon the jurisprudence of the nation or nations that purport to apply it. In a “Civil Law” nation (like France), the UDHR’s application is not affected by stare decisis — at least not formally or avowedly.

    In the United States, stare decisis limits interpretation/application of the UDHR — ordinarily. But that limitation, itself, suffers the practical limitation of foreign policy and imperatives or practicalities of how the United States government and its corporate constitutents perceives it must interact with other nations to pursuye its (greedy, evil) interests.

    (2)

    How it works is through Constitution’s supremacy clause….

    The Supremacy Clause does not require, impose, dislodge, limit, or nullify common law jurisprudence. It operates (theoretically) only to limit the ambit of operation of the laws of the “several states” of the United States. It sets a federal constitutional imperative that federal law take precedence over state laws where the federal constitution entrusts governmental functions exclusively to the federal government — e.g., in the field of interstate or international “commerce.” It does not dictate that the several states adhere to or abandon common law in legal fields not committed exclusively to the federal government.

    (3)

    …the Paquete Habana decision….

    In the U.S. Supreme Court case The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), the Court graced the reader with a nice statement of the mostly “conflict of laws” jurisprudence that it would treat as one of the case’s governing principles:

    International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.

    175 US at page 700.

    That statement operates only if a justiciable issue is one of international law or one to which international law must apply, at least partly. That statement means:

    (a) If the federal governmnet has entered a treaty that the court holds applicable to a justiciable issue, such treaty will govern; and, then, if that treaty has been applied to a similar issue in another case, that application will control decision in the current case if the similar issue is similar enough. Such is merely an application of stare decisis.

    (b) If the court holds that no U.S. treaty applies, the next question is whether a federal statute or resolution or federal executive act applies, with federal constitutional validity. If so, then such federal law will be applied subject to stare decisis.

    (c) If neither U.S. treaty nor federal law can apply, constitutionally, then the court must seek to ascertain what “customs…[or] usages of civilized nations” may bear (more or less) imperatively on the issue. If the court finds such “custom” or “usage” that applies so, then the court may decide the issue accordingly.

    At such point, the court will determine whether to apply the “custom” or “usage” as it has been applied by (i) a federal court of the United States or, rather, (ii) by a court of another nation or courts of more than one other nation. Here, if (ii) will be the context, the question can be whether the U.S. court shall decide the matter quite as the other nation(s) court(s) would; and that question is very interesting because it subsumes the question whether the U.S. federal court will use, e.g., a civil law decisional method, rather than a common law one.

    If the U.S. federal court deems controlling the decisional method of England or another one-time British empire or British commonwealth nation whose courts use common law method, then the U.S. court will use that method, so that the decisional process will be, effectively, that of the U.S., itself. If the deemed-controlling method is, e.g., civil law, the U.S. court will endeavor to apply such method, often with the aid of a legal expert of the other nation.

    The federal constitution does NOT mandate common law process. And, among the several states of the U.S. one (Louisiana) is largely a civil law jurisdiction. A few other states are partly civil law/partly common law jurisdictions.

    United States common law method does not deter or advance “Human Rights Law.” Rather, federal treaties, federal legislation or manifest federal executive policy may limit or thwart a U.S. court’s possible “humane” inclination. Perhaps worse, judicial doctrine and U.S. Constitution Article III can render an issue nonjusticiable, e.g., because a court feels the issue is a “political question” committed to one or both of the two “political” branches.

    (4)

    Or they parrot some cant about non self-executing treaties that was dreamed up in wilful ignorance of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

    The Vienna Convention is merely that— a convention. It is not some super law of some super-jurisdiction that governs the world— at least so long as the human world is divided into a loose batch of separate (if not “sovereign”) nations. Each Convention “signatory” or “member” ought endeavor to fit its possibly extraterritorially-effective actions to an honorable reading of the Convention’s terms. But who or what can, conscientiously, claim to be the final arbiter of whether any nation has fit its possibly extraterritorially-effective actions so?

    (5)

    That exception gets buried by the statist legal education in US law schools.

    For 26 years, I was a member of law school faculties (for 23 years a tendured full professor of law). The schools included (but were not only) Washington University at St. Louis, Rutgers University, and La Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Montpellier, en France.

    I neither engaged in nor witnessed “statist legal education” in the U.S. law faculties of which I was a member (though I did witness much poor teaching, rote teaching, pretenses of Socratic-method education, education that taught students to believe law is not a result of too-oft-disingenuous word-games played with indeterminate ambiguities the players convince stupid people to believe clear-as-the-players claim. La Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Montpellier was the worst harbor of such miseducation — much because of the slide-rule-like decisional method of French courts.

  105. @Stochastic Determinist

    Yeah pilpul has been going on since the beginning of time, without a Jew or the Talmud in site.

  106. Loup-Bouc says:
    @anon

    I need to correct typing/editing errors of the reply I posted about 20 minutes ago (May 20, 2020 at 9:09 pm GMT).

    [MORE]

    The errors (including two significant errors) are here:

    Customary law is not common law. It is a form of statutory law. Its operation depends upon the jurisprudence of the nation or nations that purport to apply it. In a “Civil Law” nation (like France), the UDHR’s application is not affected by stare decisis — at least not formally or avowedly.

    In the United States, stare decisis limits interpretation/application of the UDHR — ordinarily. But that limitation, itself, suffers the practical limitation of foreign policy and imperatives or practicalities of how the United States government and its corporate constitutents perceives it must interact with other nations to pursuye its (greedy, evil) interests.

    The corrected text (corrections appearing with bold-face type):

    Customary law is not common law. It is, often, a form of statutory law. Its operation depends upon the jurisprudence of the nation or nations that purport to apply it. In a “Civil Law” nation (like France), the UDHR’s application is not affected by stare decisis — at least not formally or avowedly.

    In the United States, stare decisis limits interpretation/application of the UDHR — ordinarily. But that limitation, itself, suffers the practical limitation of foreign policy and imperatives or practicalities of how the United States government and its corporate constitutents perceive the U.S. must interact with other nations to pursue its (greedy, evil) interests.

    Please accept my apology.

  107. @Awash

    Are there not policy responses that reduce the problems of principal-agent and adverse selection and make a democratic state a reasonable choice?

    Policy responses are unlikely to work because of the nature of the problem[s].

    To implement a policy that attempts to fix the principal-agent problem, requires the [self-interested] agents to implement new constraints on their own behaviour (because it’s them that frame and pass legislation).

    Let’s say that they do implement and pass a ‘fix’, and that the ‘fix’ works and passes cost-benefit analysis.

    Now there’s the problem of keeping it in place and preventing it from being ‘unpicked’ by some other part of the bureaucracy – or simply being ignored by the government when it suits them.

    The history of the US Bill of Rights (and particularly the 10th Amendment) is instructive here. The Jefferson ‘wing’ sought to restrict the probability of federal encroachment on state (and individual) powers: the 10th is an attempt to codify that. It’s been a dead letter since 1861 at the very latest.

    As for the adverse selection problem – for roughly the same reason: it requires a mechanism that causes ‘bad’ people to voluntarily abstain from competition for political office. These are people who are extremely highly motivated by political power, and who have a comparative advantage in electoral contests because of their willingness to bullshit (in the Frankfurterian sense).

    Making politics less profitable might de-select the sociopaths.

    I’ve said this before – if you want to test politicians’ claims that they are motivated by ‘public service’, do the following:
     • reduce political salaries to, say, 120% of average household income; and
     • require open financial records for officeholders and their families; and
     • introduce a no-appeal death penalty for corruption.

    That would cause the majority of human tapeworms to stay in their second-tier law firms. The foreseeable problem is that a group of highly-organised True Believers (who would fill the void at the price) might be as bad: “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive” as C.S. Lewis sagely wrote.

    .

    [MORE]

    I am a voluntaryist, mostly because [coercive] states cannot do what they claim is their objective (usually some variant of “enhance the general welfare“). The fact that the wrong type of people seek and acquire ‘democratic’ political power is relevant, but secondary.

    Even if all political aspirants were as pure as the driven snow, and all bureaucrats and policy-formulators were 3σ geniuses… they could not identify the correct ‘target’ on a single policy of non-trivial complexity. By ‘correct’ I mean a policy that ‘fixes’ a public goods problem without imposing costs greater than the benefits.

    That’s not their fault: you can’t blame people for being unable to do the impossible.

    But put the ‘wrong’ people in charge, and the problem gets much worse – because they don’t care if they can’t do what they claim. They will do stuff that is net-negative (for society) so long as they can get away with it.

    Government intervention reliably causes more damage than it fixes: the general equilibrium consequences of some apparently-trivial intervention are very uncertain (including the sign of the net society-wide effect), and an honest policy analyst would say so.

    .

    If there is to be some ‘representative’ body, the best way to obtain it is by random selection without replacement, with the death penalty for corruption for a decade after holding office.

    This would yield a political class that had ‘average’ characteristics – which sounds like a bad thing at first… having government run by people of average intelligence sounds like a terrible idea.

    The upside is that they would have average sociopathy, average corruptibility, and average megalomania – taken together, reducing those characteristics more than offsets a lack of cognitive grunt. (Besides, a parliament with the same average IQ as society would be in constant gridlock).

    Sortition with short term limits (1 year) and long-tailed tests for corruption, would mean that all political offices would be occupied by people who would behave like last-term independents.

    Better still: no officeholder would have to violate his conscience in order to stay in favour with his Party, because Parties wouldn’t exist.

    Jefferson’s thoughts on parties are interesting: he views them as natural (dividing on principle, with the “weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt” favouring strong executive govenment), but he did not foresee that all parties will eventually be captured by Jobbers.

    Modern political parties are candidature-rationing devices: to become a candidate for a Party that has a non-zero chance of success, an aspirant must prove himself useful to the Party first. And of course the ‘behind the scenes’ people in Party hierarchies are as bad as the ‘front men’.

    Parties are also centralised grift agencies: to buy a policy, a corrupt individual only has to bribe the party – who will, in turn, ‘whip’ its politicians into conformity with the desires of the ‘donor’. If it was necessary to bribe each politician individually, with no guarantee they would honour the bribe… even Sheldon Adelson would have a hard time of it.

    Again, this feature of parties is not amenable to change-from-within: it would require one major party to self-correct, which would be political suicide (and would just cause another unscrupulous party to replace it).

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  108. @Fran Taubman

    After reading a number of AnonStarter’s comments it’s hard not to notice and admire that he/she never loses calm, never responds sarcastically.

    “Using Sarcasm is like watering a rose with vinegar.”

    Better to say nothing.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @AnonStarter
  109. @SolontoCroesus

    No he just tells me that I am not really a Jew I am a Khazar. I am a fake and do not have any rights to the land of my ancestors because they are not really my ancestors. Also that Judaism is a corrupt faith, and that Islam is the only true religion. Jews are condemned to be cartoon like evil people.
    Tell me Solonto Is that sarcastic? Gosh I just don’t know. And you have never been sarcastic hey SC?

