Wednesday, 18 October 2017

What are the limits of Jewish responsibility?

“What are the limits of Jewish Responsibility?”
A week-long conference hosted by Beth Torah
October 22-28
Featuring a kickoff event with Rabbi Sacks

Claire Khaw You owe the gentile the duty God felt Jonah owed the people of Nineveh.

If you live amongst them, you won't want them to be driven crazy by their out of control women and then take their anger out on you, do you?

You know the most virulent anti-Semites even blame you for Christianity (and its failure) and of course their current fear of having Christianity replaced by Islam.

Israel is not big enough to accommodate all of you and most of you I am sure would prefer to stay exactly where you are.

Out of your own self interest you should strive to prevent the descent of the gentile into ever deepening insanity and degeneracy. His current preoccupation with mentally ill adults and children who want to change their sex is a sign of his deepening dementia.

It would help if this was done with a real sense of focus and intent, not merely going through the motions for form's sake saying "We tried telling them, but they wouldn't listen. What can you do? Oy vey!" If you say it too politely, he won't understand. If you say it with just enough clarity and brutality to get the message through, he will get angry. Tough call.

I have tried, but no one listens to me. (It is probably because corrupt Western media have conspired to make a point of ignoring me altogether no matter how newsworthy I am, because I am not really supposed to exist.)

In Britain, Keith Joseph and Maurice Glasman have tried to help and warn the gentile, but had their careers destroyed by gentile women who are feminazis infesting every arm of government and every layer of state.

Rabbi Sacks has said himself that Jews don't listen to each other, especially as their religion does not have the equivalent of a Pope. I have noticed that gentiles never listen to each other either because of their accursed and erroneous doctrine of egalitarianism leading to feminism which also leads to constant buck-passing and avoidance of responsibility.

Happily, Rabbi Sacks has said himself that gentiles do listen to Jews and certainly did in the case of Jonah, and this cannot be denied: the people of Nineveh listened to Jonah, and Christians listened to Christ.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

Is Rabbi Sacks the man?

Greg Johnson:

I do believe that Jews are not just different from whites, but powerful and malevolent enemies who bear significant responsibility for causing white decline and opposing white renewal.

How to nudge Jews in the direction of Secular Koranism

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

Jews fret over gentiles suffering family breakdown caused by rampant rampaging feminism

Rabbi Sacks challenges Liberal Jews on their atheism

Simon Sheppard answers some daft questions on the British, God, Jews, antisemitism, Christianity, feminism and his childhood

Conservatism comes from theocracy

My Rosh Hashanah message to Jews who believe in patriarchy and see the evil of matriarchy

How Western men are demoralised in the workplace and how Western labour is made uncompetitive

Jews are blamed for everything, including the failure of Christianity

In our matriarchy, the Jew is lower in status to the fornicating slut, because even the privileged Jew dares not criticise her

Blame feminism, not Jews

Who corrupted whose morals?

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

Who corrupted whose morals?

A question occurs to me: has the West corrupted the morals of the Jew? Or has the Jew corrupted the morals of the gentile?

I suspect this question will be unanswerable, since neither will want to take the blame for corrupting each other's morals.

The Jew will say "But of course your laws corrupted our morals because we are only a minority in the land of the gentile."

The gentile will say "Of course you corrupted us, because many of you are in senior positions in politics, academia, the professions as well as banking. Your numbers may be few but your influence great indeed, being God's Chosen People who are so clever and cunning."

Understandably, atheist sexually liberated gentiles will have their morals easily corrupted by bad Jews, and bad Jews are unobservant assimilated and sexually liberated Jews.

Another unanswerable question is whether it was Eve who was to blame for leading Adam astray, or Adam for being so weak-willed as to be so easily led astray.

I think the answer must be that God was tired of Adam and Eve getting under His feet, raiding His fridge, smoking His stash, playing loud music and was just looking for an excuse to kick them out of Eden. He therefore used reverse psychology to give them the rope He knew they would take to hang themselves, so to speak.

I like to think that once the West has its one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism as I hope will happen one day, Jews will be better Jews, Christians better Christians, Muslims better Muslims and even atheists relatively well-behaved. It is only through practising moral restraint that men can keep their women relatively under control, re-establish the patriarchy and regenerate a degenerate civilisation.

