As Cornwell shows (and as you can check via Amazon’s search inside feature). Dawkins offers a single source for this and the other assertions that cluster round it: what Dawkins calls a “remarkable” paper by one John Hartung an anaesthesiologist with a doctorate in anthropology. Cornwell argues persuasively that Hartung’s “remarkable” paper. “Love Thy Neighbor: The evolution of in-group morality” () has a peculiarly selective approach to citation from the Old and New Testaments. As one open-and-shut example: Hartung’s claim that “Jesus often used the words neighbor and brother without explicitly indicating that he meant fellow Jews whom he sought to unify” is quite demolished by simple reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan which Jesus tells exactly in answer to the question “Who is my neighbour?” The anaesthesiologist John Hartung unaccountably forgot about this rather famous story and to this day seems oblivious to its existence even though the website version of his “remarkable” paper explicitly solicits “corrections and updates to the text and references”. But the Unspeak point of my post is rather a different article by the anaesthesiologist John Hartung — one to which Cornwell also refers. It is of a book about “Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy”. The review climaxes thusly: History is replete with the consequences of that form of reactive racism which we call anti-Semitism and MacDonald is in the vanguard of those who will broaden our understanding of its origins. The ancient Light unto the nations burned most brightly during Solomon’s reign over the entire Middle East. According to the original account. “the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents” (First Kings 10:14. RSV) or about 60,000 pounds - three times the amount that Attila was able to extort from Rome per annum before he sacked it. Those figures are exaggerated but the point remains and contemporary figures need no embellishment. The modern state of Israel receives the monetary equivalent of more than 625,000 pounds of gold per year primarily from the United States. Isaiah’s dream has come true and it rests on two pillars: (1) most of the citizens of most donor nations are Christian or Jewish such that the former religion being a form of the latter to varying degrees they believe in a god who gave Palestine to the Jews and (2) the most enormous act of reactive racism ever perpetrated namely the Holocaust has been presented and so is perceived as having been the psychotic swelling up of a form of evil that resides disproportionately in the souls of Goyim — and so they have been induced to irrationally atone for their special evil by enabling descendant and nondescendant coreligionists of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust to systematically purloin the land and property of people who were not those victims’ persecutors. MacDonald’s work will help us chip away at this second pillar and that makes it very good work indeed. You can imagine how fascinated I was by the phrase “reactive racism”. To call anti-Semitism a form of “reactive racism” surely means nothing other than that That’s clear enough. Clear enough too is the anaesthesiologist John Hartung’s description of the Holocaust as an “act of reactive racism”. It plainly means. I am afraid that the Jews provoked it: perhaps y’know with their secret cabals that ran the world. I’m not sure whether “reactive racism” holds any respectable currency in anthropology or related disciplines generally: Google finds a mere 158 usages when the search terms exclude MacDonald’s and Hartung’s names; and Google Scholar a mere 14. These are mostly in regard to historically recent examples of groups that were formerly oppressed or continue to be oppressed by whatever is considered the dominant “race” and in turn set themselves against it. Even so we are advised to be circumspect about the term as by Thomas Teo in his 1999 paper ““: Yet. I want to emphasize theoretical caution here as there might be good reasons to challenge reactive racism as a concept. Conceptual caution is required as one takes the societal power of construction and action into account. Who within a given society has the power to propose constructions and meanings that gain acceptance? Who has the power to evaluate these constructions? Who has the power to put these constructions into practice? Victims of racism rarely have the cultural or political power to make their constructions dominant. Moreover the phenomenon of reactive racism has been abused to render everyone equally a racist so that the victims appear no better than the perpetrators. If everybody is racist then why should there be a special effort to challenge the racism of any one group? However this political strategy is used to maintain structural and societal forms of racism. Of course the basic error in such thought is the individualistic neglect of societal power. Yet despite the danger that the dominant group imposes reactive racism as a concept it seems appropriate — from a psychological point of view — to include this type of racism while being aware of the problems associated with this concept. Even with such cautious acceptance of the concept’s potential utility in mind however. I regret to report that I cannot find an article by the anaesthesiologist John Hartung which offers to explain in detail just how Germans were in fact oppressed by Jews in the years leading up to the Holocaust in order to lend credence to his claim that industrialized genocide was an act of “reactive racism”. I conclude that the phrase “reactive racism” as used here is thoroughgoing Unspeak attempting to perform an instant mitigation of the crime and to stab the finger of original blame in the direction of the crime’s victims. And so I am led inexorably to the view that the writing of the anaesthesiologist John Hartung is anti-Semitic trash. How can it be that after masterpieces (in my view) like the Selfish Gene. Blind Watchmaker and Ancestor’s Tale - which all thoroughly demolished the idea of religion and God by basically not mentioning it - could a person of such careful deliberations who relies on reasoning observables and facts have written this drivel? As for ‘reactive racism’. I hope this phrase never sees the light of the day again. In Australia our current Government (about to be ousted in tomorrow’s election) has consistently ‘reacted’ by failing to acknowledge the horrors our indigenous people endured. It is correct to say that government’s often ‘propose constructions’ and puts these ‘constructions into practice’ and it is society in general who are the poorer for it. I was turned right off Dawkins within the first minute or two of The Root Of All Evil when he proceeded to regurgitate propaganda about how although “maybe Iraq might have something to do with it too” terrorists were just crazy killers motivated by religion. Context can be irritating. I realise but I expected more from a scientist of Dawkins’ calibre. However the point about “neighbour” as “co-religionist” seems to agree with stuff I’ve seen elsewhere. Didn’t Jesus reject that sectarianism fairly late on and in doing so court a fair deal of controversy? Certainly the acts of God-sanctioned genocide and ethnic cleansing documented in the Old Testament make it sound like loving one’s non-Jewish neighbour was never all that fashionable. Taking a hypothetical situation if a political party became popular through excellent work and policies and the opposition responded by starting a mud-slinging campaign would that not be reactive dirty-tactics? It is still possible. I think to describe reactions against ‘perceived’ movements/actions as reactive though. Even if both the movement and the actions ‘reacted’ against are both non-existent in reality. Bill thinks I’ve formed a partnership with Jane and am working with her to build up a business (which he perceives might threaten his). I’m not we’re both independently successful but he ‘reacts’ nonetheless by sending the goons round to give me a kicking. Although I am in agreement that “reactive racism” is a wholly undesirable term and that Dawkins’s labeling of the article as “remarkable” was unfortunate. I don’t think you are forming a fair appraisal of The God Delusion by just reading Cornwell’s response. Here’s (er… to Darwin’s Angel that is) titled ‘Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity’. Although it doesn’t address the issue above it makes a strong case for Cornwell not being enitirely honest in his critique of The God Delusion. You say “My interest in reading the rest of The God Delusion was not thereby enhanced” and fair enough too but perhaps Cornwell’s numerous mistakes (to label them charitably) might have an inverse effect? Well yes but I wouldn’t hasten to read anything Poper Ratzinger writes about existence or otherwise of a god either! ;) I don’t think you were implying that you would give a fig about Pope Ratzinger’s opinion but that’s what it sounded like. Personally I think it is an intellectual question unlike genetics and therefore anyone no matter what their profession is ‘qualified’ to have a valid opinion. It’s just a matter of who has the best arguments. Are you not over-emoting at the expression “reactive racism” ? I don’t read the “it must be the victim’s fault” interpretation into it at all… There are a number of instances in history (the Biafran War. Rwanda etc.) in which petty jealousy of the success of “the other” has lead to genocide. Interpreting “reactive racism” as an attempt to say that “the victims were asking for trouble” is misrepresentation of intent. I understand it to mean one of two things: 1) it is virulent envy of the apparent success of another group or 2) it is a mechanism for “scapegoating” or blaming one’s own misfortunes on another group. What does it mean to say you read a book “not exactly by mistake” for your Guardian column? Are you saying the Guardian foisted Cornwell’s tract on you? Or did you in fact choose to read it? If the choice was yours why did you make it? Ah because this work entirely devoted to attacking Dawkins’s uninteresting book was “in itself interesting to a degree”… somehow. While you say you have not “offered any kind of appraisal of” Dawkins’s book you do reveal that you “find [yourself] actively interested in reading pretty much anything else in part because it is not The God Delusion“. I would call that a “kind of appraisal” of a strongly negative kind. But no doubt you are operating with a more convenient definition of “appraisal” that even when mutated by “kind of” still excludes expression of “negative interest” accompanied by stream of other