Rev 2:9 repeated in Rev 3:9 for good measure, but haggee pimpeo and 63m southern baptists are in the thrall of the ghostwritten zio notes (financed by an untermeyer) of the scofield bible. Its the sos stupid, lately allied with the synagogue of sphincter.
E. Michael Jones is a brave man, saying taboo things about Jews. But his Catholic dogma prevents him from seeing reality about Protestants/Evangelicals. He says pro-life and pro Israel genocide are inconsistent ("right"), and pro-choice and pro-Palestine ("left") are also inconsistent. That is wrong. Pro-life is not a sincere concern for life. It is a cover story. As Barney Frank used to say, Pro-lifers concern for children starts at conception and ends at birth. They oppose all policies which help mothers and children. You can choose your explanation for why that is, patriarchy, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. (See Robert Altemeyer's explanation of pro-lifers). The way they are consistent is that they both are biblical.
The secular left is more concerned with women's rights and minority rights. If you think of pro-choice as pro-sovereignty for women and not baby killing as Jones does, then the two policies are also consistent. Concern for women's rights and Palestinian rights is consistent. Where the left fell down was being pro-Covid tyranny. That went completely against "my body, my choice" which justifies abortion. They lost their minds on that one because the psy-op weaponized their empathy and their belief in the collective, by telling them it was for the "greater good" and it would protect grandma.
Interesting that you bring up panpsychism. As followers of patriarchal authoritarian religions you and Jones have an infantile view of god as an outside entity living in the sky (sky god) looking over mankind. With god defined as "he", you are stuck in dualism and antiquated ideas. If you would adopt pantheism, with god permeating everything and not separate from us, as most of the eastern religions do, then everything becomes clear and understandable.
I stopped listening to Sheikh Imran Hosein after I spent 5 hours listening to his speeches on the Saker website. His explanation why the Koran is the word of god is because the Koran says it is. Ever heard of tautology? And I'm the King of Siam.
Despite your belief in the mythical sky god, you still get the story right most of the time, which is why I subscribe. E. Michael Jones is so dogmatic he's hard to listen to sometime. Good on you for considering opposing views. cheers, Gary
Well, Gary, I think you are missing how reason can lead people to the same place that the faith of the fathers leads others. Regarding abortion, an honest philosophical-empirical inquiry into precisely when human life starts shows us that there is no cut-off point. It is rationally-empirically inarguable that a person who kills a baby while it is in the womb, 8 months after conception, is just as guilty of murder as a person who kills it a month after birth and ten months after conception. Since preventing murder is more important than "women's rights" (or "men's rights" to not have to spend 18 years as a wage slave for the child they fathered) it follows that the anti-abortion camp is right, whatever your views of other philosophical/religious topics. The anti-abortion argument becomes even stronger when we consider anthropological data showing that in all societies the basis of human relations is an extended family unit that only exists due to harsh restrictions on sexuality outside of a heavily-formalized reproductive relationship (i.e. marriage). Since a healthy society requires harshly restricting non-reproductive sexuality...well, it follows that the Catholic teachings are pretty much what reason dictates, though perhaps slightly exaggerated in certain respects, while the secular-humanist ones are grossly irrational if not downright insane.
Also, your "sky god" stuff is wrong. I don't believe in a male/patriarchal sky god any more than you do. You can find out what I do believe here: https://www.youtube.com/@khidriainc.2602/videos
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I wasn't arguing for or against abortion rights. I merely pointed out how IN THEIR VIEW leftist's women's rights and Palestinian rights are consistent, as are pro-life and pro Israel genocide, both being biblical. Jones is evaluating them according HIS values rather than the values of those espousing them. That is called projection and is a mistake.
The most interesting thing you said is, "a healthy society requires harshly restricting non-reproductive sexuality". The truth is actually the exact opposite. Since you believe in evidence and anthropological data I challenge you to read this and continue to hold that view: http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
That article supports my view. It points out that children need plenty of affection in their earliest years. That only happens in stable families where male (naturally promiscuous and potentially violent) sexuality is harshly restricted so men marry and take care of their wives and children.
True, but you missed the second major factor resulting in violence in adults. Cross cultural study across 49 aboriginal cultures found adult violence HIGHLY correlated with suppression of adolescent sexuality, in other words, suppression of pre-marital sex. This is highly robust data. You are engaged in confirmation bias. People who experiment with sexuality during adolescence can form lasting monogamous bonds later. So there is no contradiction with your views. What is your objection to natural functions of the human body? Did you miss the 60's or something? LOL.