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

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

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

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

Dov Fischer, an adjunct professor of law and American orthodox rabbi:

We are socially conservative and economically capitalist because we take the Torah laws seriously. We give charity without the Government teaching us about morality because we are commanded to give. Contrary to stereotypes, we are brutally honest in business at great personal economic loss. We set aside a tenth of our earnings for charity. Our marriages are heterosexual. And several of us Orthodox rabbis even file amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court supporting religious positions taken by groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

It is so painful today for contemporary American Orthodox Jews to read daily media reports that typically ignore us, in an attempt to paint almost all Jews as liberal… Our organizations never get quoted. Our public affairs policy positions never get reported. Thus, for example, when an agglomeration of the most liberal left rabbis — the non-Orthodox rabbis — announce that they will not participate in a phone call with the President of the United States, the media splash the news. But why is “Dog Bites Man” news? These are the same Democrat liberal rabbis who fell over themselves to hail Obama, even as Obama allowed the United Nations to proclaim that Jews have no historical bond to any part of Jerusalem, even as Obama brushed off an anti-Jewish Radical Islamist terror attack at a kosher grocery in France as a case of “random violence,” even as Obama proceeded with the Iran deal. The bigger news story that the media fail to report is that the 1,000 members of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America did not join in the boycott announcement. Nor did the Agudath Israel of America. Nor did the rabbinical body of the 140-synagogue National Council of Young Israel. Nor did the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, comprised of some 1,000 affiliated synagogues. Nor did the 200-plus rabbis of the Coalition for Jewish Values. The media blacked out the news that the majority of all seminary-ordained rabbis in the United States are Orthodox and that they gladly would participate in a phone call with the President of the United States.

In the same way, several Jewish organizations that historically were associated with protecting Jewish rights in the past have been taken over by the Democrats, converting them into de facto arms of the Left. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, now is run by a former Obama staffer, and he has turned ADL into a virtual Democrat mouthpiece. Similarly, an organization bearing the name of the precious youthful innocent Holocaust victim and heroine, Anne Frank, now is run by a former New Jersey Gay Marriage activist, an extreme leftist, and he now leverages the Anne Frank name to attack conservatives and Republicans, and runs around to media all-too-willing to give him a megaphone, calling exceptional conservative allies of the Jewish community and of Israel “anti-Semites.” 

What makes Jews hateful to the gentile is the perception that gentiles in their own land cannot mock or criticise the Jew because of Holocaust denial laws. The rule of law is so weak countries that allow Holocaust denial unofficially treat Holocaust denial as if it were a crime. It would be nice if there was at least one Jewish lawyer in Britain prepared to stand up for the rule of law as Alan Dershowitz does. Is that really too much to hope for?

My hope is that one day these ancestral hatreds of Jew and gentile will cease and Alison be given a part in Fiddler on the Roof. I can  just see Alison playing Golde, can't you?

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

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

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

Mizrachi suggested the behavior of non-religious Jews as a cause for Nazi atrocities and warned that slack observance could bring about “further tragedy.”

Catholic Church a haunt for gay men since the 1940s, according to Michael Voris.

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

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. 

Those who think the Third Temple should be built clearly have not learned from history. Let us hope they will not be condemned to learn its harsh lessons again.  The Al-Aqsa Mosque is therefore fine where it is.

The Liberal Jew can be equated with the elitist Sadducees so eager to collaborate with their Roman overlords and be Hellenised. Such a Jew would be sexually liberated and indifferent to the pain caused by neoliberal and neoconservative policies that cause social problems and provoke terrorism.

The Conservative Jew is analogous to the married taxpaying father trying to do his to do his best by his children and family while staying faithful to his traditions without which he knows he could not even be said to have traditions to be faithful to. Such a Jew would be inclined to and does in fact vote for anti-immigration parties even as he knows a significant number of its supporters are in fact anti-Semites.

Monday, 16 October 2017

Is feminism dangerous to your liberty?

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

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

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

where the Chairman of the Bar Council is female,

where the Home Secretary is female,

where the Prime Minister is also female

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, 14 October 2017

The real reason for Kol Nidre

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

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

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

Friday, 13 October 2017

How to nudge Jews in the direction of Secular Koranism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 12 October 2017

My father would completely agree with Reactionary Expat about the Taiwanese

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Dershowitz denounces intersectionality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In defence of Harvey Weinstein

I would actually be quite happy to defend him if I had a legal practice. Could it have been possible that these actresses perfectly understood that the sexual favours were performed on a quid pro quo basis?

