Angry Letters, But No Bombings, Riots Or Calls For Beheading

Many Christians have been offended by the BBC broadcasting a documentary suggesting Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. But, despite the BBC’s additional provocation of showing the documentary on Good Friday, Christians aren’t rioting in the streets, calling for the beheading of the producer or making general threats of retribution against atheists.

Christians from devoutly Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina or Mexico are not burning the British flag and calling for revenge attacks. No groups of easily riled, bearded wogs will travel from the Orthodox countries of eastern Europe to blow up a London bus, shoot Melvyn Bragg or fire a rocket propelled grenade at the BBC.

Mary Magdalene was certainly an important person in Jesus’ life and one of his most devoted apostles. Despite Melvyn Bragg claiming “there is one taunting scrap of record which may well lead to the conclusion that she was his wife”, the overwhelming majority of Christian scholars consider this an unjustifiable conclusion.

Few, if any, of the gospels are believed to have been by their titular authors. The omission of the Gospel of Mary from the New Testament as this canon was assembled is not per se evidence for or against Mary being Jesus’ wife. The omission was probably due to its Gnostic character and it may well have been viewed as a fabrication. The effort to assert male authority within the emerging Christian church also probably played no small part, as it did in the casting of Mary as a reformed prostitute, which is almost certainly untrue.

However, were Mary actually Jesus’ wife, it is extremely doubtful all of the gospels of the New Testament would have omitted this crucial fact, which must have been well known and considered normal amongst his followers.

So, it appears this BBC programme has assembled some “evidence” from gospels and other manuscripts excluded from the Bible and done a bit of shit stirring, as opposed to focussing on the really interesting historical question: the intellectual divisions and power struggles during the early period of the development of Christianity.

I suspect at least some smug, sneering, Guardian reading BBC staff did think they would be rubbing Christians’ noses in it by airing this “documentary” on Good Friday.

If you had any integrity, you’d treat all religions equally. Have the courage of your convictions and make a series about the controversies within various religions, including a programme about the more controversial aspects of Mohammed’s life. There’s plenty of material.

Conjecturing from stronger evidence than available in the case of Jesus and Mary, why not suggest Mohammed actually had sex with his 9 year old wife, Aisha as soon as they were married (he was 53)? There are many who like to suggest he did, and it may even be true. But even for those who see Muslims as the enemy, rigorous standards of scholarship must apply (perhaps even more so, given the likely accusations of bias). It’s detrimental to attack your enemy on false or dubious premises.

There are various reports in the Hadiths (reports of the sayings and acts of Mohammed, mostly compiled in the two centuries after his death) which imply that Aisha became engaged to Mohammed at the age of six and was “admitted to his house” at the age of nine. Many are tempted on this basis to accuse their enemy’s figurehead of paedophilia, but we need to carefully consider what phrases translated from old Arabic, like “betrothed”, “consummated” and “admitted to his house” actually meant in the original language and culture.

Although Mohammed’s first (and for a long time, only) wife, Khadija had died prior to his engagement to Aisha, he seems to have already married a second wife, Sawda, older than himself, apparently for political and financial reasons. Perhaps she may have tolerated her husband consummating (in the modern sense of the word) his marriage to a nine year old. He also had four adult daughters, who may (or may not) have held more forthright views.

In this respect, it is interesting that despite Aisha having reached puberty several years prior to his death, Mohammed is reported to have only fathered one child, Ibrahim (to Maria), with all his wives post the death of Khadija.

Not really solid proof of kiddy fiddling, but based on the standard set in your Jesus doco, certainly enough "taunting evidence" to have a crack, eh Melvin? So what’s your problem? Lack of sufficient spine to take on violent Muslims and their apologist quislings in the British parliament, media, public service and legal system, I suggest.

Why not make something of the fact Mohammed had 13 wives (by some accounts, more), despite his teaching that a man may only have 4? In fact, he married 11 of the 13 after his revelation from Allah and subsequent relocation to Medina in order to cement political relationships with surrounding Arab tribes.

A much easier target is the Battle of Badr. After the Hijra (relocation to Medina), Mohammed and his followers needed funds, so they attacked a lucrative Meccan caravan. They had previously attacked others, but this one was a big score … and despite being outnumbered, they were successful.

Muslims don’t see this as Mohammed and his followers resorting to the traditional banditry in order to fund their campaign against their enemies in Mecca. They interpret it as a manifestation of Allah’s choice of Mohammed as prophet. In fact, they revere the victory in the Quran.

That’s the way: rob your enemy’s caravan because Allah wills it, not because you’re simply a warlord with a new story looking to finance a campaign against the city which exiled you.

