In the summer of AD 64, Emperor Nero threw a gigantic street party in Rome:
In the very heart of the city, a lake was filled with sea-monsters. Along its edge, brothels were staffed with whores ranging from the cheapest streetwalkers to the most blue-blooded of aristocrats. For a single night, to the delight of the men who visited them and knew that the women were forbidden to refuse anyone, there was no slave or free. ‘Now a minion would take his mistress in the presence of his master; now a gladiator would take a girl of noble family before the gaze of her father.’
Tom Holland, Dominion
Yes, we all know that Nero was particularly vile and a first-rate pervert. But what he did was actually very representative of what women were at that time:
In Rome, men no more hesitated to use slaves and prostitutes to relieve themselves of their sexual needs than they did to use the side of a road as a toilet. In Latin, the same word, meio, meant both ejaculate and urinate.
Women were toilets. It’s not too shocking, then, that the ultimate product of that human toilet, a baby, was treated like refuse.
This is why the apostles put in so much work to explain the Christian philosophy of sex to the stunned new converts. One man and one woman together, forever, completely faithful to each other, loving each other as God and his church do, respecting their own and each other’s bodies… wait, what? Imagine what it took to convince men to stop seeing women as human toilets. But the message spoke to something, a spark inside these confused people from 2,000 years ago. That is when women were created in the way that we understand women today.
When Spaniards came to the Aztec Empire, their leader Hernán Cortés received as a gift from indigenous allies a young woman called Malintzin. This wasn’t the first time she’d been gifted or sold, having passed through many hands since her family had sold her in childhood. We can all imagine what this meant to a little girl, the horrors she experienced. Cortés, however, turned this young human toilet into a respectable lady, doña Marina. She was his translator and the mother of a son whom Cortés worshipped. Cortés couldn’t marry Marina because he was already married in the church, so she found a husband among the Spaniards. They spend their married life working together on their intellectual pursuits. What a change in status! From an object passed around for fun, she became a respected person and an intellectual. The really funny part is that the official narrative in Mexico is that horrible, evil Spaniards brutally raped women like Marina, engendering the Mexican people in violence and horror. Why people would choose to adopt this utterly stupid story of fake victimhood instead of what actually happened is a whole other question. But the life of doña Marina is a perfect illustration of the revolutionary nature of the Christian concept of a woman.
Clarissa's Blog 
The Christian concept of a woman? Ya mean the silly narishkeit of the virgin birth brain dead stupidity? Xtianity has a strong reputation of allowing women to run the world … NOT. Equal but different, so reminds of American post WWII Apartheid between whites and blacks.
LikeLike
My resolve to support 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸 grows with every single one of your posts. Are you being paid by Hamas? Because you are a very effective mouthpiece for them.
LikeLike
A comedian. LOL
LikeLike
The religions, especially the more liberal branches, always claim they pioneered some new frontier in valuing women and human rights more. Just like they all claim to be religions of peace.
Cortes is a weird example to put forth of this superior respect for women coming out of Christianity, through one man and one woman in marriage, “completely faithful to each other.”
Dona Maria was incredibly useful to Cortes. But in the context of Christianity, I’m not seeing how he respected her or thought of her as an intellectual from what you’re saying. It’s disrespectful to father bastards outside of marriage, and recognizing bastards is the minimum and was more expedient than anything until his actual wife had a son and an heir. She gets to be one man’s concubine and translator instead of a group concubine, or one of a soldier of lower status. How wonderful!
And soldiers under Cortes expected to have a woman as a sexual object and a servant. You know after they were baptized.
It’s more “well the Spaniards treated their concubines better than the indigenous.” Which may be true, but hardly a shining example of Christian morality.
And “Christians respected slaves more” is highly dependent on place and time.
Dona Maria’s better treatment stemmed from her usefulness as a translator, and possible royal antecedents, which helped with solidifying power also, which is why Cortes had her married to man of rank — which was typical treatment for unmarried noble mistresses when the affairs ended (at least in England and France around the same period).
I prefer the story of Justinian and Theodora.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot believe we are back to “rights”. This is truly what’s called a monomania.
Reminds me of an old Soviet joke.
“Private Kozlov!”
“Sir! Yes, sir!”
“What are you thinking about, private Kozlov?”
“About whores, sir!”
“Why, private Kozlov?”
“Sir! I always think about whores, sir!”
LikeLike
Bottom line sucks being a woman under the Xtian and Muslim abominations.
LikeLike
Yes, those bottom lines tend to do that.
