The ideology of nonjudgmentalism, primarily held by women, is better understood as female guilt transference of their secret desire to be judged. Women WANT a man who will judge them and make them feel if not unworthy at least short of perfection. This provides a pretext for the woman to prove herself to the man, which she will love doing because the act of pleasing arouses in a woman the feeling that the person she’s pleasing is above her and therefore deserving of her efforts. And though women will never admit it on self-report surveys, they get quite turned on by the challenge of satisfying a man who occupies a higher station than them.
With that in mind, here’s Twisted Alpha (Twatter handle @Twisted_Alpha) writing about a form of judgmentalism that women can’t resist, scoreboard game. arbitrarily giving points for good behavior
He attached this screenie:
Adding or subtracting “points” from a woman’s conversational prowess (or even physical/sexual prowess) is a classic Game routine, and illustrates very well the theory of Qualification/Disqualification. There’s a reason Qualification is such an important Game technique: it works, and it works fast. Why does it work? In two words, female hypergamy. A magistrate is sexier than a sycophant.
So if you’re searching for a rhetorical ploy that will coax girls to aim to please you, try Scoreboard Game. And don’t be afraid to deduct points for bitchy or excessively coy behavior. The impact will be lost if you revert to the beta male norm of awarding hundreds of points to women for the accomplishment of possessing a vagina.
Posted inDating|Comments Off on Women Want To Be Judged
Tweet: “The ADL also provides seminars and publications to law enforcement. Creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where cops look for Nazis. The ADL is also heavily involved in public schools with its No Place for Hate Campaign. Young Alt-Right needs to be mindful.”
MORDECHAI LEVY WAS AN accident waiting to happen. By his own account, the paunchy, 27-year-old loner who sprayed Bleecker Street with rifle fire last Thursday afternoon, has spent more than a decade moving in and out of the often violent world of radical fringe groups, supplying information to intelligence agencies and Jewish organizations, including the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai Brith. In the early 1980s he was a maverick Jewish Defense League activist in Los Angeles, where his harassment of white hate groups became legendary.
During the same period he would sometimes turn up on the East Coast, reincarnated as a security agent for the anti-Semitic conspiracy group headed by Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche once said of Levy, “I think of him as my son.” But Levy later became a federal informant gathering evidence on LaRouche, who was later convicted for loan fraud.
Meanwhile, his uncanny ability to track down KKK members and neo-Nazis astounded federal officials. “Levy does appear to possess membership lists of neo-Nazi groups and KKK members across the U.S.,” a confidential FBI memorandum reported. On one occasion Levy even dressed in full Nazi regalia to apply for a parade permit to march at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, apparently in a misguided effort to alert the local Jewish community to the dangers of neo-Nazism.
Several years ago, Levy moved to New York and founded the Jewish Defense Organization, a tiny mutant offshoot of the JDL dedicated to violent harassment of its enemies.
But in the last few months, nothing has obsessed Levy more than his increasingly bitter feud with two rival Jewish militants — West Coast JDL boss Irv Rubin and convicted JDL terrorist Steven Rombom. When these two — together with Allan Klebanoff, a bearded, hulking, 27-year-old Israeli army veteran from Haifa — came to the JDO’s fortresslike Bleecker Street headquarters to serve Levy with court papers stemming from a libel action, something in the tightly wound Levy apparently snapped.
“Mor-dy, Mor-dy, we’ve got something for you,” the militants sang in taunting voices described by eyewitnesses as something out of Nightmare on Elm Street. Levy, who had an arsenal of licensed weapons in his office, allegedly went to the roof and sprayed the street with a burst of semiautomatic rifle fire, wounding a retired air conditioning repairman as he sat in a parked van. “They were really provoking the guy,” said Dominic Spinelli, who was taken to the emergency room at St. Vincent’s hospital. Spinelli says that the three men knocked at Levy’s door and, after receiving no answer, began to throw stones at the windows and to shout “Come on Mordechai, we know you’re in there.” “I guess the guy just got mad and started shooting.”
round midnight on Wednesday, just 12 hours before the shoot-out on Bleecker Street, I received a call from Levy, with whom I have discussed Jewish militant activities over the years. “I’m sorry to call you so late but it’s an emergency,” he said, panting into my phone answering machine. “Pick up. Listen, Rubin is in New York with Rombom. They are fucking looking for you.” Levy, more hyperkinetic than usual, said that the men had staked out The Village Voice offices that afternoon, waiting for a chance to “teach me a lesson” for writing a book about Kahane that they were sure they wouldn’t like. “Rombom is armed,” warned Levy. “They are looking for you. Call me any time, day or night.”
Both Rombom and Rubin were later to tell me that Levy’s midnight call was just one more delusion produced by a very, very sick mind. And they say they posed no threat to Levy when they were met with rifle shots from a Ruger Mini-14 on Thursday.
Moments after the shooting, Bleecker Street looked like a war zone. Dozens of heavily armed police, backed by an armored personnel carrier and a bomb disposal robot, had cordoned off the neighborhood as the JDO leader holed up in his office, phoning friends for advice. An FBI agent Levy knew finally convinced him to surrender.
As Levy, looking downcast and extremely frightened, was led in handcuffs to a waiting unmarked police car, he told reporters, “They were trying to kill me.”
Just a few hours later, after he’d been booked, Levy called me from the 9th Precinct, telling police detectives as a pretext that I was his lawyer.
“Man, [Rombom and Rubin] came last night after I spoke to you,” Levy said, his voice calm and attention focused. “I have witnesses, the guys who live upstairs. I had them say I’m not there. They said, ‘Mordy, we’re going to kill you, we’re going to get you.’ I pretended I wasn’t there…. And then today, they came back.
“I was one floor up and I saw Rombom at the door,” Levy continues. “He was with another idiot. I don’t know who it was. I was looking outside and one of them had like a metal thing trying to pry open the damn door. I called 911. They didn’t come. Five minutes later, they were prying at the door. The sounds were getting louder. I called 911 a second time. I got the operator’s number — number 96. Fortunately, she taped it. I said I got guys at my front door with a gun in their hand, you know, three guys. I recognized Rombom right away, and he had the gun in his hand. I didn’t recognize the faces except for Rombom.
“They were out to get you and me … there is no question about it. They couldn’t find you, so they went after me.
“Irv Rubin has a history of pistol-whipping me. Listen man, it was really self-defense. They were going to break in and kill me. When one guy has a gun in his hand, I don’t care, I don’t have to wait until he aims it at my head…. These guys wanted to kill me, man.”
Wild as it may seem, he’s not alone in that belief. “I think Rubin and Rombom went to Levy’s to rub him out,” says a well-known Jewish militant.
But police sources investigating the shooting are more skeptical: “These guys cry wolf so much you never know what’s really happening,” says a law enforcement official. “Think of what might have happened: Rombom and Rubin could have left Bleecker Street in a body bag.”
The feud between Rubin and Levy first erupted in the early 1980s, when Levy decided to leave the JDL chapter in Los Angeles because it was not “militant enough” for him. Levy then created the JDO, which was really nothing more than a roll of quarters and a phone booth across from his favorite deli where Levy made harassing telephone calls to “enemies of the Jewish people.”
Rubin, who had long suffered the ignominy of playing second fiddle to the king of Jewish militants, Rabbi Meir Kahane, wasn’t keen on letting the young upstart with a scraggly beard and unkempt clothes upstage him. After repeated taunts and threats, Rubin told me in 1985 that he beat Levy so severely he was hospitalized. Rubin now denies he beat Levy.
Levy later moved to New York and joined Lyndon LaRouche’s cult of paranoid conspiracy theorists as an undercover agent of disinformation and dirty tricks. LaRouche security boss Paul Goldstein was Levy’s handler. He assigned Levy to infiltrate the ADL, the JDL, and other groups LaRouche accuses of “destabilizing” the world order. Goldstein set up a “verification unit” to process the information. “Some of it was gold,” he told me.
Levy, however, fed dirt on LaRouche to the ADL, the FBI, and Manhattan D.A. Robert Morganthau’s office. Author dennis King says Levy’s infiltration of the LaRouchies was a classic example of the undercover operative genre. Irwin Suall of the ADL still isn’t quite sure what Levy was up to. “His role was enigmatic,” said Suall, who told the Washington Post that he was afraid Levy might be taking information back to LaRouche. “I was as certain as I could be not to give him information that would be useful to the LaRouche people. I thought he was playing some sort of complex game.”
As Levy was playing his twilight games with the LaRouchies, the Jewish militant scene in New York City was in the process of self-destruction. The preeminent group, the Jewish Defense League, wa founded by Brooklyn-born Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1968. But when the rabble-rousing rabbi moved to Israel in September 1971 — where he founded a political party bent on driving Israel’s Arabs across the Jordan River — his departure left a vacuum. Soon, rival groups of militants, each with one or two wealthy backers, were competing for primacy, sometimes settling their internal squabbles with gunfire and car bombs.