  110. Loup-Bouc says:
    @gaston julia

    this is an obvious misinterpretation Gilad’s statement

    This situation is rather droll.

    You assert that obviously I misinterpreted Mr. Atzmon’s assertion: “they rebelled against themselves . . against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls.”

    I would grant that an honorable reader might deem Mr. Atzmon’s assertion somewhat ambiguous. The clause “they rebelled against themselves” is essentially unambiguous, just linguistically. But a competent psychoanalyst or characteranalytic psychiatrist would question why they turned aggression “inward” (one might say “auto-aggressed,” as if the act paralleled an autoimmune attack).

    The initial assertion (“rebelled against themselves”) may seem to absorb ambiguity from the dependent clause “against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls.” But a psychoanalyst or characteranalytic psychiatrist would question whether that dependent clause reflects the person’s unconscious or subconscious perception, belief, or judgment that his psychic being is a creature of “untruthfulness and anti logos” — so that, for Mr. Atzmon, “rebelled against themselves” connotes a pseudo-suicidal feeling that derives from his (Mr. Atzmon’s) “overarching” feeling that he is loathsome.

    My view is that you misperceive Mr. Atzmon’s assertion and that your misperception is “obvious” as you think (or want or are psychically compelled to think) that my interpretation is an “obvious” “pilpul.”

    An interesting fact is that you do not explain your assertion that my “pilpul” is “obvious” — but, rather, you simply assert your assertion that my interpretation is an “obvious” “pilpul.” Is not such method— YOUR method— exactly the essence of pilpul.

    I confess that my interpretation (of Mr. Atzmon’s statement) drew some impetus from my having read other Atzmon articles that show dramatically his psyche’s being stuck in self-loathing for being a Jew and a consequent need of struggling to demonstrate that no Jew can free himself from the evil of being a Jew: in Mr. Atzmon’s sad perception, if a Jew is an atheist who spends his life in truly honorably charitable work, that Jew remains tainted by being a particle of the Tribe of Judah. See, e.g., Gilad Atzmon, My Struggle, Unz Review (20 February 2020), https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/my-struggle/

    An interesting question: Why did Mr. Atzmon choose to give that article a title (“My Struggle”) that, translated into German, is Mein Kamph.

    You wrote:

    Just to deliver a quote from the Tao te Ching? Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing Gilad is writing about – i.e.,

    A common criticism [of pilpul] is that those who used this method were often motivated by the prospect of impressing others with the sophistication of their analysis . .

    How blithely you presume to know that I quoted Tao Te Ching not simply for reason of its pertinence but for narcissistic motive.

    I quoted the first two lines of Tao Te Ching Chapter 38 because those lines expose part of the phychic trouble that Mr. Atzmon suffers — a trouble that inflicts you, too, a trouble one symptom of which is “pilpul.”

    Perhaps you may begin to sight that trouble (albeit darkly) if I quote also a few other lines of Chapeter 38 of Tao Te Ching (still my translation, which I note because others have read the text a bit differently and I cannot claim final, even any, authority):

    A truly good man does not apprehend his goodness, and SO is good.
    A foolish man tries to be good, and SO is NOT good.

    A truly good man does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone.
    A foolish man is always doing, yet leaves much unfinished, even unattended.
    When a truly good man does something, all is complete.
    When a just man does something, he leaves much needing to be begun.
    When a disciplinarian does something & no one responds, he grinds his teeth and tries to enforce order.

    When Tao is lost, goodness does not exist.
    When goodness is lost, kindness begins.
    When kindness is lost, justice begins.
    When justice is lost, ritual begins.
    Ritual is the husk of faith & loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  111. @Loup-Bouc

    Ancient Jewry included Essenes. (Jesus and John the Baptist were Essenes.)

    Were the Essenes viewed as ‘mainstream’ tho?

    They didn’t perform animal sacrifice, and they referred to other extant variants of Judaism as “covenant-breakers”.

    From what I’ve read, they seem fairly Athenian (in ethical outlook), except for the genital mutilation which the Greeks rightly thought was fucktarded (they invented epispasm to fix it).

    Epiphanius says the Essenes were Samaritan, and distinguished the Samaritans from “Seven Jewish sects as follows: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, Ossaeans, Nasaraeans, Herodians” (Panarion, Proem I 5:3); “Jewish” seems to indicate sects from outside Samaria. Given the antipathy between “Jews” and “Samaritans”, it’s unlikely that the Pharisees or Sadduccees would have considered Essenes as anything other than apostates.

    Elsewhere in Panarion (Anacephalaeosis I 12:1) Epiphanus says that Essence got along with other Samaritans, although they are described as not hassling Jews who passed through Samaria (in contrast to other Samaritans). The Samaritans supposedly differed from “Jews” as understood, in that they had not changed their ritual practices in the way Jews had – which is weird since the Essenes didn’t do sacrifices which is a pretty obvious change – but the Sebuaeans changed ritual dates to piss everyone off.

    Essenes seem to have been about as rare as a bacon sandwich in a synagogue, or an anti-Zionist in a West Bank shtetl-ment.

    Philo says there were only a few thousand – see Philo, Περι του παντα σπουδαιον ειναι ελευθερον (“All Good Men Are Free”) 75.

    • Thanks: Loup-Bouc
  112. @Loup-Bouc

    But a psychoanalyst or characteranalytic psychiatrist would…

    … be a charlatan, because psycho[logy|metrics|iatry|analysis] are pseudoscience that produce worse outcomes than a coin toss: they are little better than intercessionary prayer.

    FIFYA.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  113. Tony Hall says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I asked two questions without preconceived answers in mind. Its not altogether clear to me what pilpul is frankly. Would another way to say it be… bullshit baffles brains.

    I made a longer more fully argued comment about Gilad’s essay in # 30. It starts with Dershowitz as the lawyer for both Gates and Epstein. I’d appreciate some argumentative response there.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @Loup-Bouc
  114. @Tony Hall

    You sound like a mentally deranged person. Who is going to respond to that. Your AI polemic is registration for a straight jacket. Try writing Sci Fyi, or dystopian horror stories.

    • Replies: @TheTrumanShow
  115. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Seriously Nonny you would not know Pilpul if it whooped you on the head. As anyone observing your “what is a Jew comments” and “where did yiddish come from” as you parse out what happened with a derivative of the letter “Y” in 500 BC. Like you really know.

    Two of my favorite idiotic Nonny Nunny

    Agreed that Talmudic Jews are not Israelites, have no Hebrew ancestry. Yes, mostly of Karaite ancestry but also the result of aggressive pre-Talmudic Pharisaic proselytizing all over the Hellenistic world that ultimately stretched from the Atlantic to the Indus Valley.

    The reality is that just as there are many Jews (of which group you may be a member) who knowingly would choose Satan over serving Christ and Christendom, there are many Protestants (and Moslems) who likewise knowingly would choose Satan over serving Christ and Christendom.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  116. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Kratoklastes

    (1) I do not know the meaning of FIFYA, and I do not incline to search for meanings of such internet-drivel-language.

    (2) You prove nothing by deranging language like this: “psycho[logy|metrics|iatry|analysis].”

    (3) Neither I nor any competent psychoanalytic or characteranalytic psychiatrist would claim that such professionals engage in exact science. That matter is a junk point.

    The question is whether often such professionals help patients resolve their emotionally painful or function-impairing psychic ills, partly or materially by psychoanalytic or characteranalytic method. Quite enough evidence indicates the affirmative.

    (4) In the case I addressed in two or three earlier comments (Mr. Atzmon’s case), the special matter was whether (painful) psychic illness explains Mr. Atzmon’s rabid anti-Jewish campaign against his own (at least genetic) Jewish heritage and, thence, against himself and, coordinately, against the Jewish heritage (seemingly against even the persons) of others.

    In my first comment posted respecting this Atzmon article (“Pilpul for Beginners”), I acknowledged that classical Jewish religion reflects, supports, produces, and furthers evil— an expression that intersects (but does not equal) Mr. Atzmon’s rabid anti-Jewish antagonism. Mr. Atzmon appears to have convinced himself that a Jew cannot free himself from material influence of the evil of Yahweh’s domain, unless he fights himself nearly to psychic death. Again I reference, e.g., Gilad Atzmon, My Struggle, Unz Review (20 February 2020), https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/my-struggle/

    (5) I am not a Jew or “Caucasian,” but of Finno-Ugric descent; and, as I stated earlier, I am an atheist and contemn all religion (even informal personal moral codes, however unique).

    • Replies: @Tony Hall
  117. Tony Hall says:
    @Gilad Atzmon

    The amazing story of Jewish influence on the founding fathers of American democracy.

    The creation of the United States of America represented a unique event in world history – founded as a modern republic, it was rooted in the Bible, and one of its earliest tenets was religious tolerance.

    This is because many of the earliest pilgrims who settled the “New England” of America in early 17th century were Puritan refugees escaping religious persecutions in Europe.

    These Puritans viewed their emigration from England as a virtual re-enactment of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. To them, England was Egypt, the king was Pharaoh, the Atlantic Ocean was the Red Sea, America was the Land of Israel, and the Indians were the ancient Canaanites. They were the new Israelites, entering into a new covenant with God in a new Promised Land.

    Thanksgiving ― first celebrated in 1621, a year after the Mayflower landed ― was initially conceived as a day parallel to the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur; it was to be a day of fasting, introspection and prayer.

    Writes Gabriel Sivan in The Bible and Civilization (p. 236):

    “No Christian community in history identified more with the People of the Book than did the early settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed their own lives to be a literal reenactment of the Biblical drama of the Hebrew nation… these émigré Puritans dramatized their own situation as the righteous remnant of the Church corrupted by the ‘Babylonian woe,’ and saw themselves as instruments of Divine Providence, a people chosen to build their new commonwealth on the Covenant entered into at Mount Sinai.”

    https://www.aish.com/jl/48955806.html

    Like you Gilad, I too found considerable value in Fran Taubman’s citation about the founders of New England as self-identifying Old Testament Israelites. There is a very large literature behind Fran’s reference to “History Crash Course #55.” This literature about the early perceptions of “America” as the “New Jerusalem” backs up the general outlines of Fran’s Internet link. New England’s Puritan founders had company in the way they read themselves into the Old Testament. In fact the Dutch Reform settlers in South Africa and the Protestant colonists in Ulster also saw themselves as Israelites repressing Indigenous peoples in fulfilment of God’s instructions to genocide the Canaanites. See, for instance, Donald Akenson, God’s People: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel and Ulster.