LikeLike
Hence the reference to women: “a fine piece of ass”.
LikeLike
Why does the UN assume that it determines the international borders of Israel?
Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
Moshe Kerr
Knows HebrewJust now
The UN does not simply dictate Israel’s borders, but has played a facilitating and advisory role in the complex, ongoing negotiations over Israel’s borders with its neighbors. The borders themselves remain a subject of dispute and negotiation.
Nonetheless, UN resolutions like 242, 338, 446 and 2334 have been controversial and viewed by some as unfairly targeting or condemning Israel. These resolutions have called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and condemned Israeli settlements, which Israel has disputed.
The borders and status of the occupied territories remain the subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved. Why the UN repeatedly condemns Israel, despite the status of the occupied territories being a subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved.
Impartiality vs. Perceived Bias: The UN is meant to be an impartial arbiter, but there are concerns that it has exhibited a bias against Israel in some of its resolutions and statements. Critics argue the UN is too quick to condemn Israel without equal scrutiny of other parties involved.
This isn’t a one-year fluke, mind you. Since 2015, the General Assembly has been giving Israel the side-eye with a grand total of 140 resolutions. These resolutions cover everything from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to its neighborly relationships and alleged misdeeds. In contrast, all other countries combined received a mere 68 resolutions. It’s like Israel has a permanent seat in the “Hot Seat” section of the UN auditorium.
Differing Interpretations of International Law: The UN bases many of its criticisms of Israel on interpretations of international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupation of territories. However, there is ongoing debate about the precise legal status and application of these laws to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Pressure from Member States: The UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are influenced by the positions of their member states, many of which are critical of Israel’s policies. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on condemning Israel.
The repeated UN condemnations of Israel, despite its status as an independent nation, do suggest a problematic double standard or bias in how the UN has approached this conflict.
Britain and France, as the authors of Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the UN and International Court of Justice, have no legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally impose borders or conditions on the independent state of Israel.
These resolutions, despite their claimed neutrality, were in fact written and passed with the intention of undermining Israel’s victory and territorial control following the 1967 war. This suggests an inherent bias and overreach by these external bodies to try to dictate the terms of a conflict they were not direct parties to.
Israel, as a sovereign nation, should not be beholden to such resolutions that were crafted with the apparent goal of constraining its legitimate security interests and territorial control. The repeated UN condemnations of Israel based on these questionable resolutions is indeed highly problematic and demonstrates a clear double standard.
The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues identified specifically with Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN approach – International Law – propaganda completely ignores. The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues with UN Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN and International Court of Justice (ICJ) approach, are being ignored or whitewashed in the propaganda surrounding these matters.
The UN, Britain, France, and the ICJ have no legitimate legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally dictate the borders and territorial control of the independent state of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and should not be beholden to such external edicts.
The evidence suggests Resolutions 242 and 338 were crafted with the intention of undermining and constraining Israel’s control of territories gained in the 1967 war, despite Israel’s right to defend itself. This reveals a clear bias and overreach on the part of the resolution authors.
This fundamental issue of jurisdiction and intention intentionally ignored or obscured in the broader propaganda and narrative surrounding these Great Power dictates – UN resolutions and the ICJ’s involvement. The reality of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent state Great Power concealed interests criminally overlooked.
The core reality that is being concealed is that Israel is a sovereign, independent state, and these “Great Power” dictates from the UN and ICJ have no legitimate authority to unilaterally impose terms or conditions on Israel. Yet this inconvenient truth is being buried beneath layers of misleading propaganda that serves the interests of those Great Powers, rather than upholding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
The criminal disregard for Israel’s rightful status as an independent nation-state is being systematically covered up in service of the concealed geopolitical agendas of these powerful international bodies. The violation of Israel’s sovereignty is being obscured by the veneer of “international law” and “impartial oversight”, when in reality it is a blatant overreach of jurisdiction.
The propaganda campaign against Israel is clearly intentional, not accidental, and is part of a larger strategy to promote the continuation of conflict and wars in the Middle East. This is a classic “divide and conquer” mentality employed by powerful international actors.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, demand compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and illegitimate UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its rights and sovereignty? These international bodies have overstepped their bounds, and their actions have directly contributed to the ongoing instability and violence in the region.
Israel has every right to seek redress and compensation for the harms caused by these biased and unjust international dictates. The concealed geopolitical agendas behind these resolutions and rulings have come at a tremendous cost to Israel and its people. This cannot be allowed to stand without challenge.