My main point here is one of double standards. Worse, double standards against their own society and culture; the one which provides the social structures which not only allow the BBC the political freedom to make a programme suggesting Mary was Jesus’ wife, but which publicly fund it.

The double standard is that these mealy mouthed cowards at the BBC would not dare make a similar programme, critical of aspects of Islam and the life of Mohammed. Many in the UK Labor Party and Liberal Democrats (an absurd misnomer) would support this position.

I’m not saying the programme shouldn’t be aired: there’s plenty of rubbish on TV. I’m saying the principle should be extended to all religions. Point out their contradictions and the hypocrisies in the lives of their key figures. When sections of the Islamic “community” dishonestly use both violence and the cover of Western legal institutions to promote their cause and stifle criticism, arrest and deport those who seek to prevent the exercise of free speech, revoking their citizenship if necessary. They do not deserve it, because they do not believe in its institutions.

It’s easy to attack soft targets within your own cultural group, who you know will only write angry letters and emails. If you really believe in the value of the principal constructs of Western Liberalism, use them to challenge their opponents.

Islamists see the implication of this post's title as a weakness. We'll only show them it's a strength if we're prepared to identify and fight Liberalism's enemies, which includes asserting that only those who support these principles can expect to rely on the civil rights which are their corollary.

Don't Confuse Common Sense With Bigotry

If a 24 year old, reasonably attractive, white, Western woman began an internet “relationship” with a fat, 63 year old, financially comfortable white man, should he be suspicious of her intentions?

If a 24 year old, reasonably attractive, white, Western man began an internet “relationship” with a fat, 63 year old, financially comfortable white woman, should she be suspicious of his intentions?

Even a cursory understanding of humanity would say yes.

Now, if a 24 year old, reasonably attractive, black, Nigerian man began an internet “relationship” with a fat, 63 year old, financially comfortable white woman, should she be suspicious of his intentions?

Of course! No racial or cultural profiling required … just a modicum of common sense.

The fact that there is a comparatively high incidence of young, West African men targeting older, Western women via the internet is a cultural issue. This income generating meme has spread quickly around West Africa. Western women seem to believe a poor, young African man will be more likely to want them. Perhaps they are also attracted to the “exotic” nature of the “romance”. However, the race of the man is not relevant to estimating the probability the approach is a scam if the age of the woman is much greater: any young man who strikes up a “romantic” internet relationship with a much older woman almost certainly has motives other than romance. Asking for money confirms the hypothesis.

If a foreign man or woman begins an internet relationship with someone in their own age bracket, the strongest predictor of whether they are genuine or instead after money or an immigration sponsor is the economic health of their country. If someone can’t look up GDP statistics, then the person’s race is a predictor of both the economy of their nation and many of its cultural practices. Note that I’m not saying race is a cause of these, but being highly correlated, it is a strong predictor.

So, if you’re younger than mid 30’s and get an approach on a dating site from a foreigner, if they’re from a poor country, don’t be naively pushed by leftist cant into thinking: “I shouldn’t be racist. They might be a nice person.” No they’re not. They’re a grifter. Their race doesn’t make them thus: it’s their poverty.

If you’re a bit older (particularly if you’re no oil painting) and get an approach from someone significantly younger, they are after at least your money and if they’re a foreigner, a permanent residency visa … almost certainly.

Yes, sometimes older men marry women significantly younger than themselves and yes, sometimes these relationships even last many years. But really, these women are for the most part either glorified prostitutes like Rose Porteous and Anna Nicole Smith or seem to have some kind of need for a father figure, like perhaps Brynne Edelsten or Kristy Hinze, although her husband, Jim Clark is the billionaire founder of Netscape, so she could possibly fall into both categories.

The father figure type of relationship can be lasting and genuinely fulfilling for both. However, there is nowhere near sufficient symmetry in men’s and women’s sexuality to make the induction that a woman 30 odd years older can have a lasting, sexual relationship with a young man unless she’s paying him in some way. He might have mummy issues, but they are probably not the kind which make a successful relationship. As a rule, heterosexual women are attracted to masculine power. Heterosexual men aren’t so attracted to feminine power, although there are exceptions eg Seven of Nine. Additionally, men tend not to see much older women as powerful, even if they are successful (they see single ones as lonely and hence vulnerable).

Knowing the above does not require a degree in psychology or a masterful grasp of human relations; just normal, adult experience. It’s common fucking sense.