    Long before the United States was founded on a Declaration of Independence that characterized Indigenous peoples as “merciless Indian savages,” New England settlers set in motion a stream of ideas and actions that infused the US national theology of a Manifest Destiny. This expansionary ethos today goes by the name of US “exceptionalism.” As Fran indicates, the oversized US role in the world has significant roots in Yahweh’s Biblical directive to his chosen tribe to take possession of the Promised Land by eliminating Canaanites.

    Flash forward almost four hundreds years after the Puritan founding of New England. The same cycles of self-understanding set in motion with the creation of Massachusetts continue to inform the US-Israeli connection. A trajectory of continuity in this connection runs through the “Trail of Tears” Indian removal policies implemented initially by President Andrew Jackson, Trump’s patron President. The Trail of Tears initiated in the 1830s is being extended and renewed to now prevail in Israel/Palestine. The treatment once meted out to the Native American “Canaanites” is being revisited in an ongoing Trail of Tears now directed at removing the indigenous Palestinians to make way for the unrelenting frontier expansion of Eretz Israel.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  118. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Tony Hall

    I had not read your comment # 30 when I replied to you earlier.

    Ultimately and in much detail, you position comports with mine concerning Dershowitz — and Gates. Dershowitz and Gates are, themselves, virulent slime that, per certain other, earlier-epoch sociopolitical/governmental structures, might suffer appropriate antiviral/antitoxin removal of themselves or their influence.

    Gate’s African maladventures are clearly (and even technically) quite criminal. I lack information sufficient to premise tenable comment concerning whether Dershowitz has committed crimes.

    But, unfortunately, Dershowitz’s constitutional law assertion enjoys substantial support of a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Please see my comments ## 70, 71, and 72. Earlier, I mused through a few gaps of that support’s possible Covid-19 vaccine application. Again, please see my comments ## 70, 71, and 72.

    Still, I cannot divine the significance of your comment to which I replied earlier. Sorry.

  119. Tony Hall says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I am not a Jew or “Caucasian,” but of Finno-Ugric descent.

    So are you Finnish or Magyar (Hungarian)? What White folk in your view count as “Caucasian” and what White folk don’t?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  120. Dube says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    I’m not getting a really good sense of what pilpul is, in the specific sense of its method. If it’s rhetorical distraction, that should be easy enough to cut through with logical argument, facts, and wit. If it’s hair splitting, that should be easy enough to dismiss by establishing clear distinctions and showing that the hair splitting is irrelevant. If it’s appeals to emotion, that’s classical rhetoric. If it’s ad hominems, inflammatory rhetoric, and screaming, there’s no good reason to be intimidated by that.

    Keenly noted. You amplify a reservation expressed above briefly by Reg Caesar in #26. I let pass a response without posting that Gilad Atzmon’s remarks need the reading of the referenced article by David Shasha, but I agree that neither offers a sufficient explanation of method, such as used to be practiced for its own sake at pilpul contests among Jews in Poland. If red herring is intended, well, call it sport at best perhaps, but if relevant distinctions are being exercised, how admirable an activity. I have seen the term pilpul defined without pejorative intent as “Jewish critical thinking.” Why it would be particularly Jewish seems to be founded in particular cultural motives.

    So in terms of logic, nothing new. I bet that you’ve read in Plato’s Phaedrus the following by Socrates, stating two principles of composition, by analogy and disanalogy, and certainly not for any purpose of misdirection.

    Socrates: First, the comprehension of scattered particulars in one idea; … The second principle is that of division into species according to the natural formation, where the joint exists, not breaking any part as a bad carver might. … I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization; they help me to speak and to think. And if I find any man who is able to see “a One and Many” in nature, him I follow, and “walk in his footsteps as if he were a god.” And those who have this art, I have hitherto been in the habit of calling dialecticians; but God knows whether the name is right or not.

    • Thanks: Loup-Bouc
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  121. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Tony Hall

    (1) My ethnic heritage: Estonian, Turkic Khazar, Magyar. Likely some other ethnicity or ethnicities, too, because of the complexities and frequent violence, even sexual violence, of various pertinent east-to-west migrations occurring across the Urasian steppes and into Central Europe from the 4th century CE through the 10th century CE.

    (2) “Caucasian” versus non-“Caucasian”: I must decline to answer because an adequate answer would consume perhaps 2500 to 3000 words.

  122. @Tony Hall

    The Trail of Tears initiated in the 1830s is being extended and renewed to now prevail in Israel/Palestine. The treatment once meted out to the Native American “Canaanites” is being revisited in an ongoing Trail of Tears now directed at removing the indigenous Palestinians to make way for the unrelenting frontier expansion of Eretz Israel.

    The Jews are the native indigenous inhabitants of Eretz Israel. The Muslim conquerors who eventually ruled over Arabia and the Jews, was the original apartheid. The Jews paid heavy taxes to their Muslim overlords. Bared from government positions etc.

    You are so hopelessly lost in your Jew hatred you search for crimes to blame Jews on. Even for an ardent Jew hater it is a real reach to blame the Native American loss of land and rights on the Jews.
    Were the Jews responsible for the Australian indigenous natives? New Zealand indigenous natives? How about the Spanish conquest of South America.
    You are a bat shit Jew hater.

    • Disagree: thotmonger, ivan
  123. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    I rendered “thanks” to you for your comment.

    But also I must observe that if you read David Shasha’s piece again, slower, more scrupulously, even aloud to yourself, you may find a sensible, logical, utile meaning of “pilpul,” distinct from other rhetorical techniques, even distinct from the sophistry of unscrupulous Jesuits and other casuistry practitioners (like U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and also, for different reasons, the “liberal” U.S. Supreme Court Justices, some “liberal” judges of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and some “liberal” judges of federal District Courts set within the 9th Circuit — e.g., those who opposed Trump’s “travel bans”).

    I do not support Trump’s travel bans or even a snippet else of what Trump has done (his immigration control measures being an exception). My point is that “pilpul is a discrete rhetorical method and that, e.g., even Christian “scholars” and numerous jurists have used “pilpul” to pursue wrongful or improper ends.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
  124. @Kratoklastes

    Kratoklastes, I’ve been blown away by your erudition. And that of one or two others here. A little mouse like me is not in the same league. But I’ve several times in my simplistic way attempted to express what looks to me like your key point.

    If there is to be some ‘representative’ body the best way to obtain it is by random selection

    with no second term. Yes. And some means of detecting and punishing corruption among the legislature created in that way. Yes. Would have the advantages you mention. No lobbyists.

    But I would say sortition for a term of 12 years, not one, with a small proportion of the legislature selected in that way every year or every three or four years. Yes, no second term. But those chosen at random from the general population would need time to learn their new role and be good at it. Surrounded by others well into their 12-year terms, experienced in that role, they would soon learn.

    The disadvantage is that that is not a brief holiday from one’s normal career. Pay them the same salary for a further year after end of term. And give them the right to decline to take the role.

  125. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Dube

    See my comment replying to Stochastic Determinist, comment # 123.

  126. @Loup-Bouc

    ‘And many Jews live ordinary lives like ordinary lives of ordinary non-Jews — lives of artists, mechanics, musicians, lawyers, physicians, office-staff, social workers, English teachers, accountants, dancers, psychologists, carpenters, plumbers……..’

    Perhaps not so often mechanics, carpenters, plumbers…

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  127. @Fran Taubman

    That last quote is not by me, Fran. I saw it, thought it was a response to me. Maybe it was you.

    Regards,
    Nonny

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  128. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Colin Wright

    When I attended law school (during my 29th through 31st years), I worked summers for a house carpenter, who was Jewish. His wife, a Jew, did secretarial work.

    My house-carpenter boss had two brothers, one a tool and die maker, the other an electroplater. The tool-and-die-maker’s wife, also Jewish, was a waitress. She and her tool-and-die-maker husband moonlighted as a dance-team.

    My carpenter boss’s father was a welder and metal-worker. He repaired the frame of my CZ 360 cc motocross bike.

    I dined twice with my boss’s extended family. They behaved like ordinary Gentile working-class folk.

    In 1963, when I was 23 and had abandoned a serious-music-composition career, a steam-fitter/plumber hired me to apprentice for him. He, a Jew, had immigrated from Germany a half-year before Hitler’s forces invaded Czechoslovakia. His Jewish wife was a Gentile physician’s daytime housekeeper.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  129. @SolontoCroesus

    After reading a number of AnonStarter’s comments it’s hard not to notice and admire that he/she never loses calm, never responds sarcastically.

    Full disclosure: I’m a he.

    I appreciate your comment, S2C, though I cannot honestly profess to be infallible in this respect, as I have, on more than one occasion, used sarcasm.

    But you’ve provided wise counsel that I must consider, and for that I’m very grateful. Fran is in my ignore filter, so not responding to her comes rather easily these days.

    • Replies: @TheTrumanShow
  130. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    I copied them from your archive.

  131. @Fran Taubman

    @ “Your AI polemic is registration for a straight jacket.” Yes, indeed, on par with questioning the Holocaust Hoax.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  132. @AnonStarter

    “Listen much; speak little; and act well.” should not preclude sarcasm.

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
  133. If Dershowitz wants to stay safe, he gets vaccinated and Gilad can take his chances without one. A vaccinated Dershowitz should not fear an infected Gilad.
    If your kid is vaccinated, why do you require the whole kindergarten vaccinated?

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  134. @TheTrumanShow

    Not at all Holocaust deniers are either Jew haters or very pro Hitler and NS, they may be someone delusional but far from straight jacket material.
    Those accusing the deep state of implanting us with biological interfaces.

    Dershowitz’s argument points us to a very sinister place. One aspect of the horrific scenario being promoted by some very powerful interests would be to fill human beings with biodigital interfaces, with nanotechnology that would connect us more fully to the rein of Artificial Intelligence. The contest to win the battle for control of AI has become a major part of the US-China hybrid warfare which is already well underway.

    This above is a bonafide loony tunes conspiracy gimmick.

  135. @Kratoklastes

    I did some of this at uni, but it’s only a shibboleth if you are trying to build a utopia without unanimous consent.

    Letting the citizenry vote on what laws they don’t want to be subjected to through their representatives – where is the tyranny? Sure, imperfection in an imperfect world, but the aim is to get agreement, not the optimum. Only monkeys pick bottoms, as they say in the trading arcade!

    I don’t care much for game theory btw, because it keeps to individualistic utility. What if I feel I benefit from the other benefiting?

  136. @Fran Taubman

    Not at all Holocaust deniers are either Jew haters or very pro Hitler and NS

    Or we want direct evidence, of the type that would produce a ‘guilty’ sentence in a modern court of law?

    There is no motive to kill Jews for a nation against walls, but using their slave labour makes a lot of sense. There are plans to use slave labour for producing war materials.

    There are no bodies, not even bones of the cremated. There are not enough coal shipments to cremate that many.

