Religious Tribalism

[fschmidt]

I just finished reading:

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years


The author is a Jewish Israeli Leftist. His basic point is that the Talmud is racist and ruthless. The principle of the Talmud is that Jews should do anything for other Jews and should lie, cheat, and generally screw over gentiles for the benefit of Jews. From what little I know of the Talmud, this is accurate. The author is fluent in Hebrew and has studied the Talmud, so I trust his analysis.

One specific example is that a Jew is required to save the life of another Jew if possible. But the Talmud commands Jews to neither kill nor save the life of gentile. For a Jew to save the life of a gentile without some kind of compensation is a violation of the Talmud. The Talmud also discusses all kinds of lies that Jews should tell gentiles to get out of being obligated to help them.

From a Leftist perspective, all this is horrible. Leftists are universalists who see humanity as one giant tribe. But those who are truly on the Right should be tribalists and should recognize that tribes look out for their own self interest. Ethnic Jews today are mostly either Talmudists or Leftists. The Talmudists will lie about the Talmud to gentiles. And the Leftists are embarrassed of the Talmud and reject it. I am in neither category, neither Talmudist nor Leftist. I believe in tribalism but I reject both the Talmud and race as the basis for my tribe.

Christianity has the opposite problem of the Talmudists. Christianity today is Leftist because it fails to define a meaningful tribe. For a religion to work, it must have a clear and meaningful definition of who is and isn't a member of the religion/tribe.

Given the choice of allying with Talmudists or Christians, I pick the Talmudists. The problem with Christianity today is that there is nothing there. Allying with Christians would be like allying with nothingness. Allying with Talmudists depends on understanding that they are totally selfish and that an alliance depends on their understanding that the alliance is in their self interest. I believe this is currently the best option.

[Cornfed]

The author is a Jewish Israeli Leftist. His basic point is that the Talmud is racist and ruthless. The principle of the Talmud is that Jews should do anything for other Jews and should lie, cheat, and generally screw over gentiles for the benefit of Jews. From what little I know of the Talmud, this is accurate. The author is fluent in Hebrew and has studied the Talmud, so I trust his analysis.

This shows the just how bafflingly stupid it is for people to let Talmudic Jews and Jews who might be Talmudic live in their societies. The existence of entities that are inherently predatory to your own people is not necessarily a problem. For example, the existence of crocodiles is not inherently bad for humans as long as we deal with them as the dangerous predators they are. But to actually let openly hostile predators live amongst you and pretend they are one of your own, enter into business deals with them etc. and imagine that is going to end in anything but disaster has to be the last word in insanity. Where is a modern day Edward Longshanks when you need him?

[Cornfed]

Christianity has the opposite problem of the Talmudists. Christianity today is Leftist because it fails to define a meaningful tribe. For a religion to work, it must have a clear and meaningful definition of who is and isn't a member of the religion/tribe.

The historical answer from a Eurocentric perspective was that Christianized Germanic tribes and populations that could reasonably be assimilated into the Germano-Christian way of doing things were on the team. Everyone else required varying degrees of separation. It would be good if an improved version of this could be implemented.

[fschmidt]

This shows the just how bafflingly stupid it is for people to let Talmudic Jews and Jews who might be Talmudic live in their societies. The existence of entities that are inherently predatory to your own people is not necessarily a problem.

This book has given me a lot to think about. Let me give you a little more detail.

The book covers the history of Jews in Europe. The basic story is that in most of Europe in the Middle Ages, there was an aristocracy that totally abused the population. The Jews acted in their self interest which meant that they allied with the aristocracy against the people. The Jews were actually loyal to the aristocracy because this was in their self interest. When the people rose up, they attacked both the aristocracy and the Jews. So here each group is acting in its own self interest. Acting in one's self interest isn't quite the same thing as being predatory. When lying, cheating, and screwing over gentiles isn't in the Talmudic self interest, they won't do it as they didn't with the European aristocracy.

I am currently facing all this as a practical question. I have no respect for the masses today and I welcome anyone screwing them over since the masses deserve nothing but being screwed over. But I also face the question of how much can I trust the Talmudists. Of course since I am ethnically Jewish, they will support me. But my family is not Jewish by their definition, and this is my practical concern. Can I find a Talmudic basis for Talmudists to make a meaningful commitment to non-Jews and actually keep that commitment? I hope to study the Talmud with a rabbi to find the answer. If the answer is yes, then anyone, including Germanic Christians, could make a meaningful and useful alliance with the Talmudists. If the answer is no, then I need to look elsewhere for a solution.

