Blonde in The Belly of The Beast

My Recent Posts

Followers of my blog know that I feature frequently videos that talk about larger issues than everyday affairs. One of my favorite sources is the beautiful and sweet twenty-something Becky who runs a YouTube Channel with the name ‘Blonde in the Belly of the Beast‘.

 

Little do we know about her. She grew up in St Louis, studied at Missou, worked at Wall Street, moved shortly to LA, settled down with her fiancée in Seattle, and is in search of a suburban home right now. I hate that I can’t recommend her work providing her full name or at least a pseudonym which includes a surname. And yet she has the best channel on YouTube.

 

Her videos are usually between 15 and 20 minutes long and well researched. Social and political topics that are rarely spoken about are presented in a crisp, academic manner. All of her sources are transparently mentioned and, if possible, linked to in the description box.

 

She decided to start her video blog when she was travelling across Europe. She ran into Muslims every step of the way and realised that this group of people behaved very differently from everybody else. The most intense situation happened when some dudes were circling around her, looking menacingly into her eyes while she was sitting on a bench. A policeman came along and did not reprimand the men. Instead she was told to get her shoes off the dirty bench.

The videos differ in quality which is normal for any series, including my blog posts. Yet, I have not seen one video that was actually bad.

 

Sometimes it takes a while to open one’s mind for an issue. I have seen videos that sound like satires, particularly when she speaks about men and women. I was laughing when she talked about leading gender-conform lives and that men should be dominant in their relationships.

 

Live and let live! I can respect all kind of personal arrangements and if a woman wants to be led, I am happy to lead. I respect if people make other choices. For me it was cringe-worthy at first to hear somebody advocating for male domination. And sexy! I must admit that. So, even for me, opening my mind for Becky took a moment. One can advocate for something while respecting other choices.

 

Why does one cringe in the first place? We cringe because of our romantic idea that sexual identity does not matter. It does. I realise now that her blog is only possible because she is a woman. It is only women who live through hell in highschool and know all the traps of human interaction. Only women have this absurd knack for observing human behavior.

 

If you put your romantic idea aside and allow yourself to watch the world through Becky’s lens, you see the female reality: women who exploit unattractive men, coward men who think it is not modern to defend women against violent attacks, feminists who perpetrate or hide sexual assault, unhappy career women, childless frumpies and so on. It opens the door to the reality, a reality in which women want children more strongly than men and in which men want to support and defend women, yet for romantic ideals both men and women deny themselves their wishes.

 

Of course, her video blog would be dull if she only talked about romantic relationships, about manliness and womanliness. She talks about leadership, technology, guns, corruption and all other aspects of politics and society. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I can agree to disagree. So open your mind for the smart and pretty lady with no proper name!

Comments

Simply Jews Added Nov 12, 2017 - 4:37am
Sounds interesting indeed. Thanks for the pointer.
A sane viewpoint is something sorely missed these days from the media.
Autumn Cote Added Nov 12, 2017 - 6:37am
Would you mind pointing me to a video where she advocates for male domination?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 12, 2017 - 6:59am
Autumn: Her channel has multiple of these and the topic is often brought up in other videos.
- Gender Roles & the Myth of Egalitarianism
- Overcoming Unattractive Beta Qualities
- Female Nature and Advice for Young Ladies
Dino Manalis Added Nov 12, 2017 - 7:20am
Good for her, she tells it like it is!
Leroy Added Nov 12, 2017 - 9:10am
"For me it was cringe-worthy at first to hear somebody advocating for male domination. And sexy! I must admit that. "
 
Sounds Ayn Rand-ish.
Leroy Added Nov 12, 2017 - 10:05am
Thanks, Benjamin.  I watched a couple of her videos so far.  She's good. She's a brainy, well-spoken young lady.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 12, 2017 - 4:36pm
Benjamin
 
How does singing praises to the virtues of traditional masculinity, equal advocation of women being reduced to the legal status of second class citizens?
 
Domination is not defined by the interpersonal social dynamics of voluntary associations.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 12, 2017 - 11:47pm
Pagan: Domination is not a legal term.
Domination, dominance, domi...whatever. She believes the man should dominate the romantic relationship.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 12:07am
Benjamin
 
Domination requires force, finding assertiveness to be a quality which inspires confidence in someone's leadership, is not the same thing at all.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 13, 2017 - 11:43am
Pagan: I'm not a native speaker and I'd be happy to change the article above, but I'm actually happy about using the word domination.
 
First of all, words are subjective. I don't find that domination comes with force. I only sense that the word is stronger than the word dominance. The difference between both is gradual.
 
In the feminist battlesphere we are used to strong words. So I don't know if I should shy away. Is the patriarchy 'assertiveness'? And if so, why put up a fight then?
 
But I notice that domination evokes strong images of oppression and violence. Of course, I don't mean that. The point is, though, that I don't mean dominance either.
 
Dominance is habitually reduced to some 'assertiveness'. I don't mean assertiveness. I mean power. I mean that he drives the car, makes the final decision on large investments, increases his office hours on a whim and is expected to read her wishes from her eyes (so she relegates her responsibility to him). This is typical behavior for straight couples. And it doesn't always come with assertion. A couple does not discuss who is the better driver. He drives. He decides.
 
I would say that the power, real power, not assertiveness, shifts from her (at the beginning) to him during a relationship. To acknowledge that is arguable the best way to steer around the cliffs.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 12:48pm
There is no discussion beforehand, he simply steps up and drives. Yes, that is assertiveness, he believes in himself and has confidence in his abilities, therefore he doesn't doubt or question whether or not he should be in the driver's seat.
 