After Levy left LaRouche in ’82 or ’83, he set up the JDO, adding one more letterhead to the soup of militant Jewish alphabet factions in New York. Operating out of 6 Bleecker Street — a building leased by his major benefactor, millionaire realtor and garbologist A.J. Weberman — Levy was soon harassing the likes of reverends Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, as well as assorted skinheads and boot-clicking Nazis.
Levy seemed to have a knack for making sure the FBI and the NYPD knew in advance whenever he planned to picket a group likely to give him trouble. Though Levy liked to boast about the size and militancy of his operations, the JDO was never more than a small band of young Jews who would move on after one or two of Levy’s protest demonstrations. Levy, who runs a weekend weapons and martial arts training camp in the Catskills taught by a black convert to Judaism, was investigated for a string of Jewish extremist bombings in 1985 that claimed two lives and injured seven. The FBI now believes the suspects are four JDL members who are now in Israel, where they are close associates of Meir Kahane.
“The JDO was a figment of Levy’s imagination,” says one of Levy’s most fervent supporters. “Levy believed there was a group of armed kids that he had trained who were loyal. But when Rubin and Rombom came to get him, he was very much alone.”
Rombom and Rubin are militant soul-mates, and Levy, who has tangled with them more than once, certainly thought he had reason to fear both. The strapping, strutting, gun-toting Rombom, a 32-year-old private investigator from Brooklyn, concedes that he is “perceived as a head-breaker.”
“I was a wild kid who hung around with bad guys,” Rombom recently told the San Antonio Express-News in the June 4, 1989, profile that described him as a “Jewish Jim Rockford.” “A lot of my contacts today are guys whose parents are or were big hoodlums.”
Perhaps Rombom’s tough guy obsession began in psychiatric institutions where he spent eight years of his youth, according to court documents. Rombom denies he has ever been institutionalized. Maybe his relationship with the JDL, which began when he was 12, gave him a channel to vent his considerable anger.
In either case, when Kahane asked several JDL members to set up an anti-Arab and anti-Soviet Jewish terrorist underground in 1975, Rombom was an eager participant. For six months in 1976, Rombom and several other JDL militants, calling themselves the Jewish Armed Resistance, tried to emulate the glory days of the JDL.
In New York, pipe bombs exploded outside the Iraqi Mission to the UN, the Polish Consulate, and the Amtrog (Soviet trade mission) Office. Shots were fired into the Soviet residential complex in the Bronx; into the homes of two Soviet diplomats in suburban Maryland; and into the Soviet UN Mission, piercing two fifth-floor windows in the Ukrainian section. On May 2, 1976, in the early morning hours before a march for Soviet Jewry in Manhattan, five low-yield pipe bombs shattered windows and caused minor damage to the American Communist Party national headquarters, two Midtown banks, a Russian-language bookstore, and a subway exit near the United Nations library. On June 23, vehicles belonging to Pan American airlines were destroyed by incendiary bombs.
The flurry of violence stopped when the FBI arrested 17-year-old Steven Rombom, 20-year-old Steven Ehrlich, and 36-year-old Thomas MacIntosh (a convert to Judaism) as they drove across the Goethals Bridge between New Jersey and Staten Island carrying four pounds of gunpowder. MacIntosh, who turned state’s evidence, testified against his friends and also implicated 35-year-old JDL leader Russel Kelner and one other person in the spate of Jewish Armed Resistance terror attacks.
The JDL men were subsequently convicted and sent to prison. Rombom copped a plea to transporting explosives across a state line and spent some 20 months in a federal prison in Tallahassee. “Defendant Rombom needs long psychiatric treatment in a disciplined and structured environment,” said his probation report. “Recommended against early release.”
Rombom is a tragic example of the sort of psychopath Kahane attracted to the JDL. Rombom joined the JDL as a youth over the frantic objections of his doctors and social workers — who called JDL officials and begged them not to allow someone as unstable as Rombom to get involved in the militant organization. Following his conviction, Rombom’s mother spun into a deep depression. His father, Abraham Rombom, wrote the judge to plead for his son’s early release, saying, “… my marriage has been completely ruined. There is no interest in marital relations on the part of my wife. I cannot talk to her about any subject but Steven.”
In 1977 Rombom filed an affidavit with a federal court stating he had been the victim of two homosexual rapes in the Tallahassee prison and should be accorded an early release because he had been rehabilitated. Former Congressman Mario Biaggi, a major JDL supporter, wrote a letter to the warden on Rombom’s behalf. According to an affidavit filed by the U.S. attorney’s office, Rombom manufactured the rape incident to win early release. Sometime after Rombom was released from prison, he says his criminal record was expunged — meaning that as a youthful offender, his record was sealed and cannot be used against him in a court of law.
In spite of the problems his association with the JDL caused Steven, he was still occasionally handling security assignments for Rabbi Kahane as late as 1985 when he visited the U.S. on his frequent fund raising tours. Rombom told me that his private investigation firm, Pallorium, trained JDL security agents somewhere in Canada.
In 1983 Rombom was arrested in Brooklyn for allegedly beating three youths who were apprehended in front of a Brooklyn synagogue on Halloween night by members of a patrol organized by Rombom to combat vandalism against Jewish institutions. The charges against Rombom were later dropped. Rombom says the complainants dropped the charges after admitting that they had misidentified him as the man who beat them. A report in the Long Island Jewish World by a reporter who was with Rombom on the night of the alleged attack confirms Rombom’s account of the incident.
The Federal Aviation Administration has investigated Rombom and considered assessing civil penalties against him for successfully smuggling a fake weapon through a security checkpoint at San Antonio International Airport. Rombom says he was trying to point out the airport’s lax security. Rombom told me the FAA has concluded that the charges against him were “groundless.”
Rombom, who professes some expertise in the field of counter-terrorism, says several synagogues have contacted him about helping them beef up their security as a shield against the spectre of Arab terrorism. “One out of every four hours I spend in the security field is devoted to the Jewish community,” says Rombom.
A few years ago, Rombom replied to an ad for the International Association of Airborne Veterans looking for bona fide American paratroopers to participate in a jump with the Israeli air force. Rombom signed on falsely claiming he was a veteran of the Israeli paratroop corps. “The man is a classic bullshitter,” says one of the jump’s organizers, who added that when he tried to jump the following year, he was told to get lost.
Rombom claims to have worked with a “foreign intelligence agency” for two years and with numerous U.S. police organizations. Several years ago, when Rombom reportedly tried to infiltrate the Russian mob in Brighton Beach for law enforcement agencies, his car was raked with automatic gunfire as he was driving through Brooklyn. “It’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard,” Rombom said in response to reports about the alleged mob infiltration. He admitted, however, that his car was shot up by a man he says the police are still looking for. “He’s [Rombom’s] not the easiest person to deal with,” says an ex-assistant DA in Brooklyn who worked with Rombom on an undercover sting operation.
“While the architecture of his personality may be repulsive to some people, he’s dedicated to justice being done…” Rombom’s longtime friend, country rock musician Kinky Friedman, told the Express-News. Friedman, who is also a successful detective novelist, has based several of his fictional characters on Rombom, and even gives Rombom’s name to his hero. Friedman has thanked Rombom in one of his books for being his technical advisor. In 1985, Kinky Friedman and Steven Rombom were announced as the guests of honor at the Jewish Defense League Legal Defense Fund Dinner at Sholom Japan Restaurant in Manhattan.
Rombom has been railing against Levy since at least 1985, when a union between Irv Rubin’s West Coast JDL and Levy’s JDO — brokered by a wealthy New York Jewish militant — failed to materialize. Soon, Rombom was blabbing to anyone in the press who would listen that Levy was still the illegitimate son of the LaRouchies. According to Paul Goldstein, one of LaRouche’s top security agents, Rombom contacted their people in a Texas airport offering his services as a private investigator. Rombom claims he only phoned the LaRouche organization looking for proof that Levy was still one of them. In response, Levy harassed Rombom’s parents on the telephone, Rombom says. “That’s why I’m furious at this cockroach Levy.”
Later that year Rombom slammed a steaming bowl of soup into Levy’s head at Bernstein’s on the Lower East Side. Rombom has admitted the attack in a phone conversation. Author Dennis King, who was sitting at the table, says that Rombom then threatened King because he was friends with Levy. King says he was threatened by Rombom a second time in a phone call last June 26.
“Levy thinks I’m trying to ruin his life,” Rombom said in a conversation with another Jewish militant. “And certainly I am.” “I am not an objective, disinterested party where Levy is concerned,” he told me. “I take enormous offense to the kind of person Mordechai Levy is.”
Given Levy and Rombom’s less than amicable history, Irv Rubin was being less than honest when he told the New York media after the Bleecker Street shooting that he asked Rombom to serve Levy court papers simply because Rombom is a licensed process server and because he was willing to do it for free. According to the libel suit filed against the JDO leader by Rubin and his wife in California superior court, Levy accused Rubin of drug-dealing, extortion, and laundering money for a convicted organized crime figure during a radio talkshow in Los Angeles last June — allegations Rubin flatly denies. (Meir Kahane once wrote a letter to Rubin on Knesset stationary accusing him of smuggling drugs from Mexico.)