[fschmidt]

Christianity has the opposite problem of the Talmudists. Christianity today is Leftist because it fails to define a meaningful tribe. For a religion to work, it must have a clear and meaningful definition of who is and isn't a member of the religion/tribe.

The historical answer from a Eurocentric perspective was that Christianized Germanic tribes and populations that could reasonably be assimilated into the Germano-Christian way of doing things were on the team. Everyone else required varying degrees of separation. It would be good if an improved version of this could be implemented.

It would need to be very much improved. When people live in tribes, it is pretty obvious who is a member and who isn't. But today you need a really clear definition of who is a member of your group. This tells everyone in the group exactly who they owe allegiance to. Without a clear definition, it is unclear who is owed allegiance and then the whole thing becomes worthless.

[Cornfed]

Perhaps there are studies of prison gangs that might tell us the answer.

[Jester]

This shows the just how bafflingly stupid it is for people to let Talmudic Jews and Jews who might be Talmudic live in their societies.

+1

[Jester]

Christianity has the opposite problem of the Talmudists. Christianity today is Leftist because it fails to define a meaningful tribe. For a religion to work, it must have a clear and meaningful definition of who is and isn't a member of the religion/tribe.

The historical answer from a Eurocentric perspective was that Christianized Germanic tribes and populations that could reasonably be assimilated into the Germano-Christian way of doing things were on the team. Everyone else required varying degrees of separation. It would be good if an improved version of this could be implemented.

It would need to be very much improved. When people live in tribes, it is pretty obvious who is a member and who isn't. But today you need a really clear definition of who is a member of your group. This tells everyone in the group exactly who they owe allegiance to. Without a clear definition, it is unclear who is owed allegiance and then the whole thing becomes worthless.

Damn good point.

Ideas from various "tribes":
Circumcision (many)
Tattoos (Hells Angels)
Training for Accolytes (Early Catholics, Jewish Bar Mitzvah, Freemasonry)
Baptism (Christianity)
Secret rituals (Druze, Alawites, Freemasonry, Mormonism, Kabbalists))
Handsigns (Black street gangs, cops, Freemasons)
Symbols (Illuminati, Christians, Kabbalists, Free French Resistance, Nazis, Golden Dawn, Mohammedans)
Hats (Jews, Mohammedans, Black street gangs, White Citizens Council)
Pendants (Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, JohRei)
Beads (Catholic Christians, Mohammedans)
Lapel Pins (Freemasons, Flagwaving Republicans, Jerry Falwell supporters)
Undergarment/Scapular (Mormons, Catholic lay orders)

And the Boondock Saints had a cool Mother Mary neck tattoo:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8fe4a4.jpg


I suppose some sort of identifying apparel would be simplest.

But the boundaries for inclusion should be well-defined first. No need to drive people away with the fashion statement. Even circumcision was already quite well-known at the time, when God ordained it for Israel. Like a tattoo might be today. But then tats might drive off the Biblically minded, being banned and all.

[Jester]

...... I believe in tribalism but I reject both the Talmud and race as the basis for my tribe.

Christianity has the opposite problem of the Talmudists. Christianity today is Leftist because it fails to define a meaningful tribe. For a religion to work, it must have a clear and meaningful definition of who is and isn't a member of the religion/tribe.

Jews don't need your ideas.

Christians do.

Why don't you just define what additional requirements would have to be met, IN ADDITION to the ethics of the Torah and the teachings of Jesus?

Lots of Christian men are "unchurched", disgusted with "Leftist" currents.
http://www.returnofkings.com/42939/why- ... our-church

[Moretorque]

I would like to be a practicing

[fschmidt]

Jews don't need your ideas.

Christians do.

Why don't you just define what additional requirements would have to be met, IN ADDITION to the ethics of the Torah and the teachings of Jesus?

Lots of Christian men are "unchurched", disgusted with "Leftist" currents.
http://www.returnofkings.com/42939/why- ... our-church

I have put enough effort into Christianity, so someone else can take the lead and if something works, I would join. But I can give my opinion.

Cornfed is looking for a Christian Shahada. I don't think this is the right approach. Words are cheap. Instead, I would push the idea that actions count and words mean nothing. This does not contradict the Protestant concept of faith over works. Rather it says that deeds are better proof of faith than words are. This was the position taken by John Calvin. And this would instantly turn Christianity from a feminine to a masculine religion since talk is feminine and action is masculine.

