I mean commenters from one particular group. I wrote once two posts, one of the origin of Finns and Saami, one of the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. I wrote an even more popular post, one speculating of humans intermixion with Neanderthal people. In general, the are no comments. As I am a Finn, I do not expect comments. All comments are negative, so no Finnish university teacher never wants to have comments. (Well, agreed, there does exist positive comments, but they are something like 1%.)
Now, what is strange is that I have one single post, which has been commented by a number of readers. It is The Origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Most of these commenters are angry for some unknown reason and claim that I must have some hidden motives in the post.
Naturally I do not have hidden motives. How could I have hidden motives? Ask any Finn, they know Finns. It is simply like this: I read one article from the web, new at that time, it was many years ago, and it suggested the time frame 600-800 AD for Ashkenazi Jewish admixture with Italians. I, of course as alert as always reading papers, noticed that if this is true, then Ashkenazi Jews can only have come to Italy when there were the Langobards and they can only have come from the Byzantine Empire after the failed rebellion and the order to convert or leave. As at that time Langobards were Catholic and the Church had forbidden marriages between Jews and Christians (since the Christian, invariably a woman, had to convert to Judaism), these new Jews could only marry Italian slaves to get the Italian admixture. So, you got it, that was the sole reason for writing the post.
But these, probably Jewish commenters, do not think so. They think I had some other motive. Maybe they did not like that the authors of the paper I commented had given as the most probable European admixture in Ashkenazi Jews 60% and I stated it. Now,those authors did say 60%, some other authors claim it is 50%. Looking at PC1/PC2 plots I think it is 60%. Is this OK, I mean that is what it looks like.
Could it be that these commenters believe that certain DNA gives rights to a certain piece of land? But White Americans surely have European DNA and no automatic right to move to Europe. Surely not to push Europeans out of their land.
Whatever was offending in my post I do not know, but it seems to have irritated many readers. I assume those were Jews. And then these readers write a comment where they suggest that I must have some hidden motives, probably anti-Semitic, I guess. Well, they are very wrong in that.
How did they even find my post? They must have googled Ashkenazi Jewish origins. That is rather narcissistic. But you can google yourself if you want, nothing bad in it. I do google myself, not for narcissism, but as some people were harassing me some time ago.
But had I done some googling and found an unpublished post which states something I do not agree with, would I care to write to the author suggesting that he must have some hidden motives? For sure not. How could I know the motives. I have at least some sense. Would I write a comment asking why the author of the post has used only one paper as a source? For sure not. That kind of a comment makes no sense. I would have noticed that the author of the post probably read this one paper, got an idea that the Jews come from the Byzantine Empire if the paper is correct, and wrote it as a post. Why should he have commented other papers, it is a blog. Many bloggers just comment one paper they just saw.
OK, but I seem to get these Jewish commenters all the time. I decided to trash the next commenter who suggests I have hidden motives, as that is clearly paranoic.
I can tell about another commenter in The Unz Review (sorry, I still follow this web site), from the same ethnic group. I just had a long, long discussion on medieval ritual murders and Kabbalah.
It seems that the commenter was studying Kabbalah, but the Bnei (yes, it seems to be Bnei, and not Bnai) Baruch Kabbalah. I have one Bnei Baruch book, bought it long ago and when I read it I said, what is this? It has hardly anything to do with the original Kabbalah. The origin of this Kabbalah is really silly: one modern (20th century for God’s sake) Rabbi decided that he has the explanation to Zohar and Luria’s kabbalah, so he wrote an explanation. Yes, well, no relation to Zohar.
I pointed to this commenter a sentence in Idra Zuta, “and all companion drink blood”. Naturally it is missing in the Bnei Baruch Zohar. This place is when Simeon ben Yochai dies. They for sure drink blood for redemption. Redemption is in blood. That is why Jesus commanded drinking his blood, though in his case is was symbolically, and he was sacrificed, not symbolically. Sacrifice and blood is needed for redemption, a kabbalistic concept, and in the Old Testament. In Idra Zuta nothing shows it is meant as a symbol. Before that place in Idra Zuta and Idra Rabba there is discussion of the Short Face’s nose. This Short Face is the YHVH of the Old Testament, the angry, jealous God. From his nostrils comes smoke and fire, and only a sacrifice pacifies him. So, even in medieval times Kabbalists had to give sacrifices.
There is one very good hint to it: Isaac Luria, ARI for Kabbalists, explained why he does not do practical kabbalah: he does not do it because it is very dangerous as there is no red heifer. Red heifer is needed for restoring ritual cleanness after a priest has touched a dead being, and animal or a human. Jews do not need a red heifer for ritual slaughter of animals for Kosher food, not for burying people. It is only needed for altar service where a priest (or Tzaddik Rabbi) has to touch the sacrificed being. So, you do not need a red heifer for a symbolic sacrifice. We know from Luria’s words that medieval practical kabbalists sacrificed alive creatures. Indeed, they had to do it for two reasons: the Torah tells, do not come to the face of God emptyhanded, so if a kabbalist wanted to raise a dead or make a Golem, both things that can be done only with God’s help, he had to make a sacrifice. This is one task where a kabbalist needed a sacrifice. The other is like in Idra Zuta, for redemption: redemption is in blood and then you have to drink blood. Yes, Baal Shems did drink blood, they also called the name of YHVH. Both are forbidden in the Torah, as is evoking spirits, and everything practical kabbalists did.
What could have been the sacrificed being? Some might say, maybe a bird. For sure it was not a bird if it was for a major miracle or redemption. A bird was the smallest sacrifice there was. Indeed, it could not be any animal because prophets had said that God does not want your animal sacrifices and rabbinic Judaism had forbidden animal sacrifices because they could only be done in the Jerusalem temple and the temple was destroyed. It could not be a Jewish child, as the Torah forbids it. It demands that the firstborn son be sacrifices, then it says that no, the son mus be redeemed. But he cannot be redeemed by a Jewish girl. Prophets forbid it. But he can be redeemed by a non-Jewish child. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it forbidden to sacrifice non-Israelites. Naturally a sacrificed being must be innocent, so normally it must be a child. In a special case it could be a Christian priest, if he is very innocent.
OK, you can guess that I did not manage to convince this Unz commenter. Yet, those are facts and simple deductions from facts. They are correct, not opinions, prejudices or propaganda. But I guess youi can correctly deduce that I do have Zohar in my book shelves and I am not so ignorant as I may seem.
But these are a bit dangerous topics as there are all these angry commenters from one specific group. I think maybe I will again look at the Moon Hoax. One of the regular commenters posted a reference to a Russian paper claiming to show that the Saturn V rocket could not get Apollo 11 to a low Earth orbit. I read the paper through twice, but very fast. It is difficult to check, too much depends on input data. It is not so sure this Russian doctor found all necessary data. Anyway, I read it briefly and I think I found a problem. The good doctor argues that the cooling pipe system could not have allowed high pressure in the engine, so the thrust of the engine was smaller than in the specifications. But the cooling power is directly proportional to the fuel pump power (the engine is cooled by circulating fuel before it is burned, so the fuel acts as the cooling liquid). He states that the cooling pipes could not have taken a high enough pressure, but I do not know. The pipes were of strong alley and if the pump power was sufficient, the cooling pipes would not heat too much. I have to check, but so far I suspect an error. This is not really any rocker science. It is rocket engineering and engineering is pretty easy. If the data is correct, I should be able to check it, but it may be so that the data is too uncertain for me to say anything. PS. I checked it and the paper has errors.