Levy claims that following the talk show, Rubin and four associates tailed him to his mail drop, where they savagely beat him. Rubin denies it. “Rubin knocked me in the head with a pipe, knocked me in the face, busted my glasses,” Levy says. “Then one of them tried to shove me into a car.” After the incident, according to another West Coast Jewish militant, Rubin was heard to gloat that if Levy ever returned to L.A., he would be sent back to New York in “a pine box.”
Last Thursday morning, August 9, the day Rubin, Rombom, and Klebanoff came to Levy’s Bleecker Street headquarters, Levy says he was in bed with a migraine after having been harassed the night before by Rombom. Ironically, it was Tisha Bov, a Jewish holiday that marks the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, traditionally a day of fasting and prayer. Levy, an Orthodox Jew, had not eaten for some time when he allegedly heard Rubin’s distinctive, high-pitched whine outside his door. Levy bolted to the roof, sprayed the sidewalk with rifle fire, and “then locked myself in a closet until I calmed down.
“I was afraid. I was never involved in anything like this before,” Levy told me during a telephone interview from the Brooklyn House of Detention, where he will be held until his bail hearing today.
I asked Levy why he believes Rombom wanted to kill him now, as opposed to at any other time during their stormy relationship. Levy said he believed Rombom thought he had “documents” that he was going to use to hurt the young private eye. “I’m not the kind of person who hurts people or attacks people. These people have a history of attacking me physically. One of them has a history of shooting into occupied dwellings.”
Meanwhile, Rubin, who has been arrested on attempted murder and bombing charges and for various other acts of JDL mayhem, says he can’t imagine what reason Levy would have to fear him. “We came [to Levy’s office] in the middle of the day,” Rubin told me. “We had no weapons … as far as coming to shoot you, it would be a cold day in hell before I even think of that.” Rubin says he believes Levy needs long-term psychiatric treatment. He says he’s sick of Levy tying up the JDL phone lines with collect calls from Dr. Mengele or Mr. Killajew. “I’ve had to change my private line eight times in the last year,” he said, sighing deeply.
Rombom insists he came to Levy’s merely to hand the JDO leader court papers. Levy’s allegation that he had a gun is absolutely false, says Rombom. “We were dressed in shirt sleeves and had no jackets. There was no place to conceal weapons.” Rombom also says the police conducted a search of his person and his car and did not find a weapon. When asked whether he has a New York State permit to carry a handgun, Rombom replied “No comment.”
There’s little doubt that Levy’s Jewish Defense Organization died in the shoot-out on Bleecker Street. Facing four felony counts — the most serious of which is attempted murder — even if Levy walks it would be surprising if he ever obtained another weapons permit. The Jewish community is almost unanimously opposed to Levy and his brand of militancy.
Still, he has his admirers. “I believe he’s really sincere in what [approximately two words obscured on microfilm] Jewish official Malcolm I. Hoenlein told a New York Times reporter several years ago. “He has provided very useful information to us.”
Dennis King wonders if there will be anyone else to bird-dog the likes of a Lyndon LaRouche or a Louis Farrakhan if Levy is put out of action.
Yet even Levy’s best intentions often give way to his penchant for self-promotion, boomeranging to help the very scoundrels he’s trying to bring to heel. In his newsletter former Klansman David Duke thanked the yarmulke-clad Levy for coming down to Louisiana to demonstrate against him during his race for the state legislature. Duke wrote that he was carried into office in part on the anti-Levy backlash.
Only Levy knows what made him snap and open fire. King, who does not condone the shooting, believes there is a rational reason. “Based on my own experience of intensive harassment from Rombom, I can find it perfectly understandable how he snapped. Only someone who has been attacked by bullies bent on your destruction month after month understands how that builds tremendous tension.”
For his part, Levy is trying to make the best out of a bad situation. “I’m trying the best I can to be strong,” he said. “I think in the end, I’m going to be exonerated, because they came to my place. Rombom was armed. They were out to do me harm.”
Steven Rombom, the Jim Rockford of Jewish private detectives and a self-styled security expert, recently expressed his contempt for terrorists during his interview with the Express-News.
“Terrorists, for the most part, are cowards,” he said. “They go after light targets.”
Like Mordechai Levy.
Posted inADL, Jews, Nazi|Comments Off on ‘ADL has funded many of the neo-nazi groups and individuals. Goal is to discredit White Identity.’
“He invites President Vladimir Putin to the White House … announces that America is withdrawing from NATO and … visits Tehran to open up a new American embassy.”
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
Donald Trump has already made it clear that he regards much of the global order that was established by Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson after World War II as impotent and obsolete. Almost as soon as he’s sworn the oath to serve as commander-in-chief, Trump will go to work to create a new one based on the exercise of American military power and cooperation with Washington’s traditional adversaries such as Russia. So the real question may be this: How would a 9/11 event accelerate his already existing efforts to upend the American national security establishment?
Following the attack, President Trump builds upon his initial attempts to restore relations with Russia, which included nuclear arms-control negotiations. He now invites President Vladimir Putin to the White House—complete with a state dinner in his honor. Trump, the consummate dealmaker, says that it’s imperative to let bygones be bygones in the interest of a united front with Russia to defeat the Islamic peril. At the same time, Trump announces that America is withdrawing from NATO and concedes Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. England, which has already withdrawn from the European Union, joins the U.S-Russia alliance. In following this course, Trump invokes World War II to declare that he’s simply following in Franklin Roosevelt’s footsteps.
All of this is music to the Kremlin’s ears, which has consistently bemoaned the fact that the Obama administration has spurned its offers of cooperation. British, Russian and American warplanes bomb targets in Syria and Iraq that served as staging grounds for the Islamic State’s assault on America. In addition, Trump pivots from America’s traditional alliance with Saudi Arabia to working with Iran; to general astonishment, he visits Tehran to open up a new American embassy. Trump says that the only predictable thing about his presidency is that he will always seek to be unpredictable.
Domestically, Trump takes a hard line, arguing that it’s time to take the handcuffs off the FBI and CIA. He embarks upon a program to place American Muslims in camps, a program overseen by the Justice Department as it was during the Roosevelt administration in World War II, when Japanese-Americans were interned. The Washington Post and New York Times editorial pages denounce Trump’s new policy, but it meets with general approbation among the American population, a number of Democratic Senators and Congressmen in swing states sign off on the measure, and the Supreme Court upholds it in an 8-1 decision. With his decisive moves, Trump enrages liberal and conservative elites but his approval ratings soar to over 80 percent in numerous polls. The era of Trump has begun.
* “Tweet after tweet congratulating himself on foreseeing the attack and ridiculing the terrorists’ masculinity, their intelligence, their family members, their ethnic identity and/or religion”
Gwenda Blair is author of The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire.
Twitter would be Trump’s front-line counter-attack. Tweet after tweet congratulating himself on foreseeing the attack and ridiculing the terrorists’ masculinity, their intelligence, their family members, their ethnic identity and/or religion—along with any civil libertarian or moderate voices asking for caution, consultation with allies, or more operational and regional intelligence before initiating counter-offensives against targets either inside or outside the United States.
Next would be live streamed appearances on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. in which Trump denounced the terrorists, their supporters, and any opposition to the use of any and all tactics against captured terrorist suspects.
Then he would change into Donald Trump Menswear 100% silk PJs with gold-embroidered POTUS seal on front pocket, stretch out on a super-luxury top-grain leather Trump Home Furnishings chaise, chow down on a prime-cut Trump steak, and turn on WWE.
In the event the attacks continued, he might be moved to more action. Potential steps might include curfews, quarantines and/or internment in certain communities, required loyalty oaths for government employees, teachers, uniformed services, etc., civil defense drills in schools, factories, offices, and other large installations such as airports, train stations, subway systems, and the adoption and frequent testing of alerts through texts and loudspeakers.
Posted inDonald Trump|Comments Off on How Would Donald Trump React To A 9/11?
I’ve gone through most of the Talmud and these passages are the most disturbing to me. What I have to keep in mind is that they are discussing dowries and financial arrangements, not permitted sex.
The Accusation
Yebhamot 11b: “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age.”
The accusation here is quite nefarious. It implies that Judaism permits pedophilia, has no respect for women, and generally advocates loose sexual morals. To those familiar with the Talmud, this claim is patently ridiculous. However, the majority of people — particularly those making this claim — know little to nothing about the Talmud, its contents, or its methodology. On our website The Real Truth About The Talmud, we elaborate on these issues. However, for now, we will focus on the accusation at hand. It is, in fact, easily verified as being incorrect.
The Text
Talmud Ketuvot 11b (The citation mentioned is evidently in error. Talmud Yevamot 11b has no relevant passage)
“Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A male child who has relations with a female adult causes her to be like one who was injured with a stick… Rava said: This is what was meant – an adult male who has relations with a female child has not done anything because less than this [three years old] is like sticking a finger into an eyeball.”
While those unused to these Talmudic discussions might be taken aback by the use of euphemisms, the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. It is, indeed, ironic that this passage has been manipulated from its original context of a financial discussion into one of a religious discussion. While there are numerous talmudic passages of a religious nature, this one discusses dowries and not forbidden and permitted relations!