That's all very interesting regarding aboriginal cultures, but I'm pretty sure the findings would be very different in cultures more like ours, such as...well, ours. Since the time of Marx it's been known that the "lumpenproletariat" is where intra-family violence and violent crime happens the most, and that it's correlated with earlier and more promiscuous sexual experience, while the defining feature of the less-violent middle class is its "sexual repression" i.e. relative monogamy and no-sex-till-marriage especially for women. Look around you today, and you'll notice that the poor white and especially poor black social strata are producing grossly disproportionate intrafamily violence and violent crime, and that they are associated with, maybe even defined by, their promiscuity, especially at earlier ages. Also note that violent crime in America is a grossly disproportionately African-American phenomenon, and that it exploded in the 60s after welfare laws changed to encourage single motherhood, which produced a promiscuous culture that gives men no reason to stick around and care for their children.
Well, that is a good point, but it is not that simple. There are many other factors affecting black and poor white culture like poverty. "no-sex-till-marriage especially for middle class women"??? You must be kidding. That is completely false. Middle class Americans have just as much pre-marital sex. You would have to do a cross cultural analysis. The most promiscuous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries, with Icelanders losing their virginity at about 14 years old on average. Women are totally promiscuous at a young age. They are also the most peaceful (least violent crime) or were until massive immigration destroyed their culture. So you can't just site one case (US blacks) and generalize.
All the US teenage mass murderers are "incels", not to mention being on psychotropic drugs. How did you become such a Puritan? I grew up in Massachusetts and I can assure you that the sexually repressed Puritans were not peaceful, but started wars with Indians and victimized and murdered women for "witchcraft". James Prescott's research is valid: Lack of physical affection in infancy and repression of adolescent sexuality lead to adult violence as a general rule.
Are you saying that the Catholic view is actually the same as the Orthodox view? (And that the Calvinist view is the same as the Catholic view?) In other words, are you saying my notion of a continuum, with Islam saying "no original sin, period" and Eastern Orthodoxy saying "well, there is a tendency" to Catholicism and finally Calvinism, is wrong?
Thought provoking Sunday morning read! Thanks, Kevin!
Agree. I haven't heard the podcast but totally enjoyed the essay.
thx u guys..eish..the dilemma consistantly flows in high tide and low tide.
the moral fibre versus the technical details..holocaust versus self defence
abortions and bombing mothers and babies.
We potentially destroy mankind to protect "the chosen Holy "few.
the victim is the truth and the victor is the Lie.
mankind is deluding itself...and thinks he can bluff GOD.
Time will unfold the Absolute ...and all of mankind will be Judged Absolutely.
Rev 2:9 repeated in Rev 3:9 for good measure, but haggee pimpeo and 63m southern baptists are in the thrall of the ghostwritten zio notes (financed by an untermeyer) of the scofield bible. Its the sos stupid, lately allied with the synagogue of sphincter.
E. Michael Jones is a brave man, saying taboo things about Jews. But his Catholic dogma prevents him from seeing reality about Protestants/Evangelicals. He says pro-life and pro Israel genocide are inconsistent ("right"), and pro-choice and pro-Palestine ("left") are also inconsistent. That is wrong. Pro-life is not a sincere concern for life. It is a cover story. As Barney Frank used to say, Pro-lifers concern for children starts at conception and ends at birth. They oppose all policies which help mothers and children. You can choose your explanation for why that is, patriarchy, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. (See Robert Altemeyer's explanation of pro-lifers). The way they are consistent is that they both are biblical.
The secular left is more concerned with women's rights and minority rights. If you think of pro-choice as pro-sovereignty for women and not baby killing as Jones does, then the two policies are also consistent. Concern for women's rights and Palestinian rights is consistent. Where the left fell down was being pro-Covid tyranny. That went completely against "my body, my choice" which justifies abortion. They lost their minds on that one because the psy-op weaponized their empathy and their belief in the collective, by telling them it was for the "greater good" and it would protect grandma.
Interesting that you bring up panpsychism. As followers of patriarchal authoritarian religions you and Jones have an infantile view of god as an outside entity living in the sky (sky god) looking over mankind. With god defined as "he", you are stuck in dualism and antiquated ideas. If you would adopt pantheism, with god permeating everything and not separate from us, as most of the eastern religions do, then everything becomes clear and understandable.
I stopped listening to Sheikh Imran Hosein after I spent 5 hours listening to his speeches on the Saker website. His explanation why the Koran is the word of god is because the Koran says it is. Ever heard of tautology? And I'm the King of Siam.