With this approach, one needs a short list of actions that are required for membership to group. These actions should be specific, not general. The last action on the list should be that men should be required to wear some agreed upon distinctive symbol. Men should only wear this symbol when they are adhering to the other actions on the list. That is my general suggestion, and if anyone is interested in discussing the details, this could be done in Cornfed's Christian thread.

[Jester]

Okay.

[fschmidt]

This shows the just how bafflingly stupid it is for people to let Talmudic Jews and Jews who might be Talmudic live in their societies. The existence of entities that are inherently predatory to your own people is not necessarily a problem. For example, the existence of crocodiles is not inherently bad for humans as long as we deal with them as the dangerous predators they are. But to actually let openly hostile predators live amongst you and pretend they are one of your own, enter into business deals with them etc. and imagine that is going to end in anything but disaster has to be the last word in insanity. Where is a modern day Edward Longshanks when you need him?

Now it's shabbat, so I have time to answer this properly. Starting with Edward Longshanks, kicking out the Jews didn't do much for England. In fact the British Empire really started to rise around the time that Jews were let back in. Why is this? Because what matters is that a society has sound moral laws. If it does, then it is in Jews' self-interest to act morally, according to the law, so they will. In fact by knowing the Talmud, any society could force Jews to be extra moral by fining the synagogue that is attended by a Jew who commits a crime. Since the Talmud forbids Jews harming other Jews, this would virtually eliminate crime among religious Jews.

Why bother? What is the benefit of having Jews? The best example is Nazi Germany. The atomic bomb was invented by Leo Szilard and the hydrogen bomb by Edward Teller, both Hungarian Jews. If Nazi Germany had not been hostile to Jews, it would have had these weapons first since Hungary was a German ally. Germany lost the war because it didn't have Jewish scientists. So the best approach for any society is to understand Talmudic Judaism and manage it properly.

[Jester]

I dont doubt the virtuosity of Jewish physicists. I have known some.

But the Germans invented the A-Bomb. The Brits and Americans were not getting it done.

They detonated one on a platform in the Baltic, it was viewed by an Allied recon pilot.

But Allied bombing and ground offensive stopped them from building and deploying another.

Captured Germans offered the plans, to get the US to stop the Russians. The US took the plans but allowed the Russians to keep the Yalta slice. One of the two bombs dropped on Japan was the exact German design.

The other bomb was one tested in New Mexico. It had to be tested because it was not the same design that the Germans had already tested.

As for collective punsihment, thats exactly what did happen to the Jews in Britain and in Spain as well. They were kicked out.

Regarding British Empire, its true that the Jews shrewdly backed a winner when they cut their deal with Cromwell, followed by one with Charles II. They had sat fuming in Venice for over 100 years prior to that, after being kicked out of Spain and Portugal for just cause. During the 1500's, they observed the skill of British pirates in attacking innocent Spanish vessels. They decided to join forces.

Yes, the combination of English imperialists and Jew racketeers has been powerful. But is that a good thing?

[Moretorque]

I dont doubt the virtuosity of Jewish physicists. I have known some.

But the Germans invented the A-Bomb. The Brits and Americans were not getting it done.

They detonated one on a platform in the Baltic, it was viewed by an Allied recon pilot.

But Allied bombing and ground offensive stopped them from building and deploying another.

Captured Germans offered the plans, to get the US to stop the Russians. The US took the plans but allowed the Russians to keep the Yalta slice. One of the two bombs dropped on Japan was the exact German design.

The other bomb was one tested in New Mexico. It had to be tested because it was not the same design that the Germans had already tested.

As for collective punsihment, thats exactly what did happen to the Jews in Britain and in Spain as well. They were kicked out.

Regarding British Empire, its true that the Jews shrewdly backed a winner when they cut their deal with Cromwell, followed by one with Charles II. They had sat fuming in Venice for over 100 years prior to that, after being kicked out of Spain and Portugal for just cause. During the 1500's, they observed the skill of British pirates in attacking innocent Spanish vessels. They decided to join forces.

Yes, the combination of English imperialists and Jew racketeers has been powerful. But is that a good thing?

I will not say the history you are being fed is a lie but remember ink pen and paper have been writing lies for centuries! and our rulers have had a few to do it.