The Talmud relates that a virgin is entitled a higher dowry. While the tell-tale sign of virginity is the release of blood due to the breaking of the hymen on the wedding night, there are occasions when the hymen has already been broken such as when the woman suffered an injury. The Talmud here quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that a sexual act with a male minor is not considered to be a loss of virginity because one of the participants is not fully active. While the female’s hymen may have been broken, she has not engaged in what can be classified as a sexual act (although it is certainly child abuse).
The Talmud continues and quotes Rava as saying that a sexual act between a male adult and a female under the age of three is also not considered a loss of virginity (although it is child abuse). Since the girl is too young for her hymen to be broken, she is still considered a virgin.
Nowhere is the Talmud permitting such behavior. Sex outside of a marriage is strictly forbidden (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4, Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 2:17; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1, 177:5) as is this obvious case of child abuse. The Talmud is only discussing ex post facto what would happen if such a case arose.
That non-marital sexual relations is prohibited is stated explicitly by Maimonides in the following passage from his ground-breaking legal code Mishneh Torah:
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4
“Whoever has licentious relations with a woman without marriage bonds is lashed by biblical mandate.”
The claim that the Talmud, or normative Judaism, permits sexual relations with a minor is almost entirely incorrect. The slight truth in it is that, in certain societies in history, people were sometimes married as young as ten. While this was most recently done in Czarist Russia in order to avoid being drafted into the Czar’s army (which was made especially difficult for Jews), it is not currently done. However, even in that case, marriage is required before having sexual relations. Judaism as a religion prohibits sexual relations, indeed even minor touching such as holding hands, outside of marriage.
It is certainly true that there are individual Jews who do not follow the teaching of the Talmud. That is their personal choice, just like many Catholics choose to use birth control and have premarital relations despite their religion’s teaching against it. This does not mean that Catholicism permits premarital relations and it does not mean that Judaism (and the Talmud) does either. The personal choices of people whether to follow completely their religion does not reflect on what their religion teaches. Similarly, the fact that certain Muslims drink alcohol and frequent prostitutes does not mean that their religion permits it. It means that these individuals choose to defy their religion.
We leave it to others to deduce why some people would make baseless accusations against the Talmud and, by implication, Judaism and Jews.
* It is a misquote. It is talking about the age at which the girl converted, not the age at the time of the marriage. Regarding these sorts of misquotes in general, see this related question. Regarding the significance of the age of three, it refers to a legal technicality as explained in the final bullet point of this answer. Molesting a child, whether above or below the age of three, is forbidden (Kiddushin 41a, Nidda 13b).
I didn’t personally downvote the question, which I assume was asked in good faith. But I very much appreciate the sentiment of those who did downvote it. It essentially boils down to this: The preceding is a lengthy excerpt from an overtly anti-Jewish website attacking the Talmud as immoral. Discuss! It would be much better if the OP could find the translated Talmud quote from a neutral source, present his understanding of the passage, and ask whether his understanding is correct. But you could always ask on meta about the ideal approach to these questions.
תניא ר’ שמעון בן יוחי אומר גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשירה לכהונה שנאמר וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם והרי פנחס עמהם
Translation:
A b’raisa: Rabbi Shim’on ben Yochai says: A female who converted to Judaism below the age of three years and one day is permissible to a kohein.1 As the verse states: “But all the female children that have not known relations with a man, keep them alive for yourselves” (B’midbar 31:18).2
This answer addresses the legal distinction between girls below and above the age of three:
The whole thing about age 3 is a technicality’s technicality. With regards to certain laws, activity below the age of 3 does not affect her halachic status (for instance, a woman still has the halachic full status of “virginity” no matter what happened to her before age 3).
With regards to this case in particular: According to R’ Shim’on, a Jewish girl’s legal virginity status does not take effect until the age of three. Therefore, any girl who converts to Judaism below the age of three has the legal status of a Jewish virgin and may marry a kohein in R’ Shim’on’s opinion (see Y’rushalmi Kiddushin 4:6, “רבי שמעון אומר עד שיבואו בתולים בקדושת ישראל”).
II.
In any case, Judaism prohibits sexual relations with a minor girl, whether above or below the age of three. The Talmud states (Kiddushin 41a):
האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה: כשהיא נערה אין כשהיא קטנה לא מסייע ליה לרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי אלעזר אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה
Translation:
“A man may marry off his daughter when she is a na’ara“:3 When she is a na’ara, yes. When she is a child, no. This supports the teaching of Rav, for Rav Y’huda said in the name of Rav, and there are those who say Rabbi El’azar, “It is forbidden for a man to marry off his daughter when she is a child, until she grows up and says, ‘I want to marry So-and-so.'”
Additionally, the Talmud specifically condemns sexual relations between men (in the context of this answer, “men” refers to all males age 13 and up) and little girls (Nidda 13b):
ת”ר הגרים והמשחקין בתינוקות מעכבין את המשיח… דנסיבי קטנות דלאו בנות אולודי נינהו
Translation:
The Rabbis taught in a b’raisa: Converts4 and those who play with little girls delay the coming of the Messiah… The latter refers to those who marry [and have sexual relations with] girls who are too young to [safely]5 bear children.
The prohibition against relations between a man and a minor girl not of safe childbearing age is codified in the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Issurei Bi’ah 21:18) and the Shulchan Aruch (EH 23:1).6
As far as conducting a formal marriage (kiddushin, though without consummation of the marriage) between a man and a minor girl, the Rambam (Ishus 3:19) and perhaps the Shulchan Aruch (EH 37:8; see also Kesef Mishneh, Ishus 10:16) rule that the Rabbis merely discouraged the practice and that it is not technically prohibited. Nonetheless, this is only technically permitted if the girl is at least close to the age of majority, both the girl and her father approve of the marriage, and if the girl is mentally mature and competent to make such a decision (see Bach EH 37 and Chelkas M’chokeik EH 37:10).
However, Rashi (K’subos 57b, s.v. “אבל פוסקין”) understands that marriage to a minor girl is formally prohibited, though betrothal with the consent of both the girl and her father is permissible. The Rivash also rules that marriage to a minor girl is formally prohibited (§193, “דדרך בני אדם להקפיד שלא להשיא בנותיהן בקטנותן וגם שיש לו אסור בדבר מדברי רב יהודה עד שתגדיל”; see also §199), as does the Taz (EH 37:5, based on the Ran).
Regardless of the precise nature of the talmudic exhortation not to marry minor girls, some communities during medieval times (and even as late as the 17th century)7 felt the need to marry off their daughters as soon as they could, even while they were children (see Tosafos on Kiddushin 41a, s.v. “אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו”; Rama EH 37:8). The reason for this was the extremely precarious nature of the safety and finances of Jews in Europe during that period; if a father acquired enough capital to pay his daughter’s dowry, he would immediately marry her off before her marriage prospects could be compromised by his money being stolen or confiscated by the state – or worse.
III.
In any case, later authorities have decried the practice of marrying off one’s minor daughter, and they have stressed the prohibition against it. R’ Ya’akov Emden (Sh’eilas Ya’beitz I, §14, “לדידן לא שנא קידושין וכ”ש נישואין בתרווייהו לא שפיר דמי למיעבד עובדא בקטנה ממש”) and the Aruch HaShulchan (EH 37:33, “בזמנינו אין מקדשין את הקטנות ולא שמענו מעולם מי שיקדש את הקטנה ונכון הוא דבש”ס [מ”א א] איתא דאסור לקדשה כשהיא קטנה… אין זה נכון וכן המנהג פשוט בזמנינו במדינתינו”) have ruled that it is wrong for a man to marry a minor in this day and age regardless of leniencies that were employed in some communities during the Middle Ages.
In the social and psychological context of modern times, it would presumably be psychologically damaging and traumatic for a minor girl (or even a girl well past the age of 12) to be married. Leaving aside the technical considerations discussed heretofore in this answer, putting a young girl in a marriage or sexual relationship would be a violation of multiple tenets of Judaism, including the precept to love one’s fellow as oneself (Vayikra 19:18), to do that which is just and good (D’varim 6:18), and not to torment one’s fellow (Vayikra 25:17).
Additionally, although there are various opinions as to the extent of this obligation (see this answer and answers to this question), Jewish law requires a Jew to observe secular law in the jurisdiction to which the Jew is subject. This would be yet another reason to prohibit such relationships in this day and age.
IV.
Circling back around to your question about that website misrepresenting the Talmud and Jewish law, the website was wrong in multiple ways.
A child under three cannot be married to a kohein or anyone else. The age of three has technical relevance as discussed in section I. above.
According to R’ Shim’on, woman who had converted to Judaism before the age of three can marry either a kohein or a non-kohein, and there is no reason for a kohein to prefer her over anyone else. (According to the Rabbis, only a non-kohein may marry her).
Talmudic Jews determine the halacha not simply by reading Tannaitic literature, but by considering the entire corpus of Jewish law all the way until contemporary times.