    HCN is a mental substance, the idea it was used in cold, wet, pre late 20th century tech facilities on a mass scale, is laughable.

    There is no documentary evidence tying the German state to any murder of Jews.

    There is hearsay. But this does not stand up in a court of law for a murder trial, how much less so should it for a genocide trial?

    I don’t doubt that members of the German state, and society at large, perpetrated crimes against Jews. Jews didn’t help themselves with their BDS of Germany though either.

    I don’t doubt many died as the war was being lost, from abandonment by the German state for the higher priority of defending Germany/Berlin.

    I don’t doubt many who survived that, died in long marches, not unlike the Germans who were forced to flee from Eastern Prussia after WWI.

    I don’t doubt that the communists of Russia didn’t look kindly on any of these people either – Jewish but German? Russians and Germans have had a grudge match for a millennium, so what is it to them if there is an * to the German, declaring themselves only a Jew?!

    War is war. There were no skin lanterns, no soap made of Jews. There were prisoner orchestras, and maternity wards for prisoners.. Not exactly how one would treat ‘cockroaches’ doomed to extermination.

    Honestly – to kill a million cheaply, quietly, simply. Build a rail track to the top of a deep ravine, surround it in smooth concrete walls (100x100x100 meters?), stop the trains over the 5 sided box, and tilt the carriage. Done.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  137. @Rev. Spooner

    If your kid is vaccinated, why do you require the whole kindergarten vaccinated?

    I can envision a movie script in which that’s the last anyone at UR ever heard of you.

  138. @Fran Taubman

    they may be someone delusional

    Delusional would be taking a picture of living people in the woods (massively retouched, but forget that) and from it extrapolating evidence that millions of Jews were slaughtered per the $Holocoaster.

    Uh… damn. Just remembered that was you. How do I delete this comment?

    You’re melting! You’re melting!

  139. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    Please see my comment # 139, which addresses the matter of how many Ashkenazi and Sephardi are not Hebraic (not of Judaic “Jewish” stock).

  140. @Ilya G Poimandres

    I hope you have your calculator ready. Lets just deal with the country of Poland. Poland did a census in 1931. A detailed census by faith, by language etc. There are 10 pages of data. If you look below. There were 3,113,933 Jews living in Poland in 1931. By the end of the war the count was 300,000.
    Every survivor lost at least 1 immediate family member. 10 to 30 extended family. There were no complete families left. The stories are identical. They arrived at a camp in a cattle car after they exited the train there was a selection process people went to the left or to the right. The people who were picked for labor never saw the family members that went to the left again. Never, after the moment. A split of a second gone.

    I do not have to show you bones or ashes or anything. It is not my obligation. I have missing people. You have to show me where those missing 2.5 million Polish Jews went. After the war agencies all over the world were dedicated to finding the missing family members, some were found. My own family survivors never found their parents or brothers and sisters. They searched for over a year.

    They were never seen again after they arrived at the camp. Let me give you an analogy. You go traveling with your family your two parents, you brother and your two sisters to visit another country you arrive at the hotel and go out for coffee when you come back only one sister is there. You go to the police to find where you other sister, brother and and parents are, they shrug their shoulders. Don’t know. No one knows? Where did your family go. Where are the missing Jews.

    I would also recommend you study the Warsaw Ghetto uprising which is extremely well documented and photographed by the Jews, the Germans and the Poles. Photos are available on line. The Jews were being transported out of the ghetto on trains to what they thought were labor camps. News traveled that they were not labor camps, the were mass murder camps. When the Jews in the camps found out they joined with the Polish underground to stage an uprising. It was the first time the Jews had weapons to confront the Germans. It was a suicide mission dedicated to getting the news out that the Germans were murdering the Jews en mass in the camps.. The Jewish head of Warsaw Ghetto killed himself after the last transport of orphans who he tried desperately to save. Also the German head of the Warsaw ghetto was a guy by the name of Stroop. He left a detail report. Also a link below. He was hung after the Nuremberg trials.
    You might also want to study the Nuremberg Trials where Rudolf Hoes admitted to the mass murder of Jews. This after he was condemned to death and had no reason to admit something that never took place. He was the head of Auschwitz
    You might want to listen to a women survivor Janina Dawidowicz testimony about her missing family. Her story is very logical and believable.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18924842
    Are you familiar with Anne Frank, she kept a journal in hiding, her mother and sister died in camps, only her father survived. How did they die?
    So Ilya G Poimandresu where did all the missing Jews go? The 2.5 million Polish Jews? Mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers?

    I usually do not respond to H deniers, but your comment was so stupid and ignorant, and incredulous to the existing data.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Czerniaków
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_Report
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Höss

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_census_of_1931

    1. Total:                         31,915,779
    2. Roman Catholic:       20,670,051
    3. Greco Catholic:           3,336,164
    4. Orthodox:                    3,762,484
    5. Protestant Lutheran:      424,216
    6. Protestant Reformed:       33,295
    7. Protestant Unite:            269,531
    8. Protestant (gen.):           108,216
    9. Other Christian:              145,418
    10. Judaism:                      3,113,933
    11. Other non-Christian:          6,750
    12. Non-believers:                    6,058
    13. Not Declared:                   39,66

  141. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Gilad Atzmon

    This reply addresses your uncertainty concerning whether Noam Chomsky is Ashkenazi.

    Please see my comment # 139, RE: how many “Jews”— Ashkenazi and Sephardi — are not Hebraic (not descendants of the Jews of Judah, “the Chosen People”).

    =====

    Also, are you related to geneticist Gil Atzmon, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University (New York)?

    Or is “Gil” (of “Gil Atzmon”) an abbreviation of Gilad?

  142. @Loup-Bouc

    I’m not sure why you directed your comment to me. I made no comments that were even slightly relevant to yours.

    I’ve seen some of those links before, and I agree with Shlomo Sand’s historiography. (He’s hardly the only exponent of it.) And I’ve read Elhaik’s research. I’m reasonably sure that few if any modern-day Jews have any Hebrew blood; maybe some of the Iraqi Jews do, but I haven’t seen any evidence of it.

    Enough DNA research has been done on the “Ashkenazi” Jews of various countries. The main conclusion is that they break down into two main groups, of quite different genetic origins. The Sephardic Jews are yet another group. Also, Elhaik’s main detractors are people who have a vested interest in maintaining the myth of “the Wandering Jew,” whose ancestors were supposedly the ancient Judeans and Israelites. Clearly nonsense.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  143. @Loup-Bouc

    Incidentally, Loup-Bouc, are you, by any chance, an emissary?

    • LOL: schnellandine
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  144. @Fran Taubman

    I do not have to show you bones or ashes or anything. It is not my obligation.

    But that’s the point, it is. You claim intentional murder, not just death through war. But when evidence is asked for, only hearsay is offered. People didn’t have email back then, when they got separated during a war they only had little chance to find each other after the war. In between, was the failure of the German state, the anarchy that followed, and the arrival of the Red Army.

    So Ilya G Poimandresu where did all the missing Jews go? The 2.5 million Polish Jews?

    No idea. How did the Soviets treat the lands and people they conquered? Did they log every person and give them food and clothes rations to survive in their travels to wherever? Did they let everyone move freely, so that families could try and return to their homes and congregate in known places?

    The Nuremberg trials were an illegal show trial, where torture was used, and the communists were in charge in trying these allegations. I discount it as evidence because it was not according to the legal norms of that time, and actors had their own political plays to extract out of the situation. In the Japanese Constitution the Americans wrote in the 50s btw, it is forbidden to pass down a guilty sentence solely because the defendant admitts to a crime – there has to be evidence beyond that. There is no tying of the German state to this by direct written orders. Their codes were cracked, yet there is no word of extermination from secret cables. There are enough hearsay stories that have been proven to be hyperbole through this period, to be wary of any such story. And these rumours were started by Rabbi Weiss, another boy who cried wolf on many occasions.

    You seem to not be able to come to terms that dispossessed people die during and in the aftermath of war. The population of Vitebsk in Belarussia went from 300,000, to 9 during the war. No one assumed concentration camps, just war.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  145. ivan says:

    One of the reasons for the original Jewish casuistry is the very harshness of the Mosaic Law itself. For anything and everything the punishment is death. For example, as I read on a website some years ago in Deuteronomy :

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21 King James Version (KJV)
    18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

    19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

    20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

    21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    Now what happens if the parents have a change of mind as must surely happen, or the village rabbi is inclined to give the son another chance? There must surely have been times when the son did obey his father, and did hearken to his mother? So he can’t be all that bad? Just a glutton and sometimes a drunk? But he did lay the table once. Helped in the harvest. So not totally irredeemable? Let him go.

  146. @Ilya G Poimandres

    Well if you agree that people died that 2.5 million poles died “by war itself”. Where are the bodies? You do not deny the deaths.

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  147. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    I’m not sure why you directed your comment to me. I made no comments that were even slightly relevant to yours.

    See your comment # 102, in which you replied to Pheasant’s comment # 18, which was:

    Yes I was not trying to nitpick. One thing I know for sure is that despite his appearence and accomplishments Chomsky is not Ashkenazi.

    Your # 102 comment was:

    Where did you get that idea? He actually is Ashkenazi; his father and mother were from the Russian Empire and Belarus respectively. And he himself was born in Philadelphia.

    Facts, please. Or at least cite evidence.

  148. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    Emissary of what or whom? What do you suppose my special mission?

    If your comment attempts wit, it fails.

    Wit? Find and view a CD recording of an English-language-subtitled edition of the French film synopsized and discussed here:
    https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ridicule-1996

    Ou, si vous comprenez la langue française, voyez ceci:

    Wit-attempt or not, your comment both lacks evidence-premise and is belied by the history of my online comments posted at Unz Review and elsewhere.

  149. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    Peut-être vous ne connaissez pas la signification de «Loup-Bouc». «Loup» signifie «male-wolf». «Bouc» signifie «male-goat».

    • Replies: @joe2.5
  150. @Fran Taubman

    Polish deaths from the other side. The last census was 1931, 1939 was a statistic ‘guestimate’. https://codoh.com/library/document/polish-population-losses-during-world-war-two/en/
    By this analysis, not much.

    An early study of statistics by Frank H. Hankins in 1958, on Jewish deaths. https://codoh.com/library/document/how-many-jews-were-eliminated-by-the-nazis/en/

    There is too much gray info to come out black and white on who died, where, and how. Most of the data is from the USSR archives, and they are dodgy. I don’t doubt that the beginning of the war threw people left and right accross the Eurasian continent, that people changed designation to survive, that the slavery conditions imposed during labour camps killed some people, the collapse of these places killed more, and the after effects killed and dispursed more.

    But there are a lot of causal factors, not just one simple ‘Germany killed us all’ thing. Not as the efficient cause anyways.

