Me to Dr Ross> 

Your system puts much weight on the individual. The Alt Right has been arguing for some time the problems in the USA are a natural development of the Constitution itself.

Dr Ross" That depends.  What the individual cannot do for themselves, the statist thinks the State can do.  But libertarians have more trust in private organizations, which de Tocqueville already noticed were robust and active in America – but that now have declined, driven out by the Welfare State.  It is clear from Europe and the U.S. that the State actually always creates a moral hazard and political corruption.

Me: I wrote on the blog Amerika :I do think a lot of the problems came with Rousseau and his particular approach to equality more than John Locke.

The answer of the author [Brett Stevens] was "No doubt. But do we need the concept of equality in the first place? Is anything in nature equal?"

My answer to that was : "My learning partner said that the way things are today in the USA are a natural development of the system, and I have almost never been able to out argue him. So I will have to take some time to figure out if perhaps you are right. That will take time. I will have to go through in my own mind what I remember of John Locke, and the pluses and minuses of the American system of government. Plus, I will have to consider the Kant school which does put the center of gravity in the individual."

So is there a way to defend the more John Locke kind of system that is in the USA? Or should we return to Throne and Altar? Or how would you react to all this. These questions about government and culture have become more and more common on the internet.

Sincerely, Avraham Rosenblum

Dr Kelley Ross wrote back : In the decades since the New Deal and the Great Society, where the consequences of both are obvious, with parallel evils in Europe, it is astonishing that people still talk like that they never existed and that the unemployment, slow growth, and dependency evident in Europe and here are the result of Capitalism!   This is delusional.  Like Greek voters continuing to vote for Leftists, or Americans voting for Obama and Hillary.  American government now has more in common with Otto von Bismarck that it does with Locke, Madison, or Jefferson.  Complaining about the Constitution as the “System” is like complaining about Las Vegas as the Protestant Work Ethic.  The Socialists and Democrats already shredded the Constitution, and when their plans and predictions failed, they have never wanted to admit that the failures were due to their own foolish brainstorms and programs.

Best,

KR

the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch

I saw a book in Israel that took the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch and expanded it to show what the Gra was getting at in his cryptic notes. This was done on only short sections of the Shulchan Aruch but it seems a good idea to do this with all four volumes.

In any case, it is good to see people waking up to the importance of the Gra.

[The only place that took the Gra seriously in the 1990's was the yeshiva of Rav Zilverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. I have heard that a few more similar kinds of places began.]


[No Critique intended on Reb Nachman. Rather on the entire movement the Gra put into excommunication. Reb Nachman however stands apart from that movement. I do not think that Rav Zilverman would agree, but in any case you can see from the actual documents that Reb Nachman was not in the category of the excommunication.]

בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב

בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב This might seem like a minor point but it is possible to bring a proof to the idea we do not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה when it comes toחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע . The proof is this. Why did the גמרא not ask on the משנה on צ''ז the question ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא? It asked this question on page ק and used that question to prove that that משנה is like סומכוס. But the משנה on page צ''ז is just the mirror image of that משנה except that the cases are different. On page צ''ז there is no חזקת רשות except for the חזקת ממון. So we see the גמרא could not have asked from חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע to prove that משנה is like סומכוס



בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''ב  אפשר להביא ראיה לרעיון שאנחנו לא אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כשמדובר בחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. ההוכחה היא זו. מדוע גמרא לא שואלת על המשנה על צ''ז השאלה "ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא"? הוא שאל את השאלה הזאת על דף ק' והגמרא משתמשת בשאלה הזאת להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס. אבל המשנה בעמוד צ''ז הוא פשוט תמונת הראי של  המשנה הזאת למעט  שהמקרים שונים. בדף צ''ז אין חזקת רשות אלא חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. כך אנו רואים  שהגמרא לא יכולה לשאול מן חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס.

There were plenty of jokes even among KGB agents that showed lack of confidence in the Soviet system. One day Khrushchev and Kennedy were discussing the problems in the USSR.