Jewish law does not endorse pedophilia, and the Talmud castigates those who would “play” with young girls. Although teenage marriage was common during much of Jewish history, and some medieval communities took the legally controversial approach of marrying off their preteen daughters, Jewish law would not sanction behavior that is understood to be psychologically unhealthy, traumatic, or illegal.
The website that produced the claims in your question is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. This answer by Danno discusses this general sort of attack on the Talmud and Judaism:
These attacks are usually amalgamations of the following:
Pure invention — some of the books listed don’t exist or the quotes are fabrications
Mistranslations or selective quoting
Out of context quotes (statements made in the course of a protracted legal argument presented as definitive statements of belief or statements made to make a legal point being cited as normative practice).
There are plenty of sites which go through “quotes” like these and explain them one at a time. People who cite the attack pages rarely learn or read the original material or read the responses and understand the legal subtleties involved.
1Literally, the translation is, “A female convert below three years and one day is permissible for the k’huna.” That the meaning is as rendered in the body of this answer is evident from the context of the subsequent talmudic passage as well as the classic Talmudic commentators (e.g. Rashi, s.v. “כשרה לכהונה”). Additionally, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 46a) explicitly renders the b’raisa‘s quote as, “a female convert who had converted below three years and one day…” (” תני בשם ר’ שמעון גיורת שנתגיירה פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשירה לכהונה”).
The Talmud brings R’ Shim’on’s opinion to contrast with the opinion of the other Rabbis who rule that a kohein may not marry a convert regardless of the age at which she converted; according to the Rabbis, all female converts have the status of zona with respect to marrying a kohein.
2This verse describes the aftermath of the Israelites’ retributive war against Midian (B’midbar 31). Moshe commanded the Jewish people to slay all Midianite males and all females of age three and above, as Midian participated in Bil’am’s scheme to seduce the Jewish men and entice them to worship idolatry. According to R’ Shim’on bar Yochai’s opinion, the phrase “keep them alive for yourselves” implies that all female Midianite captives who were captured below the age of three could eventually be suitable marriage partners for all the soldiers in the war. Since Pinchas was a kohein, and he participated in the war, this implies that these women would be permissible for marriage to kohanim. The Talmud continues and states that R’ Shim’on’s colleagues interpreted “keep them alive for yourselves” differently, namely that the captives could be taken as maidservants.
4Although the context of the Talmudic passage makes it clear that it is condemning men who marry children, there are different ways to interpret why the Talmud says that converts delay the coming of the Messiah. See this chat comment, as well as this and subsequent chat comments for various interpretations mentioned in Tosafos on Kiddushin 70b, s.v. “קשים גרים”.
6The Ritva (Y’vamos 61b, ”
וסוגיין הכא ובכל דוכתין דמותר לבעול אשה שאינה בת בנים כלל… וכדשרו בכל דוכתי נשואי קטנה וזקנה”), Tosafos (Y’vamos 12b, s.v. “שלש נשים”), the Mordechai (ad loc.), the Rama (EH 31:5), and possibly the Rosh (Responsum 33:3), however, disagree with the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam. These opinions maintain that sexual relations with a minor girl is technically permitted in the context of marriage, though both the marriage and the relations would be discouraged by the talmudic sources mentioned above.
7See, for example, the ruling of R’ Chaim Benveniste in K’nesset HaG’dola (EH 37:9).
Posted inAbuse, Talmud|Comments Off on The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old
Posted inCensorship|Comments Off on Greater Glasgow Police: Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend. Use the internet safely. #thinkbeforeyoupost
Posted inComedy|Comments Off on Tweet: ‘I ranked 40 American comedians by the political slant of their fans using Google search volumes and state-level PVI’
Nothing Donald J. Trump has said in public is one-tenth as shocking as statements you will find in the Torah tradition.
Media commentators have said that the Republican race hit bottom when Trump defended the size of his penis. Well, penis size among the great rabbis was discussed in Talmud.
I am not offended by anything in Torah and I am not offended by anything in Trump. In fact, I have never been offended in my life.
I never liked gemara much, but its possible that I wasn’t learning the right gemara. For instance I never learned about the naked guy on the roof who falls into the naked girl and they wonder whether or not she is still a virgin – interesting but not nearly as interesting as the following gemara in Bava Metzia:
There is a gemara in Bava Metzia that a fan sent over that is about the great sages discussing each others penis sizes, sounds like a locker room to me. I just cant imagine a bunch of white bearded talmudic scholars telling each other how big they are.
Apparently Rav Pappa had a huge shlong, which is explains why we mention him so many damned times durring siyums.
Here’s an except –
Rebbi Yochanan stated that the “Ever” (lit. “limb”) of Rebbi Yishmael bar’Rebbi Yosi was like a flask the size of nine Kavim. Rav Papa stated that the “Ever” of Rebbi Yochanan was like a flask the size of five Kavim (or, according to others, three Kavim). The Gemara continues and says that the “Ever” of Rav Papa himself was like a Harpanian basket.
Here is a Jewish website interested in truth — daat emet:
DE has been operating since 1998 as a public organization, whose main goal is the study of classical Jewish culture and the dissemination of its scientific, humanistic interpretation. In order to achieve this goal, DE has carried out a series of educational and cultural projects aimed at developing a dependable, historically grounded interpretation of the Jewish religion legacy, and its promulgation in the Israeli society.
DE has reached the conclusion that the amazingly rich classical Jewish legacy, which makes up the main body of Jewish culture, has been deliberately misinterpreted for a long period of time; as a result, it has become a political tool in the hands of self-interested fundamentalists who lay claim to having exclusive ownership of this legacy. Over the last several decades, the state of Jewish culture has been steadily deteriorating. Today, in fact, there is a mere handful of academic researchers resisting the onslaught of those who openly exploit the Jewish legacy for their own political and social agenda. Not only is the voice of these scholars virtually unheard; the fundamentalist interpretations have started to permeate academia itself.
There is another, still more crucial factor: before DE appeared on the scene, it had not occurred to anyone to engage in a public dialogue with the adherents of Jewish fundamentalism, to address them in their own language, or to take part in the cultural process taking part in their own midst. This process, however, is becoming fatally important for the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
The corpus of Jewish culture contains masterpieces of world importance created in different times, under different circumstances, and for different purposes. Unfortunately, in the last millennium the traditional Jewish thought has practically frozen in its treatment of classical texts, having provided them with an extra-contextual, fundamentalist, essentially political interpretation. Naturally, the role of classical texts in the Jewish mentality has been drained of substance. Were it not for the external, non-Jewish humanistic interpretations, we would treat the inspired predictions of Jewish prophets as trivial halachic reminiscences; more likely yet, they would have been totally forgotten. The humanistic interpretation of biblical prophecies, the greatest edifice of Jewish culture, has been preserved for us by people belonging to a different spiritual domain — a stern reminder that retains its relevance to this day.
The Jewish culture has a sad history of internal Jewish censorship and misinterpretation. The body of biblical scripture reached us in a reduced form, having been subjected to repeated revisions motivated by ideology; most importantly, any alternative versions have been irretrievably lost to orthodox censorship. Not a single “secular” historical chronicle or “technical” account from the periods of Jewish monarchy has managed to survive this censorship. The reactionary rabbinical circles created an emasculated interpretation of biblical texts, which became the sole approved version for centuries to come; they set the biblical canon, destroying practically everything else, whether alternative versions of the biblical texts or books declared “apocryphal”. The major part of Jewish literature from the Hellenistic period was thrown overboard altogether. Without the Christian scribes and interpreters, we would not have the Books of the Maccabees, of Judith, of Enoch, of Ben Sirrah — not to mention Aristeus, Tuviah, and so on. As a result of Jewish intolerance, many of these works, originally written in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, have been preserved in their Greek translation only. The archaeological findings at Qumran “introduced” us to the real catalogue of two-thousand-year-old Jewish literature — finally bringing home the immensity of our cultural loss, as well as the paucity of the known Jewish culture filtered through the rabbinical canon.
Yet this is not all. One direct consequence of the rabbinical propensity for ideology and censorship was the remarkable loss of interest in their own literature. As a result, we have managed to lose virtually the entire body of rabbinical exegesis from the second half of the first millennium CE, the time of the geonim, and later a large portion of the Jerusalem Talmud, which found itself in actual opposition to the dominant Babylonian one.
Having set up their totalitarian approach to Jewish culture, the rabbinical reaction wiped out every competing ideological alternative. Were it not for the “external” reminders, we would not even know about the existence of the Essenic movement — the canonic literature does not contain a single mention of it. Rabbinical Judaism “revised” Jewish history, rewrote biblical texts, and created its own all-embracing version of contemporary reality. From the outset, its declared goal was to supersede all theoretical and practical Jewish ideologies. Using the cessation of religious worship in the Jerusalem Temple after the city’s destruction by the Romans, it declared this cessation to be eternal and theologically inevitable — up until the messianic times. This venture ended in brilliant success: all the other currents in Jewish culture were effectively eliminated.
What is most astounding is that the triumph of rabbinical dictatorship continues to plague us to this day. The entire traditional sector of the Jewish collective body still lives in full conformity with the cultural rabbinical dogma; what is more, the Jewish liberals, having rejected the rabbinical interpretation, failed to create a new one. Essentially, the ancient monopoly continues to dominate Jewish culture.
“Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachmani said: It is written, ‘A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. [Let her breasts satisfy you at all times, be infatuated with love of her always’ (Proverbs 5:19)]. Why were the words of the Torah likened to a doe? To tell you that as the womb [vagina] of the doe is tight, and her mate enjoys it each time as though it were the first [for the sexual act is more enjoyable when the vagina remains tight], so are the words of the Torah always enjoyable to their students as though it were the first time” (Eiruvin 54b).
Chazal said (Minor Tractates, Tractate Derech Eretz, chapter arayot, halacha 13): “Do not speak excessively with women, for all women’s conversations are lewdness. R’ Achi the son of R’ Josiah said all who look at women will in the end come to sin.”
But we will show you who seeks truth that a great deal of the sages’ conversations are naught but lewdness, and about them we can say (Kiddushin 70a): “One who seeks to disqualify another projects his own defects upon him.”
One of the puzzling things about our rabbis is their world of sexual fantasy. To make the Torah enjoyable to its students they chose to use expressions from animal sexuality… even though they were no experts on the animal world: they never did, after all, ask the ram if he enjoys his mating with a doe more than other animals enjo their own matings – they just made it all up.
For example, see what else our rabbis have said about this doe: “‘Can you mark the time when the does calve?’ (Job 39:1)–the doe has a narrow womb. When she is about to birth I send her a dragon [snake–Rashi] to bite her and her womb expands. If it were a moment sooner or a moment later she would immediately die” (Bava Batra 16a).
With your own eyes you see how our rabbis make up “natural phenomena” which never actually happened, like G-d sending a snake to the doe, to bite her at just the right time so her womb will expand and she can give birth.
Do not think that these things are mere Aggadah, for the Gemara makes Halachic rulings based on this picture of things (Bechorot 7b): “Cheli d’yachmorta–the Sages tended to say that they are eggs and [therefore] forbidden. Rav Safra said, [however]: They are the sperm of a ram, who wanted to mate with a doe–but since her womb is tight, he could not; so he went to a she-roebuck, and these were left [in her vagina after their mating].” This is the explanation of it, according to the commentaries of Rashi and Rabbeynu Gershom: Cheli d’yachmorta are things resembling testicles dropping from a female roebuck’s vagina. The Sages tended to forbid eating them as limbs of a living being, thinking that these are indeed a male roebuck’s testicles, which he had dropped while fertilizing the female. Rav Safra, however, came along and permitted them–for in his view, they were not testicles but the sperm of a ram, which coagulated after he mated with a she-roebuck (!) because he could not mate with a doe of his own species, whose vagina is tight and she didn’t consent. So he went to a she-roebuck (an animal which looks similar to a doe), and mated. Now, since he had waited for a long time before this mating he emitted a lot of sperm, which coagulated in the roebuck’s womb until it looked like testicles.
This picture of animal world lays at the foundation of a Halachic ruling formulated by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah section 71, paragraph 3: “The eggs which a she-roebuck drops from her womb are permitted.” The Taz [Turei Zahav] explained in paragraph 6: “What has coagulated from the ram’s sperm and looks like eggs is only secretions [and is not forbidden as the limbs of a living being, so it is permitted for eating].”
All who hear this will laugh and wonder at this nonsense, which has not a single correct fact about it. Our rabbis come along and make up a whole story about rams, does, roebucks and the sexual relations they are involved in–until they even permitted eating the “eggs” which a she-roebuck drops because they are coagulated ram sperm, nothing more and nothing less. (We will say, as an aside, that we have often heard from our rabbis that eating forbidden foods influences one’s soul. What would these rabbis say about one who is scrupulous to eat permitted foods and eats coagulated ram sperm? What will his soul resemble?!)
Not only has the doe merited miracles when she births. The mountain goat has, too. (Bava Batra 16a): “‘Do you know the season when the mountain goats give birth? Can you mark the time when the does calve?’ (Job 39:1). The mountain goat is cruel to her children. When it comes time for her to give birth she goes up to the top of the mountain so the babies will fall and die. [But] I send an eagle to her to take them in his wings and place them before her.” Did the Sages never see a mountain goat give birth? What is all this nonsense?
If so, it is no wonder that Rabbi Joseph Elbo wrote, in Sefer HaIkarim (fourth essay, chapter 11): “So we have found that G-d watches wondrously over each animal, to give each one a purpose he can fulfill…the animals and birds of prey get no food from plant growth, so nature gave them tools through which they could live off prey, including claws with poison to use while killing, to cook the food and make it better, for the power of the poison and its heat serves them instead of cooking the meat… [See what we wrote in pamphlet 2, that all this is nonsense, for they have no poison in their claws at all.]
And the mountain goat is watched to guard them during their birth, to the extent that none are hidden from this supervision when it is born, as our rabbis OBM said: ‘Since her womb is tight [Rabbi Joseph Elbo gets confused here between the mountain goat, ya’elah, and the doe, ayalah], the holy One, blessed be He, sends her a snake to bite her, and for each and every species in its own way.”
So there, student who seeks knowledge, you have it: a peep into the virtual reality of our rabbis. They make up “natural phenomena” and from that draw conclusions about His supervision…
Since we have been dealing with does whose vaginas are tight, we will cite what is written (Yoma 29a): “Rav Zeira said: Why was Esther compared to a doe? To tell you that just as the doe, whose vagina is tight, is always delightful to her mate as the first time, so was Esther always delightful to Achashverosh as the first time.”
This is an example of Chazal’s strange aggadot about the Jewish prophetesses. It is not at all clear why they chose to attribute all kinds of sex, unmentioned by the Scriptures, to our prophetesses. (Megillah 14a: “There were seven prophetesses. Who were they? Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda, and Esther.”) What is this mania they have about sex?
See what our rabbis wrote of the sexual relations between Esther and Achashverosh (Megillah 13a): “‘And the king loved Esther more than all the women and favored her above all the virgins’ (Esther 2:17). Rav said: When he wanted to be with a virgin, she was like a virgin, and when he wanted to be with an experienced woman, she was so [therefore it says ‘more than all the women and…all the virgins–Rashi].”
Now see what Chazal wrote about Yael, the wife of Chever the Keini (Yevamot 103a): “Rabbi Jochanan said: [Sisra] had sex seven times with Yael, as is said [in the song of Deborah, Judges 5:27], ‘Between her legs he bowed, he fell, he lay down; at her feet he bowed, he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down dead’ (there are seven instances of bowing, falling, or laying down in the verse)]… Radak (on Judges 5:27), who kept to the plain meaning of the text, contradicts this odd agaddah: “Between her legs he bowed, he fell–this is a literary custom, to repeat words in order to emphasize them. ‘He lay down’–a laying down from which there is no return, and this is why it says ‘there he fell down dead.’ There is a midrashic explication of this [verse], but it is far out. Since there are seven iterations of bowing, falling, and laying down, they said that the evil one had sex with Yael seven times that day, but what we wrote above, on the word ‘coverlet’ [in his commentary on Judges 4:18], refutes it.”
We will also ask: The Scriptures describe in detail how Yael killed Sisra (Judges 4:20-21): “Again [Sisra] said to [Yael], ‘Stand at the door of the tent, and it shall be when any man comes and inquires of you, saying: Is there any man here? that you will say No.’ Then Yael, Chever’s wife, took a nail of the tent and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.” According to Chazal he fell down dead after having sex multiple times, so why did the Scriptures testify “[she] went softly to him”?
Now come see what our rabbis said about Abigail (Megillah 14b): “…this teaches us that [Abigail] revealed her thigh [and David desired her and demanded, but she did not listen to him–Rashi] and he followed its light for three parsaot. He said to her: Heed me! [he demanded sex]. She said to him: (I Samuel 25:31) ‘This shall not be an obstacle to you,’ implying David would stumble elsewhere–where? The incident with Bathsheba.”
What do Chazal attribute to the prophetess Abigail? That she raised her dress and showed her thigh to tempt David. The Tosafot, Megillah 14b, s.v. shegiltah, wondered how it is possible that a righteous woman like Abigail would act so loose: “It is puzzling how that righteous woman [Abigail] showed her thigh to David; and it seems to be an exaggeration to say that he followed its light for three parsaot [12 km]. But it should be said…that David desired her and followed that heat for three parsaot.” That is, David did not actually follow Abigail’s uncovered thigh, he followed his own desire. We do not understand how the Tosafot settle their question about Abigail, who uncovered her thigh. Again we see that our rabbis confuse their commentators and they can’t tell what is parable, what is exaggeration, and what is reality [see our essay: Scriptures and Talmud: What is Reality and What is Parable?].
See, for example, how the Maharsha explains the words of the Talmud in his Aggadah commentary: “[Abigail uncovered her thigh;] she was 3 parsaot from him and did not know of him nor he of her. She uncovered her thigh and it lit his way in the night for three parsaot until she came to him…” How miraculous. According to the Maharsha the righteous Abigail uncovered her thigh when she was far from King David and the light of her desirable thigh lit David’s night for 12 kilometers! How far did our rabbis the commentators’ imaginations go?