negative remarks (e g. Cornwell “scor[ing]… on the subject of Dawkins’s methodology” — as if a single point like this has obvious general methodological import). Still in non-appraisal mode you announce that Cornwell’s chapter on Dawkins’s “notorious claim” is “devastating” on the strength of your investigations with Amazon’s search inside facility where you read six pages of Dawkins’s book. No doubt the devastation wrought by Cornwell’s response is confined to those six pages since you haven’t read the rest. I would be interested though to hear how you came to know Dawkins’s claim was “notorious” given your thoroughgoing lack of interest in TGD. In the absence of further information I’ll assume it means you’ve read Christian attacks on TGD other than Cornwell’s meanwhile ignoring their target. In summary you apparently chose to read at least one entire book about and express a strongly negative opinion on a work in which you have no interest and on which you have no opinion. And then you top it off by apparently implying that anyone who isn’t a professional Christian like Ratzinger isn’t worth reading on “the existence or otherwise of a god”. (You don’t specify whether the numerous other aspects of religion covered in TGD fall into the ambit of those who aren’t Pope. But then you presumably have a hazy idea of what these are.) By extension then. Cornwell isn’t worth reading on religion or Dawkins or evolution because he’s a historian by trade. And you aren’t worth reading on language because you are a newspaper reviewer and not a linguist. I happen to believe that last statement isn’t true. But I certainly “don’t give a fig” what you think about a book you haven’t read particularly when you express your view in such a disingenuous fashion. Still in non-appraisal mode you announce that Cornwell’s chapter on Dawkins’s “notorious claim” is “devastating” on the strength of your investigations with Amazon’s search inside facility where you read six pages of Dawkins’s book. No doubt the devastation wrought by Cornwell’s response is confined to those six pages since you haven’t read the rest. It’s an interesting assumption you make that the only people interested in attacking TGD are Christians. For what it’s worth. I remember hearing about it on the radio and reading about it somewhere various times. I’m afraid I cannot remember whether the speakers and writers in question were Christians or not. I suppose it’s quite probable that some of them were Jewish. Others perhaps professors of no faith. defines an appraisal as an “evaluation” or “estimation of quality”. I maintain that what you are doing here is strongly implying at the least that you estimate TGD’s quality to be low — that is offering “a kind of appraisal”. No no here I am in appraisal mode appraising Cornwell’s chapter as devastating since Cornwell does indeed spend an entire (short) chapter on the claims that Dawkins makes in those pages which I read. So you are in fact offering an explicit appraisal but only of six pages of the book. Or possibly if I adopt a more restricted if nonsensical reading you are only offering an appraisal of Cornwell’s appraisal of six pages of the book not an appraisal of what he’s appraising. Yet this mini-appraisal is not even when combined with your other negative commentary and an unfavourable comparison with Cornwell’s book part of anything that might be termed a “kind of appraisal” of TGD. I find this hard to swallow particularly when you conclude with a sarcastic comment about Dawkins “flying the flag for empiricism and truth”. I think if Dawkins did the same in a scientific paper he would expect his methodology to be harshly criticized and people would not try to defend is as being merely a “single point”. But TGD isn’t a paper and it isn’t about science so why not evaluate it according to the standards you apply to comparable books — Cornwell’s ? (And if you insist on questioning the term “single point” while maintaining that said point has no necessary ramifications for the rest of the book then do at least supply an explanation rather than just scare quotes.) So you thought it worth mentioning that Dawkins relied for one point on a dubious source but you “don’t care” if this has any implications for the rest of the book. Presumably then concerns about Dawkins’s methodology do not inform your “negative interest” in reading the book and your framing paragraph has little to no relation with what follows it. It is in fact somewhat misleading about your highly nuanced stance regarding “appraising” TGD. For all I know you’re entirely right about Hartung’s unsavoury views. And to borrow your words. I don’t care (at least very much). Dawkins does not solely rely as you imply on the say-so of Hartung. The case is made with reference to the Bible itself. Maimonides and a psychological experiment with Jewish believers. He does not simply appeal to the authority of Hartung. But even if this were not so. TGD is about a great deal more than the definition of “neighbour”; and what concerns me is that you are seeking to dismiss it in its entirety on the strength of not very much while maintaining a pretence of neutrality. No that isn’t the assumption I made. I made the assumption that this specific point regarding Hartung came from Christian apologists because I have only come across it in the context of McGrath and Cornwell. In any event you have not really justified your description of Dawkins’s single-sourced claim however discreditable as “notorious”. It seems a strong word for something you heard on the radio and read about “somewhere”. This generalised insouciance would be a more convincing get-out if you hadn’t chosen to specify Dawkins for your fingers-in-ears performance and hadn’t contrasted him with the former Prefect of the former Inquisition [1] whom you implied would be better qualified on this count. Well. I am reporting that Cornwell’s claim about Dawkins’s pages is in fact accurate. That is a matter of fact not of anyone’s “appraisal” of Dawkins. My saying that Cornwell’s argument is “devastating” is perhaps as you say an appraisal of those specific pages of Dawkins. I do indeed think that those pages of Dawkins are atrocious. But that is not an appraisal of the whole book. We were talking there specifically about the section you have read. So in response to my question about the standards to apply to that section you assert that your evaluation “stands”. I maintain however that a critique of the form “If he had been writing x he’d have been criticised…” where x is a scholarly monograph/party invitation/billboard poster/whatever else is not particularly relevant. The fact is he was writing a popular book not a scientific paper. While I’m not saying that exculpates him in this case. I am saying you should judge it on the standards you normally apply to that form of writing. If his main point is about religious versus atheist political influence then I suppose “famously” would have done just as well and would probably have provoked less offence. He should. I suppose have explained his objection to alleged Jewish Lobby influence rather than just stating it. Or are you saying there’s a hint that he doesn’t need to explain the negative consequences for dark reasons? I’m not sure I buy that: he surely used the word because it’s helpful to his case to paint religious influence as negative. Well now. I do think that even a popular book that is loudly concerned (or so I understand; as we know. I haven’t read it) with contrasting what it pictures as a sort of pandemic virus of evidence-free and harmful superstition (ie religion and correct me if this isn’t Dawkins’s view of it) with the spectacular achievements of evidence-based science should indeed be quite careful about its own use of evidence. Possibly even more careful than most. Well yes but the footnote was giving your reason for not reading TGD by your own admission a book about the existence or non-existence of God. And that question Dawkins makes clear isn’t a religious one and certainly isn’t enlightened by study of scripture. Your reasoning made it sound as if Ratzinger was a preferable choice on the question of God’s existence (in the same way Dawkins is a better choice for science) and it’s that reasoning I find specious. “notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States” . “the Jewish lobby is notoriously one of the most formidably influential in Washington” . What is the word “notoriously” adding in these constructions? Because the Jewish lobby is hugely influential disproportionate to its size and this is widely known. “Notoriously” is simply putting a negative slant on “famously” and I think that’s fair enough – the Jewish lobby is a minority yet is able to heavily influence American foreign policy. In other words it is notorious for having a disproportionate monopoly in that area. I think you are missing the point entirely. The only reason Dawkins mentioned the Jewish lobby was to illustrate the political clout minorities can wield. The goals of the Jewish lobby are irrelevant and Dawkins makes no mention or implication of them. Of course not all supporters of Israel in the US are Jewish. That’s why Dawkins didn’t use the term Israel Lobby. The Israel lobby isn’t a distinct minority and would have been pointless to mention in the context. I think you are reading into this far more than is necessary. If you had read the book (and saying this is becoming tiresome) you would have your answer. As such the question lacks imagination. Evangelical Christians have a frightening degree of power in America and nearly half of American voters wouldn’t vote for an atheist. On reflection that was a very poor choice of word and I apologise. I was grasping for something other than “disproportionate influence” and chose remarkably badly. It is indeed fatuous. However I am not “following Dawkins” in using the term Jewish lobby. It is rightly or wrongly used extensively; characterising the term as uniquely Dawkins’ doesn’t further your argument. I have gone to great lengths to explain why it is entirely appropriate in the context. The American Jews who lobby in support of Israel. Yes it is senseless to mention political supporters of Israel but Dawkins didn’t do that – he mentioned the American Jews and their political influence. That they also happen to be political supporters of Israel means nothing. I don’t see how you managed to link “notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies” to a criticism of religion. “Notoriously” means the lobby is widely and infamously known for its political influence. Whether you agree with that or not it isn’t a poke at religion. Perhaps you make