Any real power that seems to be transfered is only an illusion, because no matter how strongly he might believe that he should lead, she must repeatedly choose to continue to follow of her own free will.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 13, 2017 - 1:01pm
No, there is also a real power shift. She is no longer wooed by men, he gains money and status. If there is no moral agreement that her earlier concession of power should be rewarded with his loyalty to her, he ends up with extramarital affairs. He can 'afford' it because of the power imbalance.
 
Power comes with responsibility. In a good relationship this should maybe be addressed before she feels betrayed for 'all the things [she] gave up for him'.
Paul Hosse Added Nov 13, 2017 - 1:06pm
Ben, I watch "Becky" as well. I find her comments interesting and I'm quite pleased that she doesn't try to talk down to her viewers. Her whole production is well put together. I also enjoy watching Laura Southern, "Wild Bill for America", "The Roaming Millennial", Bill Whittle, and "The White Rose" (who is from South Africa). For balance, I watch Abby Martin, Anissa Naouri, Noam Chomsky, and Thom Hartman.  
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 2:32pm
Benjamin
 
And if he fails to live up to her unspoken expectations of him, she can reject his leadership and stop following him at any time of her choosing.
 
If this is backed up by a legally enforceable marriage contract, that failure to live up to her expectations will also come with the loss of half of his assets, as well as a portion of his future productivity, as an additional consequence of her disfavor.
 
Seems to me that the real power still ultimately resides with her.
 
After all, is not the the voluntary power dynamic where a leader's power is based solely upon the confidence of their followers, the conceptual foundation of the Consent of the Governed, upon which the legitimacy of our system of government is based?
mark henry smith Added Nov 13, 2017 - 6:23pm
Geez, haven't men been dominating this world long enough? Yeah we're bigger, stronger, more control oriented, more egotistical, more destructive, etc... I haven't heard anyone say that men are smarter in general or better leaders. From my studies I've found that the trait that really separates men from women is men are less scrupulous. Is that a surprise? Why don't we ask women at what age they think sexual activity would be healthy because most of the men I've met, despite their public stance, believe the adage, old enough to bleed, old enough to boogie.
 
I think that attitude needs to change.
 
I have no problem with a king or a queen running the show as long
as their upbringing has instilled in them an unwavering love for justice. 
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 6:34pm
Mark
 
Name one example of a royal line that passed on anything other than a sense of entitlement to its descendants.
 
And my point is that there is no domination, when all that is being referred to are preferences of interpersonal dynamics in voluntary associations.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 10:43am
Pagan: The way you argue it you deny the existance of power as such. Hitler also relied on his supporters. Every people can withdraw the power from any leader. Theoretically. And yet, in the real world, there are power imbalances.
Dave Volek Added Nov 14, 2017 - 12:15pm
I went to a couple of videos. She definitely is putting up some ideas that need further discussing.
 
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 14, 2017 - 12:54pm
Benjamin
 
There will ALWAYS be power imbalances.
 
What is in question is where the REAL power lies, and whether such a dynamic equals Domination when it is mutually voluntary.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 2:38pm
Pagan: A holocaust denier just told me that Jews lack abstract thinking. So have mercy.
 
In a relationship she wields most power at the beginning and he gains power over time. At the beginning she dominates and he sinks to his knees, later he makes most decisions and she follows. It isn't all voluntary. Life has restrictions.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 2:45pm
Hosse: The current Lauren Southern video is also great, I mean really great. Black Pidgeon Speaks can be great at times. Same is true for PragerU.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 14, 2017 - 5:06pm
Benjamin
 
Well I'm not sure how that relates to anything I've been talking about.
 
If anything I suspect that you've likely been so emersed in feminist propaganda, that its difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that traditional gender interactions could be willingly embraced, and considered functionally desirable as being consistent with human nature.
 
But while I believe that you are vastly oversimplifying the relevant power dynamics, the point is that no one is forcing either of them to do it that way.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 12:00pm
Pagan: No, I can wrap my mind around the concept that the power imbalance can be embraced. I would even say that this is what Becky argues for.
 
the point is that no one is forcing either of them to do it that way.
Well, that is wrong. The 'one' may not be a person, but a woman does not have the choices to replace the guy when she has aged, has given birth to children and a compromised career because of the children. I think you are simplifying the issue if you think the divorce option is levelling off his domination over her. It doesn't. Embracing the power imbalance sensibly may be smarter than fighting it. 
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 12:53pm
If you think that I am oversimplifying it, then you have no concept of just how hostile family courts are to men. All of the horror stories you've heard about despicable scumbags corrupting the system, are noteworthy because they are the exception and not the rule.
 
An honest man doesn't stand a chance. When custody is not disputed, courts give sole custody to the mother 70% of the time, if it is contested his odds actually go DOWN, in those cases sole custody is awarded to the mother 80% of the time. The other 30% or 20% of the time is overwhelmingly joint custody. Even in cases where the mother is proven to be unfit, the courts are still more likely to turn the kids over to children's services than to award sole custody to the father.
 
There is a reason that divorces are primarily initiated by the wife, because she has the most to gain, while the husband has the most to loose.
 
And even without that, you still haven't demonstrated how these traditional interactions are a dominating power imbalance.
 
Making the choice to trust his judgement regarding many major decisions, hardly equals her being helpless.
 