We will add that for some reason the Tosafot did not wonder how King David, “G-d’s anointed one,” desired a married woman and did not control his desires. This question was asked in the Responsa of the Ridbaz, part seven, paragraph 29: “I have been asked about the matter of Abigail and David, as related in chapter one of Megillah and in the Jerusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin, that David desired her and she produced a stain and said that she was a niddah…How can we imagine that David, chosen by G-d, wanted to sleep with a married woman…and if about Bathsheba they said that all who state David sinned are mistaken, how can they say he desired a married woman and so sinned?
The answer: …it can be said that David supposed that since Nabal had been deserving capital punishment–for he rebelled against the king–his wife had rightly belonged to the king (see Bereshit Rabbah, chapter 35 [correctly, chapter 32, Vilna edition–DE]), as did all his other property; and just as all other property is passed over while the guilty man is alive, he thought the wife is as well. But in this [David] erred, for though all other property is forfeit [even before the criminal is executed], the prohibition against sleeping with a married woman lapses only when she is divorced or widowed….I have written all this to show that we must turn to all possible sides and sides of sides to vindicate G-d’s anointed one, as our rabbis OBM did on the issue of Bathsheba.”
We learn two things from the Ridbaz’s words. One is that David, “G-d’s anointed one,” treated Abigail (the wife of Nabal) as another item of Nabal’s property (and only erred in calculating that this “property” would pass to him before Nabal’s death) and the other is that the Radbaz freely admits his interpretation to be a product of his own mind, motivated by the desire to interpret the Scripture apologetically in order to to look for the good in the Scriptural “saints.”
Now we will return to the sexual fantasies of our rabbis: “Our rabbis taught: Rahab’s lewdness was through her name; Yael’s–through her voice; Abigail’s–through thinking of her; and Michal’s–through seeing her. Rabbi Isaac said: One who [merely] says ‘Rahab, Rahab’ has [a seminal emission] immediately [because of excessive desire]. Rabbi Nachman said: I keep saying ‘Rahab, Rahab’ and nothing happens to me. To which Rabbi Isaac replied: What I said concerns only [a woman] with whom one is well acquanited” (Megillah 15a).
Based on this gemara Rabbi Obadiah Yossef permitted hearing a woman sing when the listener does not know the woman. In responsa Yabiah Omer, part one, Orach Chayim, paragraph six: “It seems that ‘a woman’s voice is lewdness’ only applies when one sees her face or is acquainted with her, as it says in Megillah (15a), ‘Rahab’s lewdness was through her name, Yael’s–through her voice… [and that] concerns only [a woman] with whom one is well acquainted’.” Woe to the generation which rules halacha based on the imaginations of our rabbis and forbids hearing the voice of any familiar woman lest he inappropriately desire her. How do the contemporary rabbis seal their hearts and not realize that the sages of the Talmud showed unmitigated contempt for women, contempt that should not be given a toehold in our days?
Go see how our rabbis showed contempt for even the Scriptural prophetesses (Megillah 14b): “Rav Nachman said: Eminence does not become a woman. There were two eminent women and both their names are loathsome. One was a bee [Deborah] and the other was a rat [Chuldah].” But “Shafan [Rabbit] the scribe” and “Achbor [Mouse] the son of Mikiah” (II Kings 22) were not ridiculed for their names.
It should be said that our rabbis in the Talmud, in all honesty, did admit that the desire for women was an inseparable part of their lives and they needed the fear of flesh and blood to help control their desires (Kiddushin 81a): “[An incident when] captive women were brought to Nahrdea and brought to the house of Rav Amram the Pious. They put them in the attic and took away the ladder which led to the attic. When one of the captives was walking in the attic, light fell across the opening, and since Rav Amram’s desires overwhelmed him, he raised the ladder, which ten men together could not raise, and began climbing the ladder towards the captives. When he got halfway up the ladder, he spread his legs [to hold on tight so that he could control his desire] and screamed, ‘Fire in Rav Amram’s house!’ [so that people would respond to his call and rush in, and of shame before them he would leave off his desire]. The sages [who thought there was a fire indeed] came [and saw there was none]. They said to him: ‘You shamed us.’ Rav Amram answered them: ‘Better to be shamed in this world than to be shamed in the next’.”
Also (Sukkah 52a): “Abaye heard a man saying to a woman, ‘Come, let us go on our way together.” Abaye said: let me follow them to keep them from sin. They went some three parsaot until they came to a marsh [where their ways should have parted]. He heard them say: ‘A journey is long and the company was nice [meaning that they had to part].’ Abayeh said: ‘Were I in his place I would not have conquered my desires.’ In his sorrow he leaned on the door latch until the old man came to him and said, ‘Any who is greater than his fellows has greater desires’.”
Come see how far the lewd talk of our rabbis, the authors of the Talmud, goes. The Scriptures say: “He [Asa] also deposed his mother Maacah from the rank of queen mother because she had made an abominable thing [mifletzet] for Asherah. Asa cut down her abominable thing and burnt it in the Wadi Kidron” (I Kings 15:13, II Chronicles 15:16). What is this abomination that Maacah had made? Radak gave a reasonable explanation (I Kings 15:13): “The abomination is idolatry. It is called mifletzet–something, which makes one fear and tremble, as in ‘I shudder in panic [pelatzot]’ (Isaiah 21:4)–because of the panic it casts on its worshippers.” But this did not occur to our rabbis the Amoraim, who instead interpreted the verse the following way (Avodah Zarah 44a): “What is mifletzet? Rav Judah said: a super-mockery [maflei leitzanuta], as Rav Joseph taught: she made a male figure and impaled herself on it each day.” That is, Maacah’s “abomindation” was nothing more than a dildo she used each day!
If so, it is no wonder that when the Sages of the Talmud came to describe the evil Pharaoh they gave his measurements thus (Moed Katan 18a): “Abitul the scribe said in the name of Rav (Pappa): ‘The Pharaoh who reigned in Moses’ days was one cubit tall [about half a meter!], his beard was a cubit long, and his sexual organ was a cubit and a finger-length, to fulfill what is written (Daniel 4:14) ‘And set up over it the basest of men’.”
You learn that according to our rabbis in the Talmud, by whose light we live, the evil Pharaoh king of Egypt was half a meter tall, his beard was half a meter long, and his penis was slightly more than half a meter long…
To this we have nothing to add, and there is nothing more to be said!
Many critics of Jews have used the sexual openness of Torah texts as evidence that Jews are particularly debauched. Lasha Darkmoon writes:
No class of men appears to be quite as sex-obsessed as the Orthodox Jews and the rabbinate. If you compare the religious texts of the various world religions, you will find that all of them — with the single exception of Judaism — maintain a high moral tone throughout. They don’t keep harping on about breasts and penises, prostitutes and semen. Judaism does.
Consider this inflammatory passage from the Hebrew English Bible, enough to bring a blush to any maidenly cheek:
“There she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.” (Ezekiel 23: 20-21).
The number of Victorian damsels who must have swooned away over that passage is probably beyond computation.
Turn to the Babylonian Talmud and you will find yourself suddenly transported into a hothouse world of indelicate anecdotes dealing specifically with prostitutes and their rabbinical (or yeshiva student) clients. There are so many of these stories in the Talmud that a special name had to be invented for them: aggadah. Though these instructive anecdotes touch on all conceivable topics, usually with a rabbi as the central figure, sex often looms large. It can certainly be argued that Judaism is more obsessed with sex than any other world religion. (Scroll down to “Contents”, here.)
One such story starts like this: “They said of Rabbi Elazar ben Dordia that he did not leave one prostitute in the world that he did not come to. One time he heard that there was a certain prostitute in a town by the sea who took a purse of dinars for her price. He took a purse of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her…” (Tractate Avodah Zara 17a). Another story begins: “There was once a man who heard that there was a prostitute in a town by the sea who took four hundred gold coins as her price. He sent to her four hundred gold coins and set a time to come to her. When his time came, he went. She said ‘Let him come in’. When he entered, she sat naked on the top bed…etc. etc. ” (Tractate Menachot, 44a)
The Talmud is full of such stories about rabbis and their students paying visits to prostitutes. Since the word “pornography” literally means “writing about prostitutes,” the Talmud is perhaps the only religious classic that could be described — in a literal sense — as pornographic.
We read in the Talmud of Rahab the harlot, for example, first mentioned in the book of Joshua. One of the most bewitching femmes fatales of antiquity, on a par with Helen of Troy and the fabulous Corinthian courtesan Lais mentioned by Demosthenes, the beautiful Rahab first began to sell her body at the age of ten. “There was no prince or ruler who had not slept with Rahab the prostitute,” the Talmud informs us breathlessly. (Tractate Zavachim 116b).