Perhaps Weinstein should just come out with it and say:

Yes, Meryl Streep did perform a sexual service for me, but I did give her a job. In this business, there will always be many young, eager, beautiful and ambitious actresses competing for the same job. Some are prepared to perform sexual favours, others not. If there is any justice in the world, shouldn't the actress prepared to go the extra mile receive a reward for this? I rewarded these eager young actresses who went the extra mile for me. Is anyone suggesting that I should have given the job to some other actress infinitely more talented than Meryl Streep who refused to perform a sexual favour for me? If so, let her speak her name and audition for any of the roles Streep played: Sophie's Choice, The Iron Lady etc. I would hate to think Hollywood lost out because I gave the part to the wrong less talented actress prepared to perform a sexual act for me depriving the more talented and chaste actress of the role and that the arts and Hollywood standards of acting and talent suffered as a result.

I am a veritable Portia, am I not? And I defend Shylock too ...

Melanie Phillips has suggested at that there must be more sexual abuse now than there was before.

I would agree, simply because women these days are more prepared to put out because of the culture. Under-aged sex has after all been condoned since the mid-1980s by the House of Lords. If you don't believe me, look up Gillick Competence. 
The question is whether these attacks are now more numerous than they ever were or whether they are just being noticed more often. Obviously, sexual attack is nothing new; and one can point to many instances where changing social mores mean we are now less tolerant of behaviour that for various reasons went unchallenged in the past –– just as we can also point to precisely the reverse trend.
Nevertheless, I think such sexual attacks are in general on the increase, not least because of the breakdown of the traditional family. Before the British government decided to censor the statistics showing the relative rate of [child] abuse by biological and non-biological family members, it was clearly established that sexual and other abuse was committed vastly more frequently by people not biologically related to their victims. Since so many households now contain transient sexual partners, it stands to reason that the rate of abuse including sexual attacks has also exponentially increased.

Weinstein sounds so desperate and pleading, doesn't he? Practically begging her to stay so he won't be embarrassed.  

Wednesday, 11 October 2017

Jews fret over gentiles suffering family breakdown caused by rampant rampaging feminism

6th minute
Rabbi Sacks:

Why is family so important for community?

Robert Putnam:

It is the basis of community really. It is where we learn our skills dealing with other people, it is where we learn how to care for other people and it is the model for how we then reach out to the broader community ...

Rabbi Sacks [jumping in on the subject eagerly]:
So do you think the breakdown of the family over the past 50 years has had a negative impact on society as a whole?

Robert Putnam [warily and warningly]:

I don't want to get into the mode of getting moralitiscally critical of other kinds of family [waggling his hands apologetically and soothingly as if to appease the baying snarling feminazis he imagines to be screaming for his blood], single parent families and so on [How  many different kind of families are there? Families headed by two gay men bringing up daughters together? Families headed by two lesbians bringing up sons together? The mind boggles and God only knows, eh?] but I do think that the traditional family has an important advantages in terms of raising kids.

Maurice Glasman:

Politics is where you build a home together. 
Honour your relationships.

Rabbi Sacks says that the gentile community is in crisis. (Feminism, you see!)

He also says the community centre for the gentiles is the pub where they get drunk and get into fights with each other, but what can you do about people like that, eh?

Let's face it, guys and goyim. We must be in a pretty bad way if the Jews are worried about us. They are trying to help and warn us, but we are quite simply deaf, willfullyblind and heedless. 

Rabbi Sacks' nicey nicey videos with Jewish Harvard sociologists talking up the family are completely lost on the goyim who wouldn't dream of taking advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury, let alone a rabbi.

This message needs to be punched through by me with Rabbi Sacks and maybe also Melanie Phillips sitting around having a chat about putting the world to rights and socking it to them about what's wrong with the gentile and the disease of the mind he is suffering from before feminism completely rots his brain. 

Feminism threatens Jews too
Intersectionality is a code word for feminism

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned Jewish lawyer,  has noticed that intersectional feminism is the most virulent form of feminism. He has also noticed that it has identified Jews as the aristocracy of white people whom it wants to "de-privilege":

The linking of unrelated "victimizations," despite their tenuous connections, is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics, whereby increasingly, radical activists demand that the demonization of "Zionists"—often used as a euphemism for Jews – be included, indeed featured, in the package of causes that must to be embraced by anyone claiming the label of "progressive." Lumping seemingly disparate groups under the "umbrella of oppression" leads to the forming of alliances between causes that at best, have nothing to do with each other, and at worst, are averse to one another's stated mission. Their only common feature is that to join, they must demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.
Some intersectional feminists involved with the recent Women's March on Washington, for example, purport to be natural allies with anti-Israel Muslim groups that tolerate, if not accept, the "honor killings" and genital mutilation of women. Similarly, Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) – an organization that calls for "an end to violence against civilians, and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East" – invited Rasmieh Odeh, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and convicted terrorist, to appear as a speaker at its national conference later this month.