A decision isn't automatically better simply because it was made by committee. And if the person making the decision is inclined to disregard the interests and feelings of the others involved, and make these decisions solely in accord with their self-centered goals, then there are much bigger problems there than endless rounds of selfish bickering before a decision is made is going to solve.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 1:14pm
I agree that the divorce is her final and biggest club. I actually had that in mind before my first comment on this article. But it does not level off the power imbalance that is there during the relationship. She can only threaten the nuclear option. When she follows through it hurts her a lot.
I think that is a good picture: The US and Russia both have nukes, yet the strategic advances in Ukraine are with Russia. You can tell yourself that the threats of a nuclear war puts both parties on par, but I would argue that half of Ukrain still went under the control of Moscow.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 4:22pm
Her options are limited exclusively to threatening to go nuclear, ONLY if the guy she is married to is a malignant narcissist.
 
And she is harmed by the divorce only if you assume that she is starting out with the honest good will, which you assume all actions of the husband in such a case would be completely bereft of.
 
Before you base your objections on reflexively casting the guy into the role of the villain, perhaps you should try and explain what power dynamic would result in a relationship with an individual of such character, being anything other than a disaster.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 5:50pm
I don't understand your contention.
 
Your entire argument rests on the premise that they both have to agree on their arrangements. It is factually not true. I'm sorry. I don't even understand what you try to get at. She has less money, less job options, is emotionally stronger bound by her love to the children (don't deny it)....she has less options. He has more. It does not mean that she has to suffer. He can and should be nice to her...and usually is nice to her.
 
The courts rule in the Western world so much in favor of women to offset this power imbalance. In other societies a break up results in impoverished women and children. In most cultures she has less and less power to seek the protection of another man because her beauty fades. She can't just be on her own - in most cultures. And in the western culture she also just hands over more and more decisions to him. She will work less hours because of the children and will earn less money because of it....I don't know what i'm missing.
 
I say nowhere that he must be a villain to be in a more powerful position. It is his money and his social standing on which the family relies. What am I missing here?
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 6:14pm
How long have you been married?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 16, 2017 - 11:17am
Pagan: Hm...I have no idea what my or your personal situation has to do with the general condition. There are arguments to deny the existance of a male dominance/domination in our relationships (e.g. she has the 'weapon' to withhold sex or whatever), but ... hm ... I think I've given quite some arguments that back up my perception and I could put out more. I don't really see what speaks for ... what actually? ... equality of power in marriages. Only because feminists see something does not mean that it isn't real.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 16, 2017 - 3:13pm
Experience matters because you are claiming that without a material mechanism to physically put her hand on the wheel, she is completely helpless and is nothing more than a victim in waiting.
 
On Tuesday I will have been married for 14 years, and I can tell you that assertion is patently false.
 
The problems that you are suggesting could result by simply having one person in the driver's seat, are in no way solved or even slightly mitigated by her being able to yank on the wheel.
 
A husband is exceedingly dependant on his wife in numerous and pervasive ways. Even if she is not being angry or spiteful, if a man's wife is miserable it eats him up inside.
 
The only way that doesn't happen, is if he doesn't actually care.
 
And if one side doesn't genuinely care, then you've got a train wreck in the making no matter what.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 16, 2017 - 3:29pm
you are claiming that without a material mechanism to physically put her hand on the wheel, she is completely helpless and is nothing more than a victim in waiting.
Ehh...no. And I somehow think we are cross-talking. It's not your fault. I don't understand your arguments. They do not really address anything I say.
Somehow, I gleen that you try to say that love is the big equalizer. I don't think so, but it makes a romantic pop song. Some artist will eventually say that it makes sense on a different level, on a somewhat higher level. And I'm all fine with it. Love is all we need. Love lifts us up where we belong. Love makes us equal. Love let's us shine. All we need is love. Love blasts away the petty confinements of life. Love is what love does. Love makes us better humans. It's all in love.
 
Did you enjoy some of her videos?
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 16, 2017 - 5:27pm
What I am saying is that selfishness is destructive, and that there is no structural defense for it.
 
Your power dynamics arguments are based upon the fear of, "But what if he starts being selfish?"
 
If he does, it will cause harm... No matter what.
 
If she uses her power, whatever form that takes, to react by being selfish right back at him, that doesn't lessen the harm, it doubles it.
 
I'm not addressing your arguments because their fundamental premise, is that the dual captains organizational structure, will somehow get around the inherent risks of the fact that they are both in the same boat.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 3:56pm
OK, Benjamin.  We will do this here since you lack the balls to come to one of my articles.
 
It’s entertaining to see a Jew behave like a fascist dick.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 3:57pm
Copy and paste what you said on EABC’s article here.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 3:58pm
You know, I’d doubt you were actually a Jew but Ben Shapiro is a dick....just like you.
 
My real question is, when will you start deleting what I write?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 22, 2017 - 4:49pm
Hahaha. Please, do the c & p jobs yourself. I don't even know what you want to talk about. I will delete comments that only consist of insults. I once deleted a John G comment and republished it without insult.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 4:55pm
No, I won’t read anything addressed to me in EABC’s article, Benjamin.  You want me to reply to it, do it here.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 22, 2017 - 4:57pm
??? Is this an IQ thing again?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 22, 2017 - 5:01pm
No, I won’t read anything addressed to me in EABC’s article, Benjamin.  You want me to reply to it, do it here
Admit that this is self-defeating and retarded!
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 5:16pm
I’ll do nothing of the sort.
 
Benjamin, I will not clutter up anyone else’s articles replying to you.  I have no problem addressing you on something you write or I write.  But I will not play troll to you on someone else’s article, that’s rude.  It makes others uncomfortable to see people bickering off-topic.
 
But I’m not going out of my way for you.  You have something you want to say to me?  Fine.  Copy and paste it here and I will do so.  Write it here and I will reply to it....here.  Or on something I wrote.  I don’t have anything new...I’ve been busy....but I will sometime soon.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 22, 2017 - 8:59pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”Rhodisia, now Zimbabwe. I know what countries exist.”
 