  151. @Loup-Bouc

    How is that relevant to the supposed Hebrew ancestry of any of the Jews?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  152. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Stochastic Determinist

    Try reading better. Perhaps the relevance will infiltrate.

  153. joe2.5 says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Who the hell is “Hebraic” anyway in our day and age? Even the language has been dead for some 2,000+ years…

  154. joe2.5 says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Avoir du loup n’a pourtant jamais empêché d’être émissaire.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  155. Loup-Bouc says:
    @joe2.5

    Either your comment is nonsense (in the context it would appear to address), or your French is bad.

    [Je n’ai pas un loup. Je suis le Loup-Bouc. Et ni mon nom ni mes commentaires ne pourraient suggérer que je puisse être un émissaire.]

    But I appreciate your trying to express yourself with French, the most beautiful language.

    • Replies: @Anon
  156. @Loup-Bouc

    The Iranian Jews are probable Hebraic. They’ve been there for over 2000 years. Some from the pre-Israel Levant and Mesopotamia might be.

    Otherwise none are, they are all the descendants of proselytes. There was a post-Alexander era of massive conversions to Judaism. And later of course the Khazar mass-conversions.

    Be very wary of the molecular genetics, almost all done by Jews for Jews to support their lies.

    Read Acts, which contains about a dozen speeches by Paul in the numerous synagogues all over Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, which always begin by addressing two groups, the Jews, PLUS “ye who fear God.” It is likely that Gentiles outnumbered the Jews in all the synagogues of the era and themselves soon became Jews.

    Remember that Sephardic means Spanish in the original sense, in other words Hellenistic Jews at a time when the Hellenistic world stretched from the Atlantic to the Indus Valley AND across North Africa. In other words, proselytes.

    • LOL: Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Colin Wright
  157. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    First, a weird kind of credentials-presentation, that I put twice earlier in this “thread”: I am not a Jew or “Caucasian,” but an American ex-patriot of Finno-Ugric descent and an atheist who contemns all religion (even informal personal moral codes, however unique). At Unz Review, such “credentials” may bear import much greater than one’s education or professional status or work-product. Just so, one of your assertions:

    Be very wary of the molecular genetics, almost all done by Jews for Jews to support their lies.

    From comment of Ann Nonny Mouse, May 23, 2020 at 9:10 am GMT, comment # 157.

    How rather depressing: You, too, see lies and evil seething in whatever any “Jew” may say, do, or contemplate (per your “Jew”-focused paranoia).

    Two Israeli Jews — Paul Wexler and Eran Elhaik — joined two other geneticists — Ranajit Das and Mehdi Pirooznia — to produce perhaps the best-ever genetics-science-supported debunking of Zionism’s myth that the World’s “Jewry” is a genetically peculiar population the great bulk of which (per Zionism) is of Hebraic or Judaic genetic stock, the stock of Abraham and Moses, etc. Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik, The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish, Frontiers in Genetics: Evolutionary and Population Genetics (21 June 2017), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

    [MORE]

    [Side-note # 1
    I presume that Ranajit Das, an Indian (and quite Indian-South-Asian-looking), is not “Jewish.” Mehdi Pirooznia’s name seems not to exclude that gentleman’s being at least partly of Jewish descent of a follower of some version of “Jewish” religion.
    End Side-note # 1]

    [Side-note # 2
    How devilishly ironic Zionism’s Israel-is-the-Jews’-homeland claim — and Zionism’s consequent genocidal terrorism committed against Palestinians: (1) For about 1300 years, the Palestine territory had very few Jews because of actions of the Roman Empire and sundry later actions of Christians and, to a lesser extent, Turks and (to an even lesser extent) Kurds; (2) Modern Israel is NOT a state and has NO international-law right of existence, see, E.G., https://voltairenet.org/article168535.html
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel
    End Side-note # 2]

    I would dismiss, as merely tedious, much as mostly premise-lacking, some Unz Review authors’ and some comment-writers’ special antisemitism [hereinafter “UR Jew-hate”] — if that antisemitism did not both reflect, and energize, even into violence (physical, emotional, or socioeconomic), the ordinarily stupid-herd-harbored antisemitism of many-too-many common folk, in North America, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

    Example: In his article “American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion,” https://unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion , Mr. Unz asserts (at least suggests strenuously) that ACTUALLY medieval and renaissance Jews kidnaped and committed ritual murders of Christian boys, 7 years old or younger, to sacrifice them to Jaweh and drink their blood or use their blood to make Passover matzah balls. Mr. Unz cites and purports to rely on Ariel Toaff, “BLOOD PASSOVER: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder” — 2007 translation per Gian Marco Lucchese & Pietro Gianetti available at http://israelshamir.net/BLOODPASSOVER.pdf

    But Toaff’s BLOOD PASSOVER does NOT assert or suggest, anywhere, that anyone ever alleged that Saphardic Jews committed ritual murder of Christian boys or used their involuntarily-obtained blood in rituals or otherwise. Toaff’s book does NOT prove, or assert, that Ashkenazi Jews — or any other Jews — committed such crimes, for Jewish ritual or any other purpose.

    Rather, Toaff’s book observes medieval and renaissance ALLEGATIONS that Ashkenazi Jews committed such crimes and observes that under torture, or in fear of torture, several Jews confessed to such crimes. See BLOOD PASSOVER (supra) at, E.G., Chapters I, II, III, and about the first half of Chapter IV (pp.19-99).

    And Toaff’s book PROVES that actually such crimes were NEVER committed — proves so by observing clear, never-refuted history, including much sound evidence, that shows such ritual murder ALLEGATIONS and TORTURE-inspired “confessions” were FALSE.

    In some cases the alleged child victim was either not murdered or harmed by a Jew or anyone else or was found having died of natural causes or by no wrongful act of any Jew or anyone else. Or, the accused Jews were released (the charges dismissed), in some instances because of their non-rebutted denials of wrongdoing — though some alleged that they bribed their ways to exoneration or freedom. See BLOOD PASSOVER (supra) at, E.G., Chapters IV & V. In enough cases, the ALLEGEDLY murdered boys were not 7 years old or younger, but teenagers. See BLOOD PASSOVER (supra) at, E.G., Chapter IV.

    In enough cases, the ALLEGATIONS were explained by Gentiles’, or other Jews’, desiring to confiscate money or other property of ACCUSED Jews. See BLOOD PASSOVER (supra) Chapter IV. In at least one other case, a JEW’s own greed explained his tricking and accusing other Jews. Cf., E.G., this account, appearing at BLOOD PASSOVER (supra) p.127.

    True: for many centuries, quite enough “Jews” have been rapacious financial criminals (like the Jews of Goldman Sachs), slavers and slave-owners, corrupters of Governments, fomenters of war and oppression…. And, at least for some hundreds of years of the pre-Christian era, among the cruelest conquerors of all time (see Laurent Guyénot, The Devil’s Trick: Unmasking the God of Israel, Unz Review (17 May 2020), https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/…&#8230;.

    But such evils are far from exclusive to Jews. Consider ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Mongols, Muslims, Goths, Visigoths, Avars, Khazars, Magyars, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Franks, Lombards, Ostrogoths, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Dutch, the English, the French, Americans (before & after 1776), Phalangist Spain, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Tojo’s Japan…….. And though Jews may be disproportionately involved in perpetrating the neoliberal/neoconservative evils of the United States, those evils owe their existence & manifestation much more to non-Jews.

    [Side-note # 3
    Alas, though Mr. Guyénot’s above-referenced article is excellent, even irrefutable scholarship, elsewhere Mr. Guyénot shows that he is driven to argue that any person’s any even slightest “taint” of Jewishness condemns that person to pursuing evil motives or evil ends. See Karl Marx and Jewish Power, Unz Review 17 Febnruary 2020, https://www.unz.com/article/karl-marx-and-jewish-power/ In that article, Mr. Guyénot,

    Even in the literature exposing the role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and other revolutionary movements of the twentieth century, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume 200 Years Together, a contextualized analysis of Marx’s Jewishness is lacking.

    One obvious reason is that Marx was not Jewish: he had been baptized a Lutheran at the age of six. Yet to claim that baptism had washed away all traces of Jewishness would be absurd, and particularly ironic in the case of a person who insisted that religion was an inessential part of Jewishness (as we shall see).

    My purpose here is to examine Marx’s contribution to Jewish empowerment, and, ultimately, to the historical movement toward Jewish global domination that made a major breakthrough a century exactly after the Communist Manifesto (1848).

    Mr. Guyénot then proceeds to use pilpul to impute to Karl Max an evil motive, even if unconscious or subconscious drive, that obtains from what Mr. Guyénot seems to believe inevitable in every “Jew.”
    End Side-note # 3]

    But even Mr. Atzmon admits that a “Jew” (whatever that noun may denote) can free himself from the evil of being a “Jew.”

    …[I]t is more than likely that Shamir, Ron and myself, like Dershowitz and Chomsky have been subject to some Pilpul training.. … the same probably applies to Christ , Spinoza and Uriel da Costa… the difference however is that Christ, Spinoza, da Costa, Ron, Shamir and myself rebelled against this culture.

    The reason some of the greatest humanists were and are Jewish (or EX) dissenters is because before anything else, they rebelled against themselves.. against the untruthfulness and anti logos that has been injected into their souls….

    Above, this “thread,” Mr. Atzmon’s comment, numbered 78.

    As I observed earlier in this “thread,” Mr. Atzmon, appears to assume that one must achieve an overarching neurotic self-loathing to attain intellectual integrity, empathic decency, and courageous honor. One does not see such sickness in Spinoza’s writings or those of Mr. Unz or Mr. Shamir. And Jesus perceived through the vision of an Essene. The Essene religion taught that humans must not kill, harm, enslave, or abuse any sentient creature — human or other. Essenes were vegetarians.

    But Mr. Atzmon’s sad neurotic self-loathing does not confine itself to paining Mr. Atzmon; it induces Mr. Atzmon to insist that, in virtually all “Jews,” evil is deeply and systemically endemic so deep and systemic that astronomically few Jews can avoid manifesting the Jewish evil, and only by rebelled, constantly, against themselves. He cannot trust any “Jew” — just as he cannot trust himself with a comfort of apprehension that he may find joy in life, rather than constant self-loathing and fear of manifesting “Jewish” evil.

    I repeat: How dispiriting the “once and future” reflex of guiltying others (or onself) “by association” (Jew-with-“Jews,” Black-with-“Negroes,” Americans with neocon and neoliberal monsters, White males with racism, misogyny, Muslims with terrorists…….)

    Some Gentiles (even some Jews, like Mr. Atzomon) seem to reason this pseudo-statistical way: Yahweh requires Jews — the Chosen People — to conquer, kill, enslave, and abuse (socioeconomically/politically) all other peoples and many “Jews” feel (if only subliminally), that such is their right and destiny. Therefore, one may, perhaps ought to, presume that any one Jew will do one harm or harm even whole populations — and protect oneself with strong precautions.