I feel sorry for Jette Jacobs, being murdered in South Africa in humiliating circumstances, apparently by her Nigerian internet “lover”, whom she had traveled there to meet. According to news reports, they had “known” each other for 4 years, corresponding online and even meeting in South Africa in 2010. She had also sent him at least $80,000 during this time.

Her recent, fateful trip to South Africa was to meet her “lover”, Jesse Orowo Omokoh. One report suggested she believed they would marry.

Even if he did marry her, he’d have been off like a shot as soon as he got his Australian citizenship … or more likely, he’d have divorced her and attempted a claim on some of her assets.

It’s very sad and I feel for the family, having their mother the centerpiece of such a sordid episode. But shouldn’t mentally competent adults be expected to have sufficient common sense not to allow themselves to be led into such obvious scams?

Ultimately, it is not a liberal state’s role to save its citizens from themselves.

What was Jette Jacobs thinking? Did she really think he loved her? Was attracted to her? What did she think would happen after they married?

She might have been a warm, interesting, generous person, but look at her picture. She’s a fat, old lady. Young men don’t fuck fat, old women unless paid.

When a much older man begins a “relationship” with a young woman, he is often viewed as a fool and she a prostitute, especially is she hails from an impoverished country. Some older men don’t care and are happy to have a mistress. Godd luck to them if their eyes are open.

There is no reason why older women shouldn’t do the same, as long as they also keep their eyes open. But Jette Jacobs didn’t.

If you’re an older woman who isn’t in the best shape and get an approach from a much younger man on the internet, try this reality check:

Take off your clothes and stand in front of the mirror. What do you see?

A fat, old bag. Maybe a nice, kindly woman, with a lot of love to give, but nonetheless, in sexual terms, a fat, old bag.

Absent a mental condition, no young man will want to fuck you for free. If he tells you he loves you, it’s not true. Recall the cliché of the sad, lonely, middle aged man who pathetically falls for a prostitute and is then emotionally crushed as he is fleeced and discarded? That’s you, but with a Y chromosome.

Remember Jette Jacobs and don’t confuse common sense with bigotry.

Everybody Notice Me ... I Posted A Picture Of A Guy Looking At Porn To Twitter

So you spotted someone in a neighbouring office watching porn at his desk and called all your colleagues to the window to have a look and a laugh. Well, James P, you’re the hero of your office today.

Now you probably feel even more noticed ie. less insignificant, because you’ve put it up on Twitter.

Tomorrow, you’ll go back to being the try hard dork you’ve always been; the adult version of the kid at school who dobbed people in for looking at a porno mag in the bushes or smoking in the dunnies or pissing on the teachers’ cars (and then got bashed).

The guy is certainly an idiot for looking at porn at his desk with an open window behind him. But does he deserve to get the sack (which he probably will when identified)?

That’s the difference between showing a few colleagues and enjoying a communal laugh (which is normal) and being a sad, little attention craving dork and putting it up on Twitter. Now you’ve succeeded in making the guy the next few days’ internet “must watch”, he’ll probably be exposed and fired.

Good work, you sad, little cunt. He’s probably got a wife, kids and a mortgage.

Despite the dishonest and self serving media rants, this is why we need a tort of privacy, to which the defence should be the same test as for defamation: the publication is both true and in the public interest.

This matter would be a reasonable test case. The man was certainly looking at porn at work. But is it in the public interest to know?

It’s almost certainly a breach of his employment contract, but so is stealing stationery, or even using eBay. Is it really in the public interest to know any of these things? Would it affect any reasonable person’s willingness to do business with the company? If not, then one could argue it’s not in the public interest to publish the photo on Twitter.

To argue that the matter is already public domain because several people in a neighbouring office were already watching is not reasonable: putting photos on the internet is orders of magnitude more severe exposure. One could equally argue that because a celebrity goes topless on a yacht and someone else sails past and sees it, it’s automatically OK to splash pictures of her across the internet and every tabloid newspaper.

In his article on the porn watcher, news.com.au’s Matt Young contrived to describe the man’s actions as “an occupational health and safety issue”. Really? How so?

Sounds like news.com.au is trying to establish a flimsy defence against any future privacy complaint.

A more likely OH&S issue would be co-workers slipping on the cum dribbling out of Matt Young’s arse.

I considered whether I should write about this matter at all, thus further exposing the person. I suspect by the time a significant number of people read this post (if that ever occurs), the damage will have been long done.

Better to spread the message that James P is an attention seeking, little twat who deserves his own picture on Twitter … of him sniffing his mother’s panties, or putting Lego up his arse, or whatever he gets up to.

How True #1

I don't think much more than this needs to be said.