Well, you don’t know how to spell it.  It’s actually “Rhodesia.”
 
Hhhhmmm, seems like an IQ thing......
 
LOL
 
:D
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 12:29am
Can you admit any of the following?
- The copy of a text under the EABC's article is still that same text.
- Pasting the a copied text to this place does not alter the text.
- If you don't want to read a text, you don't want to read it no matter where you find it on the user interface.
 
Can you admit any of this?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 9:10am
Can you admit to the following:
You can’t spell “Rhodesia.”
It’s kinda unhealthy to remain this upset over a door.
Can you admit to the above?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 10:52am
I can admit all grammar and spelling errors including the "Rhodesia" thing.
I am not upset over a door.
 
Can you admit the following?
- The copy of a text under the EABC's article is still that same text.
- Pasting the a copied text to this place does not alter the text.
- If you don't want to read a text, you don't want to read it no matter where you find it on the user interface.
- The following sentence is self-defeating and retarded:
No, I won’t read anything addressed to me in EABC’s article, Benjamin.  You want me to reply to it, do it here.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 11:29am
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”I can admit all grammar and spelling errors including the "Rhodesia" thing.”
 
Wow, Benjamin’s not perfect.  What a shock.

“I am not upset over a door.”
 
Really?  Coulda fooled me.  Frankly you trolling me in other people’s articles gives me the impression that you are.
 
Or is there something else about me that upsets you?

“Can you admit the following?”
 
Here we go.
: D

“- The copy of a text under the EABC's article is still that same text.”
 
Sure.  I even did you a solid by copying and pasting your silly spelling mistake, forever immortalizing it in two places.
 
You’re welcome.

“- Pasting the a copied text to this place does not alter the text.”
 
Not unless you don’t copy and paste all of it.

“- If you don't want to read a text, you don't want to read it no matter where you find it on the user interface.”
 
See, this is where we go off the rails, chuckles.
 
I’m not going to read something of yours if it is not on topic and is simply posted to piss me off.  That’s ridiculous, it makes me obligated to reply to you.  This turns our little pissing contest into a spectacle that derails the thread we are on, annoying other people.  I find that rude.  I will not be rude.
 
However, I have no issues taking this to something you or I have written.  That way we can keep this away from the other people who write and reply here.  If they pop in on this conversation and see what is going on they can exit without becoming annoyed or offended.  If they choose to reply that is their choice but it does not derail what other people write.

“- The following sentence is self-defeating”
 
No, as I just explained above and on EABC’s article, it is not.  It simply keeps our disagreement from disrupting someone else’s article.
 
“and retarded:”
 
I can’t think of anything more retarded than a Jew taking a Holocaust denier’s viewpoint over someone who is not.
 
“No, I won’t read anything addressed to me in EABC’s article, Benjamin. You want me to reply to it, do it here.”
 
Do I need to use simpler words, Benjamin?  
 
I’m not going to argue with you point by point on EABC’s article.......anyone else’s article, for that matter.  
 
However, I’ll happily trade insults with you here or on something I’ve written.  That way we kept it to ourselves and don’t bother anyone else with it.
 
That was something that always annoyed me about John G......his insistence on derailing my articles with his anti-Israel blither blather and his BDS bullshit.  That’s why I deleted some of his comments, that and when he had the temerity to call me a racist.
 
It’s obvious that you have some sort of issue with me.  Fine.  You want to hash this out, let’s do this.....but somewhere we can’t bother someone else with it.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 12:04pm
“- Pasting the a copied text to this place does not alter the text.”
 Not unless you don’t copy and paste all of it.
I'm not sure if I understand this. So you don't admit that pasting a text to this place will result in the same text appearing here. I don't know what you mean with 'all of it'. And I'm getting tired that you can't be just straight.
.......
The whole point is that you admit that you can post the stuff you want to talk about yourself. And your objections are objectively stupid. My goodness, my comments on clock's article were not off-topic - or let's say not more off-topic than the comment they were based on.
 
Clock's article was about Trump's staff choices. I chimed in saying that I know a hell load of administrations with stupid staff choices and that the list misses Kushner.
 
Then I saw your comment which was going off about various other countries, existing and non-existing, and about things that have nothing to do with appointing staff. I picked your already off-topic comment apart for the sheer stupidity of it. So don't try to make this out like I was derailing the thread. BTW clock's article is so unstructured that literally everybody in the comment went sideways to some other topic.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 12:29pm
I can’t think of anything more retarded than a Jew taking a Holocaust denier’s viewpoint over someone who is not.
Shall I move to your jugular, Jeff? I didn't deny the holocaust and I don't know again what your words mean: Holocaust denier’s viewpoint.
 
So here is the real beef. You are simply dishonest. Of course, somebody who does not know the original conversation would think that I denied the holocaust.
 
So instead of you making clear what you think, you expect me to translate your stuff again and again.
 
I did not take the viewpoint bla bla. It's not about viewpoint. You demand loyalty. You feel that I owe you something. I owe you nothing.
 
And yet after umpteen posts you have not said why you are here. Again, you wait for me to translate it. You are here because I threw you under the bus at the Auschwitz debate.
 
You are also here because I noticed that you were following very different motives from mine (which is fine). But I got impatient when I saw that your motives actually stopped me knocking out Tom. The longer you crosstalked the less people did even care about the thread. So I speculated openly about your motives and threw you under the bus. Once I had you off my back, Tom hung himself claiming that the gas chambers were used to save Jews with Zyklon B, because it is an insecticide. A proposition stupid enough to stand as an end point.
 