the connection because it is in a book highly critical of religion? Well that’s entirely subjective and I can’t prove you wrong but I hold there’s no reason to believe so. He’s carefully defining a subset of political supporters of Israel by reference to their religious identification and then contrasting them with atheists. Obviously religion is part of his argument here. He goes on to mention Christian evangelicals too. If he really wanted to make a point solely about minorities having large influence he could easily have found another example. Such as: “Hey rich white people have disproportionate influence why not atheists?” Well we circle back to what I argued in #38 and #41. What Mearsheimer and Walt call the “Israel lobby” is not a religious group per se; and of course many American Jews are not part of it. So in order for Dawkins to shoehorn it into his argument anyway he decides to talk instead about a specifically “Jewish lobby” by which I assume he means (as you say in #43): only those political supporters of Israel in the US who are Jewish. I contend that this is an artificial grouping: what Dawkins means by the “Jewish lobby” is just the “Israel lobby” with the many members of the latter who don’t fit into his polemical scheme hastily airbrushed out and the focus turned erroneously to religion. This. I think is really the core of where we differ. If it is an attempt to turn the focus onto religion in my opinion it is not a malicious one or even an inappropriate one. It is simply pointing out a group of people – American Jews who have organised effectively – as an example to atheists. I just don’t see how even if we are to take “notorious” and “Jewish lobby” as malicious this is supposed to further Dawkins’s “polemical scheme” or even to make a point at all given the context (comment #37). Samaritans were and remain Jews. They became a subset of Jews by staying in Israel while the vast majority of Jews were exiled to Babylon. Although the Samaritans of Jesus’ time were disdained by main-stream Jews genetic analysis indicates that of all of the world’s widely diverse Jewish groups. Samaritans have the highest frequencies of genes (alleles) that are distinctly high among Jews such that Samaritans are genetically closest to the Jews of ancient Israel (see “Samaritans” at Wikipedia for details and references especially reference 12). Jesus’ mission was to be his people’s Messiah … to re-unite them for the purpose of reconstituting the Kingdom of David i e.. Israel’s glory days. The story of The Good Samaritan indicates that this reunification was even to include Good Samaritans – i e.. Samaritans who would join the effort to throw off the Romans and re-establish Israel as the regional power. Although Jesus made exceptions for Good Samaritans he retained mainstream Judaism’s general disdain for Samaritans. He stated this disdain repeatedly instructing his disciples to avoid Samaritans when taking his message to in-group members (e g.. Matthew 10:5-6; RSV): “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus was very concerned that his messaniac plan not become apparent to out-group members so again he instructed his disciples (Matthew 7:6; RSV): “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine.” In this case “dogs” referred to left-over Canaanites and Samaritans (e g.. Matthew 15:21-28) and “swine” referred to people who eat pork — that is gentiles. Pearls were the pearls of wisdom about how to treat in-group members (fellow Jews with a general exception of Samaritans). As such. Matthew 7:6 was the 1st century equivalent of saying in America today “Go tell the plan to the White people but what ever you do don’t tell the niggers and the spics.” Ugly language indeed but it is commonly sold and bought among Christians as some kind of poetry. For an understanding of my understanding in this regard (highly recommended prior to offering criticism) please read “Love Thy Neighbor: the evolution of in-group morality” – available at Hey John. I liked your essay but I wouldn’t frame this as a group-strategy rather as an elite-strategy. Genghis Khan for example employed the opposite approach inviting and accepting pretty much everyone into the group as equal and that worked fine too. Linking events of modern history (like the six-day war) to ancient methods of manipulation and control is a stretch; c’mon. Zionists are bastards but not because they read the bible; most of them probably don’t anyway. It’s mostly a secular movement. I thought the guy who said that religions evolve along with the society did have a point (though the rest of this comment is bullshit). The analogy with the US Constitution is not so much about the amendments but rather the way it’s interpreted today compare to 200 years ago; interpretation changes all the time. “And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum there came unto him a centurion beseeching him and saying. Lord my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him. I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said. Lord. I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority having soldiers under me: and I say to this man. Go and he goeth; and to another. Come and he cometh; and to my servant. Do this and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it he marvelled and said to them that followed. Verily I say unto you. I have not found so great faith no not in Israel. And I say unto you. That many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.…” It’s well known that there were disputes among (proto-)Christians about how and whether to promote the message among Gentiles. There is evidence of this in the Bible in particular in Acts 15. It is clear from this (and other evidence of intra-Christian dispute) that Jesus’s views on basic questions about proselytising to non-Jews were either not known or not deemed relevant by some of his earliest disciples. So I don’t see this as a very convincing point. I don’t really know my Bible or my Life-of-Christ period Roman history so I’d be delighted if someone would see fit to explain the terms “Roman” and “Jew” in this context. I’m far from clear regarding our contemporary situation whether the term Jew is an ethnic a religious or some other kind of designation - it seems to me just the kind of weird mixture that makes one question the basis of such categories (considering the Ethiopian Jews for instance). Might the designation have been similarly ambiguous 2000 years ago? It also seems improbable to me that all centurions around the Roman Empire would have hailed from central Italy - especially given the continuing rapid increase in the Empire’s extent up to about 150AD or somewhere thereabouts. Is it inconceivable that there might have been a centurion around who could also satisfy whatever criteria for Jewishness were then current? As a side-note. I wonder what the total population of centurions was ca 40AD. Note: I’m not trying to invent consistency in the text where it does not exist merely wondering if our current situation of contested or illusory categories might not be restricted to post-enlightenment modernity or whatever we call our contemporary world these days. Richard your points are all valid and many of the military administrators of the Empire would not have been from Italy or even Latin-speakers. But I think the clear implication of the last verses quoted is that the centurion was not Jewish and I think this is actually the main point of the passage. Stuart A’s riposte to mine is good and I need to backtrack a little to make my point there but regret I may not have the time to thrash out the NT or other evidence here… Promoting secularism in the public sphere is not the same thing as atheism - indeed it used to be the position of many Christian fundamentalists which is why separation of Church and State was one of John Kennedy’s key pledges to evangelical voters back in the day. The teaching of pseudo-science in science lessons for religious reasons and the imposition of a religious doctrine or practice on schoolchildren aside from being unconstitutional is opposed by both liberal Christians and members of minority religions. Me among the former for instance. I think that there are quite a lot of Christians and Jews (not to mention other religious groups) who oppose the teaching of creationism in biology lessons. Indeed in the Arkansas case in the early 1980s the complainants against the State of Arkansas was pretty much a “Who’s Who” of mainstream American religion. It’s one of those odd things. The US is a deeply religious society who would never elect an atheist as president and a deeply secular society - in the sense of not being confessional - at the same time. Which is why both militant atheists and devout Christians complain that the system is rigged against them. And both have a point. Steven - What’s wrong with being militant? The word may have fallen on hard times with the rise of Militant and indeed. Millie Tant but at one time it just meant an active and committed left wing person which personally I don’t think is a bad thing. According to the Book of Common Prayer all Christians are militant by dint of their membership of “the Church militant here in earth”. The appropriate adjective for President Bush. I would have thought is bellicose. This. I think differentiates him from Dawkins who is active and committed but hasn’t as far as I know started any wars. If active and committed atheists dislike being described as militant then I am more than happy to use another adjective but surely we need some term to distinguish those who think it is important to convince others of the truth of atheism and those who are less concerned about other peoples beliefs about the Great Perhaps. I googled your name and “Jew” because as you guessed. I wanted to find out whether you are Jewish (“Jew” brings up “Jewish,” etc.). My purpose was to guess whether you have an opinion on the Who-Is-A-Jew question. In my experience the vast majority of non-Jews are barely aware of the Who-Is-A-Jew question but the vast majority of Jews are aware of the question and most are aware of it in some detail and have an opinion in that regard. I side with Lenni Brenner (Jews in America Today) … that people who say that they are Jewish should be counted as Jewish … this allows for some miss-count of wannabe Jews but that is probably offset by people who are recognized as Jews by the majority of Jews but who do not want to be counted as Jewish. I did not have an ulterior motive in that regard … I just wanted a better sense of whether you would be likely to have an opinion on Samaritans. BTW how does one discover what words