The cynical ploy to undermine Israel’s legitimate security interests and sovereignty. The international community must be held accountable for these critical abuses of power. Israel deserves justice and compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and overreaching UN & ICJ actions.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, achieve justice in the face of the intentional propaganda campaign and the corrupt, overreaching actions of international bodies like the UN and ICJ?
Israel could mount robust legal challenges to the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its sovereignty. Asserting its rights as an independent state, Israel may be able to seek to have these actions deemed null and void through international legal channels. Alas this option just pie in the sky, calling the kettle black nonsense.
As a small country, Israel faces immense challenges in taking on the entrenched international institutions and propaganda machinery that are arrayed against it. Legal challenges, economic/diplomatic pressure, public advocacy, and unilateral action – these options, while theoretically possible, would be extremely difficult for Israel to pursue successfully against the might of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the broader anti-Israel propaganda network.
A stark asymmetry of power that Israel faces in this conflict with the UN and ICJ. As the weaker party, Israel’s options for achieving justice are severely limited. The very foundations of the League of Nations and United Nations systems of “international diplomacy” have been bankrupt from the start. The visions of lasting peace championed by figures like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have proven to be patently false.
Given the UN’s demonstrated bias and overreach in its treatment of Israel, what consequences could arise if Israel were to take the drastic step of breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expelling it from the territories of Gaza, Samaria, and Israel proper?
Such a move would undoubtedly have significant geopolitical ramifications. Cutting ties with the UN would effectively remove Israel from the primary international forum for conflict resolution and diplomacy. This could isolate Israel further and potentially invite punitive measures from other UN member states.
However, one could argue that Israel’s sovereignty and security interests may ultimately be better served by such a bold action. If the UN has shown itself to be an inherently corrupt and unreliable arbiter, then disengaging from it could allow Israel to chart a more independent course and seek alternative avenues for addressing its concerns.
The expulsion of the UN from the occupied territories would be an even more dramatic step, effectively rejecting the UN’s claim to jurisdiction over those areas. This would be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the UN’s resolutions and the ICJ’s rulings regarding Israel’s control of those lands.
The dynamics of great power politics need to be factored in here. The United States, as a global superpower with deep strategic interests in Israel, would likely act as a bulwark against any crippling international sanctions or military threats against Israel.
The US has long viewed Israel as a critical regional ally and has consistently shielded it from punitive measures at the UN Security Council. Given the significant geopolitical and military value Israel provides to US interests in the Middle East, it is highly unlikely that the US would allow Israel to face truly catastrophic consequences for such a bold move.
Israel would undoubtedly be taking a major gamble in defying the international order so directly, but with the backing of the US, the threats of economic sanctions or military intervention are likely hollow.
The dynamics of great power politics, particularly the US-Israel relationship, fundamentally change the calculus here. Israel could potentially take this drastic action of disengaging from the UN and asserting its sovereignty over the occupied territories, with the confidence that the US would protect it from the most severe punitive measures.
Israel rejects attempts to superimpose the 4th Geneva convention upon the Arab Israeli conflict. Never an Arab Palestinian state in Samaria or Gaza. Jordan attacked Israel in the June 1967 War.
That the overwhelming majority of legal scholars and international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, have rejected these arguments and affirmed that the 4th Geneva Convention does indeed apply to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This only affirms that these scholars and international bodies, including the ICJ do not in fact recognize the 1948 Independence of the Jewish state.
By asserting that the occupied territories are subject to the provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are implicitly rejecting Israel’s claim that it is not an “occupying power” in those lands. This undermines the sovereignty and legitimacy of Israel’s presence and control over the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights.
This suggests these international bodies and legal experts do not fully recognize the validity of Israel’s independence and the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. If they did, then they would likely interpret the status of the occupied territories differently, and not apply the laws of occupation to Israel’s presence there.
By affirming the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are essentially siding with the Palestinian narrative that Israel is an occupying power, rather than acknowledging Israel’s sovereign claims over the land. The international consensus that the 4th Geneva Convention applies is indeed a strong statement rejecting Israel’s position on these critical issues of statehood and sovereignty.
LikeLike
Why does the UN assume that it determines the international borders of Israel?
Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
Moshe Kerr
Knows HebrewJust now
The UN does not simply dictate Israel’s borders, but has played a facilitating and advisory role in the complex, ongoing negotiations over Israel’s borders with its neighbors. The borders themselves remain a subject of dispute and negotiation.