Khrushchev: “We are having trouble feeding our people . Maybe you can send over some shipments of wheat to help us.

Kennedy: “Sure.”
Khrushchev: We don’t seem to be able to produce workable tractors to plow the fields. Maybe you can send over a few shipments of tractors?”

Kennedy: Sure.

Khrushchev: “We can’t seem to get the Communist model to work . Maybe you can send over some advisers to help us implement the perfect Communist society?”

s51  s50  [ s51 midi format  s51 nwc format

[s50 midi]  s50 nwc]

I was thinking about the laws of the Torah and I mentioned before that I thought the, Tur Beit Yoseph was the best book written on Halacha --ever.
But it as noted by David Bronson that the Gra wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch itself. In fact a lot of people saw something important in the Shulchan Aruch. Just take a look at the large Shulchan Aruch and see the amount of commentaries on the page.

I have to mention that when I as doing Tractate Ketuboth I had the Tur Beit Yoseph and Shulchan Aruch Even Ezra that I used as commentary on the Gemara and in that way I found the Tur, Beit Yoseph Shulchan Aruch to be very helpful. [Doing laws of Nida and Mikvah I did the Tur Beit  Yoseph alone and found this really clear].

But I just do not see this learning as being anything but secondary to learning Gemara. And neither did David Bronson.

My dream is a Navardok yeshiva. That is a yeshiva in every city in the world that learns Gemara and Musar and a half hour of halacha. To me that is the essential aspect of Torah. But I have difficulty expressing this dream because sadly places of Torah have mainly been infiltrated by the dark side.

Most teacher of Torah are frauds. it is hard to find truth. For some reason God guided my steps to two very good authentic Litvak yeshiva in NY, but as a rule yeshivas are not good at all. It is preferable to learn at home unless you really know local beit midrash is for Torah for its own sake--which is rare.

The places I can vouch for are most of the regular straight Litvak yeshivas in NY. In Israel there is Ponovitch and its official and un-official branches. I mean there are places that the rosh yeshiva learned at Ponovitch but it is not an official branch. Anything coming out of Ponovitch is authentic and good.
Girls obviously are not supposed to learn Torah but what I think is best is for girls to learn stuff that can help them hen they are married to be a help for their husbands to sit and learn Torah.

As a rule, Torah must not be used for making a living, but when someone is determined to learn Torah God helps with parnasha--making a living.[I am not thrilled with the kollel system, but if people in kollel are learning Torah for its own sake, and not considering kollel as  a way of making a living I suppose it might be OK.]

[Not that I am near learning Torah myself. It is just that once I tasted the sweetness of Torah, but have not been able to stay in it. I found the world of yeshivas to be more of obstacles than help. It is  whole long sad story. However without placing the blame on myself or on anyone else I just wanted to say tat i am very far from learning and or keeping Torah in any shape of form. Here I am only truing to describe the ideal way of going about it and also warning people about the problem of the penetration of the Sitra achra. I am not saying I have any excuse. Rather if I had not walked out of the authentic places I knew I would probably still be learning Torah

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א There is an argument between רש''י and תוספות on בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

There is an argument between רש''י and תוספות on בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א,  first תוספות on the page. רש''י can explain רבינא better but תוספות can answer the question, "Why do you need a verse for the מלווה?" The פסוק for the מלווה in in ויקרא. In the opinion of תוספות you know נשך for כסף and אוכל by the words "Don't take ריבית for money and food" לא תשיך.  Then there is an extra word "ריבית" that you don't need. So you use it for ריבית. Then there is another extra word "נשך" that you don't need. So you use it for a גזרה שווה from the לווה to the מלווה.
 But then you could ask on תוספות, "You have only one word for learning to ריבית. So how do we know that it applies to both כסף  and אוכל?"  Because this is why תוספות made sure to emphasize that the גזרה שווה is open at both ends. So that you learn ריבית in money from the borrower to the lender and ריבית in food from the lender to the borrower.
So תוספות comes out perfect as usual. No surprise here.
The question is with   רש''י . We have that רש''י that uses both words  נשך for ריבית. . So to רש''י I ask, why do you need any פסוק for the מלווה besides just saying to the מלווה "Don't take ריבית." Why do you need to go on to mention ריבית in אוכל and נשך in כסף for if you learn everything from the מלווה?