In order to demonstrate the principle that a man’s virility is in proportion to the size of his belly, the Talmud o¤ers the following information on a group of notoriously fat Rabbis:
“Said Rabbi Yoh˙anan, ‘Rabbi Ishmael the son of Yose’s member was
like a wineskin of nine kav; Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon’s
member was like a wineskin of seven kav.’ Rav Papa said, ‘Rabbi
Yoh˙anan’s member was like a wineskin of three kav.’ And there are
those who say: like a wineskin of five kav. Rav Papa himself had a
member which was like the baskets of Hipparenum. [84a]”
Note that we have a kind of ladder form here. In each case, the Rabbi who reports on the penis size of his colleagues has his own exposed by the next speaker, and the Stamma concludes it all with the extravagance of Rav Papa’s own equipment. Every single one of these Rabbis function within halakhic dialectic as the most serious and dedicated of seekers after truth. My argument is, therefore, that the aggada, not only but especially the aggada of the grotesque, when read together with the halakhic dialectic, constitutes the Talmud as a virtual Menippean satire, precisely
the kind of mixed bag that we find in such as Lucian and Petronius or in the novel.
Bakhtin (1984: 134) coined the term ‘clamping principle’, a force that binds all of the heterogeneous elements ‘into the organic whole of a genre’. If the Talmud is an ‘organic whole’, it will look, I think, like a very rotund Rabbi, with various and very large organs sticking out crudely—almost obscenely—sometimes, as organic perhaps as a fishhorse or a goat-stag, to quote Lucian on his own works. I am attempting, in part, to theorize and historicize a persistent intuition I have had in my forty years of reading Talmud, an intuition that it somehow best fits, in world literature, with precisely the satirical dialogues of Lucian, The
Satyricon, with Gargantua and Pantagruel, Tristram Shandy, and Moby
Dick.
Posted inDonald Trump, Sex, Talmud|Comments Off on Has The Republican Race Hit Bottom?
Report from 2015: The billionaire came to the rescue of the Ten family and whisked their ailing son Andrew from LA to NY on a private jet 27 years ago, but the story does not finish there.
NEW YORK — There is a sad coda to the recently recycled story of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s heroic help in getting a critically ill Jewish boy medical treatment 27 years ago.
Back in 1988, Rabbi Harold “Hershy” Ten and his wife Judy were at their wits end. They needed to get their then three-year-old son Andrew to New York City from Los Angeles for medical treatment. The toddler suffered from a rare and undiagnosed breathing illness.
But commercial airlines declined to fly Andrew, who couldn’t leave home without several pieces of medical equipment including a portable oxygen tank and suction machine, according to an archived Jewish Telegraphic Agency story.
Desperate for help, the family called on Trump, who agreed to provide his private Boeing 727. Once the plane landed in LaGuardia, Andrew was whisked to the Schneider Children’s Hospital of Long Island Jewish Medical Center.
In the JTA story, Andrew’s father said, “Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out.’” And grandmother Feigy Ten enthused, saying, “Donald Trump is a miracle, just a miracle.”
Save for the occasional mention of the incident by Trump — he references it in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve” — the story fell out of the news.
That is until last week when several media outlets re-released the JTA story — without mentioning that it happened 27 years ago.
The Times of Israel learned this week that Andrew died 10 years after Trump’s “rescue,” in 1998. As a tribute to their son, his parents sponsored Camp Avraham Moshe for Jewish teens and young adults with special needs.
The Los Angeles camp offers several activities including swimming, horseback riding, and arts and crafts all in a Jewish setting. Today the camp is part of ETTA/OHEL, a Jewish social service organization.
The Tens’ story, however, took an additional turn in August 2014 when the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, charged Harold Ten with participating in a scheme that “allowed a ring of brokers, investment advisers and their clients to profit from the deaths of terminally ill patients.”
According to the SEC, Ten allegedly used his position as president of Bikur Cholim, a nonprofit providing hospitalized patients with kosher meals and free loans of medical equipment, to help Michael A. Horowitz, a Los-Angeles-based broker, identify, meet with and obtain personal information from terminally ill Jews.
The SEC said Horowitz’s investor clients bought annuities, a form of insurance or investment that has an annual payout to a specified beneficiary, which named terminally ill patients as annuitants. This way, the investors collected the death benefit payout quickly and received sizable profits at the expense of the insurance company.
Posted inDonald Trump|Comments Off on For tale of Jewish child ‘saved’ by Trump, a tragic end
There’s a saying in the seduction community that’s meant to help newbs get over approach anxiety. Often, the neophyte womanizer will avoid approaching cute girls under the pretext that “she’s out of my league”. The PUA answers, “Don’t make that decision for her. Let her figure it out.”
It’s basically an argument for reframing perceived obstacles as opportunities.
The same applies to “alt-righters” tangling with anti-White SJWs (otherwise known as the dregs of humanity). The typical alt-righter has a habit of rhetorically neutering himself by acceding to the SJW’s frame. Usually, this neutering takes the form of “just to clear the air, I’m not a racist…” or “the alt-right isn’t *really* racist, their memes are ironic…”
This is bad stuff. It’s the equivalent of the insecure man excusing himself from the field in a hail of apologies for having the gall to possess a penis. “Oh, good madam, I’m not *really* hitting on you, it’s just an ironic pose of patriarchal conformity!”
Here’s a suggestion for the mincing princes of the alt-right: Don’t fight yourselves. Make the SJW fight you. Yes, you are a racist. (So is everybody, especially shitlibs who pay top real estate dollar to sequester themselves from racial vibrancy.) So what? Racism as it manifests in the real world instead of in shitlibs’ fevered fantasies is a normal and healthy human trait that invigorates group identification and assists cultural transmission.
A crib sheet of bracing realtalk for the alt-righters who backpedal from their ideas by summoning the irony cheat code:
Race-mixing: Lineage destruction
Homosexuality: Norm equalization
Diversity: Social disintegration
Irony is not the goal. Irony is the gateway.
Posted inRace|Comments Off on Approach Anxiety & The SJW
Three cultural adventurers — an antiracist, a feminist, and a shitlord — stumble upon a treasure trove. In the loot, they discover a magic dildo. The antiracist picks up the dildo with a great effort, his wrist flopping against the weight of the object, and rubs it. A genie ejaculates.
“I AM THE GREAT CISGENDER GENIE. I will grant you three wishes, but on one condition: the wishes will only benefit your next-born child.”
All three adventurers look at each other in amazement; the shitlord with his strong high T jaw and cliffside brow carving the air in front of him; the antiracist with his doughy face and watery eyes soaked in estrogen; the scowling feminist with her blue femmestache and “Syphilis Sisterhood” fupa tattoo.
The manlet antiracist, already struggling to maintain his grip on the tumescent didlo, goes first.
“I wish for a beautiful black daughter! That will show the world how committed I am to ending White hegemony.”
The genie booms, “Your wish is granted! Go home, and you will find your wife in bed with a 12-inch buck.”
Many years later, the antiracist would have his head caved in by his half-black daughter’s fully grown 9 year old black boyfriend. He will die with a smug grin on his battered face.
The feminist, creaming herself with the patriarchy-smashing possibilities, grabs the magic dildo (effortlessly, as if she had spent a lifetime handling such objects) and makes her wish.
“I wish for a smart daughter! Her smarts will lead her to the top in corporate law, and sufficiently privilege-checked male feminists will beg for her love.”
The genie announces, “Your wish is granted! In nine months, you will birth a 150 IQ daughter with the assistance of a noted Massachusetts sperm bank.”
Many years later, the feminist’s smart daughter, 32 years old, a lawyer, and clocking in at 250 pounds with a face that could cleave ice sheets, empties the bottle of pills into her mouth, tears streaming down as she remembers the boy from law school she loved who mistook her for a man and told her he “doesn’t swing that way”.
Finally, the genie turns to the shitlord.
“Maybe YOU will choose wisely?”
The shitlord ponders, (stoically, not theatrically, as is the wont of effeminate males). He thinks this is a mischievous genie, who will grant his wish with a baleful clause attached.
“I wish to make America great again.”
“Granted!”
Many years later, revolution shakes the country to the core. President Trumputin imposes an immigration moratorium. Unfair trade agreements are torn up, deportation cars haul illegal aliens back home by the millions, colleges have stopped offering black and women’s studies, gay marriage is repealed, SJWs and feminists are laughed out of public discourse, heteronormativity is the norm, the Middle East is abandoned to its petty inbred warlords, and America is great again. The nation is so great, in fact, that the shitlord has many sons and daughters, and all of them can buy affordable homes in high-trust White neighborhoods with good schools, and bless him with a small army of grandchildren.
Now an old man, the shitlord is visited by the genie one more time.
“Why did you not ask for a beautiful daughter or a smart son? Your wish unleashed chaos for millions of Americans, and guaranteed you nothing in return.”
The shitlord smirks, knowingly (is there another kind?). “A beautiful daughter may be dumb. A smart son may be nerdy. But a great America gives all her sons and daughters a better chance.”
The genie smiles and slowly vanishes, departing with a final promise to grant one more wish.
Without hesitation, the shitlord says, “I wish to make anime real.” And like that he is compressed into a 2D cartoon and teleported into an alternate universe, large-chested wide-eyed Japanese girls giggling all around him, happy to have defied his mortality.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on The Cisgender Genie
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