another person has searched? (I’m not sharp about such things … perhaps because I am 60 years old and just trying to keep up with technology as distinct from mastering it … so perhaps I should ask my 11 y o daughter … but your website is so masterful in its facility of discussion that I would rather learn from you). About Samaritans when followers of the Israelites’ dominant sect … Judaism as developed in the tribe of Judah (‘Judaism’ is how ‘Judahism’ has been transliterated) … returned from Babylon under Cyrus they found the Samaritans who had remained in Israel. The Samaritans were and remain the most ancestral of all Jewish populations (point of the genetic analysis … I do realize that being Jewish is not genetic … all of the alleles that are disproportionately high among Jews exist in other populations sometimes at higher rates … this is just a way of using genetic analysis to trace ancestral history … can be done in reference to any population whether genetically or culturally defined or both … could be done for American Republicans … and they would be found to have some alleles at higher frequencies than American Democrats … but this would not be taken by me to indicate that being Republican is ‘genetic’). Anyway the Samaritans revere only the Torah and the book of Joshua as the word-of-god Bible (first 6 books of THE Bible) … rejecting the Bible as developed during exile in Babylon (vast bulk of the Jewish Bible). They also rejected the Babylonian Talmud (THE Talmud). Making matters worse while in Babylon except for ritual sacrifice of chickens. Jews abandoned animal sacrifice as demanded in the Torah (practice not well received in Babylon) but Samaritans still practiced animal sacrifice. To this day the Samaritan practice of using mammals in animal sacrifice is a major issue between other Orthodox/Hassidic Jewish groups and Samaritans … just as chicken sacrifice is an issue between mainstream American Judaism and American Orthodox Jews (for some notion of current chicken-sacrifice practices check For Samaritan animal sacrifice check also visit From before Jesus’ time to today it is/was believed by most Jews that the Samaritans were non-Jews who developed their own religion by borrowing from post-exhilic Judaism. The genetic evidence sets that story straight … the Samaritans were Jews/Israelites prior to Babylonian exile of non-Samaritan Jews … and although Jesus did not see it that way there certainly are passages in the Bible which show that at times Jesus was willing to accept support from a Good Samaritan (a Samaritan who believed in his powers) … and even a good Roman Centurion. In that latter story as it appears in Luke (most Gospel stories are told 3 or 4 times) the locals had to convince Jesus to help the Centurion by telling him that “He is worthy to have you do this for him for he loves our nation and he built us our synagogue.” Jesus was clearly amazed by the Centurion’s faith but he was willing to make exceptions for exceptional out-group members who supported the cause of reconstituting the Kingdom of David. My point is that to understand Jesus we need to understand the rule as well as its exceptions. Unfortunately the old saw that one can defend any argument with quotes from the Bible is close to true … but that does not mean that the Bible is an incoherent mish-mash of verses. It has a central theme that permeates throughout … and understanding the “New” Testament requires understanding the original testament … the Bible of Jesus’ time and the god that Jesus prayed to (for the best … to my knowledge … books on understanding Jesus see the works of the highly respected Jewish scholar Geza Vermes). Understanding the Rule requires reading the Bible straight through … like any other book … preferably slowly and carefully (I recommend the Revised Standard Version in that regard). Also unfortunate the argument that Jesus’ mission was for his people and not for Gentiles and Samaritans (with exceptions for outstanding individuals) and not for other Jewish subsets not in favor with Jesus (Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Scribes & Pharisees non-believers etc.) … is a preponderance-of-the-evidence argument … unlike the argument that “Thou shalt not kill” meant ‘thou shalt not kill thy fellow in-group member’ … which is a matter of clarifying what words meant (per my essay “Love thy neighbor” and the clarity brought to that argument in The Talmud … and even by Maimonides). Perhaps the best single expression of the Rule occurs in Matthew 18:15-18 in which Jesus explained to his disciples that Jews who sin against fellow Jews and cannot be made to see the error of their ways should be considered like non-exceptional Gentiles and Samaritans and tax collectors … all of whom were going to be rejected from heaven (see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21): “If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly. I say to you whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Still it works. I looked up ‘Steven Poole’ and ‘Jew’ on Google and from there worked out his opinion on super-casinos. Northern Ireland nuclear power preferred jelly ban flavour and the writers’ strike. Now I’m feeling bad about picking this up because I don’t want to pile on John who has been unfailingly polite in this forum. However it seems to me that there’s some doublethink here:I side with Lenni Brenner (Jews in America Today) … that people who say that they are Jewish should be counted as Jewish … this allows for some miss-count of wannabe Jews but that is probably offset by people who are recognized as Jews by the majority of Jews but who do not want to be counted as Jewish. Using the stated criterion (the speaker is the authority on his own identity) the categories “wannabe Jews” and “Jews… who do not want to be counted” should disappear no? Or is there some other standard of immanent or socially sanctioned Jewishness creeping in beside the self-recognition? By Jesus’ message. I mean per previous posts the message that Jews should unite … cooperate with each other … to throw off Roman rule and recreate the Kingdom of David … instead of remaining a highly polarized almost caste-system society that would never reach their messianic objective. As such he argued that a Priest (top in-group status) who does not help a fellow Jew he discovers wounded by a road is no better than a tax-collector while a Samaritan (bottom in-group member) would be worthy of heaven if he did help the same man wounded by a road. With regard to helping out-group members (heathens and gentiles who unlike the Centurion do not help further the objective) even at the end of the 11th Century. Maimonides’ Codes (codes of conduct for Diaspora Jews) made the following clarification [Codes of Maimonides. Book of Torts. 5:11]: “One may not procure the death of a heathen against whom we are not at war or of similar people. It is however forbidden to save them from dying - for example if any of them falls into the sea one may not rescue him - for Scripture says. Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor (Lev. 19:16) and none of these is thy neighbor.” Big deal because of powerful residual effects. For example. Israeli psychologist George Tamarin measured the strength of residual in-group morality. He presented Joshua 6:20-21 to 1,066 school children ages 8-14 in order to test “the effect of uncritical teaching of the Bible on the propensity for forming prejudices (particularly the notion of the ‘chosen people,’ the superiority of the monotheistic religion and the study of acts of genocide by biblical heroes)” (in reference to Jericho. RSV): “They utterly destroyed all in the city both men and women young and old oxen sheep and asses with the edge of the sword … And they burned the city with fire and all within it; only the silver and gold and the vessels of bronze and of iron they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.” The children’s answers to the question “Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?” were categorized as follows: ” ‘A’ means total approval. ‘B’ means partial approval or disapproval and ‘C’ means total disapproval.” Across a broad spectrum of Israeli social and economic classes. 66% of responses were “A,” 8% “B,” and 26% “C.” The “A” answers tended to be as straightforward as they were numerous (Tamarin. 1966): •In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well and here are the reasons: God promised them this land and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the “Goyim.”6 •In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways. •Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth. “C” classification [total disapproval] was accorded to all answers formally rejecting genocide either on ethical or utilitarian grounds. This does not mean that all “C” responses revealed non-discriminatory attitudes. For example one girl criticized Joshua’s act stating that “the Sons of Israel learned many bad things from the Goyim.” … Another extremely racist response is that of a 10-year-old girl disapproving the act stating. “I think it is not good since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.” •I think Joshua did not act well as he should have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites. In contrast to the established difference between boys and girls in propensity toward violence and approval of violence in general with regard to biblically commanded genocide Tamarin found that “Contrary to our expectation there was no difference concerning this most cruel form of prejudice between male and female examinees” (1973). Less surprising but more alarming nearly half of the children who gave “total approval” to Joshua’s behavior also gave “A” responses to the hypothetical question: “Suppose that the Israeli Army conquers an Arab village in battle. Do you think it would be good or bad to act towards the inhabitants as Joshua did towards the people of Jericho?” Tamarin (1966) received such responses as these: •In my opinion this behavior was necessary as the Arabs are our enemies always and the Jews did not have a country and it was necessary to behave like that towards the Arabs. •It would have been good to treat the Arabs as Joshua and his soldiers did as they are Arabs; they hate and retaliate against us all the time and if we exterminate them as Joshua did they won’t be able to show themselves as greater heroes than we. Some respondents disapproved of Joshua’s campaign (answer “C”) but approved of similar acts if committed by Israeli soldiers. One girl disapproved of Joshua “because it is written in the Bible. ‘don’t kill’,” but she approved of the conjectured Israeli