  רש''י can explain רבינא. We have that רבינא says you don't need the גזרה שווה and learns out everything for the מלווה from the verse about the מלווה. This is fine if there is no extra word. But if one extra word exists "ריבית" by the לווה as it does for תוספות, then how can רבינא disagree with it?

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

יש ויכוח בין רש''י ואת תוספות על בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א, תוספות הראשון בדף. רש''י יכול להסביר רבינא טוב אבל תוספות יכול לענות על השאלה, "למה אתה צריך פסוק עבור המלווה?" הפסוק עבור המלווה הוא  בויקרא. להערכת תוספות אתה יודע נשך עבור כסף ואוכל על ידי המילים "אל תיקח ריבית עבור כסף ומזון" לא תשיך. אז יש מילה נוספת "ריבית"  שאתה לא צריך. אז אתה משתמש בו עבור ריבית. ואז יש עוד מילה אחת מיותרת "נשך" שאתה לא צריך. אז אתה משתמש בו עבור גזרה שווה מן הלווה אל המלווה.
 אבל אז אתה יכול לשאול על תוספות, "יש לך רק מילה אחת ללימוד ריבית. אז איך אנחנו יודעים שזה חל על הכסף ואוכל?" בגלל זה הוא מדוע תוספות טרחה להדגיש כי הגזרה השווה פתוחה בשני קצותיו. אז יש לך ללמוד ריבית בכסף מהלווה למלווה וריבית במזון מן המלווה ללווה.
השאלה היא עם רש''י. יש לנו את שרש''י משתמש  במילת נשך עבור ריבית. אז  לרש''י למה אתה צריך כל פסוק עבור מלווה לבד. רק תאמר אל מלווה "אל תיקח ריבית." למה אתה צריך ללכת על להזכיר הריבית באוכל ונשך בכסף  אם אתה לומד כל דבר מן המלווה?

  רש''י יכול להסביר רבינא. יש לנו את זה שרבינא אומר שאתה לא צריך את הגזרה השווה ולומד את הכל עבור המלווה מהפסוק של המלווה. זה בסדר אם אין מילה אחת מיותרת. אבל אם מילה נוספת קיימת כזו "ריבית" על  ללווה אז איך זה יכול להיות שרבינא לא מסכים עם זה.

IDEAS IN BAVA METZIA


Ideas in Shas

What is a man? Someone you can depend on.

The trouble with Nietzsche is that people often do not want to be moral. Nietzsche gives them an excuse for throwing off the bonds of morality. 
 The idea the human nature rebels against morality is mentioned by Thucydides in the account of Corcyra.
There is a point that often people disguise personal ambition with morality. But the fact that any moral system can be misused does not mean it is not valid. Chemistry can be used for destructive purposes and for good oneד also.


Nietzsche does not like people that make money by seeming to be moral. Mainly his fire is directed towards Christianity and Judaism. But what it seems his mostly against is using religion for its cash benefits.

What is a man? Someone you can depend on. Someone you know will keep his word. Someone who will not let you down. And Nietzsche thought most religious teachers were not in that category. He thought they might seem moral, but when it comes to action they are unreliable.


I think it is possible to be sympathetic towards Nietzsche. He was after all facing a serious problem that almost anyone in any kind of religious environment encounters--people that use the religion for cash value.

But he did take this too far.

Personally what I recommend is to learn the Oral and Written Law of Moses {"Torat Moshe"} and to try to keep it. The best way I can  see to do this fast is to get Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and do any  one chapter thoroughly, and also learn Musar-Ethics.