Why is it so hard for you to talk straight?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:01pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”I can’t think of anything more retarded than a Jew taking a Holocaust denier’s viewpoint over someone who is not.
Shall I move to your jugular, Jeff?”
 
Wow, you have a really high opinion of yourself.
 
 
“So here is the real beef. You are simply dishonest.”
 
No, I’m snarky and sarcastic.  I also have a warped sense of humor, this causes me to exaggerate things because I find it amusing.  I don’t care if anyone else does.
 

“You demand loyalty.”
 
No, not at all.
 
I frequently disagree with people.  I disagreed with your tactics with Tom because I know him better than you.
 
I could care less if you wanted to hammer him on the door.  More power to you.  If you push him he will simply shut down on you and refuse to answer anymore.
 
Don’t believe me?  Go back to his Auschwitz thread.  He shut down on me after I started tripping him up.
 
“You feel that I owe you something. I owe you nothing.”
 
No kidding.  I don’t feel you owe me anything.  

“And yet after umpteen posts you have not said why you are here. Again, you wait for me to translate it.”
 
I’m here because it is obvious to me you have a problem with me.  I won’t do this in front of other people, Benjamin.  You want to hammer at me?  Go ahead.  But I won’t disrupt other people’s articles so you can take potshots at me.
 
“You are here because I threw you under the bus at the Auschwitz debate.”
 
Actually you ran away.

“You are also here because I noticed that you were following very different motives from mine (which is fine). But I got impatient when I saw that your motives actually stopped me knocking out Tom.”
 
You can’t knock Tom out.  He simply keeps slipping away and changing the subject....like other deniers I’ve dealt with.
 
“The longer you crosstalked the less people did even care about the thread.”
 
That was all me????  LOL
 
“So I speculated openly about your motives and threw you under the bus.”
 
No, you ran off.  Like a coward.
 
“Once I had you off my back,”
 
LOL, I never ran off like a coward, Benjamin.
 
“Tom hung himself claiming that the gas chambers were used to save Jews with Zyklon B, because it is an insecticide. A proposition stupid enough to stand as an end point.”
 
Great!!!  So, that caused Tom’s conversion, brought him back to the light, made him see the error of his ways, blah, blah, blech.  His next article will be about his pilgrimage to Yad Vashem.
 
Benjamin, just because you thought it was an end point doesn’t make it so.  The conversation continued after you left....and benefitted by you not being there.  I drove Tom away from his own thread, that was the true end point.  It also exposed his ignorance of the subject, which to me is the true benefit.


Simply Jews Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:21pm
Gentlemen...
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:21pm
Snarky, sarcastic, sense of humor....oh please. Do you believe your own words? I think you will soon achieve driving me away from my own thread. You are insanely disingenious. "Success".
 
To be honest, for the sheer numbers I fear the modern left much more than Nazis, even much more than the copious Islamists. I don't understand you and I don't see any attempt from your side to build a bridge.
 
There is no logic, no priorities, no intellectual curiosity. All there is on the left is blind rage against anybody CNN tells you to hate. Nothing but hate and authoritarianism, narcist self-aggrandizement and dishonesty.
 
Your humour is not only "warped", it doesn't exist. The new saying "the left can't meme" is true for a reason. You really can't. It's a joyless pseudo-religion. That's why I'm afraid. People can kill for religions.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:25pm
Jeff: Oh, and I don't care how much you know Tom. Marry him and get over it.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:34pm
Sorry Snoopy! There is a button on top the articles that allows you to unsubscribe from an article. That means that you wouldn't get email notifications for new comments on this article.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 5:55pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”Snarky, sarcastic, sense of humor....oh please. Do you believe your own words?”
 
Yes.  I’m a hoot.
 
“I think you will soon achieve driving me away from my own thread.”
 
That’s up to you.  I’m not getting into a war of words with you anywhere else.  You can have it out here with me.....or not.  I’m not disrupting anyone’s article to do battle with you.
 
Now, if you do this respectfully then you and I can continue this in other articles.
 

“To be honest, for the sheer numbers I fear the modern left much more than Nazis,”
 
Wow.
The last time I checked the left didn’t try and murder every Jew in Europe during the war.  The truly radical right, the unrepentant Nazis and their fellow travelers, remain dangerously antisemitic.
 
Now, there are those morons on the left that are anti-Israel to the point of antisemitism but they don’t want you to vanish from the earth.
 
“even much more than the copious Islamists.”
 
Yet those “copious Muslims (c’mon, seriously?  Islamists?) would also wipe out Israel and complete what the Nazis started.  Not all of them....but enough.
 
“I don't understand you and I don't see any attempt from your side to build a bridge.”
 
Ditto.  I fear the right far more than the fringe left.

“There is no logic, no priorities, no intellectual curiosity.  All there is on the left is blind rage against anybody CNN tells you to hate.  Nothing but hate and authoritarianism, narcist self-aggrandizement and dishonesty.”
 
See, this is truly fascinating.
 
Well, Benjamin, I’m now at the point of hoping you get what you want.  I hope for your sake the Right ascends to power in Europe.  Maybe then, no, definitely then, you’ll get the Muslims out of Europe, the breakup of the EU, the disintegration of NATO.  Europe will then become the patchwork of nation states....like it was in the 1930’s.  You can then all cuddle with ol’ Vladimir Putin (or his successor) and make the best deal you can.
 
I wish you well in that case, Benjamin.  Europe has a stellar record with treating its Jews just splendidly when those conditions exist.  I’m sure it will turn out just fine.  
 