    Anglo-American law has a juridical rule — or, one may say, a philosophy-of-law principle: Judges cannot issue injunctions against commissions of crime; the law must await occurrence of a criminal act, even if just establishment of criminal conspiracy. That principle is a sane regulator of ALL social thought — for the sake of society and every individual.

    If one presumes Jews are evil and denies them full, fair, free, equal social intercourse, two grave harms result: (1) Society loses benefit of the many good contributions Jews have made to society (in science, law, medicine, philosophy, civil rights, and music and other arts……); (2) Society risks the same exclusionary treatment’s befalling other people of other ethnicities (Italians, Japanese, Indians…….) or religions (Catholicism, Buddhism, Paganism……), despite the socioeconomic contributions they would render.

    Classical Jewish religion bears and encourages much evil, and where Jews have followed or relied manifestly upon that religion, Jews have, therefore, perpetrated much evil. But the same is true of Christianity and Islam. And in its Reformed versions, Jewish religion at least balances classical Judaism with moral precepts parallel to the best of Islam and Christianity.

    Judge and treat a person only according to that person’s acts. Despite the evils of the dominant religions of their ethnicities, Jews and others have done much good, and we ought spend more energy on encouraging the proliferation of instances of THAT conduct.

    Premised partly on an article of David Shasha [ , Mr. Atzmon argues:

    The contentiousness of the Middle East conflict is intimately informed by pilpul. Whether it is Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim who had traditional Jewish educations, the terms of the debate are consistently framed by pilpul. What is most unfortunate about pilpul – and this is something that will be familiar to anyone who has followed the controversies involving Israel and Palestine – is that, since the rational has been removed from the process, all that is left is yelling, irrational emotionalism, and, ultimately, the threat of violence.”

    [Side-note # 4
    The David Shasha article Mr. Atzmon referenced is at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIKRgzpFh795Ppfr3y5Vy2rFi3rVbuPganaV3ke3Olh0xuZgMqjQMQTq0luSTEMCGR3iW1D1KW0ww0Xqn9mh-3LwH68Yu1yNZ2A9zDJzRrks3hvmnU3qkuww7h_RP3XkJl9hyznXe-YdN3GqbKPQvff7n8Xa_OzUTZQy6Ee0gEeL
    End Side-note # 4]

    That very specious “reasoning” lacks ANY premise. It is, itself, blatant “pilpul.” Reduced to essence, that “reasoning” is this: (a) Chomsky is Ashkenazi. (b) All (or very near all) Ashkenazis engage in pilpul. Therefore, Chomsky either surely or almost absolutely surely Chomsky engages in pilpul.

    But, as is observed in a few comments of this “thread,” Chomsky may not be Ashkenazim. Though I havfe not read everything Chomsky has written or heard all of Chomsky’s speeches or debate offerings, I have read and heard very many; and never did I witness Chomsky’s yelling or engaging in irrational emotionalism or uttering threat of violence. Rather, in every instance I witnessed, Chomsky was calm, unemotional, utterly non-violent and supported his positions with abundant relevant evidence.

    [Side-note # 5
    I have not agreed always with Chomsky’s assertions, but always I have found his arguments respectable, at least per their reliance on much evidence.
    End Side-note # 5]

    And the Ashkenazim group has included individuals like Albert Einstein, whose science was antithetical to pupil, and Louis Brandeis (U.S. Supreme Court) and Jerome Frank (2nd Circuit U.S. federal Court of Appeals, who, more than all but very few other high court jurists, used their judicial careers to expose and explode the pilpul of much of the judicial-opinion-writing of too many U.S. federal judges, like the astronomically OVERRATED (and much evil) Oliver Wendell Holmes

    [Side-note # 6
    Justice Holmes fostered forced sterilization of “idiots” and “insane” people because, he asserted falsely, their condition was inherited [Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 ]. He “protected” large corporations’ property against the public safety of whole cities, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 ]. He supported the new Black slavery of the deep South of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries [Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/219/219. He altered standing precedent with bare unpremised and false assertions. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/275/303
    End Side-note # 6]

  158. anarchyst says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Hitting the holohoax (oops I mean “holocaust™”) head-on doesn’t work because of the jew-controlled media which has declared “holocaustianity™” to be the new worldwide “state religion” from which no dissension from its “orthodoxy” is permitted.
    The only way to counter “holocaustianity™” is to point out the scientific and engineering impossibility of every “holocaust™” claim.
    Let’s look at a number of claims that have been made and have been ingrained in “holocaust™” orthodoxy:

    — using “bug spray” (Zyklon B) as an execution agent (ha ha)

    —“gas chambers” with ordinary wooden doors, not gas-tight doors

    —“gas chambers” with no means to ventilate the chambers after “operation”

    —“gas chamber” chimney not connected to anything

    —“blood spurting out of the ground” for weeks and months

    —“crematoria stacks with visible flames” (not possible) crematoria burn clean

    —“thousands of bodies cremated per day” (not possible)

    —“multiple bodies” in one “muffle” to “speed up” operations

    __no maintenance on crematoria equipment 24-7 operation

    —“lampshades, soap and shrunken heads”, oh my

    —“the ability to tell when jews are being cremated by the smell or color of smoke”

    —“claimed burial grounds not being permitted to be disturbed” per jewish “law”

    __electric floors and masturbation machines (ha ha)

    __population of jews greater after summation of WW2 no 6,000,000

    NONE of these claims are possible or valid and can be easily debunked using sound scientific and engineering principles.

    I have been thrown out (asked to leave) of those “jewish freak shows” called “holocaust™”museums for merely attempting to point out these facts.

    Prosecuting those who dare to reveal the TRUTH about this non-event speaks VOLUMES.

    –Ursula Haverbeck

    –Monika Schaefer

    –Sylvia Stolz

    –Ernst Zundel

    …and many others have been imprisoned for daring to expose the so-called jewish “holocaust™” as the “fraud of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”…

    Your “holocaust™” is going DOWN as more and more people realize that it is the premier jewish scam…

    One would think that jews would be elated that 6,000,000 jews weren’t “gassed”, but that would destroy the whole premise for the scam.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  159. Loup-Bouc says:

    @Ann Nonny Mouse, comment # 157, May 23, 2020 at 9:10 am GMT
    AND
    @Loup-Bouc, comment # 158, May 24, 2020 at 2:01 am GMT

    [MORE]

    I see I committed a few typing errors in drafting my last-previous comment [comment # 158, May 24, 2020 at 2:01 am GMT]. But none will hinder comprehension. So, I shall not post corrections, except the following.

    Immediately after the end of Side-note # 4, the first paragraph ought to be this:

    That very specious “reasoning” lacks ANY premise. It is, itself, blatant “pilpul.” Reduced to essence, that “reasoning” is this: (a) Chomsky is Ashkenazi. (b) All (or very near all) Ashkenazis engage in pilpul. Therefore, either surely or almost absolutely surely Chomsky engages in pilpul.

    Immediately after Side-note # 5, the first paragraph ough to be this:

    And the Ashkenazim group has included individuals like Albert Einstein, whose science was antithetical to pilpul, and Louis Brandeis (U.S. Supreme Court) and Jerome Frank (2nd Circuit U.S. federal Court of Appeals), who, more than all but very few other high court jurists, used their judicial careers to expose and explode the pilpul of much of the judicial-opinion-writing of too many U.S. federal judges, like the astronomically OVERRATED (and much evil) Oliver Wendell Holmes

  160. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    ‘The Iranian Jews are probable Hebraic. They’ve been there for over 2000 years. Some from the pre-Israel Levant and Mesopotamia might be…’

    I’d at least speculate Jews were never ‘Hebraic’ in the first place.

    Leaving aside the demonstrably ahistorical fantasies of the Bible, the actual external evidence is that Judaism appeared in the wake of the Persian conquests, more or less simultaneously in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and, yes, Palestine. It seems to have been primarily an urban cult of some kind, not really restricted to any one region.

    Admittedly, Palestine was given a prominent role in the religion’s mythology, but I don’t see that as a compelling reason to assume all or even most Jews were Palestinians at any point.

    I won’t call this a proven fact, but I will insist we’ve no particular reason to see Judaism as having even originated in Palestine.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  161. @Loup-Bouc

    ‘When I attended law school (during my 29th through 31st years), I worked summers for a house carpenter, who was Jewish. His wife, a Jew, did secretarial work…’

    And I once had a Chinese man pull a knife on me.

    However, I don’t see in this sufficient reason to abandon my view of East Asians as emotionally controlled.

    You can, if you like, produce a break down of American Jews by profession, as compared to the nation as a whole. However, I doubt if the results will surprise either one of us.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  162. @Loup-Bouc

    ‘… Two Israeli Jews — Paul Wexler and Eran Elhaik — joined two other geneticists — Ranajit Das and Mehdi Pirooznia — to produce perhaps the best-ever genetics-science-supported debunking of Zionism’s myth that the World’s “Jewry” is a genetically peculiar population the great bulk of which (per Zionism) is of Hebraic or Judaic genetic stock, the stock of Abraham and Moses, etc. Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik, The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish, Frontiers in Genetics: Evolutionary and Population Genetics (21 June 2017), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full&#8217;

    I’m afraid I’m dismissing this source out of hand.

    I’d be perfectly willing to accept the conclusions — but the assertion that Yiddish has ‘Iran0’- whatever rather than German origins is just nonsensical. Anyone with even a modest familiarity with the two languages will recognize that Yiddish is virtually a dialect of German.

    • Agree: Wielgus
  163. @Loup-Bouc

    Your comments are interesting and fairly balanced. At least one (if not several) of the sources you cite in comment 139 is utter nonsense. However, I still don’t understand the relevance of your comment on the supposed Hebrew ancestry of the Jews to my remark that Chomsky is Ashkenazi. That hasn’t managed to “infiltrate” yet. I get the point that the Ashkenazi Jews have been said to be descended from the Khazars (which is probably true), but are there actually any modern-day Jewish descendants of the ancient Hebrews? At most, I would suggest the Iraqi Jews because of the very real migration of so many of the Jews to Babylonia, where the Talmud was written. (The Iranian Jews are more likely related to the Ashkenazis — see Shlomo Sand — and are descended from convert communities. More recent Elhaik research has suggested that the Ashkenazis — at least some — have Persian ancestry.)

    By the way, Wexler is not a geneticist, but a linguist. He lent his support to one of the DNA studies because of his work on the origins of Yiddish, which corresponded to the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews in general. See the work of Paul Wexler on the origins of Yiddish.