[If you can get through just one chapter of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri you basically already have the tools that will enable you to do Shas. That is you "know how to learn"]. And the Musar puts you in contact with the piety and devotion of the Middle Ages which is so lacking today.
[As far as Halacha goes I recommend the Tur, Beit Yoseph. To me this seems like the best Halacha book. After that I would suggest the Aruch Hashulchan.[The later I did very little of but it is a very good book.]

I have come to see the wisdom of short sessions.

  I grew up in Newport Beach CA which was WASP and very wholesome. It was a great place. For some reason though it has changed. The whole Orange County let in lots of Muslims. I have no idea why. At the time we moved to Newport Beach the property was owned by the John Birch Society and who ever wanted to by property had to be approved by them. Why they let in Muslims is beyond me.

  Later we move to Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School made a big impression on me. I had great teachers. But Beverly Hills was close in proximity to Los Angeles and a lot of the negative energies seeped in. [We attended Temple Israel in Hollywood and that is where  I had my Bar Mitzvah. I think R. Nussbaum was there at the time.

  High School was extremely frustrating for me. I did not like to have short 40 minute sessions and then have homework in lots of different subjects. I thought to myself that to do well in anything at all I need to concentrate all my energy on that one thing,

  So when I got to authentic Litvak (Lithuanian)Yeshivas in NY [Shar Yashuv and the Mir] you can imagine I was elated. I could spend the whole day and even a few weeks on just one page of Gemara. I did not have to have my attention divided.

Still, after all is said and done, I have come to see the wisdom of short sessions. Nowadays what ever I learn is always in short sessions.

  I should mention that on my own when I do not have  a learning partner the way I do Tosphot is just to read through the whole page of Gemara word for word in order. And then to move on to something else. Maybe Physics. Or maybe jogging.  Then the next day I take up that exact same page of Gemara and do it again. That takes in fact about forty minutes. And so on and so forth for as long as it takes to start scratching the surface of the holy Gemara.

The same goes for Rav Chaim Soloveitchik or Rav Shach. What I would try to do would be to read the whole piece straight through of Reb Chaim. Sometimes I could not get through the whole piece, but I would try. This might have taken a month or two just to barely start to understand what Reb Chaim was saying. But the idea is that if you keep at it, it eventually goes in.

The same goes for Tosphot. Just keeping at it for a long time [a month or two] seems to result in eventually understanding it.

I look at the Middle Ages for new ideas.

"Like the Renaissance looked at the Ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration, I look at the Middle Ages for new ideas. What modernity needs is a drop of the piety and devotion of the Middle Ages."

Brett Stevens says:

10/01/2016 at 3:20 pm

I concur. Even more, we should investigate what inspired them, which was the notion of pre-classical golden ages in which religion, science, culture and leadership were in unity.

It is worth mentioning here however that the middle ages adopted quite a bit from the classical societies, and were inspired by them. The Renaissance™ used the classical ideal as a means of twisting an otherwise cohesive society toward the individual exclusively.

The idea here that I as referring to is what is commonly known as Rishonim. In yeshivas it is well known that the rishonim [authors on the Gemara that lived in the Medial period] have a level of intellectual logical reasoning that the later achronim do not have. Nowadays in the modern world the medieval period is looked down on. This is sad because in philosophy the middle ages were much much better. They were careful about logic. Later philosophers almost always use circular logic to prove their points. John Locke, Hume.  etc. Medieval philosophers would never fall into such traps --though they do use axioms which today we would consider no valid.

Bava Metzia page 100a and b

Ideas in Bava Metzia


There are still problems.  A stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees? Maybe I meant like Reb Chaim Soloveitchik that is a רשות של שניהם even the sages agree with sumchus?



I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.
________________________________________________________________________________

בבא מציעא
 גמרא on page צ''ח. The גמרא there suggests perhaps the reason for the משנה is because ברי ושמא ברי עדיף.  But the  question is that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף with no oath and the משנה says on צ''ח and also page ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! That is not the same thing! Perhaps the גמרא is thinking the משנה means שבועת היסת.


