Communism and Socialism

Dr Michael Huemer has a very nice refutation of Communism.http://www.owl232.net/economics.pdf

The idea is that Communism is based the the labor theory of value and he shows that that theory is incorrect.

I myself never saw much value in Communism since private property is a prime value in Torah. It is even encoded in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not  steal."

AS for general leftist polices Steven Dutch has a very nice new essay: http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2016/08/why-do-some-conservatives-hate-liberals.html
The left have never seen a regulation or tax they didn’t like.
Gun control. Again, fixing a social problem by stripping rights from the law abiding.
They side with criminals instead of civilization. Want to reduce wrongful convictions? Reform the justice system to focus solely on guilt or innocence instead of procedure.
They backed corrupt labor unions that threatened workers, killed reformers, and pushed rules that defended the laziest and most incompetent workers. Just read up on the futile efforts of the NYC school system to get rid of bad teachers.

s39 A Minor

The idea of the Bell Curve is that the average intelligence of whites is very much higher than the average intelligence of blacks.

Many species of mammals  have variance in many characteristics, including quickness of perception. That does not mean that we are gorillas. The idea of The Bell Curve is that the average intelligence of whites is very much higher than the average intelligence of blacks. That is not surprising since whites and blacks are separate subspecies of humans.

I can not understand why people confuse average value with variance. Amoebas vary in abilities. gorillas also. Even in intelligence. That is quickness of perception and understanding. The variance is obvious to anyone who has had pets. So if you have amoebas that vary in quickness of perception by about 15% variance and humans also vary by that amount does that mean we are amoebas or as smart an amoeba? No. It is average intelligence which is the key factor, not variance.

Thus it is proper to say that blacks are more stupid than whites. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a simple fact of biology. However a smart black might very well be smarter or perhaps be better in other ways than some white person.

And he or she might, in fact, use their free will in ways more noble than a white person.

Marriage

 My experience is things are better when the rules are known. That was workable and in fact great until religious people started sticking their noses into our businesses.

I mean to say marriage in the context of  a Litvak yeshiva is usually pretty good. Everyone knows what to expect and what their obligation are. Everything is either already spelled out in excruciating detail or else discussed before hand and accepted by all parties.

What makes this work is not the society they live in, but the fact that both parties are loyal to the Law of Moses and want to keep it to the ultimate extent of their abilities.

This works perfectly well unless neighbors or  insane religious leaders begin to stick their noses into where they are not wanted.  And the trouble is almost all religious leaders are insane. It is the particular Achilles heel of the religious world. It comes from a curse of Jeremiah the prophet. When the Jewish people did not listen to Yermiyahu [Jeremiah] and other true prophets, God gave us a curse that he would send to us evil leaders and to them we would listen.

The truth is the laws of marriage are too much to learn before marriage. I have never heard of anyone that could go thorough Ketuboth, Kidushin, Gitin, Yevamot, etc plus the Tur, Beit Joseph [Even Ezer].

What I did, and which is I think a good idea is to do the Tur, Beit Joseph on Nida plus the sidur of Yaakov Emden. Plus Shelomo Berger at the Mir learned the Tur, Beit Yoseph with me, plus there was a rav at Torah VeDaat in NY that gave a series of classes based in his book which was a great introduction to the subject.

If one does not have a marriage based on loyalty to Torah, then you end up with modern day marriages which are slavery and nightmares.

The general Litvak marriage is founded on a mutual goal of having the husband learn Torah all his life. That is it is a marriage based on a transcendent goal.

[In short I should mention that the major difficulty is calculating the ווסת period. Outside of that things are simple. What you have is basically simple. She sees one day then she waits until she stops and then you count seven clean days. That is she checks before sun set on the day she thinks she is clean with a clean white cloth (and she must check inside in the crevices). Preferably a piece of a white linen shirt. Then she checks on days 1, 4, and 7.  Then a natural body of water on the night after day seven. Most women have a period that is slightly longer than 30 days. That means she never sees less than 30 days. If that is the case she does not have to be separate from her husband on the day 30. That means let's say she see any time from day 34 and on. Then forget about day 30. But if she has seen 3 times in a row on day 34 then she must always be separate from her husband on day 34 unless she has established a different day another three times. If  there is nothing that is established after 34 days then she simply is seperate on the same period of separation as the last period.]

I wanted to add an possible answer to a question on Tosphot that my learning partner asked a few years ago.

 סנהדרין ס''ג א' וב'. אפשר לשאול על תוספות סנהדרין סג. בהבנתו מדוע יש הבדל בין "לא תעבדם" ו"לא תעשה מלאכה". לדבריו, "לא יעשה מלאכה" אינה לאו שבכללות, כי הוא אומר לא לעשות כל סוג של עבודה. בעוד "לא תעבדם" אינו אומר לנו איזה מינים נקראים שירות. אבל אם אתה הולך לדף ס''ג עמוד ב' תוספות הופך את סוג ההנחה להפכו הגמור. תוספות מסביר את הברייתא באופן ששלושה דברים נכנסים לחלק הראשון של הפסוק "ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו" ואת החלק האחרון של הפסוק "לא ישמע על פיך" הוא אומר שהוא  אזהרה למסית ומדיח. זה בסדר. אבל אז מה הם שלושה הדברים? אחד נשבע בשם עבודה זרה. ואיך אפשר לקבל מלקות לזה? למה זה לא לאו שבכללות? מכיוון שנשבע בשם עבודה זרה והזכרת שם אלילים ועוד דבר אחד כולם אותו הדבר = להזכיר אל אחר, כך שאפשר  לקבל מלקות. באיזה אופן זה שונה מ"לא תעבדם" שאחד לא מקבל מלקות על כי זה לאו שבכללות?אפשר לומר שהחילוק הוא שכל סוג מלאכה הוא קבוצה סגורה וכל סוג עבודה הוא קבוצה פתוחה בגלל עבודה דרך כבוד היא דבר שיכול להתרחב בלי גבול