    Also, I agree with your comments on Chomsky and pilpul. I was puzzled by the idea that Chomsky’s writings or debates displayed pilpul, which, I must admit, I still don’t quite fathom. (Maybe I need to read something better on the subject.) I will say that his book on Kennedy’s conduct of the Vietnam War — Rethinking Camelot — was particularly loaded with specious reasoning, which I guess is pilpul, but I don’t see that it is especially hard to refute. I read recently that Chomsky was beaten up and harassed by tough Irish-American street kids, which might explain his special bias with respect to the Kennedy years.

  164. anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    Never studied this topic.
    Read often enough that today’s zionist Jews are “Khazar.”
    That makes little sense: origin of Jewish celebrations of genocide — Passover, Purim, etc. — are well before Khazar.

    Never heard anyone talk about admixture of whatever is meant by Jew with Assyrians:
    Assyrians were a particularly warlike people.
    Assyrians defeated the supposed ancient Hebrews (meaning nomads, or thieves) even in biblical times.
    Surely Hebrews and Assyrians inter-bred.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  165. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    I understand standard German and when overhearing London Hasidim talking to each other in Yiddish, I understood a lot of what they were saying.
    Yiddish was in the past often just described as “German” by its speakers, and German anti-Semites often dismissed it as a sinister attempt at corrupting the German language. Its relative closeness to German often encouraged its speakers, especially in German-speaking territory, to adopt German in its place – German had more prestige and more official and commercial usefulness.

  166. @anarchyst

    Holocaust denial hit a hey day in the 1980s, at first no one took it seriously but as time moved on, people were moved to defend the thoroughly corroborated mass murder of Jews by the victims, the perpetrators, and the witnesses. I do not need to refute your claims: where are the teeth, where are the ashes?
    It has been done by scientist, forensic experts, cremation experts, dentist studying the heat it takes to melt teeth etc. If you are a normal person with a normal mind and sense of curiosity you can find these answers yourself. Just google: The Holocaust/where are the ashes?
    The Holocaust/ body disposal
    The Holocaust/ cremation

    You can even go generic and google How to refute Holocaust denial. You will find all your questions answered, by credible sources. Holocaust denial has been totally debunked. Like I said it had a hey day but its ballon has been burst. The deniers insisting on continual denial are delusional people that have an agenda to either then finding the simple truth. They want to either defend the Nazi’s, to hate Jews and prove them to be liars, or to propagate Jew hatred.
    Some things like Carolyn’s Yaeger’s underground Auschwitz book showing a day spa and brick building dorms with heat and running water have not been refuted because no one believes it not even the denial community.
    I will give you some links in case you are mentally challenged and cannot google.
    https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/

    http://auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-and-shoah/the-extermination-procedure-in-the-gas-chambers

    https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/

    For powerful photos google secret photo of the burning body pits in Auschwitz
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando_photographs

    I will leave you with the photos showing Jews being cremated in open fire pits and women walking nude to the gas chambers. These photos were snuck out of the Auschwitz by the Sonderkommando.

    [MORE]

    images
    220px-Auschwitz_Resistance_280_cropped
    Unknown
    Unknown-2

    • Replies: @schnellandine
    , @anarchyst
  167. @Fran Taubman

    You have a gift for tale-extraction from contextless photos. Really something.

    I tried it only once, ending up imprisoned for shooting the mailman because he tried to poison my dog. Well … the photo showed him passing my house, so…

    God, how do you do it?

    I’ll bet you could work wonders with the Auschwitz plaque pictures. Those damned inconvenient plummeting numbers. Work your magic, Fran.

    • Thanks: Fran Taubman
  168. @Colin Wright

    If I’m not mistaken, I read that research a while back. The idea is not that Yiddish has any Iranian origins but that some of the Ashkenazis do. I’m sure I could dig it up and give you a few relevant quotes if you like.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  169. Wielgus says:
    @joe2.5

    Slavic names or name endings like -sky indicate Ashkenazim, as do German names. Sephardic Jews tend to have Spanish names, indeed I believe Sefarad is Hebrew for Spain.

  170. Loup-Bouc says:
    @anonymous

    Read my comment @ 139 and view the web pages it links.

    No one has asserted that the original “Jews” were Khazars. Some sources assert that the Khazaria emperor converted to Judaism and, thence, many of the empire’s subjects converted too. Some sources assert that Khazar rulers invited Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees to settle in Khazaria and that the Khazars, at least Khazar nobility, adopted Judaism and thence also many Khazarian common folk adopted Judaism.

    From premise of those assertions, some sources have argued that eastern European, thence central European, Ashkenazim were Khazarian immigrants, many, most, or all of which Khazarian immigrants were non-Hebraic (not descendants of the Jews of Judah, people of the line of Abraham and Moses, the “Chosen People”).

    I, Loup-Bouc, do not care even a hemi-semi-demi whit whether Ashkenazim are, or were ever, Hebraic, Sumerian, Hellenic, Persian, Avarian, Khazarian, reincarnations of denizens of the lost continent of Atlantis, or space aliens immigrated from Mars on zircon meteors when Earth was entirely water-covered (except, perhaps, a piece of current Australia).

    I care only whether this or that “Jew” (a) commits evil acts or (b) is empathic and honorable and contributes to social (Benthamian) utility. That is: I do not consider whether a person is a “Jew” or non-“Jew.” My sole concern is a person’s actual conduct. See my comments (this “thread”) ## 70, 81, 88, 101, 110, 116, 158, and 160.

    But Mr. Atzmon asserts (in his article “Pupil for Beginners”):
    (a) Noam Chomsky is “Ashkenazi.”
    (b) All (or very near all) Ashkenazis engage in pilpul.
    And, THEREFORE,
    (c) Either surely, or near-absolutely surely, Noam Chomsky engages in pilpul and if challenged enough, will resort to “yelling, irrational emotionalism, and, ultimately, the threat of violence.”

    Worse, some, perhaps many, other Unz Review authors and Unz Review comment-writers agree with Mr. Atzmon’s empirically untenable and absurdly illogical assertion, apparently because, being rabid antisemites, they will adopt any assertion that damns any “Jew” or the whole world-population of “Jews” — irrespective of actual facts.

    Pertinent to this “Jew” matter, I hold just one generalization: Zionist Jews are manifestly evil and Israel ought not exist.

    I do not mean that all “Jewish” Israelis are manifestly evil. Doubtless some substantial number opposes Israel’s criminal and terrorist conduct. Even Israel Shamir is an Israeli “Jew” (though not currently by religion).

    But I do mean:

    (a) Zionist Israel is a manifestly evil terrorist entity established much by extortion and terrorism.

    (b) Zionist Israel is not a legitimate state and has no right of existence. [See, e.g.,
    * https://voltairenet.org/article168535.html
    * https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist
    * https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel .]

    (c) Zionist Israel ought never to have come into being.

    (d) Zionist Israel ought to be disestablished by enforceable international law.

    (e) Zionist Israel’s leaders and many members of its government and military, and likely all present and past Mossad members, ought to be prosecuted AT LEAST for war crimes, crimes against humanity, illegal wars of aggression, violation of the law of belligerent occupation, pillage, plunder, mass murder, and mass mayhem.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @anonymous
  171. anarchyst says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Your pictures prove nothing…

    Holocaust revisionism is on the upswing as more and more people are looking at this “cash cow” with a more jaundiced eye and seeing it as a “jewish money grab” that has been defrauding the world for decades..

    From an scientific and engineering standpoint, NONE of the claims made by holocaust™ purveyors is possible.

    As I have previously stated, Germans were and are excellent engineers. Even they could not perform jewish “magic” and refute the laws of physics.

    The one way that the holocaust™ industry fraud will finally be exposed will be by holding those who make claims to scientific scrutiny.

    As an aside, the Nuremberg trials were not bound by “standard rules of evidence”, but were “anything goes” free-for-all” procedures that were run by jewish bolsheviks. Every Nuremberg defendant was tortured and families of defendants were threatened if their “testimony” did not go “the right way”.

    No, Franny, your holocaust™ is about to crash and burn.

    The sooner the better…

  172. @Loup-Bouc

    Perhaps you should busy yourself with the legitimacy of the 32 Muslim only states in Arabia that were created the same way as Israel was after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Are you a student of history? It does not sound like it. Because Israel has more right to exist then lets say Kuwait. But that is not the point. Palestine has never been independent. It was ruled by two Empires the Ottomans and then the British like the other countries there. Jews have been living in Arabia in Muslim ruled countries since the Romans sacked Jerusalem. You have no problem with the 28 Muslim only countries, that have thrown out Jews and Christians, pillaged and plundered other religions, but you have a problem with one Jewish only country?
    I am not going to get into all the Hasbara BS, but you are insufferable with (e). Good luck with that.
    https://secularhumanism.org/2015/03/cont-israel-has-a-right-to-exist/

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

    https://forward.com/opinion/letters/418121/if-you-didnt-threaten-israels-right-to-exist-we-wouldnt-need-to-ask-about/

  173. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Colin Wright

    At least because of the nature of the antisemitism, and “Jewish” history considerations, occurring at Unz Review, the matter is not just the current and relatively recent economic-occupation species of American Jews. The matter is the kinds of economic occupation found, worldwide, among “Jews” now and through history.

    In eastern and central European shtetls (small “Jewish” towns), the (“Jewish”) inhabitants engaged in many kinds of economic occupations — businesses, farming, skilled trades like carpentry, blacksmithing, and wheelwrighting— because they had no choice.

    In Ghettos of Venice and other Veneto cities, “Jews” were not permitted to engage in certain economic occupations, because the area Gentiles wanted not to suffer “Jewish” competition in such occupations and also because Gentile powers sought to impose special taxes on “Jews.” See, e.g., these sources:

    * https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/venice-italy-jewish-history-tour

    * https://museoitaloamericano.org/wp-content/uploads/Ghetto-Guide.pdf

    * Generally, but especially, pages 17-19 of this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281934700_2011_The_City_the_Ghetto_and_Two_Books_Venice_and_Jewish_Early_Modernity_in_Modernity_and_the_cities_of_the_Jews_ed_by_Cristiana_Facchini_Quest_Issues_in_Contemporary_Jewish_History_2_2011_pp_11-44

    * https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/the-jewish-gehtto-renaissance-venice

    In Italy outside Veneto, “Jewish” economic occupation limitations varied much, in some places partly according to whether the “Jews” were Sephardim or Ashkenazim — though commerce, banking, and pawning somewhat dominated. Example: In Livorno, the “Jewish” economy was not limited to trade but included much and varied manufacturing. Glass and silk factories were established and a Hebrew printing house created. Jews established a monopoly in decorative coral production. See, e.g., page 17 of this: https://museoitaloamericano.org/wp-content/uploads/Ghetto-Guide.pdf

    In medieval and renaissance Portugal, “Jews” suffered few economic occupation restrictions.