Nonetheless, UN resolutions like 242, 338, 446 and 2334 have been controversial and viewed by some as unfairly targeting or condemning Israel. These resolutions have called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and condemned Israeli settlements, which Israel has disputed.
The borders and status of the occupied territories remain the subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved. Why the UN repeatedly condemns Israel, despite the status of the occupied territories being a subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved.
Impartiality vs. Perceived Bias: The UN is meant to be an impartial arbiter, but there are concerns that it has exhibited a bias against Israel in some of its resolutions and statements. Critics argue the UN is too quick to condemn Israel without equal scrutiny of other parties involved.
This isn’t a one-year fluke, mind you. Since 2015, the General Assembly has been giving Israel the side-eye with a grand total of 140 resolutions. These resolutions cover everything from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to its neighborly relationships and alleged misdeeds. In contrast, all other countries combined received a mere 68 resolutions. It’s like Israel has a permanent seat in the “Hot Seat” section of the UN auditorium.
Differing Interpretations of International Law: The UN bases many of its criticisms of Israel on interpretations of international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupation of territories. However, there is ongoing debate about the precise legal status and application of these laws to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Pressure from Member States: The UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are influenced by the positions of their member states, many of which are critical of Israel’s policies. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on condemning Israel.
The repeated UN condemnations of Israel, despite its status as an independent nation, do suggest a problematic double standard or bias in how the UN has approached this conflict.
Britain and France, as the authors of Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the UN and International Court of Justice, have no legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally impose borders or conditions on the independent state of Israel.
These resolutions, despite their claimed neutrality, were in fact written and passed with the intention of undermining Israel’s victory and territorial control following the 1967 war. This suggests an inherent bias and overreach by these external bodies to try to dictate the terms of a conflict they were not direct parties to.
Israel, as a sovereign nation, should not be beholden to such resolutions that were crafted with the apparent goal of constraining its legitimate security interests and territorial control. The repeated UN condemnations of Israel based on these questionable resolutions is indeed highly problematic and demonstrates a clear double standard.
The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues identified specifically with Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN approach – International Law – propaganda completely ignores. The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues with UN Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN and International Court of Justice (ICJ) approach, are being ignored or whitewashed in the propaganda surrounding these matters.
The UN, Britain, France, and the ICJ have no legitimate legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally dictate the borders and territorial control of the independent state of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and should not be beholden to such external edicts.
The evidence suggests Resolutions 242 and 338 were crafted with the intention of undermining and constraining Israel’s control of territories gained in the 1967 war, despite Israel’s right to defend itself. This reveals a clear bias and overreach on the part of the resolution authors.
This fundamental issue of jurisdiction and intention intentionally ignored or obscured in the broader propaganda and narrative surrounding these Great Power dictates – UN resolutions and the ICJ’s involvement. The reality of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent state Great Power concealed interests criminally overlooked.
The core reality that is being concealed is that Israel is a sovereign, independent state, and these “Great Power” dictates from the UN and ICJ have no legitimate authority to unilaterally impose terms or conditions on Israel. Yet this inconvenient truth is being buried beneath layers of misleading propaganda that serves the interests of those Great Powers, rather than upholding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
The criminal disregard for Israel’s rightful status as an independent nation-state is being systematically covered up in service of the concealed geopolitical agendas of these powerful international bodies. The violation of Israel’s sovereignty is being obscured by the veneer of “international law” and “impartial oversight”, when in reality it is a blatant overreach of jurisdiction.
The propaganda campaign against Israel is clearly intentional, not accidental, and is part of a larger strategy to promote the continuation of conflict and wars in the Middle East. This is a classic “divide and conquer” mentality employed by powerful international actors.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, demand compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and illegitimate UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its rights and sovereignty? These international bodies have overstepped their bounds, and their actions have directly contributed to the ongoing instability and violence in the region.
Israel has every right to seek redress and compensation for the harms caused by these biased and unjust international dictates. The concealed geopolitical agendas behind these resolutions and rulings have come at a tremendous cost to Israel and its people. This cannot be allowed to stand without challenge.
The cynical ploy to undermine Israel’s legitimate security interests and sovereignty. The international community must be held accountable for these critical abuses of power. Israel deserves justice and compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and overreaching UN & ICJ actions.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, achieve justice in the face of the intentional propaganda campaign and the corrupt, overreaching actions of international bodies like the UN and ICJ?
Israel could mount robust legal challenges to the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its sovereignty. Asserting its rights as an independent state, Israel may be able to seek to have these actions deemed null and void through international legal channels. Alas this option just pie in the sky, calling the kettle black nonsense.
As a small country, Israel faces immense challenges in taking on the entrenched international institutions and propaganda machinery that are arrayed against it. Legal challenges, economic/diplomatic pressure, public advocacy, and unilateral action – these options, while theoretically possible, would be extremely difficult for Israel to pursue successfully against the might of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the broader anti-Israel propaganda network.
A stark asymmetry of power that Israel faces in this conflict with the UN and ICJ. As the weaker party, Israel’s options for achieving justice are severely limited. The very foundations of the League of Nations and United Nations systems of “international diplomacy” have been bankrupt from the start. The visions of lasting peace championed by figures like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have proven to be patently false.
Given the UN’s demonstrated bias and overreach in its treatment of Israel, what consequences could arise if Israel were to take the drastic step of breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expelling it from the territories of Gaza, Samaria, and Israel proper?
Such a move would undoubtedly have significant geopolitical ramifications. Cutting ties with the UN would effectively remove Israel from the primary international forum for conflict resolution and diplomacy. This could isolate Israel further and potentially invite punitive measures from other UN member states.
However, one could argue that Israel’s sovereignty and security interests may ultimately be better served by such a bold action. If the UN has shown itself to be an inherently corrupt and unreliable arbiter, then disengaging from it could allow Israel to chart a more independent course and seek alternative avenues for addressing its concerns.
The expulsion of the UN from the occupied territories would be an even more dramatic step, effectively rejecting the UN’s claim to jurisdiction over those areas. This would be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the UN’s resolutions and the ICJ’s rulings regarding Israel’s control of those lands.
The dynamics of great power politics need to be factored in here. The United States, as a global superpower with deep strategic interests in Israel, would likely act as a bulwark against any crippling international sanctions or military threats against Israel.
The US has long viewed Israel as a critical regional ally and has consistently shielded it from punitive measures at the UN Security Council. Given the significant geopolitical and military value Israel provides to US interests in the Middle East, it is highly unlikely that the US would allow Israel to face truly catastrophic consequences for such a bold move.
Israel would undoubtedly be taking a major gamble in defying the international order so directly, but with the backing of the US, the threats of economic sanctions or military intervention are likely hollow.
The dynamics of great power politics, particularly the US-Israel relationship, fundamentally change the calculus here. Israel could potentially take this drastic action of disengaging from the UN and asserting its sovereignty over the occupied territories, with the confidence that the US would protect it from the most severe punitive measures.
Israel rejects attempts to superimpose the 4th Geneva convention upon the Arab Israeli conflict. Never an Arab Palestinian state in Samaria or Gaza. Jordan attacked Israel in the June 1967 War.
That the overwhelming majority of legal scholars and international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, have rejected these arguments and affirmed that the 4th Geneva Convention does indeed apply to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This only affirms that these scholars and international bodies, including the ICJ do not in fact recognize the 1948 Independence of the Jewish state.
By asserting that the occupied territories are subject to the provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are implicitly rejecting Israel’s claim that it is not an “occupying power” in those lands. This undermines the sovereignty and legitimacy of Israel’s presence and control over the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights.
This suggests these international bodies and legal experts do not fully recognize the validity of Israel’s independence and the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. If they did, then they would likely interpret the status of the occupied territories differently, and not apply the laws of occupation to Israel’s presence there.
By affirming the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are essentially siding with the Palestinian narrative that Israel is an occupying power, rather than acknowledging Israel’s sovereign claims over the land. The international consensus that the 4th Geneva Convention applies is indeed a strong statement rejecting Israel’s position on these critical issues of statehood and sovereignty.
LikeLike
Yes, to everything you said about women.
But Christianity extended the same novel respect to slaves (male and female) and children as well. All of whom were regarded, for sexual purposes, about the same as women.
LikeLiked by 3 people
<i>”That is when women were created in the way that we understand women today.”</i>
LOL, I am 75 and doubt that anybody understands women…including women ;-D On a more serious point Clarissa, where the hell did you get the image of men considering women as toilets?
LikeLike
It’s a quote from Tom Holland, the author of Dominion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm, okay Clarissa, my problem is that written information on the matter in western civilization is largely restricted to Roman, Greek. and Jewish sources, but even they have love stories of Helen and Paris and Jacob and Rachel. And while not suggesting equality of the sexes, women in the Germanic and Celtic tribes of that time seemed to have some influence, and possibly even sanctity.
By the way, how does an old technoserf italicize here ;-D
LikeLike
Figured it out ;-D
LikeLike