Despite your belief in the mythical sky god, you still get the story right most of the time, which is why I subscribe. E. Michael Jones is so dogmatic he's hard to listen to sometime. Good on you for considering opposing views. cheers, Gary
Well, Gary, I think you are missing how reason can lead people to the same place that the faith of the fathers leads others. Regarding abortion, an honest philosophical-empirical inquiry into precisely when human life starts shows us that there is no cut-off point. It is rationally-empirically inarguable that a person who kills a baby while it is in the womb, 8 months after conception, is just as guilty of murder as a person who kills it a month after birth and ten months after conception. Since preventing murder is more important than "women's rights" (or "men's rights" to not have to spend 18 years as a wage slave for the child they fathered) it follows that the anti-abortion camp is right, whatever your views of other philosophical/religious topics. The anti-abortion argument becomes even stronger when we consider anthropological data showing that in all societies the basis of human relations is an extended family unit that only exists due to harsh restrictions on sexuality outside of a heavily-formalized reproductive relationship (i.e. marriage). Since a healthy society requires harshly restricting non-reproductive sexuality...well, it follows that the Catholic teachings are pretty much what reason dictates, though perhaps slightly exaggerated in certain respects, while the secular-humanist ones are grossly irrational if not downright insane.
Also, your "sky god" stuff is wrong. I don't believe in a male/patriarchal sky god any more than you do. You can find out what I do believe here: https://www.youtube.com/@khidriainc.2602/videos
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I wasn't arguing for or against abortion rights. I merely pointed out how IN THEIR VIEW leftist's women's rights and Palestinian rights are consistent, as are pro-life and pro Israel genocide, both being biblical. Jones is evaluating them according HIS values rather than the values of those espousing them. That is called projection and is a mistake.
The most interesting thing you said is, "a healthy society requires harshly restricting non-reproductive sexuality". The truth is actually the exact opposite. Since you believe in evidence and anthropological data I challenge you to read this and continue to hold that view: http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
Best wishes,
Gary
That article supports my view. It points out that children need plenty of affection in their earliest years. That only happens in stable families where male (naturally promiscuous and potentially violent) sexuality is harshly restricted so men marry and take care of their wives and children.
True, but you missed the second major factor resulting in violence in adults. Cross cultural study across 49 aboriginal cultures found adult violence HIGHLY correlated with suppression of adolescent sexuality, in other words, suppression of pre-marital sex. This is highly robust data. You are engaged in confirmation bias. People who experiment with sexuality during adolescence can form lasting monogamous bonds later. So there is no contradiction with your views. What is your objection to natural functions of the human body? Did you miss the 60's or something? LOL.
That's all very interesting regarding aboriginal cultures, but I'm pretty sure the findings would be very different in cultures more like ours, such as...well, ours. Since the time of Marx it's been known that the "lumpenproletariat" is where intra-family violence and violent crime happens the most, and that it's correlated with earlier and more promiscuous sexual experience, while the defining feature of the less-violent middle class is its "sexual repression" i.e. relative monogamy and no-sex-till-marriage especially for women. Look around you today, and you'll notice that the poor white and especially poor black social strata are producing grossly disproportionate intrafamily violence and violent crime, and that they are associated with, maybe even defined by, their promiscuity, especially at earlier ages. Also note that violent crime in America is a grossly disproportionately African-American phenomenon, and that it exploded in the 60s after welfare laws changed to encourage single motherhood, which produced a promiscuous culture that gives men no reason to stick around and care for their children.
Well, that is a good point, but it is not that simple. There are many other factors affecting black and poor white culture like poverty. "no-sex-till-marriage especially for middle class women"??? You must be kidding. That is completely false. Middle class Americans have just as much pre-marital sex. You would have to do a cross cultural analysis. The most promiscuous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries, with Icelanders losing their virginity at about 14 years old on average. Women are totally promiscuous at a young age. They are also the most peaceful (least violent crime) or were until massive immigration destroyed their culture. So you can't just site one case (US blacks) and generalize.
All the US teenage mass murderers are "incels", not to mention being on psychotropic drugs. How did you become such a Puritan? I grew up in Massachusetts and I can assure you that the sexually repressed Puritans were not peaceful, but started wars with Indians and victimized and murdered women for "witchcraft". James Prescott's research is valid: Lack of physical affection in infancy and repression of adolescent sexuality lead to adult violence as a general rule.
Your understanding of original sin and Catholicism is inaccurate and caricaturish. It’s a straw man you are pummeling.
Are you saying that the Catholic view is actually the same as the Orthodox view? (And that the Calvinist view is the same as the Catholic view?) In other words, are you saying my notion of a continuum, with Islam saying "no original sin, period" and Eastern Orthodoxy saying "well, there is a tendency" to Catholicism and finally Calvinism, is wrong?
sounds like you've been reading a lot of Israel Shamir
Maybe it's time to bring him back on the show. https://www.unz.com/?s=shamir&Action=Search&authors=kevin-barrett&ptype=all