brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sat Aug 31 19:59:45 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:kbq0nu0da04e1uo2232sc6ak9tfi3sip4d at 4ax.com...
>> >> Tribal membership was determined by descent.
>> >
>> >Golly, gee, whillickers.  Miracles never cease.
>> >
>> >Are you finally acknowledging that "races" do exist after all?
>>
>> No.  I said "tribal membership".  Not the same thing as biological
>> race.  If a Benjaminite married an Ephraimite, then their offspring
>> would be considered one of the two tribes, not both.  There was no
>> rule even in Deuteronomy, about the tribes of Israel mixing together.
>> Hence tribal membership was not the same as race.
>
>"Tribal membership" is the very definition of "race".

No.  It is ONE definition of race, one which is entirely inconsistent
with other definitions of race.

>Having a unique patriarch is the only requirement for a family group to be considered a
>"race",

Families don't have a UNIQUE patriarch.  As we've noted, everyone has
EIGHT great-grandparents, and we can extend to 64 different ancestors
by going back another 3 generations.  Therefore, unless you presume
incest at some period early in the tribal history, all a tribe means
is that ONE patriarch is shared, while the other patriarchs could be
anyone accepted at the time as a permissible ancestor.

>even by Noah Webster's definition, so you just admitted that
>protecting the Israelite Race was a "racist" act, in your feminazi
>vernacular.

I admitted no such thing.  However, since you ask, I have no problem
stating that the Jewish insistence on tribal purity was "racist".
People are entitled to their religion, so long as they let others
choose differently and do not violate the (religion-neutral) laws of
the land.

>Obviously there were restricions to marriages between these different "Races
>of Israel". 

There were?  No Bible quotes support this.

>The easiest way to restrict such marriages is to keep the
>inheritance of a male who marries an Israelite from another race within his
>own race [read: "tribe"], and this is exactly what the Israelites did:
>
>Num 18:19  All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of
>Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy
>daughters with thee, by a statute forever: it is a covenant of salt forever
>before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.
>Num 18:20  And the LORD spoke unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in
>their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and
>thine inheritance among the children of Israel.
>Num 18:21  And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in
>Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the
>service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

I have no idea what you think this proves.

>> And why would the story of Esther be part of Holy Scripture, if it
>> were about non-Israelites?
>
>It was about how the mongrel jew offspring of Israelites LIED, and DECEIVED,
>and KILLED, to get their way--and then celebrated their KILLING for
>millennia, with the Passover.

So you think Esther is a negative story?  How odd?  We seldom find
stories where the villains win.  And you think that God's commandment
to celebrate the Passover is something to be ignored?

>> To this day there are Jews, and there are non-Jews.  There are no
>> Israelites.
>
>You are so ignorant it's almost inconceivable how you could get this way.
>The vast majority of the world knows exactly who today's descendants of the
>Israelites are, so your ignorance is once again noted
>http://www.kcnet.com/~denis/related/genealog/euro-her.htm

As dealt with in another post, this is hardly a historical reference
site.  Why don't you try some real scholarship, rather than looking
for web sites that contradict themselves and each other, and which are
based on the same shoddy research as your own.

>> Not one Jew claims to be a descendant of Ashkenaz.
>
>Not even Arthur Koestler?

Is he a Jew?  I never noticed.

Does he claim to be a descendant of Ashkenaz?  I saw no sign of it.
The one mention I found in the book was that he heard himself that one
Khazar once called them the "Ashkenazim".  But even that does not say
WHY they were called that.

>> Every reference to the Jews in the Bible is a reference to the people
>> of the tribe of Judah.
>
>There are 771 instances of the word "Judah" in the KJV, 762 in the Old
>Testament which are translated from the Hebrew word "Jehudi", "Yhudah" or
>"Yhehudah", and 9 which are translated from the Greek word "Iouda".  Each
>instance is a reference to Judah, a son of Jacob, or his descendants who
>lived in Judaea or Judea.

Who were called Jews no later than the time of the Assyrian invasion.
They were so-called not only by themselves, but by other people, as we
found in Sennacharib's own report that called Hezekiah the king of the
Jews.

>There's never any indication in any of the Holy Scripture that any member of
>the Tribe of Judah [read: a descendant of Judah] was ever referred to as a
>"jew",

Say it a zillion times, and we can prove you wrong a zillion times.
You are a LIAR, speaking the LIES of your father the Prince of Lies.