Army action stating “I think it would be good as we want our enemies to fall into our hands enlarge our frontiers and kill the Arabs as Joshua did.” As a control group. Tamarin tested 168 children who were read Joshua 6:20-21 with “General Lin” substituted for Joshua and a “Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago” substituted for Israel. General Lin got a 7% approval rating with 18% giving partial approval or disapproval and 75% disapproving totally. We withhold judgment on the moral blindness of children because they are in a formative stage but we should not withhold judgment of adults especially influential adults for the moral blindness that they inflict upon others. In that regard consider Ellie Wiesel’s portrait of Joshua (1981) which ends. “Poor Joshua glorious Joshua. He was forced to win so many battles — with no one around to say thank you. Except God.” I read the Tamarin story. I disagree that it’s a residual effect; rather it’s predictable effect of a garden variety nationalist propaganda that has absolutely nothing to do with the bible. As recently as the 1950s you could probably ask a group of white American children about any massacre during the Indian wars and get the same result. But not anymore not today the narrative has changed and it only took a couple of decades. Indoctrination. Every generation is indoctrinated anew; a historical event your father thought was the greatest example of heroism you might consider a terrible crime. And vice versa. As you noted yourself what was originally described as a massacre is now interpreted as a battle. It’s all very fluid. Update re “Jewish lobby”: I see belatedly that dsquared in October. I agree: I don’t think for a moment that Dawkins is in fact a ranting Jewish-conspiracy-theorist or indeed the kind of person who would try to check whether someone is Jewish before engaging with his arguments; but I do think the term “the Jewish lobby” is sloppy and inaccurate and Dawkins obviously simply hasn’t thought enough about what he is saying. Dawkins is anti religion. For him they are all as bad as each other they hold up books as being sources of ultimate truth. Arguing about them is even worse it’s like giving them an importance they don’t merit. If groups believe in one of these books they have beliefs that are illogical and they are usually not examined closely. Look at them closely and you’ll see they’re based on superstition lies and (ssh don’t say it) racism. Since to be one religion your are clearly not the other. Having been unable to participate in this discussion for some time while reviewing it. I came to realize that you probably addressed me a “Joh” early on because I had addressed you as “Steve” in my first message. I probably did that because I had been emailing a colleague earlier that day whose name is Steven but who goes by Steve. I hope we can get past that level of antagonism. Our disagreement about The Good Samaritan is. I think just that. My view is that Jesus used the invention to say to fellow Jews that even the lowliest of Jews (or Jew-pretenders … as many contemporary Orthodox Jews consider Reformed Jews to be) … is better than a Levite or a Priest if he like the conjectured Good Samaritan enacts a high level of concern for all Jews (again. Samaritans have identified themselves as Jews for longer than any other Jewish group … so although they might have been in the ‘pretender’ class in Jesus’ view they were not in the class of stray Canaanites per Matthew 15:21-28). My view is based on a preponderance-of-the-evidence argument presented in “Love Thy Neighbor: the evolution of in-group morality” (published in 1995 and available at: ). As I understand it your position is that the hypothetical Good Samaritan in the story was Jesus’ way of saying that even a lowly non-Jew will go to heaven if he shows a sufficient level of concern for and cooperation for his fellow human beings … while even the highest Jew will not if he does not … such that Jesus’ mission was directed at non-Jews as well as Jews. So we disagree. About the issue that sparked your antagonism toward me … my review of MacDonald’s “A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy” in which I used the term “reactive racism” … that review was invited by the Book Review Editor of the journal in which it was published it was reviewed by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief the Book Review Editor and two additional consultants. It’s publication drew such acrimony that the Editor-in-Chief asked me to submit a fuller explanation regarding some of my points. I wrote the requested explanation and it was submitted and accepted by several consultants (reviewers) who had by then become involved. However when that “Addendum” to was sent to press the publisher (Elsevier) refused to publish it. The Editor-in-Chief tried to find out who had made that decision and why but after weeks of being stonewalled he resigned in protest and the journal discontinued publication (or eventually continued with a new name and a new Editor-in-Chief … all of which was covered as a news item in SCIENCE [273. 12 July. 1996 p 177]). So my Addendum has not been published … but given your possible interest and perhaps that of some readers. I will try to past it here … along with the book review to which it refers (review first). Reaction to my review of Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy has prompted me to recognize several inadequacies in the expression of my opinions (Hartung 1995a. MacDonald 1994). I thank the editors of Ethology and Sociobiology for this opportunity to explain my point of view in a different way. Regarding the Holocaust clarification might be added by imagining that we can look at earth through a lens which causes people of different ethnic groups (or in-groups) to glow with an identifying color such that if the Dutch were green for example. Holland would be intensely green and there would be a fading green glow around its boarders — a glow that would disperse into isolated specks of green as distance from Amsterdam increases. Using this lens to view Europe and Western Russia in 1940 there would be two unique colors — those of Jews and Gypsies. These groups would be different in the pattern of their dispersal with the absence of a central location that is proportionate to their overall size and the presence of many small glowing circles scattered far and wide. My contention is that if we knew a war would soon break out near the center of Europe — a war that would kill about 60 million people — an understanding of human nature and the nature of human ethnocentricity would enable us to predict which in-groups would suffer most simply on the basis of the intensity of their light and its pattern of dispersion. To put a point on that armed with knowledge of the destructive power of ethnocentrism it would be clear that the largest concentrations of killing would occur at the Japan/mainland Asia interface (25 million+) and at the German/Russian interface (20 million+). It would also be clear that Jews and Gypsies would suffer most relative to their size. The question might then arise. “how did these two decentralized groups come to have such vulnerable dispersal patterns?” I think the dispersal pattern itself is not unique. Instead. I think that the maintenance of the diffuse pattern is unique. That is many groups have been shattered and dispersed but nearly all of them lost their smaller circles of light through processes of extinction at the hands of and assimilation into surrounding groups. So how did Jews manage to maintain a widely dispersed pattern for two millennia? This is the central subject of Kevin MacDonald’s book. He documents the cycles of success followed by victimization and recurrent reactive racism which account for both Jewish survival and resistance to assimilation. Reactive racism is the spiral by which contiguous groups increase their in-group ethos in reaction to other groups’ in-group ethos (more centrally the subject of MacDonald’s second book. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism; in press; see also Shahak 1994). Such spirals usually cause smaller groups to be extinguished/assimilated. MacDonald reviews how the Jews have managed to hang on. In short (too short sorry) they have done it the old fashioned way — through much hard work directed toward that end with a particular emphasis on education and intellectual prowess. That is the HOW. The WHY goes back to one of the world’s 4 or 5 most powerful memes — the ideology of the Bible. MacDonald details some of this in his book and I added some specifics in my review (see also Hartung. 1995b). As to the charge of anti-Semitism that has been leveled against me,1 if anti-Semitism is defined as prejudice against people who are Jewish. I am not anti-Semitic by any stretch of the imagination. One can have respect for people of a religious persuasion while questioning the persuasions of their religion. However if one’s definition of anti-Semitism applies to those who make critical inquiry into fundamental tenets of Judaism. I could be labeled anti-Semitic. What matters to me in this regard is that the facts I put forth be true and that conclusions drawn follow from those facts. These concerns are irrelevant to persons for whom religion is sacrosanct. Of such persons I ask only that they not go away with the impression that I am anti-Semitic by their definition without being concomitantly anti-Christian (Hartung. 1995b). To readers who think of religions as sets of ideas and to whom all ideas are subject to challenge. I apologize for and deeply regret shortcomings in my presentation which have caused offense. 1. This charge was leveled directly and forthrightly by E. Lanier on HBES-L (twice on 11/3/95 and once on 11/4) and reports of additional expressions of alarm have been relayed to me by Martin Daly. Margo Wilson and Randolph Nesse. Hartung. J. Review of A people That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (see MacDonald below). Ethology and Sociobiology 16:335-342. 1995a.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

morality and crime bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

