Tuesday, 17 October 2017

How social conservatives should deal with Liberal Jews in positions of influence in the West

The solution is to state the problem of liberalism and discredit liberals and liberalism which would include Liberal Jews.

It is easily demonstrated that liberalism caused feminism and feminism causes degeneracy. Degeneracy would adversely affect Jews living in the West too, causing them to give up the high-maintenance observance that is obviously beyond the degenerate to even understand, let alone practise. It would therefore be for the good of both Jews and gentiles that a government governing in the long term national interest kicks out feminism. Men both Jewish and gentile should cooperate to kick out feminism even if in the short to medium term they risk withdrawal of sexual access and even divorce under the insane rules of no fault divorce.

Any social conservative debating with a Liberal Jew should draw his attention to this truly magnificent denunciation of Liberal Jews by Melanie Phillips.

What makes Jews hateful to the gentile is the perception that gentiles in their own land cannot mock or criticise the Jew because of Holocaust denial laws. The rule of law is so weak that countries that allow Holocaust denial unofficially treat Holocaust denial as if it were a crime even when the law officially allows this.

Are there any Jewish lawyers prepared to stand up for the rule of law and Alison Chabloz? I do hope so.

After all, even Jews themselves have got into trouble over Holocaust denial laws the most prominent of which is the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu himself.

Natanyahu said. “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, but only to expel them.

Another prominent Jew who got into trouble over Holocaust denial is Rabbi Mizrachi.

A controversial ultra-Orthodox rabbi based in New York has said that fewer that one million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, claiming most of those counted among the usually cited figure of six million were not Jewish according to rabbinical law.  
Mizrachi suggested the behavior of non-religious Jews as a cause for Nazi atrocities and warned that slack observance could bring about “further tragedy.”
Wow, I will happily stand aside for Rabbi Mizrachi if he wants to be the Mashiach!

In early 2014, before a lecture tour in London, concern was expressed about statements by Mizrachi in his previous lectures relating to the behaviour of secular and religious Jews during the Holocaustsuggesting that Down's Syndrome and autism are "punishments for sins committed in a previous life" and among others. Mizrachi was criticized for his views while he explicitly maintains are "Torah sourced." His views also include lectures using Bible Codes to "explain" the Holocaust. As a result, at least one of his planned lectures in London was initially cancelled.

In December 2015, in one of his lectures, Mizrahi claimed that it is possible that only one million Jews died in The Holocaust as opposed to the well accepted figure of 6 million, since many of them were not Jewish according to Jewish law which requires a person's mother to be Jewish Mizrahi was criticized by academics and Jewish leaders including Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who said that he "made up history to suit an agenda." He was also criticized by Berel Wein who stated that "It is too damaging a matter to be left unanswered and unrefuted." Later Mizrahi issued an apology. According to The Times, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has spoken out against the travel plans of this "Jewish hate preacher"; and the UK Home Office has suggested that the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, was considering banning Mizrahi should he apply to visit Britain.
In December 2016, 16 prominent US rabbis issued an open letter about Mizrachi. They said that Mizrachi "reduce[s] complex issues to simplistic and misleading sound bites," and his assertions are "objectionable, and even dangerous." The letter continued that institutions should be more "discerning" with the guests they invite.

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste, but they were also liberal in their willingness to incorporate Hellenism into their lives, something the Pharisees opposed. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. The main focus ofSadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.

The problem has always been with Assimilated Jews and a corruptible and corrupt priesthood ie people who ignore and then forget the founding principles of their religion/ideology in the heedless pursuit of short-term expediency. 

Jews who are suggesting that the Third Temple be built have obviously not understood the lessons of history. The Al Aqsa Mosque is fine where it is.  

Monday, 16 October 2017

Is feminism dangerous to your liberty?

Feminism is dangerous to your liberty if it is indeed true that feminism causes

false rape accusations to be successfully prosecuted in courts where a defendant is no longer treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

in a country where the Director of Public Prosecutions is female,

where the Chairman of the Bar Council is female,

where the Home Secretary is female,

where the Prime Minister is also female

and where most female MPs are for gay marriage and against leaving the EU.

The more promiscuous the women, the more shameless the women. The more shameless the women, the more likely they are to report rape.

The more promiscuous the women, the stupider they are. The stupider they are, the more likely they will be pumped and dumped.

The more women are pumped and dumped, the more likely they will be angry and bitter about being pumped and dumped.

The more angry and bitter women are about a lifetime of being pumped and dumped, the more likely they are to falsely accuse a man of rape, especially if a successful conviction entitles them to £11,000.

Is feminism even more totalitarian than a theocracy that guarantees the freedom of belief the way Islam does at

Is it not the case that all anti-discrimination legislation is in fact thoughtcrime passed by feminists and their running dogs?  

In the UK the Equality Act 2010 contains most of the thoughtcrime passed by our matriarchy which is clearly unIslamic under 2:256 of the Koran.

It is quite a thought, is it not, to discover that Islam actually gives taxpayers more liberty than feminism? 

Is patriarchy less restrictive on your liberty than feminism because it gives you the constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate tax of 20%?

Is it fair enough that those who do not pay taxes do not vote?

Is it not fair enough that the low-waged should not be subject to the burden of being taxed nor the burden of voting?