>> I said the END of Nehemiah.  That is Neh. 13  Where he talks to the
>> JEWS and the Levites:
>> >[22] And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and
>that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day.
>Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the
>greatness of thy mercy.
>> >[23] In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of
>Ammon, and of Moab:
>> >[24] And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not
>speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.
>> >[25] And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of
>them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye
>shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto
>your sons, or for yourselves.
>> >[26] Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many
>nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made
>him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause
>to sin.
>> >[27] Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to
>transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?
>> >[28] And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest,
>was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me.
>> >[29] Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood,
>and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.
>> >[30] Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of
>the priests and the Levites, every one in his business;
>> >[31] And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the
>firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.
>>
>> Read verses 23-27 again and again and again, because he is chastising
>> JEWS for having strange wives, and making THEM swear by God, not
>> anyone called "Israelites" who are not mentioned anywhere in the
>> chapter.
>>
>> You've lost this one, loser.
>
>You just made the point.
>
>Chapter 13 of Nehemiah is about JEWS, not Israelites.  Chapter 9 is ONLY
>about Israelites.  The word "jew" never even appears in Chapter 9.
>
>There are 11 references to JEWS in Nehemiah, and 19 to Israel, and they are
>NOT used interchangably.  When it's a reference to an Israelite, the term
>"jew" is not used.   Why would it?

They ARE used interchangeably - that is what the word means: they use
the one word in place of the other.

>Nehemiah is exactly where you will see that the Israelites "put away" the
>bastards who were born to the Israelites who married jews.

But Nehemiah 13 is about Jews and Levites putting away others.  Jews
and Levites were two of the three tribes of those who returned from
captivity.

>> >But the Israelite law never changed.  No children born to such marriages
>> >(and there's no evidence that this occurred any more frequently then than it
>> >does now) were ever considered to be Israelites.
>>
>> David.
>
>David was a pure Israelite, and this attempt by jews like the Rolls Royce of
>Racists Buehler to "prove" that Christ was not a pure Israelite because
>David and Christ were descendants of a "Moabite" named Ruth is just one more
>classic jewish LIE which has been exposed for all to see.

I have no idea what Buehler has to do with this.  The Holy Bible says
that Ruth was a Moabite woman.

>> The Bible says it was rampant.
>
>It also describes the solution, and how it was implemented, over and over
>and over again.

It wasn't implemented "over and over and over".  Use a little common
sense: if they had put the strangers out, then they would not have
been there to put away again.


>> >Read it again.  ALL of the mongrels of the foreign wives and the foreign
>> >wives were put away, en  masse, just as we're getting ready to do yet again.
>>
>> But that was too late, because the northern tribes had been foreign
>> wiving for hundreds of years and were no longer identifiable tribes.
>> Of the southern tribes, only the 100,000 odd who returned to Judea
>> took up the ways of the Lord, and it was not until 90 years later that
>> Ezra got them to put away their foreign wives.  That is 4 generations
>> of miscegenation, after 3 generations in Babylon.  Lots of time for
>> mongrelization.
>
>First you argue that Israelites weren't a "race", then you argue that they
>were subject to "4 generations of miscegenation".

No.  The Southern tribes were subject to up to SEVEN generations
wherein they could have miscegenated.  They did so, because most had
foreign wives and children.  Intermarriage was hardly a phenomena
solely of the last generation that returned.  But they chose to ignore
teh fact that their parents and grandparents were not purebred, so
long as they could trace their genealogy through the male line back to
tribal membership.

>Were they a race, or not?

They were not.  They were a mongrelized tribe that retained a tribal
identity by focusing on the single line of male ancestors.  Only
rarely is there a clue as to who someone's great grandmother was, and
whether she was of one of the tribes.

>If you claim they weren't a race, then how could you also claim that they
>were subject to "4 generations of miscegenation"?

I'm using YOUR claims to show how illogical they are, dummy.  Clearly
>I< don't think that your concept of "miscegenation" was relevant for
the Israelites or the Jews.

>still only 4% of the land of fruits and nuts [read: California]
>classifies itself as "mixed-race", with an average in the US of 2%.

Yet as you yourself have noted in your racist spiels, blacks in
America (13%) are ALL mixed race.  Guess what - this means that a lot
of whites had sex with blacks back in the goode olde days.

>Probably the most intact race of White Christian Israelites are the Russians

You mean the ones who accept the black man Pushkin as their great
poet?  The ones among whom more than half the people display physical
attributes of Tatar (Mongolian) ancestry.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list