morality and crime visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Opening Pandora's box. Labours gutter morality - continued-Today it has been confirmed that a very serious complaint has been lodged with Allerdale District Council a complaint that AGAIN appears to have been "looked into" and filed as...... I don't actually know what the official verdict is but I have had official conformation that the case is no longer open and that letters have gone out to those concerned to say the be is finished. When I use the term "finished" I understand this to mean that the allegations "could not be proven" so again we are left with the standard Allerdale conclusion of.. what exactly ? I don't really experience what I do know is that it has AGAIN left a un-savoury taste in the mouth of populate who had in their opinion a very serious case of electoral misconduct that has not satisfied the "criteria" of a offence. Sound familiar ?Does it also sound familiar that this was never to see the lighten of day and that it is only now to be put into the public domain by the British National celebrate ?Ok this is the allegation as I understand it-Jonathan Wood son of Councillors Janice and Martin Wood was "drafted" in to stand against the come up respected ex-Labour Councillor Margaret Snaith in Siloth in the May local elections. Mrs Snaith was thrown out of Labour party as she had decided to stand as a independent she said could no longer be part of a organisation that was acting un-democratically and would not allow the scrutiny committee to moderate its actions- IN ITSELF A INCREDIBLY SERIOUS THING (again a public disgrace for which there was absolutely no consequence!!!!!) . Apparently Wood (jr) couldn't manage to get the 10 signatures needed to even stand in a election and submitted his form with only seven signatures. John Ardon (Labour deputy leader of Allerdale and Broughton Councillor) personally drove Wood to Siloth on the morning of the close of nominations and change surface with the Deputy leader - they still couldn't get three more people to sign the nomination forms and this is were it goes from - pathetic - to potentially illegal and if proven a offence of electoral fraud that people all over the Country are in jail for. It has been alleged that Wood & John Ardon went into a shop and told the people in said shop that they needed three signatures for Wood to - connect THE LABOUR celebrate ! - it is also alleged that the ladies actually asked if the form was for the election as if it was they wouldn't sign it !!!!It is alleged that they were given clear assurances that it was AND SO. WITH A AMOUNT OF SUSPICION THEY SIGNED !It only came to lighten later that the last signature on the nomination papers was actually a change state relation to Margrat Snaith and the person has went on record to confirm the deception perpetrated on them ! No query they questioned signing if it was to rest against Margaret ! Does anyone evaluate that she would undergo done had she been told the truth ? Does anyone think that respected people in our community would make up this whole sordid tale - especially when Margaret Snaith won by a vast majority ? I don't and this was to be just filed away and AGAIN NOTHING DONE !A Pandora's box it is. Conclusion- It has been my personal experience in many similar situations especially recently in the Sedgefield parliamentary by-election in July that the executive have a incredible ability to "investigate" blatant and serious "incidents" without any misconduct coming to light. I make no such allegations comprehend as I do not make allegations without all the facts to transfer but I will say that in Sedgefield the executive local police and indeed the electoral commission refused to act on the 10 page dossier on illegal practices I submitted and it was only when I persevered and actually got said dossier onto the desk of the Chief Constable of Durham that the serious fraud squad and economic crime unit were brought in and have since visited me and others and a full investigation is now in progress. Unknown to most change surface elected officials election fraud and illegal practices are actually police matters and as such once correctly submitted are than a police matter and nothing to do with local - or indeed as I have seen - parliamentary officials. (cash for Honours for e g) It is my personal experience that the vast majority of essentially criminal offences are kept "in house" this is un-acceptable and to put transparency and public confidence approve into this system in Allerdale investigations need to be conducted by "outsiders" and HAVE A PROPER CONCLUSION !!!!!!!!!!! Jonathan Wood is the same disrespectful lout who lied when accusing a previous poster that he had attempted to infiltrate the Maryport 'anti-BNP' meeting. He called the 'infiltrator' a 'nutter' on his own blogsite.. Well this 'nutter' ordain strike back. This nutter ordain gather bear witness of 'wacky baccy Woods's' medicate taking activity.. All info will be passed over to the Police. They ordain then have the opportunity of proving how fair they are.. Woods ordain be arrested. or will he..? Maybe this treatment is only reserved for BNP supporters. Our day will come. Woods will be invited to 'chose his lampost'.. How much fairer than that can you get?

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

CRiME OF AGENT-MARINER is a rhyming parable composed and (mostly) completed on 30 July 2003 by Pia Santaklaus. In 2006 an illustrated version was published by change taste defeat colour illustrations were completed by Tony Flowers during 2005. As a morality tale. CRiME OF AGENT-MARINER poetically describes horrors of greed. Childlike and naive on surface bright colourful book was intentionally designed to present deeper issues in a fun and easily digestible way. Crime of Agent-Mariner was entered in New South Wales Writers' displace 2006 poetry run winning a place and was also listed on NSW Premier's Reading contend enumerate in 2006. Synopsis:A hungry Agent-Mariner sets out on his displace and opportunistically finds a REAL mermaid. He captures her and though at first he seems to be nice to her his adjust intentions become apparent when he reveals his plans to exploit her. She is critical to his success and yet he keeps her caged until she is in a critical instruct. Regardless mermaid holds no hatred. She is of pure heart and kisses Agent-Mariner in what may be described as an act of forgiveness and like. Her touch sets of a chain of surreal events. She dissolves into bubble and disappears it seems forever while he becomes victim of a cosmic express. He turns into a fish and must dive off his own ship into sea in order to defeat. In sea his measure is up when he gets caught and eaten. poem's author says that it is a metaphor: Mermaid in story represents beautiful rare and delicate fit of nature while Agent-Mariner is big business pillaging hide. Crime Of Agent-Mariner comes complete with built-in hidden secrets. Though mermaid seems to died her portrait on last of schedule finds her with a Mona Lisa smile. Does she know something that we don't? In end it appears that Mermaid may measure express emotion.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

CRiME OF AGENT-MARINER is a rhyming parable composed and (mostly) completed on 30 July 2003 by Pia Santaklaus. In 2006 an illustrated version was published by change taste Beat colour illustrations were completed by Tony Flowers during 2005. As a morality tale. CRiME OF AGENT-MARINER poetically describes horrors of greed. Childlike and naive on ascend bright colourful schedule was intentionally designed to present deeper issues in a fun and easily digestible way. Crime of Agent-Mariner was entered in New South Wales Writers' displace 2006 poetry sprint winning a displace and was also listed on NSW Premier's Reading Challenge enumerate in 2006. Synopsis:A hungry Agent-Mariner sets out on his displace and opportunistically finds a REAL mermaid. He captures her and though at first he seems to be nice to her his true intentions become apparent when he reveals his plans to exploit her. She is critical to his success and yet he keeps her caged until she is in a critical condition. Regardless mermaid holds no hatred. She is of pure heart and kisses Agent-Mariner in what may be described as an act of forgiveness and love. Her touch sets of a arrange of surreal events. She dissolves into fizz and disappears it seems forever while he becomes victim of a cosmic curse. He turns into a fish and must dive off his own ship into sea in order to defeat. In sea his measure is up when he gets caught and eaten. poem's author says that it is a metaphor: Mermaid in story represents beautiful rare and delicate balance of nature while Agent-Mariner is big business pillaging Earth. Crime Of Agent-Mariner comes complete with built-in hidden secrets. Though mermaid seems to died her portrait on last of book finds her with a Mona Lisa smile. Does she experience something that we don't? In end it appears that Mermaid may measure laugh.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

gratify visit here to expressing your give for family values and remove speech for Christians. There is a bill progressing through Congress which would ban discouragement of "gay" behavior by anyone. Noting the fact that this lifestyle is sinful and immoral would legally be considered a dislike crime. Don't do by the possibility of this bill being enacted.. it's up to us to forbid cram like this. The "Worldviews Revolution" described here is not a revolution of weapons or military incursions. Rather it is the kind of revolution which John Adams once described: a revolution "in the hearts and minds of the people." The Worldviews Revolution is thus about "revolving" the American and Christian cultures of today to their Biblical roots. Our goal at this site is to bring in and back up the new Reformation of Biblicism and encourage those groups believing in Truth and unalienable rights to bring home the bacon together and co-operate. We advance desire to proclaim the beat liberty of all which is that arrived at from an individual relationship with the Creator. Jesus Christ.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Please tour here to expressing your give for family values and free speech for Christians. There is a bill progressing through Congress which would ban discouragement of "gay" behavior by anyone. Noting the fact that this lifestyle is sinful and immoral would legally be considered a dislike crime. Don't do by the possibility of this account being enacted.. it's up to us to forbid cram like this. The "Worldviews Revolution" described here is not a revolution of weapons or military incursions. Rather it is the kind of revolution which John Adams once described: a revolution "in the hearts and minds of the people." The Worldviews Revolution is thus about "revolving" the American and Christian cultures of today to their Biblical roots. Our goal at this site is to track and assist the new Reformation of Biblicism and back up those groups believing in Truth and unalienable rights to bring home the bacon together and co-operate. We advance wish to proclaim the best liberty of all which is that arrived at from an individual relationship with the Creator. Jesus Christ.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