Would not a patriarchy - a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers - be more lightly governed than a matriarchy - a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers with illegitimate offspring whom they badly parent?

Is it not abundantly clear that patriarchy is what all rational and moral citizens both men and women should choose while booting out our degenerate matriarchy that was built on decades of feminist legislation which could be repealed at the stroke of the pen?

Has feminism turned our male MPs into spineless worms afraid of their own shadow, terrified of being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce by their entitled wives, accused of a historic sexual offence or deprived of their matrimonial home and children in the family court whose judges are mostly female?

Saturday, 14 October 2017

The real reason for Kol Nidre

To: Rabbi Sacks
Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017, 21:30:07 GMT+1
Subject: The real reason for Kol Nidre

The vows annulled at Kol Nidre do not include vows made to people and this includes gentiles, only to God. In other words, the purpose of Kol Nidre is not a licence to not keep promises to people, but is intended to make the promisor think which vows to God he will renew after Kol Nidre and which he will allow to expire, if they are found to be foolish or redundant. This is an excellent idea giving us a chance to perform an annual review of promises made to God and decide on their necessity, folly or redundancy, which can only increase our wisdom and self-knowledge.

May I know what Rabbi Sacks thinks of this suggestion, which I do not believe was mentioned at

Friday, 13 October 2017

How to nudge Jews in the direction of Secular Koranism

Jews can be divided into Observant Conservative Jews and Assimilated Feminist/Liberal Sabbath-breaking unobservant Jews.

Liberal Jews are not even supposed to exist and for this reason Conservative Jews should dissociate themselves from Liberal Jews. According to Mosaic Law, to desecrate shabbat intentionally, despite warning, is a capital offense.

Liberal Jews are of course feminist Jews and feminist Jews are Amalekites which observant Jews are obliged to exterminate.

This is because the Amalekites are matriarchal and believed to have been the Neanderthals who did not practice marriage. This meant that they were exterminated by homo sapiens who did practice marriage and who were therefore patriarchal.

It can easily be seen that patriarchies easily and inevitably exterminate matriarchies because patriarchies are more efficiently and rationally organised.

Obviously, a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers would be more moral, rational, better governed in the long term national interest and fairer than a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers and their illegitimate offspring.

The Amalekites are of course people who don't observe the Noahide laws. Jews have a religious duty to exterminate Amalekites and Jews who deny they have this duty would understandably be suspected of being Amalekites themselves or of being their agents of subversion. Deut. 25:19

It cannot be denied that the very basis of Western civilisation has been subverted by feminism, can it?

While Islam imposes a duty of jihad on Muslims, there is nothing in the Koran that says anything as nasty as exterminating any group as a religious duty.

The best way to put it to these Liberal/Feminist Jews is that if they support Secular Koranism, they will no longer be considered Amalekites.

Since Secular Koranism guarantees freedom of belief with 2:256, they can still call themselves Liberal and Reform Jews and worship in any way they please, provided they say they support Secular Koranism and promise not to break the laws of a state governed by the principles of Secular Koranism.

That's the JQ sorted. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

Thursday, 12 October 2017

My father would completely agree with Reactionary Expat about the Taiwanese

Reactionary Expat mentions the Chinese attitude towards the JQ which is a mixture of admiration and revulsion, apparently.

The important thing to note is that Taiwan is post-industrial and suffering from the same problem of bad parenting, materialism caused by the Worship of Mammon. In Taiwan, they cannot blame Jews, only their rotten culture of materialism and democracy.

The Chinese keep a ledger of cash gifts received and given to each other and there will be expectations of attendance and reciprocity.

The Strawberry Generation is called this because they bruise easily because they have been wrapped in cotton wool and spoilt by their parents.

Alan Dershowitz denounces Hard Left Intersectionality and discusses Israel and US foreign policy

Alan Dershowitz denounces intersectionality.

He does not appear to have made the connection between feminism and intersectionality.

Intersectionality is of course the measurement and acquisition of victimhood as a means of showing status.

I am afraid Dershowitz is a Liberal Jew who has allowed himself his Liberalism to trump his Judaism.

He says he is a Democrat, and "I buy the entire liberal agenda up and down and I am a Zionist."

I am a feminist and I am a Zionist, I am a gay rights activist and I am a Zionist, and I will never give up the Democratic Party. 

Nationalist men will always be keener to blame Jews and Muslims than their own treacherous women in positions of influence who don't care about them

The marriage was not a happy one, and the Kohlbergs separated in the mid-1970s. They were finally divorced in 1985. Kohlberg began a relationship with Ann Higgins, a developmental psychologist, during his separation. They became engaged after Kohlberg's divorce, but were not married at the time of his death.

Despite being Kohlberg's research assistant, Gilligan argued that Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development were male-oriented, which limited their ability to be generalized to females.

One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values, and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Carol Gilligan has argued that Kohlberg's theory is overly androcentric. Kohlberg's theory was initially developed based on empirical research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that it did not adequately describe the concerns of women.  Kohlberg stated that women tend to get stuck at level 3, focusing on details of how to maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are likely to move on to the abstract principles, and thus have less concern with the particulars of who is involved. Consistent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does not focus on the value of justice. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring. Critics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, however, argued that Gilligan's research is ill-founded, and that no evidence exists to support her conclusion.