Make sure you mention that that you are a Right-Wing demagogue when they come a knockin’, Benjamin.  I’m sure they’ll care what your political views are, just like they did to conservative German Jews after 1933.

“Your humour is not only "warped", it doesn't exist.”
 
Oh, I personally think I’m a hoot.
 
“The new saying "the left can't meme" is true for a reason.”
 
Well, I’ve never heard it before.
 
“You really can't. It's a joyless pseudo-religion. That's why I'm afraid. People can kill for religions.”
 
People also kill for political reasons, Benjamin.  It’s as good a reason as any.

Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 1:25pm
Follow Me
 

“Jeff: Oh, and I don't care how much you know Tom. Marry him and get over it.”
 
He’s not my type.  He is definitely yours.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 5:57pm
@Simply Jews:
 
You have my apologies.  But I’m not wrecking anyone else’s thread.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 23, 2017 - 7:08pm
Now, there are those morons on the left that are anti-Israel to the point of antisemitism but they don’t want you to vanish from the earth.
Of course, they do! Hello?!? Do you think BDS is playing? What is with these people praising and sometimes even financing Hamas (e.g. CAIR)? Do you think there are no leftists supporting Iran/Hizbollah? Who do you think were these thousands of Europeans who joined ISIS? Do you think these ISIS travellers vote conservative or leftist? I know it is constantly yet falsely claimed that Islamists are right-wing in the western sense. They aren't. When there is political involvement before going underground it is always for leftist groups. Not all of the ISIS travellers were Muslims before they 'radicalized' and joined the group, some had to convert, but sure as hell they were all leftists! Oh, and have you noted how quick ISIS was removed after Obama was removed from Oval Office despite the fact that they were at the height of their military and organizational strength then? Do you think that was a coincident?
 
What is even the "fringe left"? What are your "extremists"? Is Clinton selling uranium to Russia fringe? Is the NSA expansion under Obama fringe? Is the CNN/New York Times hate machine fringe? What the heck is the clean left?
 
(note: I just checked the Uranium One thing to make no mistake - and the Snope fact checker says the story is wrong while detailing that its right. I guess that is what passes for humor on the left - Clinton could not veto alone, but her party friends and the president had to go along with it. Therefore she is innocent. You can't make that up.)
 
you’ll get the Muslims out of Europe
Stupid. The right does not get the Muslims out of Europe. Can you please just stop talking about Europe? You probably don't even find it on a map.
 
You can then all cuddle with ol’ Vladimir Putin (or his successor) and make the best deal you can.
Please, keep Clinton in America!
 
For somebody with a history diploma you know abysimal little about European history. The nation state emerged in the 19th century. Anti-semitic persecution goes way back centuries. So your stupid link between nation state and antisemitism is ... stupid. How can somebody with a diploma in the area not know shit?!?
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 23, 2017 - 8:17pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”Now, there are those morons on the left that are anti-Israel to the point of antisemitism but they don’t want you to vanish from the earth.
Of course, they do! Hello?!? Do you think BDS is playing? What is with these people praising and sometimes even financing Hamas (e.g. CAIR)? Do you think there are no leftists supporting Iran/Hizbollah?”
 
I stand corrected. Loonies on the left do want that, i.e. John G.
 
“Who do you think were these thousands of Europeans who joined ISIS? Do you think these ISIS travellers vote conservative or leftist? I know it is constantly yet falsely claimed that Islamists are right-wing in the western sense. They aren't.”
 
Actually studies done on European recruits show that many have mental illnesses.
ISIS is Right-Wing in the sense they are religious conservatives who are against certain human rights.

“When there is political involvement before going underground it is always for leftist groups.”
 
LOL
Sure.
 
“Not all of the ISIS travellers were Muslims before they 'radicalized' and joined the group, some had to convert, but sure as hell they were all leftists!”
 
This is the part where you have to show me proof.
Also, just because someone starts left doesn’t mean they wind up that way.
 
“Oh, and have you noted how quick ISIS was removed after Obama was removed from Oval Office”
 
Uh, Obama wasn’t removed. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a president from running for office after their second term.

“despite the fact that they were at the height of their military and organizational strength then? Do you think that was a coincident?”
 
LOL, ISIS started collapsing in 2016. You have a short memory, Obama started authorizing air strikes in 2014.
 
Are you a “birtherism” looney?
 
“What is even the "fringe left"? What are your "extremists"?”
 
Whackadoodles like John G.
 
“Is Clinton selling uranium to Russia fringe?”
 
LOL
Is the NSA expansion under Obama fringe?”
 
LOL X 2
 
“Is the CNN/New York Times hate
machine fringe?”
 
LOL X 3

“What the heck is the clean left?”
 
Me. Most liberals.
 
“(note: I just checked the Uranium One thing to make no mistake - and the Snope fact checker says the story is wrong while detailing that its right. I guess that is what passes for humor on the left - Clinton could not veto alone, but her party friends and the president had to go along with it. Therefore she is innocent. You can't make that up.)”
 
Then why did you leave it in your comment?
 
“you’ll get the Muslims out of Europe
Stupid. The right does not get the Muslims out of Europe.”
 
Oh, so, the Right wants all those Muslims to stay?
 
“Can you please just stop talking about Europe? You probably don't even find it on a map.”
 
Hey, chuckles, I’ll talk about what I want, when I want and whenever I freakin’ feel like it.
Clear? I know that offends your Right-Wing authoritarian impulses but you need to get over it.
 
“You can then all cuddle with ol’ Vladimir Putin (or his successor) and make the best deal you can.
Please, keep Clinton in America!”
 
Well, Clinton is now irrelevant because Putin is busy bending Trump over.
 