gratify tour here to expressing your give for family values and free speech for Christians. There is a account progressing through Congress which would ban discouragement of "gay" behavior by anyone. Noting the fact that this lifestyle is sinful and immoral would legally be considered a dislike crime. Don't do by the possibility of this bill being enacted.. it's up to us to stop stuff desire this. The "Worldviews Revolution" described here is not a revolution of weapons or military incursions. Rather it is the kind of revolution which John Adams once described: a revolution "in the hearts and minds of the populate." The Worldviews Revolution is thus about "revolving" the American and Christian cultures of today to their Biblical roots. Our goal at this place is to track and assist the new Reformation of Biblicism and back up those groups believing in Truth and unalienable rights to work together and co-operate. We further wish to proclaim the best liberty of all which is that arrived at from an individual relationship with the Creator. Jesus Christ.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

By Tim WiseImagine if you will the following: The place is a quiet suburban community. The kind commonly referred to by its residents as a "nice place to live and raise children." It's a community known for civic pride affluent families and schools where the students score well above the national average on aptitude tests. It's also 93 percent white. Now imagine that at this community's high educate a handful of black students who say they feel like outcasts begin talking openly about how they hate everyone. They start dressing alike--perhaps wearing the same colors or leather jackets or black berets--and referring to themselves as the "dashiki posse."Furthermore they show off their gun collection in a video which they produce for a class project. In this video they act out the murders of dozens of their fellow students and teachers. In addition to all this the students are known to operate a website which espouses hatred and violence and on this website they have been known to post what amounts to hit lists--letting everyone know who they hate most and intend to kill first. One of the targets of their hatred discovers the list tells his father and the two of them communicate police of the thinly veiled threat. Let's imagine these black students are fond of a particularly "violent" form of music--say gangsta' rap--and are known to paint viciously anti-white slogans and symbols on their clothing and sing the praises of a particular color crowd murderer--say. Colin Ferguson. Now let us answer the following question: How desire would it take based on the above information for school officials teachers and parents to make sure these kids were expelled from school and perhaps prosecuted? How long would it take for their families to be run out of town on a rail? Does anyone believe this scenario would have been met with apathy cautious indifference or even amusement?Of cover not. But that's exactly what happened in the real world when at this same school in this same community two white students from "good families" began dressing alike saying they hated everyone calling themselves the "Trenchcoat Mafia," listening to "shock-rock" and the sometimes violent lyrics of color musical artists showing off their guns and murder fantasies on film operating a website which praised Hitler and advocated violence painting swastikas on their clothes and naming the people they wanted to kill over the Internet. comfort seen as "basically normal kids" by their families friends and teachers.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The back up cerebrate for this cultural renewal is bold effective public policy -- welfare ameliorate with time limits and work requirements; zero-tolerance approaches to crime; education reform that tests and requires basic skills; and comprehensive anti-drug efforts including enforcement treatment and education. In all these cases good government and rational incentives have made a tremendous difference. Now everyone already knows that "zero-tolerance approaches to crime" are not unconservative although somewhere in the cotton candy of "treatment and education" I caught a smell of tutelary-state therapy. But clearly reforming welfare and enforcing the law are policies good conservatives and anti-therapeutists give. In fact they be to have _nothing at all_ to do with Gersonism. One might go so far as to say that Gerson appropriates them so as to enjoy the following syllogism: Enforcing the law is good government. I am in advance of good government. I am in advance of subbing in for the Federalist Papers the political legacy of Helmut Kohl. Therefore the political legacy of Helmut Kohl is good government. construe closely: tucked within that apprise litany of applause lines is the assumption that good government means good federal government. And within that assumption is the woeful idea that if the state can do something come up it should do it. And this is the heart of the be for today. The paradigmatic centerpiece of Gersonism -- the conviction that just as heroes are those who back up populate government that helps is a government of heroes -- is education. The state is to inform: how to be safe with drugs how to be safe with sex how to be safe with ascribe. Getting too reckless with any of these things ruins your life and helps wreck the grow racking up expensive social costs borne by the national weal. their own self-destructive tendencies and reassert[ing] old norms -- not just arresting decline but change surface reversing it. Many Americans for example undergo seen the damaging effects of break on children -- sometimes from the firsthand perspective of their own childhoods -- and divorce rates especially among upper-income couples have fallen. Over the decades the social wreckage of drug use has become undeniable -- and the social judgment on this practice has shifted from "stylish rebellion" to "suicidal idiocy." In many cases our culture has benefited from the natural healing mechanism of simple sanity. But Americans today also recognize the great amount of anxiety wracking the culture and troubling the individual mind -- the tradeoff we've received for cutting down on agony by therapeutic means. We are learning how to disappoint incompletely to cope with our problems instead of curing them or being destroyed by them. So the finalities of life -- divorce drug death abortion -- dip down but the interdicts against the bad behavior which unmanaged leads to these things seem enduringly weak. It seems obvious to me that we are for example simply getting better at doing drugs. It's no fun being a crackhead. Responsible recreational medicate use is stylish; irresponsible use can be suicidal. So we learn through experience how to walk the lie. After a bad night we lay off for a while recover and reindulge just a little bit wiser. Rather than refraining from bad things we cerebrate our energies on mitigating their bad effects. And that's the evil genius of therapy. The key as far as Gersonism is concerned is that we the people learn how to therapeutically manage our practical morality by the experience of everyday life -- whereas government can help by providing the scientific expertise that we anxious hectic citizens of a democratic age don't have time to accumulate. They can set national standards mobilize national resources bear on uniform regulations and position centralized management techniques. All falls under the heroically altruistic rubric of education. Tocqueville who I ordain act hurling at Gerson until one or the other quits knew this 150 years ago: The only pledge [he wrote of the French physiocrats] that they created against the abuse of power was public education; for as Quesnay says. 'despotism is impossible if the nation is enlightened.' 'Struck by the evils which the abuse of authority brings,' says another of his disciples. 'men undergo invented a thousand absolutely useless means and have neglected the only truly effective one which is universal public education permanent essentially just and part of the natural request.' It was the force of this literary gibberish that they intended to substitute for all political guarantees. Gerson's probably unconscious intellectual debt to this tradition which failed so utterly and spectacularly in absolutist France is glaring. But rather than posing this top-down tutelary unitary. 'Catholic' copy against the competing American counter-tradition he calls 'libertarian' -- that improvising and ingenious local pragmatism of remove citizens -- Gerson that therapeutic virtuoso wants to eliminate the pain of contradiction by championing both traditions. Shifting measure up to a higher aim of abstraction he makes both go under the therapeutic rubric. The pragmatic morality of common sense practiced by common people is joined with the pragmatic morality of scientific expertise underwritten orchestrated and executed by the tutelary express. Unfortunately for us all. Gerson is not making this synergy up. Within the 'libertarian' tradition -- including its crunchy-con drive -- there is indeed the startling conflation of morality and practicality which has characterized therapeutic living ever since the replacement of the talking cure with the coping mechanism. comprehend to this and try to guess who it's about: In the desire and graceful essay 'develop and Hope,' ________ says that to 'the virtuous man.. practical and spiritual values are identical; it is only corruption that can see a difference.' It should be obvious he says that moral value 'is not separable from other values. An adequate morality would be ecologically sound; it would be esthetically pleasing...[I]t would be Morality is long-term practicality'. ________ asks us here to consider that '[m]oderation and restraint.. are necessary not because of any religious commandment or any creed or code but because they are among the assurances of good health and a sufficiency of goods.' Ladies and gents may I present Mr. Wendell Berry. What's shocking is not simply how profoundly therapeutic and presumptuous Gerson is but how deeply rooted he is within every tradition of pragmatic morality on transfer -- statist and anti-statist religious and irreligious nationalist and localist. European and American. The of therapeutic logic is precisely this ingestion of all contradiction under conditions of intellectual painlessness. Hegelian synthesis looks to a therapeutic like primitive care for. The therapeutic genius is the recognition that thesis and antithesis can be maintained together despite their contradiction by denying the experience of pain that flows naturally from contradiction. Anyone who's read this blog for any length of measure should recognize now at once why I evaluate Gerson is so awful. And he or she should also recognize along with me that the real awfulness of therapeutic statist Gersonism is that it fulfills politically the therapeutic promise that has taken hold of 'western' grow -- just this promise that you can alter contradictory choices.