Ho ho ho, this MUST have been a good post as it was censored and deleted by the editor--which I then tried to dispute, but got very little....

Below-copied by ap first submitted at comments, http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/lets-boy...ends/#comments

AUTHOR'S NOTE: For some reason the original version of this response was censored and deleted, so I'll try again after having taken-out some material.  See comments where I posted the very first, original.

Note 2: actually, the editor decided not to publish at all, but I copied a lot of my queries as to why and wherefore, copied below.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

New Test. Is LITERATURE, First, Containing Philosophy Within
(Apollonian, 19 Dec 18)

Ur problem is ignorance and presumption, eh? (a) Christ was no Jew, Jew defined as follower of Pharisees and Talmud, Jews diff. fm Judeans. Christ was Galilean descended fm Judeans. See Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo.

(b) Christ wasn't a rabbi or a "magical" rabbi--he was God the Son, according to the story-line--which u can't dis-prove (but this is no diff. fm Homer in which u can't dis-prove Zeus or Apollo were gods, either).

(c) People like u FORGET New Test. IS LITERATURE, TELLING A STORY, a fable--absolutely NO DIFF. fm Homer's Illiad and Oddysey.

(d) Thus the STORY in New Test. contains a basic, core philosophy, Christ preaching existence of TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6, and 8:32), HENCE AN OBJECTIVE, Aristotelian REALITY, necessary criterion for such truth--which is why Jews couldn't kill truth (= Christ), because truth is based on reality--and RESURRECTS--truth always comes back at u. Jews, the ultimate liars and servants of satan (JOHN 8:44), preach a SUBJECTIVE ("midrash") reality in which whatever they say or want, according to rabbis, is what's true, and what gentiles too must BELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEV, ho ho o ho. Christ opposed Pharisees and the other subjectivistics and satanists.

(e) Thus New Test. presents a basic clash/conflict of realities, the Greek Aristotelian vs. the subjectivistic/satanic, Christ defending Mosaic law and Torah against the Pharisees who preached "midrash" and "Oral Law Tradition," later written out fully as Babylonian Talmud about 500 AD.

(f) And the virtue is NOT in beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin', as if, like a satanist or Pharisee, whatever is beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeved is what is considered then true. If u go out and see sun shining, u KNOW it's day-time--no "beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin'" necessary

(g) But Christ spoke to the people and in those times people, most of them probably quite illiterate, got their philosophy fm literature and "religion," so Christ spoke in their terms, defending Torah against hereticalist Pharisees and their "midrash" subjectivism and satanism by which what they said was true was supposed to be true and beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeved--try to getting a clue.

(h) Note it was "Vatican" pedophiles who later made Christianity into the putrid mystic mumbo-jumbo it is so often taken for nowadays by such as u, who fails to grasp literature and literary methods, techniques, functions, and purposes.


-----------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-----------------

Anonymous[288] • Disclaimer says:
December 19, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT • 100 Words
@apollonian

You don’t put too much stock in Jew “Studies,” but you do worship a magical Rabbi who was popular in the Synagogues, the premier place for Jew “Studies.” LOL!

Just another Jew liar? Found one! Go on, do like Jesus says he can do, and toss a mountain into the Pacific with his magical Jew superpowers. Oh right, nobody has magical Jew superpowers like that, thus proving that Jewsus is just another Jew liar.

You’re a dumbass for characterizing Jews as liars—but simultaneously worshiping them. (I might add that Ron Unz is, as you put it, just another Jew liar too, so why are you even here?)


---------------below-copied are the notes I sent to Unz when he refused to publish------------


The editor (Unz or Shamir) censored my above (top) posting and left a msg, following:

apollonian says:
December 19, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT • 400 Words
@Anonymous

"[Too many totally off-topic religious comments.]"


* * * * * * * * *

So I then responded w. another (3rd) note to effect my posting was PHILOSOPHIC, pertaining to LITERATURE, assessing the philosophy contained therein--why not let the readers decide for themselves? And I wrote further,

"Consider that in fairness editor would have to delete/censor the original addressee, "anonymous," which censorship I wouldn't want done for sake of readers. Early philosophy was always embedded within religion, religion merely more deeply integrated within sentiment, not only intellect. Let the readers decide for themselves."

[above quoted paragraph is closest approximation I could remember]

I then demanded editor publish my 3rd, above-copied, note, and he could then respond and explain why he won't let the readership decide for themselves.

Editor then censored and totally deleted my above, 3rd posting, w. no further comment or explanation. These are truly Jewwy scum and cowards who cannot stand truth and honesty. So I then submitted a 4th note, copied below:

* * * * * * *

"

[Too many totally off-topic religious comments.]

"Editor: ur statement is just ur opinion, is it not? So why is ur opinion better and pre-emptive?--my entry is only 400 words.

"Pls publish this note and respond so readers can evaluate and assess ur reasoning for such censorship. As it is, I wouldn't want "anonymous" to think I wasn't able or willing to rebut his note.

"Why would u want to preserve the statements of "anonymous," but then censor my own?--u're un-fairly giving him the last word, even though I wouldn't want u to delete his as well, which would otherwise only seem to be fair, under ur stated criterion. Are u Unz or Shamir?"


* * * * * * * * * *

Of course, editor then totally deleted my 4th (above) note, and at this pt. I see it's pretty useless reasoning w. this Jewwy, cowardly scum. But, ho ho oho, I yet submitted a 5th effort, copied exactly, below:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"What Is Editor Hiding?

[Too many totally off-topic religious comments.]

"Well thanks to the editor, whoever he is, who's given a cheap victory, such as it is, to my opponent, "anon," above, whom I hope is NOT similarly censored, despite my own opinion being censored.

"Now "anon's" opinion stands for all to read for whatever persuasion it projects while my own humble opinion is censored so that no one can see it for whatever merits it might have. But, like I say, I hope "anon's" posting stays there as it does present a legitimate challenge to my original statements, but which answer by me to such challenge is not allowed--WHY?

"Editor says my statements are "off-topic" and "religious," which I earnestly dispute, when that's merely his opinion, and won't let the readership judge for themselves.

"So I see SOMETHING bothers the editor he's not admitting, for if it really was merely "religious," then I don't think he'd really be worried--my note was only 400 words. Note I insist my statements are not merely "religious"--so why isn't my opinion given to public for the readership's judgment?--why does editor have to pre-empt everyone?--editor gets his say, but I don't get equal chance to rebut, either against "anon" or the editor.

"Editor won't even explain--won't even allow my own arguments regarding that alleged "religion," and why I say it's philosophic and quite relevant--it's only my honest opinion. But something, as I say, bothers the editor, and he's keeping it secret fm everyone, hidden fm analysis/assessment--WHY?"


-------------------------------------

Alas, but editor censored and deleted my (above) 5th attempt too, not answering. I then tried to post on another thread, but my entry wouldn't even show up, so I thought I was banned. But when I ck'd back later, I saw my entry had suddenly showed-up, so maybe I was banned, but then un-banned, who knows?--I gave it all up by then.