God created the world with two opposite sets of value--form and content

God created the world with two opposite sets of value--form and content. As you approach God you are getting closer to content with no form. The Talmud occupies an area that is between pure content with no form, and the mode of justice. However there are other areas of value.
Where these areas of value intersect that is the halacha. So to come to a true final halacha would require not just a source in Talmud but also a way of dealing with the questions raised by John Locke and Hobbes about the nature of civil society and justice in itself. Since no one since the time of the Rambam has had the stature to be able to deal with these questions in any coherent way I consider the entire area of religious law to be in what is called "civil society"--that is an area free from cohesion. The purpose of government in my view is to protect society from outer and inner threats of crime. In a word you could say I am a Jeffersonian , but it would be more  accurate to say I derive my views from Kant  and John Locke.

The Rambam's theory about Avraham Avinu (Abraham) from the Guide needs more attention. It is so starkly different than what people think the Rambam (Maimonides) said that it would be laughed at. You have to actually see it inside to even believe the Rambam could write it.
But here in this blog I have already written about the Rambam's approach to Avraham.
It is clearly a natural law theory but it has great subtlety.
The first thing I want to mention here however is not to explain the natural law theory of Maimonides but to explain what it is not. Philosophy has gone so far astray in the last hundred years that it is important to explain what Reason does not say.
First of all a wicked tradition in philosophy starting from Hume is like this. It makes a statement that seems to be reasonable at first like "No a priori knowledge can be gained by observation." It then it finds something that in fact looks like a priori knowledge gained by observation, and then claims that therefore it can't be a priori knowledge. This is so stupid it surprises me that people have been taken in by this for 400 years.
This is not called reason, and is not reasonable at all.
Also, the empirical school of thought that knowledge needs to be based on observation and justified by observation is also not reasonable.
This has been dealt with elsewhere but let me just mention that if Empiricism were true you could not know that something can't be blue and green in the same place at the same time.

But this could possibly make a problem for the very foundations of American Democracy (which i do believe in) which is founded on the principles of John Locke who was an empiricist.
It might not because his philosophy of empiricism might not be related to his philosophy of politics. But I don't know this. And after all is said and done there is something lacking in substance in American society. The America I once knew and loved is long gone. The principles of the Founding Fathers are nowadays a joke for the Democratic party and even for the Republicans. Limited government is nowadays a joke.

One thing you can say about the Talmud--even though i also don't like the fanatics but you have to admit very few people who learn Talmud are taken in by the lies of the democrats.
to quote Kelly Ross on the Democrates:
Who hate almost everything about America, including the very ideas of limited government, individual rights, private property, self-defense, free enterprise, free speech, etc. A history of slavery, sexism, and homophobia naturally discredits everything about America and its history -- but these are only minor idiosyncrasies in Islâmic fundamentalism, which of course is fully redeemed by its hatred of America (and, well, Jews). Any Democrats who do not agree with attitudes like these, it is time for you (especially if you are Jewish) to get out of that Party. If you don't believe that the Party involves attitudes like these, it is time to get wised up.

Concerning Iran

Concerning Iran, I want to mention:

Most pacifists react to this issue by simply pretending that it doesn't exist,- that Muslims either never deliberately choose violence, that violence always stems from earlier violence, poverty, or injustice, or that if people do deliberately choose violence, it's in rare cases that are not really of great importance. But history abounds with Muslims who have deliberately chosen violence. The ease with which Muslims from non-violent backgrounds have been induced to commit atrocities shows how easy it can be for the violent to recruit assistants

How do we respond to people who have opted for violence?
Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.

To answer briefly my critics here let me just say that I am not doubting the value of walking in the path of the Rambam and Saadia Gaon. But social sciences and humanities are the indoctrination laboratory of "new" Marxism since the 1990's. But these are easy areas in which pseudo intellectuals  like to get degrees. It is not that I doubt the essential value of these fields but rather that since they were dumbed down in the 1960 they are both now worthless except as being good indication of pseudo intellectuals.


Let me just say for the record that we Jews have found a warm and welcoming home in the USA. I think it is be a sad commentary on us that we either do what we can in the  to undermine all principles of freedom and democracy and attempt to undermine American values and place radical Marxism in its place in the guise of progressivism.

Liberal arts--humanities and social studies are worthless

Liberal arts--humanities and social studies are worthless and in most universities highly Marxist.
These are the exact studies that pseudo intellectuals learn to show off their sophistication without knowing any Gemara.
To indicate that Marxism is a fraud let me mention that it is no accident that Marx is rigorously excluded from economics departments in which real world economics is studied.
Why would anyone consider the inclusion of Marxist theology into Jewish education to be a plus?
For me I would take reading writing arithmetic and gemara any day of the week.
While it is true that Litvak Torah scholars have traditional learned a specific area outside of Talmud but these unspoken areas were in general rigors sciences --not pseudo sciences. I believe Rav Elchanan Wasserman had some knowledge in Kant and I had a friend in Safed who besides learning Gemara all day also learned the biology of trees. (Other people like Reb Berenbaum did not have other areas of interest -- so this is not a universal phenomenon.)

My father was an American veteran (from World War II who graduated from Cal Tech before he volunteered for the USA Air Force. Perhaps I don't know much about veterans nowadays, (Judging from my father and his friends who also served their country during World War Two). American values were very much a part of my upbringing.  Being a Californian I tended to look at everything and everyone with these sunny friendly full of grace eyes.

History often goes in cycles.

   History often goes in cycles. In the beginning of the 20th century religion, was highly discredited. It was something you did in private or just on the week ends. The whole modern involvement with cults began in the 1960's when going into a cult was the "in thing" to do. Religion had lost its shame and became the popular thing. But a lot of it was directed towards Eastern cults. But some of that energy was dissipated in different directions, and some people instead went into the Orthodox Judaism  and other into different varieties of other religions.
Now the pendulum is swinging backwards as people are seeing what is wrong with the religions they went into. Many want to swing into anti-religion and become reform Jews and support the Democratic progressive party which supports Islamic Fascism. This seems to me to be an undesirable option.

  And this brings me to the other point about cults and religions. Their major good function is to save one from other cults and religions. This is like the purpose of the original nation states. They did nothing to help one in life's daily problems. All a nation state did was to protect one from other nation states that would take one and kill him or enslave him and rape his wife and then enslave her too.
This is one thing that is good about Torah. It saves from other cults and evil ideologies.
That is until it starts to morph into a cult instead that one joins thinking it will protect him, but the he finds himself enslaved and his wife stolen from him.


  In essence this is sad because in fact there is nothing wrong with the basic classical Torah books that are deemed holy. It is only that after Shabatai Tzvi teachings and energies of the Sitra Achara (dark side) got mixed up in it. The  Geon from Vilnius tried to prevent that development but he failed.  His warning went unheeded until this very day.

I make an exception for Nachman from Uman who I think is very important, and I think he rose above his origins. So my opinion is that the sitra achara [evil realm] is just too much a  part of Hasidim because of the many teachings of Shabatai Tzvi that are  apart of Hasidim.