“For somebody with a history diploma you know abysimal little about European history.”
 
Do tell, Chuckles.
 
“The nation state emerged in the 19th century.”
 
LOL
Certain nation states did emerge in the 19th century, Italy, Germany, etc. but you can trace the beginnings of nation states to Spain, England, France, Japan, the United States to much earlier times. The end of the 30-Years War signaled the beginning of certain states separated by religion in the Holy Roman Empire.

“Anti-semitic persecution goes way back centuries.”
 
I specifically linked that to the 1930’s, short bus. Antisemitism has existed for centuries but became linked to racial politics in the mid-19th Century.
 
“So your stupid link between nation state and antisemitism is ... stupid. How can somebody with a diploma in the area not know shit?!?”
 
Let’s see. I know about the origins of nation states and when antisemitism became especially dangerous.
Short bus.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 24, 2017 - 11:30am
Kelly: I hate to let so much falsehood stand unaddressed, but somehow we need to define where we want to go here.
 
First of all, I told you that I was a liberal until about three years ago. I was a feminist until the pussy marches. I had been a feminist before male feminists were even heard of in my environment. I was shocked when Germany introduced civil partnerships because I felt gays should marry (I still do; now they can).
 
So I don't have something personal against you. My comment on clock's article was pretty much on the issues of your comment. So it's not personal. I hate your ideology and a couple of widespread character traits among liberals that you also show here. I also see the ideology and the character traits as potentially genocidal (I see that already dawning in South Africa and coming to Israel often likened to South Africa for that purpose).
 
So I don't know if it makes sense to talk you through how the entire Islamist recruiting propaganda is steered towards leftists and so on. I don't want to go topic to topic although I believe you love topic hopping.
 
If you don't mind, I would rather go to larger concepts.
 
One thing that makes mainstream leftism dangerous is that it is so dominant. For you leftism is just how things are. It is what all Hillary endorsing papers, TV channels, silicon valley apps, movies etc bring to your attention.
 
For me conservativism is a bunch of questioning people with different schools of thought (e.g. nationalism vs military interventionalism, free trade absolutists vs protectionists etc). I see that you also notice some schools of thought on the left (e.g. John G's antizionism). But I think that you would say that the majority of liberals don't just see the world through the prism of some concepts. You think they see the world as it is. That would mean liberals agree on most things.
 
As a conservative I see this broad homogeneity on the left too (and some differing schools). I somehow feel even more comfortable with leftists who are a bit off - those with the character to notice some inconsistency, some lies and these abrupt opinion changes. I attribute the homogeneity of the mainstream left to a gullible, authoritarian character.
 
And so I may offer as first issue honesty. You seriously wonder why I brought up the snope thing. It leaves you unfazed that snope's claim is not supported by the facts in their text. Clinton was the most influential, best connected person on the committee that decided the Uranium One deal. For snope she can't be found responsible for it. You just go with it. I also don't want to go through 'he said she said'. But it is striking how the left can, for instance, go on and on about the estimate of the inauguration attendancy and that the Trump team was potentially lying about it when they saw the error, conjuring 1984 doomsday, while you literally can't turn around without being lied to by a liberal. I included the snope thing spontaneously. The problem is ubiquitous. I also don't think that you made a joke or so with your 'holocaust denier's view' phrase. You wanted to give a false impression.
 
I specifically linked that to the 1930’s, short bus. Antisemitism has existed for centuries but became linked to racial politics in the mid-19th Century.
As I said I don't want to go through your stuff one by one. It just caught my eye. So I was wrong thinking that you may be concerned that anti-Semitism somehow follows from the concept of a nation state (I think for a debate both parties should better give their definitions in advance when it comes to such words). You just sought some warped way to insinuate that I, Simply Jews, Ben Shapiro and people who think like us are Nazis. Great.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 11:38am
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”So I don't have something personal against you. My comment on clock's article was pretty much on the issues of your comment. So it's not personal. I hate your ideology”
 
So, you hate my ideology and by implication, me. Well, I won’t take it personally.
 
“and a couple of widespread character traits among liberals that you also show here.”
 
Great!!!! You are getting ready to stereotype me!!!! Awesome!!!!!
 
“I also see the ideology and the character traits as potentially genocidal”
 
Actually, any ideology is potentially genocidal.

“So I don't know if it makes sense to talk you through how the entire Islamist recruiting propaganda is steered towards leftists and so on.”
 
Yet radical Islam is fundamentally Right-Wing. Recruiting stupid kids by appealing to their naïve notions of right and wrong is an effective propaganda technique used by both ideologies.
 
“I don't want to go topic to topic although I believe you love topic hopping.”
 
All I do is hit things as they pop up. You are actually leading this right now, not me. I allow Tom to do the same.
 
“If you don't mind, I would rather go to larger concepts.”
 
It’s your tango.
 
“One thing that makes mainstream leftism dangerous is that it is so dominant. For you leftism is just how things are. It is what all Hillary endorsing papers, TV channels, silicon valley apps, movies etc bring to your attention.”
 
Is your assumption that I supported Hilary Clinton in the last election?
I voted for her....as the lesser of two evils.

“I see that you also notice some schools of thought on the left (e.g. John G's antizionism). But I think that you would say that the majority of liberals don't just see the world through the prism of some concepts. You think they see the world as it is. That would mean liberals agree on most things.”
 
LOL
No, Benjamin, we do not walk in lockstep with each other.
We are all individuals.
 
“As a conservative I see this broad homogeneity on the left too (and some differing schools). I somehow feel even more comfortable with leftists who are a bit off - those with the character to notice some inconsistency, some lies and these abrupt opinion changes. I attribute the homogeneity of the mainstream left to a gullible, authoritarian character.”
 
Of course. We are all gullible authoritarians.
LOL
 
“And so I may offer as first issue honesty. You seriously wonder why I brought up the snope thing. It leaves you unfazed that snope's claim is not supported by the facts in their text. Clinton was the most influential, best connected person on the committee that decided the Uranium One deal. For snope she can't be found responsible for it. You just go with it. I also don't want to go through 'he said she said'.”
 
The whole “Clinton Uranium deal” was debunked last summer when Trump started blathering on about it. Trump is extremely susceptible to conspiracy theories....like a lot of people on Writer’s Beat.
 
“But it is striking how the left can, for instance, go on and on about the estimate of the inauguration attendancy and that the Trump team was potentially lying about it when they saw the error, conjuring 1984 doomsday,”
 
Trump and his team were lying. It’s tied to Trump’s need for accolades when they aren’t necessary.

“while you literally can't turn around without being lied to by a liberal.”
 
LOL. Sure.
 
“I included the snope thing spontaneously. The problem is ubiquitous. I also don't think that you made a joke or so with your 'holocaust denier's view' phrase. You wanted to give a false impression.”
 
This is getting boring, Benjamin.
 
“You just sought some warped way to insinuate that I, Simply Jews,”
 
I don’t know anything about Simply Jews. I’ve only corresponded with him a couple of times.
 
“Ben Shapiro”
 
I dislike Ben Shapiro because I think he’s a smarmy tool.
 
“and people who think like us are Nazis. Great.”
 
Well, Benjamin, here in the United States when the Republican Party became the majority party in several states, starting in 2010 they enacted voter suppression laws and gerrymandered districts to stay in power. Seems like a Nazi tactic to me.
This current administration, from Trump on down, openly battles with the press and with the judicial branch of government. This current administration, from Trump on down, openly calls for the punishment of free speech, i.e. footbal
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 25, 2017 - 12:36pm
Well, Benjamin, here in the United States when the Republican Party became the majority party in several states, starting in 2010 they enacted voter suppression laws and gerrymandered districts to stay in power. Seems like a Nazi tactic to me.
I don't go into the laws that you feel oppressive and the gerrymandering...just...hm....
It literally pains me to write on because I think that you as a historian know that the Nazis were not gerrimandering or asking for better voter identification on elections. So here we are again. Dishonesty.
Can you clarify this somehow? Either show us how the Nazis gerrimandered or what measures they introduced for voter identification, OR backpeddle and stop being dishonest in future posts.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 25, 2017 - 12:40pm
...paddle...
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 1:17pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
 
”It literally pains me to write on because I think that you as a historian know that the Nazis were not gerrimandering or asking for better voter identification on elections.”
 
No, but what they did do is make citizenship solely based upon someone’s racial makeup.  
 
I look at what the Republicans are doing as something similar.  They’ve made it harder for poorer people, especially minorities, to do their civic duty.  By limiting the franchise it makes their voices harder to be heard.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 25, 2017 - 1:38pm
Jeff: Please, I would go around to all the points you raise if you would just become straight forward. You said gerrymandering and the laws you object were 'a Nazi tactic'. So this isn't true. Instead of producing so much text, just say: 'Sorry, they were no Nazi tactics. I will try to do better in future posts.' You could have then followed up on any of the other points.
You said before that the Uranium One thing was debunked. You give no material as to why. Another waste of text (I don't want to read filibuster). Maybe it was debunked. Snopes did not make a good case. I would call what they did a lie. They claim that Clinton had no responsibility for it despite even raising that she was on the responsible committee (and face it - she was a powerful member, I would say the most powerful one). It's an outright lie to deny any responsibility for the decision (be it right or wrong). If she had opposed it, the committe would have adviced the president to stop the deal.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 1:58pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”Jeff: Please, I would go around to all the points you raise if you would just become straight forward. You said gerrymandering and the laws you object were 'a Nazi tactic'. So this isn't true.”
 
I just said the tactics are similar. 
 
“Instead of producing so much text, just say: 'Sorry, they were no Nazi tactics. I will try to do better in future posts.' You could have then followed up on any of the other points.”
 
Let me reiterate:
I will answer you however I wish, when I wish.  You do not speak for me.
 
 
“You said before that the Uranium One thing was debunked. You give no material as to why.”
 
Why?  You don’t want to read it and you wouldn’t believe it if you did.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:06pm
Jeff: Seems like a Nazi tactic to me.
Also Jeff:  I just said the tactics are similar. 
You are just dishonest. You didn't only say that it is similar to something the Nazis did. You hope that the 'like' fools me because you know that English is not my first language. 'Seems like'....come on! Why is it such a big deal to be honest?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:19pm
@Benjamin Goldstein:
”You are just dishonest.”
 
Um, bite me.
 
Benjamin, any further calling me “dishonest” will be ignored.
 
“You didn't only say that it is similar to something the Nazis did. You hope that the 'like' fools me because you know that English is not my first language. 'Seems like'....come on! Why is it such a big deal to be honest?”
 
Definition of “Like”
 
bearing resemblance.

in like manner with; similarly to; in the manner characteristic of:

resembling (someone or something):


 
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/like
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:24pm
Thank you! This is stupid enough to be an end point.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:26pm
Your welcome.  You were wrong.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:27pm
Like really wrong.
 
LOL
Jeffrey Kelly Added Nov 25, 2017 - 2:30pm
So, then, Benjamin, my expectation is that you will no longer be an off-topic troll to me in any other thread.  If you do so I will direct you back here.