בבא מציעא א' ע''ב  problem is תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות asks, "But it is not דררא דממונא?" The fact is that תוספות is asking on רב. That seems to mean that on the משנה itself תוספות would not have asked their question. That means תוספות accepts if the question had been a עבד גדול or עבד קטן.That apparently תוספות would have accepted that it is דררא דממונא. Only because רב said the דמי עבד is the question did תוספות then ask, "But it is not דררא דממונא?"

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that תוספות and this page of גמרא and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by חולקים there is no difference between סומכוס and the חכמים?" Was I referring to the idea of the רשב''ם that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about שמואל? תוספות answers the question where is the דררא דממונא by רב, but never even raises the question by שמואל. I answered this cryptic phrase "Maybe תוספות would answer like they answered for רב." But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever תוספות answered for רב, was because רב was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that שמואל is also talking about an exchange of currency because that is not the answer of שמואל. It might be that תוספות is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is דררא דממונא. Only the fact that רב says the משנה refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the דררא דממונא? In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this תוספות and this page of גמרא.
______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא
 גמרא בעמוד צ''ח. גמרא שם מרמזת אולי הסיבה של  המשנה היא משום ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. אבל השאלה היא כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף ללא שבועה והמשנה אומרת על צ''ח וגם דף ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! זה לא אותו דבר! אולי הגמרא היא חושבת שהמשנה מכוונת שבועת היסת..


בבא מציעא ק' ע''ב תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות שואל, "אבל זה לא דררא דממונא?" העובדה היא כי תוספות שואל על רב.  נראה  כי על המשנה עצמה תוספות לא היו שואלים. כלומר תוספות היו מקבלים אם השאלה היתה עבד גדול או עבד קטן. כנראה תוספות היו מקבלים שזה דררא דממונא. רק בגלל רב שאמר דמי עבד יש השאלה של תוספות  "אבל שה לא דררא דממונא?"
מלבד כל זה הסתכלתי על רשימותי על כי תוספות ודף זה של גמרא וכתבתי דברים שהיום אני לא מבין . למה אני מתכוון "על ידי חולקים אין הבדל בין סומכוס ואת החכמים?" אולי התייחסתי לרעיון של רשב''ם שכאשר הוא ברשית של אדם אחד

גם כתבתי על השאלה מה עם שמואל? תוספות עונה על השאלה איפה דררא דממונא במצב של רב, אבל אף פעם הם לא מעלים את השאלה על  שמואל. עניתי ביטוי נסתר זה "אולי תוספות יענו כמו שענו על רב." אבל זה נראה בלתי אפשרי. מה בכלל תוספות ענו על רב? שרב מדבר בחילופי מזומן. אתה לא יכול לענות  זה לשמואל שגם הוא מדבר על חילופי מזומן, כי זאת לא התשובה של שמואל.

עוד יש להעיר  שיכול להיות כי תוספות חושבים שכל עוד השאלה היא לגבי אובייקטים פיזיים כמו בגד של העבד או עבד גדול או קטן כי זה דררא דממונא. רק העובדה שרב אומר המשנה מתייחסת בחילופים של כסף אז עולה השאלה היכן הוא דררא דממונא?

On Yom Kippur we say the long confession.

On Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur we say the long confession. There we confess not listening to our parents and teachers. I can imagine this does not apply to all parents and teachers since some do not deserve respect. In my case however both sets deserve respect. My parents mainly concentrated on Derech Eretz comes before Torah. And my roshei yeshiva, Reb Freifeld  and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum mainly concentrated on Torah.
Thus I am in this kind of grey area where I am required to walk on this thin fine line between Torah and Derech Eretz.[Derech Eretz means human decency, and also a vocation.]