Link to book on Shas


The basic idea here is this in the Torah there are punishments for sin. Sometimes the punishment is stated. But sometimes it is not. When it is not stated we assume it is lashes. But lashes can only be given when a verse forbids a particular sin, not when the verse forbids different kinds of things. לאו שבכללות. I forgot the subject but the main idea is that not to bow before an idol has a death penalty attached to it. The other three kinds of service sacrifice, burning, pouring also have a death penalty attached to them. But what about service in the way of honor? It is forbidden but there is no death penalty attached to it. Not only that but one does not even get lashes because it is a לאו שבכללות.


Tosphot says Don't serve idols does not tell us what kinds of things are called service. David asked what is the difference between this and Shabat
On Shabat one does get a penalty even though it only says, "Don't do work."

I answer here Shabat is a closed set. Service is an open set

one American identity

There was a time that what was emphasized was one American identity. But that was altered slowly in the 1960's when what teachers emphasized was to "find your roots." That was the beginning of diversity.  Eventually the very idea of a common American identity began to seem ridiculous since it was just a hodge podge of conflicting groups. (Especially victim groups.)

To me this seems sad, since American identity was founded on very important principles, not on geography.


What was important to the founding fathers of the human experiment called the USA was freedom. To deliver the human race from a condition of tyranny to one of freedom. That is not the same thing as going back to an Athenian form of government. The founding fathers were well aware the major cause of the Peloponnesian war between Sparta and Athens was the fact that Athens was trying to build up its empire much like Rome would do later. That meant basically subjugating all other cities in Hellas. Rather the founding fathers sought to form a government that would guarantee human freedom.


Freedom has been an ideal for thousands of years but it has been notoriously difficult to find a way to accomplish it in a way that does not dissolve into chaos and then tyranny all over again.

For people that seek tyranny over others the American system is a nightmare. The attacks on the basic values of  America came from one school of thought the Fabian school which later became the Frankfurt school. But these utilized different systems of thought to accomplish the goal of tearing down American society and replace it with Socialism (Marxism). One very major and successful tool was Psychology, but it was not the only one. The problem is that no one recognized the problem. The religious authorities were on the front lines to destroy American morality and they still are.

I was looking for a blog post or PDF that discussed why men should not get married. I could not find it but found some substitutes with roughly the same idea

http://www.avoiceformen.com--This might be the original essay that I saw



Important blog about how feminism has ruined marriage.

comments from here


[I should mention a good deal of the problems come from not listening to the holy Torah. But even religious teachers are infamous nowadays for ruining every marriage they get their hands on.]


"American women are selfish self-serving creatures. I use to believe marriage was necessary for having children and raising a family, not so. Marriage is death of manhood thanks to our divorce and family law. That being said there is some good women but it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack."

"Marriage as the worst thing a man can do. I was divorced in 2011. My Ex got the house even though she couldn't make the payments along with utilities. Now that is getting foreclosed on and she never refinanced in her name. The loan was still in our names jointly. I was fortunate to buy a home of my own 2 years ago before the home we lived in became foreclosed on. A major overhaul of divorce laws need to be taken. I should have been given the house due to the fact that I could afford to make payments and could have even sold it to avoid the mess. It's as if she had a certain sense of pride and wouldn't admit she couldn't do it. If there are any women reading this let it be known that i didn't cheat on her or touch her in anger. When she hit her 30's, she snapped. Cut her hair off started getting multiple tattoos right after her father passed away. Then began a facebook page at that point I knew my days were numbered. Talking about how she had never been on her own or independent. I had seen it with other men whose wives hit their 30's and 40's and go through the same thing. These men including myself worked hard, paid the bills but that wasn't good enough. It's when I saw a photo of a guy with sleeve tattoo, hair with frosted tips
she said she saw the photo on line and liked it. Which later turned out to be a Facebook friend that she reunited with that she knew when she was 15. Basically, don't get married it's a three ring circus, the engagement ring, the wedding ring, and the suffer"ring"."


"respect?...sex is very material, its not a thought its physical, and married or not, you have no particular right to it, and if you leave yourself open to blackmail with it, it probably isn't worth having...respect through marriage comes from your "empire" of family, Space is about possession and if you let your spouse keep on taking up the space, then that's your material failure. Being weak will lead to someone, anyone, walking on you...probably as you present no challenge to them and once you have provided all the material she needs, then really, if you don't entertain each other, what is left.

"