Perhaps a few brave Jewish intellectuals will now dare to come forward to denounce feminism before it completely destroys Western civilisation. As I understand it, most Jews would prefer to stay where they are and do not want to have to flee to Israel, which is already very crowded and surrounded by angry Arabs and Muslims. It is therefore incumbent on them to advise the governments they are living under as to the necessity and urgency of a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism as well as the repeal of all feminist legislation to avert a slide into chaos and disorder in the West.

The Bhagavad Gita:

Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil.

I eagerly anticipate Rabbi Sacks' coming talks on the subject of Balaam and sexual immorality. The gentile is these days so degenerate that they only thing would grab his attention is to talk to him about sex, violence, pestilence and video games. If this doesn't get his attention, nothing will.

I came across Balaam when I was looking for prophets the Jews had accepted who were gentile, and he is one such. As yet there is no female and gentile prophet of the Jews, but you never know, it could be me! It really is wonderful imagining how proud my dear gentile parents would be if that happened.  

Rabbi Sacks challenges Liberal Jews on their atheism

4th minute
Howard Jacobson

"The business of what I eat, the business of what I wear and the whole business of the minutiae of a religious life doesn't suit me, and I also don't like to see it." 

That was when Rabbi Sacks should have burst into song.

After the song, Rabbi Sacks could have added:

"As for eating pork, you stuff yourself with pork as much as you like, Jacob, but even bad Jews like you know you are not supposed to do that. Therefore we and the goyim know you are a self-hating Jew and you know what, Jacob? The anti-Semites won't stop hating you just because they think you are an unobservant self-hating pork-guzzling Jew. That is because we have the best and worst of both worlds of Jews being both a religion and a race."

When Jacobson asks Rabbi Sacks if he is sure God exists, the answer could have been

"I am sure belief in God and His laws and our attempt to obey them as much as we can has helped the Jewish people stay together, work together and exist as the most powerful tribe in the world, and that is really the most that can be expected. We are nothing without our traditions. Without our traditions, we would be goyim."

11th minute
Alain de Botton:

"Why can't I pick and mix my religion?" 

Rabbi Sacks could have said:

"If we lived in a theocracy, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose the laws you obey, would you? Well, you could in theory, but if you were caught, arrested, tried and convicted, you would be treated and punished as a criminal, and this should probably stop you from breaking the law of the land, if you know what's good for you, Alain."

Rabbi Sacks should have said to Colin Blakemore:

"Science is the study of natural phenomena but religion is about imposing morality on your group to bring about group solidarity and keep it in existence. Jews have been around longer than the Chinese and have held on to their traditions better and longer. This is because Jews have a unique and supreme deity, while Chinese beliefs are a jumbled mish-mash of some wisdom mixed with a huge heap of hooey. It is for this reason that Jews are the most powerful tribe in the world and a superior race running AIPAC, dictating who becomes US Presidential candidate and controlling US foreign policy. So there."

'Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".'

Lisa Jardine asks why God allows suffering.

Ho hum. These things are sent to try us, innit? Why does she think we already live in heaven? Who said we are already in Paradise entitling us to complain about room service to the Management?? Bloody hell, it is infuriating that these atheists don't get a good kicking every time they ask that dumb question again and again and again.

Rabbi Sacks, you must know that God created evil too.  Doesn't anyone know anything these days?! Give me strength.

Maybe he was just holding back on Lisa Jardine cos she was a girl and might get upset if he mansplained things to her.

He said an interesting thing though, that Judaism is a religion of protest, a religion of struggle.  

Does that remind you too of jihad?

She also asked where is God in the howling mob. Rabbi Sacks says God is the protest against mob rule.

Rabbi Sacks:

God is the protest against the crowd. 

I suppose he means that having moral principles and defending them allows us to protest against the mob. Regrettably, Rabbi Sacks did not as I would have done in his place go on to develop the point that a theocracy would bring about good government and good government would protect Jews and others against pogroms and rich people would have their property rights respected by the mob if the mob thought the rules are fair enough and their country was being run properly ie not by a bunch of pussified libtards following the orders of stupid promiscuous women who are in the main unmarried and bad mothers incapable of being reasoned with.

Finally, Stefan Molyneux says feminism is evil because it hurts women who deep down just have to have babies and be good mothers

Discussing whether feminism is evil with Stefan Molyneux

Should law conform to morality and if so what kind of morality should it conform to and why?