    In the Ottoman Empire, “Jews” suffered a special taxes and were not permitted to join the military, but, generally, otherwise were permitted, and did engage in, most economic occupations, save where local populations forced constraints.

    In the Mediterranean areas not controlled by the Ottoman Empire, “Jews” tended to be merchants, but engaged also in other trades, like metal-working.

    In the United States during the large mid-to-late 19th century and early 20th century “Jewish” immigrations and for a substantial time after, many “Jews” chose to settle in Ghettos that they (the “Jews”) wanted to form. And in those Ghettos, and elsewhere, the economic occupation situation was much as it had been in eastern and central European shtetls. See, e.g., https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-immigration-to-america-three-waves/

    Eventually, mostly such Ghettos disintegrated — but not all, as I knew in Philadelphia during my mid-childhood, alolescent, and young adult years, where such Ghettos continued to exist in a part of West Philadelphia and Philadelphia’s Oxford Circle and Mayfair areas. But in those Ghettos, economic occupation diversity shrank. Professions, commerce, and other small business formed the plurality or majority of occupations.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  174. @Fran Taubman

    Why change the subject, Fran?

    And whatever accusations you hurl, two wrongs do not make a right

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  175. anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    tl;dnr
    better things to do: peonies are in full bud: I’m watching the ants eat wax. Please Do No Disturb.

    +
    Freak Taubman comment = mark of the beast

    speaking of Freak Taubman: looks like he/she/it has run thru its entire playbook and is back at the beginning.

    what a desiccated bore.

  176. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Your conduct encourages antisemitism.

    Your “histories” swerve from one lie or propaganda to another lie or propganda according to your perception of what swill you need to splash to defend your Zionist bias, O tool of Yahweh, God-of-Evil.

    Zionism’s horrendously criminal, terrorist history is clear, just as is the corruption of its Brittish support. That history needs not be repeated here. Its cruel, greedy criminality’s accurate exposition would not fit in this “thread,” or even in any Unz Review (or any other journal’s) article; for, that history fills volumes.

    No legal argument can rebut the clear legal fact that Israel is not a “state” and has no right of existence.

    No legal argument can rebut the illegality, and criminality, of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land or of the Golan Heights or of its wars of aggression and the military raids it conducts in Syria and elsewhere. No legal argument can transmute into “defense” its thousands of murders of Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. All those crimes are well documented, their occurrences irrefutable.

    Here is just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of well evidenced historical examinations, not just of Zionist terrorist acts, but also of Zionism’s methods of concealment, dissimulation, or shifting of blame to its victims: http://web.archive.org/web/20020811204717/www.deiryassin.org/pages/opinions/0005.html

    For a time, some years, I could not understand how Zionist Israel could do to Palestinians and others what Nazi Germans and their European allies did to Jews. Every time I tried to understand, I felt stumped.

    [Side-note:
    Though I do not deny the Holocaust, I do know that not 6,000,000, but about 1,900,000 Jews were killed and that the killing, atrocious and criminal as it was, did not result from a “final solution” designed by Hitler.
    End Side-note]

    Then I chanced to begin reading, scrupulously, the “Old Testament” of the “Bible.” I saw quite what Laurent Guyénot shows in his article The Devil’s Trick: Unmasking the God of Israel, Unz Review (17 May 2020), https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/ And I understood. Classical Jewish religion does not merely justify and authorize the most heinous cruelties committed by Yahweh’s “Chosen People.” It COMMANDS that Yahweh’s “Chosem People” commit horrendous attrocities.

    I shall not reply again to your comments. I do not enjoy feeling disgust or encountering vileness.

  177. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Important correction of my comment posted at May 24, 2020 at 2:01 am GMT (comment # 158).

    In that comment I put this reference:

    Laurent Guyénot, The Devil’s Trick: Unmasking the God of Israel, Unz Review (17 May 2020), https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/…&#8230

    Somehow the link was corrupted: made https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/…&#8230

    The correct link is https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/

    I am very sorry.

  178. @Curmudgeon

    The Lutheran catechism that I learned before the great split about 60 years ago certainly didn’t assume self interest was corruption, which is what you seem to suggest. There is such a thing as human frailty, whether physical or spiritual. I can’t speak for all Protestant denominations, but my understanding was that the spiritual frailty was yielding to the temptation of a sinful act. Anything beyond that is Jimmy Carter`s `lust in my heart`. Certainly nothing to be proud of, but not a sin, and not corruption by self interest.

    Maybe I spoke too soon. I’m only familiar with the Anglican(Episcopalian) interpretation. I know some argue that Anglicanism isn’t really Protestantism. My understanding was that Original Sin can be conceived of as man’s selfish self-interest – as opposed to moral law which might require abnegation of selfish impulse for the betterment of the whole (what is Holy).

    My understanding is that Lutherans have the same basic conception – that “every human thought and deed is infected with sin and sinful motives” (i.e. that humans are totally corrupted by self-interest and sinful selfish desires), and that this is something we’re all born into and saddled with, save for the Grace of God. I believe that Calvinists preach the same ideological structure regards Original Sin also. I think it’s a very good moral system.

  179. @Stochastic Determinist

    ‘If I’m not mistaken, I read that research a while back. The idea is not that Yiddish has any Iranian origins but that some of the Ashkenazis do. I’m sure I could dig it up and give you a few relevant quotes if you like.

    I clicked on the link — then threw in the towel when I ran into some utter bumph asserting that Yiddish (the language, not the people) had Iranian roots.

    That’s definitely what I read. As to the people, I’m skeptical that very many Ashkenazim could have origins other than German or Slavic, but I’m open to the argument. That, however, was not the claim I read.

  180. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Are you talking to me? Nice to see you can string together a sentence or two even if you make no sense. Keep it going you are making progress.

    • Troll: Ann Nonny Mouse
  181. @Loup-Bouc

    You seem to be arguing with a claim I never made.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  182. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Colin Wright

    You posted a comment that questioned the frequency-distribution of skilled labor employment and other non-professional, non-banking, non-financial-business economic occupations among “Jews.” See, e.g., your comment of May 24, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT (comment # 162).

    My comment of May 24, 2020 at 11:08 pm GMT (comment # 174) responds to your comment of May 24, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT (comment # 162), which is one of your comments that poses that question.

  183. Anon[819] • Disclaimer says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    So, Mr Loup, how do you know that Chomsky is not Ashkenazi? Link?

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  184. @Colin Wright

    That link didn’t work for me, but I found the original article at:

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

    In that piece, which I didn’t feel like rereading in entirety, I found the following:

    These findings were compatible with the hypothesis of an Irano-Turko-Slavic origin for AJs and a Slavic origin for Yiddish and at odds with the Rhineland hypothesis advocating a Levantine origin for AJs and German origins for Yiddish.

    Now, before you dismiss the idea of Slavic origins for Yiddish, you should look into the work of Paul Wexler, a linguist who has shown rather persuasively that in fact Yiddish is a relexified Slavic language. Wexler is one of the authors of the piece.

    However, if you can provide a quote from the study linked above that claims that Yiddish is of Iranian origin, I’ll look for it. As I said, I didn’t want to reread the entire piece.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  185. @Fran Taubman

    When are you yahweites going to pay for the crimes against humanity your coreligionists have committed? When are you going to pay for the Bolshevik genocide?

    Why are ALL Germans paying for the Holocaust that was organized by a handful of Germans? Why are not all Jews paying for the Russian genocide?

    Jews must pay and they WILL pay.

    • Thanks: Fran Taubman
  186. @Stochastic Determinist

    ‘…Now, before you dismiss the idea of Slavic origins for Yiddish, you should look into the work of Paul Wexler, a linguist who has shown rather persuasively that in fact Yiddish is a relexified Slavic language. Wexler is one of the authors of the piece…’

    I’m sorry, but this is just too weird.

    Look at a sentence in Yiddish. Now look at the same sentence in German.

    You can tell me all you want to about how August is actually the coldest month of the year in Kansas. I just won’t believe.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  187. @RumpelstiltskinTheGoy

    ‘When are you yahweites going to pay for the crimes against humanity your coreligionists have committed? When are you going to pay for the Bolshevik genocide?

    Why are ALL Germans paying for the Holocaust that was organized by a handful of Germans? Why are not all Jews paying for the Russian genocide?’

    That’s actually kind of an interesting question. After all, if at least qualified support for Hitler was commonplace among Germans in the thirties and early forties, at least qualified support for Communism and the Soviet Union was commonplace among Jews in the thirties and early forties.

    And while it’s true that the Germans might not have anticipated the Holocaust et al but had a pretty good idea Hitler wasn’t planning to be the greatest friend the Jewish people ever had, it’s also true that while Jews might not have realized the extent and brutality of Soviet crime, they would have had a pretty good idea things weren’t super nice for shopkeepers, wealthy peasants, et al in the Soviet Union.

    Germans may have been perfectly prepared to see Jews get a raw deal if that was necessary to realize the Nazi utopia, but Jews were quite willing to sacrifice the happiness of even larger swathes of society to realize the Communist utopia. Where is the ethical distinction?

  188. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Anon

    I never said that Noam Chomsky is (or is not) not Ashkenazim. In NO comment did I even intimate an opinion concerning Mr. Chomsky’s actual ethnicity.

    You have mis-read, egregiously, my comments related to Noam Chomsky’s ethnicity.

  189. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Anon

    Correction of typng error that affects meaning:

    In my comment of May 27, 2020 at 3:20 am GMT (comment # 190), the first sentence bears a typing error that renders the sentence’s meaning partly wrong. That first sentence’s second “not” is a typing error.

    The first sentence ought to be:

    “I never said that Noam Chomsky is (or is not) Ashkenazim.”

    Sorry.

  190. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    The theory that Yiddish is a “relexified” Slavic language rather than an offshoot of German is out there. It has convinced few academics but I have heard of the claim.
    Jews in some parts of central/eastern Europe spoke Knaanic, a Slavic language, probably Czech or Polish with some Hebrew vocabulary added. It died out, either being replaced by Yiddish or by the Czech and Polish languages proper.
    Languages consist of words, and how you maintain a language is “relexified” without transforming it into an entirely different language is far from clear to me. I might as well say that when I am speaking German I am speaking “relexified” English.

  191. Wielgus says:

    The German translation of the graphic novel Maus tried to convey Vladek Spiegelman’s broken English by giving his German some Yiddish features, like dispensing with German’s simple past tense, apparently absent from Yiddish. So Vladek always says the equivalent of “I have gone” when correct speech would be “I went”. When speaking Yiddish, German or Polish, Vladek is given normal German. Regardless, German and Yiddish are close – as I mentioned elsewhere, I understood a lot of Yiddish spoken by Hasidim I overheard. In contrast, in Amsterdam and Antwerp I had much more trouble following what Dutch speakers said.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gilad Atzmon Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2