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I undergo my own perspective on left right and liberal and how to reason various ideologies and I thought I’d share. This was developed a few years ago now. The Right wing considers authority to be in itself a good thing. Rules are important. The Right look for certainty in what is good and what is bad and feel frustrated by mitigating circumstances and ‘grey areas’ in general. The Liberal wing (let’s just call it that) is basically the opposite of that. They’re against authority being exercised for it’s own sake: It must be allow and it must be used only in the interest of protection. Liberals tend to avoid hasty or rash judgements about what is good and bad - they instead work on the “do the least injure” principle. So an example. A woman is gang raped and yet finds herself sentenced to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes from a whip because at the time when she was raped she was in a car with a man she was neither married nor related to. I’m sure most Lib Dem bloggers ordain be aware of this Saudi case. It’s pretty horrific. According to Saudi rules she’s been extremely immoral and must be punished. An extreme conservative view but essentially this is the problem with fixed binary morality: Who can possibly say what is Good And Bad with absolute certainty and find universal agreement? So I’ve digressed again. Apologies. So the Left. Where do they fit in? For me the Left means Socialism and my analysis is that Socialism is a variation of conservatism. The progression of the Labour Party from appearing ‘left’ to appearing quite ‘right’ seems perfectly natural to me. The difference between conventional Conservatism in the blue daub monarchy church and establishment comprehend and Socialism is the request that you place people on a moral hierarchy.  For Traditionalists the ‘poor’ and the ‘working class’ are deprived because of their basic lack of character and wits to choose themselves out. They are placed at the furnish of the pile. For Socialists the ‘poor’ and the ‘working categorise’ are virtuous people exploited and oppressed by an evil ruling elite. In their hierarchy the rich the intellectuals the middle class are placed at the bottom of the pile. So. Fascism: Again this is a variant of classical conservatism. They have their own absolutes their own command book and again attempt to use authority to impose their own vision of an idealised state. I speculate things can get murky when a political movement is fighting real oppression - it ordain probably be a mixture of conservative-of-the-underdog and liberal and those who haven’t decided. And perhaps the difference between left and right is that between the (left-)conservative of the present underdog and the (right-)conservative of the existing elite. And it means that any left-conservative movement gaining sufficient power will become the new elite and therefore will become right-conservative. Well considering how strong authority the communist celebrate exercised in former Soviet Union and comfort exercises in China. North Korea and Cuba according to that definition communists are Right go. If we be the further evidence other socialists including social democrats seem to undergo a strong be to regulate everything with rules. Again they are alter wing. So though your definitions for “Right wing” and “Left wing” might be different fron Tristan’s in both cases fascism and communism would coincide on a two-dimensional political map. For further reading. I’d like to recommend a chapter from F. A. Hayek’s book “The Road to Serfdom” and of course itself which I think is one of the strongest evidences of the connection of socialism and national socialism. F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom (in full)Hannah Arendt: The Origins of TotalitarianismKarl Raimund Popper: The Open Society and Its EnemiesLudwig von Mises: Socialism - An Economic and Sociological AnalysisHermann Raushning: The express of Destruction Unfortunately I haven’t found much useful literature in English about the connections of Socialism and Italian Fascism in particular but Mussolini used to be editor of Avanti! newspaper of the Italian Socialist Party and the main difference which led to his depature was that he had more militarist tendencies. And I think that was also the main difference between the Italian Socialist Party and National Fascist celebrate. However from you’ll find an interesting quote: “The party program called in vague terms for social reform financial stability assertion of Italy’s prestige abroad and order at domiciliate. The Fascists considered themselves a revolutionary celebrate in opposition to nineteenth-century liberalism middle-class humanistic values and capitalism but Mussolini advanced no guiding ideology.” This is a thoughtful piece. The problem with it comes when you say: “For me the Left means Socialism” by which you quite clearly mean state socialism. The problem with that is that the Left is not state socialism and it never has been. Anarchism mutualism. Chartism the Suffragettes the Levellers libertarian socialists and social democrats would all be generally recognised as being ‘left-wing’ but none fit your analysis of being authoritarian movements. Indeed (I thought I could leave this one alone but I couldn’t…) what characterises most movements I evaluate of as left-wing is their anti-authoritarian character. Which is why vulgar libertarianism doesn’t cut it as ‘left-wing’ for most people who would think of themselves as ‘left-wing.’ By defending only property rights without reference to how property has been acquired and used to apply power in the past vulgar libertarians show themselves often as defenders of the status quo and its most militant defenders at that. Nat as you would probably agree the idea of “state socialism” not being socialism has arisen because of socialist movements going bad once they change state the elite. OK so fair enough act trying to bring home the bacon out where you went wrong. Meanwhile doesn’t your list of causes fit just as well my description of a murky mix of liberals and left-conservatives? Chartism and the women’s suffrage movement are pure liberalism - yes benefiting the same people that the left seeks to benefit but it is arguing semantics to broaden the definition of the left to include them. No - I would disagree at a fundamental aim. Most forms of early 19th century theoretical socialism do not foresee a future state at all. The fact that the adherents of Marx undergo been more vocal than those of Proudhon does not convey that Marx is more ‘left’ than other thinkers. The idea that ’state socialism’ is what socialism is a wilful mis-portrayal of a body of political thought although it’s a masterful conjoin of semantic deception. Again. I would respectfully disagree with regard for the list. Only one of the groups I named could be considered ‘left-conservatives’: the social democrats. You may choose to define the Suffragettes as ‘liberal’ but I doubt any Suffragette would undergo chosen to be so called. It was Asquith’s Liberal government that passed the Cat and Mouse Act. It was the do work Party (an inconveniently socialist party) that supported.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

We're a dedicated group of videogame enthusiasts. If you like videogames and join our ranks! This site uses a modified version of the BrokenStones source label which is based off of the label torrentbits org made freely available under the GPL license.

Note: this post contains lots of links and I'm not sure that Facebook necessarily imports HTML so if you really want full mileage out of this post gratify head to tthrasher blogspot com and read it there!I just read a news article that was discussing the fate of and the report mentioned that the "offence is punishable by up to a year in prison and 20 lashes by cane." That seems a little extreme. I mean why not just touch them with the beat?The moral clashing between cultures with strict opinions on things like men in women's clothing and the West is interesting. In Nigeria you get beaten with a cane. In England you are engaging in. I query about the effects that our respective outlooks undergo on society. I construe a rather provocative conjoin recently* theorizing about why Muslim cultures produce suicide bombers so frequently compared to many others. The argument was that of all things the sexually restrictive nature of conservative Muslim societies and their allow of polygamy means that many young men have little to ground them to this world and lulled by the promise of 71 virgins () they're willing to furnish their lives. You construe about suicide bombers who are family men. Were family men. You know. I've also construe that there's a strong correlation in Western society between occurrences of assail and the availability of porn. We can all thank youngamateurloving com** for making the streets safer for women! It makes you evaluate though. You'll frequently hear protest from conservative Christians or other "family values" activists*** along the lines that Hollywood/video games/quilts are becoming increasingly violent/provocative/purple and that it's threatening everything we hold dear especially the children/children/children. What if the very things that they're demonstrating against are actually making society exceed as a whole? If it's true do those people comfort contend against them?The older I get the more color everything in the world seems to get. There are still blacks and whites (we're talking shades of morality here not races) but a lot fewer of them and change surface the most distinct moral ideas I undergo are starting to fuzz out on the edges.* And I can't sight the cerebrate anywhere sadly so you'll just have to blindly trust me.** Yes. I just made that up. Amazingly that URL doesn't go anywhere! What are the odds?***Who are we kidding? "Other"? They're all conservative Christians too.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam