It's been redacted. The precious document that documents ["facts"], I mean. LOL

this online edition is anti-Gentile as all get out.

I am one of the few _Goyim_ who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other _Goyim._ Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, "Science and Health" and the Book of Mormon.
--H.L. Mencken

(I wonder which edition he waded through?)

I'd rather read the alcoholic Chogyam Trungpa for a "new age of our times" druggie ontological mind bend.

As long as Whites swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker we won't be able to get our race ethnocentrically together AS a race. Whites who want us to parrot or ape these so-called "precious [dry, irrelavant kike] 'documents' "--- hey...fuck right off.

Trying to cover your tracks. Trying to make it out like we are the idiots. Trying to make it out like you are the one going to show us the way. You've got a lot to learn, little boy.

i post something like "one Babylonian Talmud", and it is the Soncino edition after all, and

well, everyone goes into kill mode at once without looking anything up at all.:confused:

the darn thing is complete, there are no redactions from the 1969 edition that Dr. David Duke quotes. all the negative quotes are there, and still no interest.

this online edition is anti-Gentile as all get out.

We're not beginners here. It's all over the internet from multiple sources, has been written about (for example) of Stormfront for years.

So what if the online version has a few milktoast anti-goyim suggestions?

Again, you have suggested that Whites have a generalized reverence for these kike "documents" as you call them. They don't inspire awe in me. Ever seen a Lubavitcher kike in an airport or on a city street in NY or Montreal. Ever conversed with one?

I do not care how big or moneyed or omnipresent or influential over South American spic peasants or dressed up in prelate duds on my TV the kike-on-a popsicle-stick cult and it's Alien egg-laying momma are. They viciously killed off our pagan ancestors. I know that. And they continue to cause killing prevarications of reasoning and survival instincts in the rest of us who "subscribe". I am not a subscription holder.

I had that woman's link in my sig for about two years. And you are absolutely right-- that silly old document of the talmud has zero interest for me, except as a dusted off screed against Whites.

You are suggesting that we are suposed to "value" the bible and the talmud, and that if we (or I) do NOT, that that is an indicator of moral badness or poor literacy?

the bible has a different context than the talmud, and i'm not telling you what to believe. we all know that the bible is difficult to "believe" but the Knights of Malta and Knights Templar and Hanseatic League all made use of it in their own way. in the 20th century it has been corrupted and made much less believable by science. anyhow, that came from another thread.

about morality: can we replace the bible with Carl Gustav Jung? or Nietsche? this is where i have a problem with dumping the bible in it's entirety, as well as the fact that you then divorce yourself from the millions of middle american christians who will define the new millenia. thus, it doesn't have to make sense.

this thread is about the talmud. it was recompiled in the 4th century A.D. and contains screed against Whites.
i'm not telling you what to read, either.

i post something like "one Babylonian Talmud", and it is the Soncino edition after all, and

well, everyone goes into kill mode at once without looking anything up at all.:confused:

the darn thing is complete, there are no redactions from the 1969 edition that Dr. David Duke quotes. all the negative quotes are there, and still no interest.

No interest in what? Your nonsensical thought processes?
You got THAT right.

I'd rather read the alcoholic Chogyam Trungpa for a "new age of our times" druggie ontological mind bend.

As long as Whites swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker we won't be able to get our race ethnocentrically together AS a race. Whites who want us to parrot or ape these so-called "precious [dry, irrelavant kike] 'documents' "--- hey...fuck right off.

Hey, Chain! It's always great to see your name again.

Oh I do see your point, but I'm afraid too many would-be stalwart skeptics have been tainted with "belief" from their infancy.
And for them, to see (IF they can see) the steaming pile of shit that jews actually subscribe to (consciously or not) might be eye-opening.

I found this, which I thought was interesting http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8855/index.php while rooting around for that HLM quote. (I don't mind reading about shit quite so much as reading through a whole pile of actual shit.)

BTW, I couldn't read your sig line without busting out laughing! And that current link is highly commendable, too!

i post something like "one Babylonian Talmud", and it is the Soncino edition after all, and

well, everyone goes into kill mode at once without looking anything up at all.:confused:

the darn thing is complete, there are no redactions from the 1969 edition that Dr. David Duke quotes. all the negative quotes are there, and still no interest.

Meershaum, I was surprised to see this site, as had heard (on this site) that this Talmud was not generally available. Rounder supposedly had a mission to get this Talmud out to the public, though he seems to have dropped that once in ran for office.

I have NEVER seen an English version of any Talmud for sale anywhere, not that I was looking, but I spend a lot of time in old books stores, religious and occult sections.

To the people who want to pick a fight with Meerschaum over this, what the hell is your problem? You have too much time on your hands, get a life, etc, etc. Sheesh!

This ain't no sunday school....

It could be useful posing as a jew and starting to post quotes from the talmud on, say, http://www.freerepublic.com. The moderating shabbes goyim won't dare to ban you because they'll think you're a chosen one until they got direct orders from their jewish masters.

I personally don't need to read the talmud to come to the conclusion the jews hate my guts and are hell bent on destroying White nations, but I think it would be beneficial for White lemmings to read the talmud.

Kethuboth 11b Raba said, It means5 this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6 it is as if one puts the finger into the eye;7 but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood,' and [with regard to the case

answer given by the angelfire site:

While those unused to these Talmudic discussions might be taken aback by the use of euphemisms, the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. A virgin receives a higher dowry. While the tell-tale sign of virginity is the release of blood due to the breaking of the hyman on the wedding night, there are occasions when the hyman has already been broken such as when the woman suffered an injury.

@@@@@@@@@@

My opinion: In either case it doesn't seem to show a very high level of morality, but then there is more

Baba Mezi'a 114(b) For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;5 only ye are designated 'men'.6

another rendition:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The graves of gentiles do not cause ritual impurity in a dwelling as it says (Ezekiel 34:31) "Now, you [Israel] are My sheep , the sheep of My pasture, you are Man (Adam)…" You [Israel, the subject of the verse] are called Man (Adam) and gentiles are not called Man (Adam).

the angelfire site explains as thus:

Thus, with regard to ritual impurity and holy oil, which are uniquely Jewish concepts, the Talmud sees an exclusion to all those who are not part of the organic Jewish nation. With regard to practical matters such as the purchase of land or individual matters such as spiritual status, gentiles are included

@@@@@@@@@@

my interpretation: a Gentile body laying about, or perhaps two, was not considered on the same level by the sanhedrin.