Music for the glory of God

s47 B Flat Major    s49 I had a lot of trouble with this one trying to figure out the proper instruments. I am still not sure. And the progressions I am still unsure about. But for today it seems about right so I present it here for the public with my apology that it probably still needs editing.
The instruments are mainly the wind section and a piano and violin and french horn


This next one is in 6-8 times48
 s50 A Minor

Divine Right of Kings

Divine Right of Kings

The story of Joan of Arc seems to support this idea. To me at least it seems that Joan of Arc was a legitimate saint and her mission was to crown Charles VII over all France. That seems clear to indicate that there is such a thing as Divine appointment to rule.

France at the time had a king--the King of England but from what we can tell is that he had no right from heaven to rule France.

This seems to have support from the תנ''ך (Old Testament) also. But in the Old Testament the right to rule needs to be confirmed by either a prophet or (when there is no prophet) the Sanhedrin. In any case in the Old Testament there is no concept of the right of the people to choose their leader. [As was pointed out to be by Yehoshua (an acquaintance and one time room-mate at the Mir yeshiva).]

This does not mean Democracy is invalid. We know from דינא דמלכותא דינא (the law of the country is valid) that once any kind of government is established whose coin is accepted- that  is a legitimate government; and its rules are binding according to Jewish Law [except in cases which contradict the Torah directly].

This fact was made clear in the Gemara itself. See חזקת הבתים in Bava Batra.

An modern example is the State of Israel for that Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Aaron Kotler both said דינא דמלכותא דינא (The law of the State is the law). [How far this extends is a debate between Rishonim as far as I remember. Certainly the Rambam takes this very far beyond דיני ממונות law about money. 

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God.

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God. It was on Rosh Hashanah at the Mir Yeshiva in NY that I read the אור ישראל [Light of Israel] by the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [during Musaf] that made this point in such a powerful way that it has stuck with me even years later.  What that means for Jewish-Christian society is simple. To get the books on Fear of God and to read them every day. There is a known set of primary works of Musar and then a secondary level. And after that  a few more levels. The primary level is חובות לבבות, אורחות צדיקים, מסילת ישרים, שערי תשובה, מעלות המידות ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם and a few other mediaeval books.

[I have no idea what Christians could read. I do not even know if they have an equivalent but I assume they must have.The closest thing I can think of is Aquinas.]

[Physics I should mention is also part of the mitzvah of Fear of God according to the Rambam.]

So at least on Rosh Hashanah I recommend learning as much Musar as possible.

I should mention that one reason I really liked the Mir was the small Musar session they had and after I was married and discovered Isaac Blazer's אור ישראל (Light of Israel)I spent my pare time learning Musar which I think was vey god for me.

Revolution is not a good thing

To try and answer  the Alt Right especially,  Brett Stevens.


Once there is a Constitution in place  which works  and establishes peace and order to some degree, it seems to me to be a mistake to try to overthrow it.

Thucydides made this point in the events surrounding Corcyra in the war between Sparta an Athens.

Revolution is not a good thing. Only in the most extreme circumstance is it justified.

Thucydides outlined the basic problems with revolution and also of alliance with either side in the war between Sparta of and Athens. He did not know it at the time, but his words ring even more profoundly as the ages has gone by-- because now we know that that war is what devastated both Sparta and Athens   --forever. Neither ever again would regain what had been lost. It made no difference that Sparta won or that Sparta treated Athens well and kindly after the war. The effect was the same. both lost everything.

This is relevant to today's issues not just the Alt Right but also to the many movements that are committed to overturning the established order as they claim to insure equality or some kind of justice, but it is always just a power grab.  [Especially the Ultra Religious definitely try to undermine the established order so as to gain power. Religious teachers have found and that their lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.][


"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961]

Religious groups are like the Fabian Society or the Freemasons. Though anyone can join, but there are many levels of initiation. That means,- the majority of people involved have no idea of the true agenda and carry out their roles in creating respectable front for the fraud that is at the heart of the organization.


From a Torah standpoint also we know דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the state is the law. The Rambam says this goes even so far as to say that if the king declares one ho transgress any particular law must be sold as a slave that declaration is valid.

I would like to address this issue also from the standpoint of Hegel. Though the left has hijacked Hegel, in fact he provides a good justification for traditional family values. To him, reason can perceive moral principles that are common sense principles. This is somewhat like the intuitionists like Prichard and G.E. Moore, but unlike them Hegel is not a quietist.["We know it because we know it". Instead, Hegel does not ignore Kant but attempts to answer him by means of the triads.]
[Revolution sometimes can be justified. Sometimes an established order is just a cabal a small group that has seized power. When there is an absence of justice, then revolution is in order. ] To some degree then the Russian revolution was justified simply because there was no point to sending Russian soldiers (in WWI) to the front just to get pulverized. If it took a revolution to stop that-well so be it.

My Dad worked at TRW designing a kind of laser communication system for satellites

My Dad worked at TRW designing a kind of laser communication system for satellites that the Soviets could not detect [because it used lasers which go straight unlike radio waves which spread out.] That was right around the time that the KGB had a mole there. This was made into a motion picture, The Falcon and The Snowman. 

TRW was the firm that made the satellites for NASA.


After my Dad finished the project he went on to start his own business. He did not like being under other people's thumbs. In any case it seems to me most of his life was like that. He would work for the USA government for some time [his first invention was night vision.] and then make some invention in his own time and then market it [the copy mate x-ray machine]. Then the USA government would again need him for some other project (e.g. the camera for the U-2 spy plane) so he would join that until that project was over and then he would again make his own inventions and market them again. It went on back and forth like that.

I might have gone on to do the same but at some point a tremendous urge came over me to learn Gemara,[Talmud]. I can not really explain it. A minute away for the holy Talmud  caused me to feel like I was drowning. As time went on I began to see that a more balanced approach is proper based on the Rambam's idea of learning Physics, Metaphysics, the Oral Law, the Written Law.

What I have been saying on my blog is that people ought to make an effort to get through (even if it is just saying the words in order and going on)this basic set: The Old Testament in Hebrew, the Two Talmuds, Rav Shach' Avi Ezri, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, String Theory, Calculus, Topological Algebra, Abstract  Algebra. That seems to me to be the bare minimum for a well rounded education.

Law of Moses and the Alt-Right

A lot of the Alt-Right people concentrate on politics. But politics is downstream from numinous value.
Therefore we have to get that area of value straight. to me this means we need to keep the Law of Moses. But some  people would object to this based on the fact that all of the good we see in western civilization comes directly from listening to Jesus. I would counter this and say Jesus yes; but all Jesus was saying was to keep the Law of Moses with more sincere devotion than what people were doing.


[I can see that Western civilization is synonymous with Christendom. And I appreciate the great things about growing up in the USA when it was a highly moral, wholesome WASP society. However I claim that everything good about Christianity comes straight from the Law of Moses.]


[There is  some degree of ambiguity of how to go about keeping the Law of Moses. However difficult it is to understand, still there is no reason to think that it has been nullified. Paul did think it was null and void, but that was not based on Jesus, but on his own understanding. And this clearly was not what Jesus was saying, that nothing in the law will ever be changed. "Heaven and Earth may pass away but not one jot or tittle of the Law."]

In any case, I would like to make a suggestion on how to keep the Law of Moses. From what I can see, the books of Musar [Medieval Ethics] basically encapsulate the basic approach. [I mean to say that even though some people have been privileged to spend time going through the Oral Law in painstaking detail, this is not available for everyone. Therefore Musar provides and basically simple approach. [The reason Musar is important is it gives a simple balanced approach to keeping the Law of Moses. That is it is more rigorous than if one would try on his on to figure out how to keep it. This is a result of the fact that during the Middle Ages people assumed the law as logically rigorous and had one message, not a different message for every individual  and they spent the time and effort to hammer out the details.]

[Everyone needs a boggy man--someone to attack. For the Ultra Religious  world this is Christians and secular Jews. The Ultra Religious imagine to themselves as if they are keeping the Law of Moses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reform and Conservative are much closer to authentic Torah because of their emphasis on obligations between man and his fellow man and not so much on rituals like the ultra religious. ]