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. ]

Ideas in Bava Metzia ch8-9  I deleted something that seemed a little am haaretz'dik


I would rather not go into what I deleted but in that deleted note I did make an interesting point. That There is an opinion in our Gemara that Sumchos said his din only in a case of "maybe and maybe." {איני יודע ואיני יודע}. Raba Bar Rav Huna. And we have in Bava Batra that Sumchus said his din only in a case of Drara Demomona. [That is not like our gemara in Bava Metzia page 2b].
In the Chidushim on Bava Metzia I already suggested this argument between Bava Metzia and Bava Batra is dependent on the argument between Rav and Shmuel in another place. But is it possible that Raba Bar Rav Huna understand שמא ושמא to be the very definition of דררא דממונא?  In the note I deleted I ascribed this option to the Rashbam for some reason that eludes me today. To me this minute this idea seems utterly silly. But it came inside a small paragraph where I gave n answer to R. Akiva Eigger about the opinion of the Rashbam so maybe I was thinking of something that I did not write down right?
_____________________________________________________________________________


There is an opinion in our גמרא that סומכוס said his דין only in a case of שמא ושמא, איני יודע ואיני יודע. That is the opinion of רבה בר רב הונא.  And we have in בבא בתרא that סומכוס  said his דין only in a case of דררא דממונא. That is not like our גמרא in בבא מציעא  page ב ע''ב.
In the  I already suggested this argument between בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא is dependent on the argument between רב  and שמואל in another place. But is it possible that רבה בר רב הונא understand שמא ושמא to be the very definition of דררא דממונא?

ישנה דעה בגמרא שלנו כי סומכוס אמר את הדין שלו רק במקרה של שמא ושמא, איני יודע ואיני יודע. כך דעת של רבה בר רב הונא.  ובבבא בתרא סומכוס אמר את דינו רק במקרה של דררא דממונא. זה לא כמו  גמרא בבבא מציעא דף ב ע''ב..
כבר הצעתי  שהטיעון הזה בין בבא מציעא ובבא בתרא תלויה בויכוח בין רב ואת שמואל במקום אחר. אבל האם זה אפשרי כי רבה בר רב הונא מבין שמא ושמא להיות ההגדרה של דררא דממונא?

the temptation of the Guru is insurmountable.

When I consider Rosh Hashanah coming up and the need to repent --or even during the year when I notice that I have fallen away from God, my thoughts always wander towards Musar [Books of mediaval Ethics]and the basic path of Reb Israel Salanter. My thoughts usually go along the lines that Musar encapsulates the essence of Torah, but  I find it difficult to recommend the straight yeshiva Musar path because it is a path that has been used by people for personal aggrandizement. Still I wish could learn more Musar.
Of course for people with spiritual thirst the temptation of the Guru is insurmountable. But they can't go to Eastern religions from guilt feelings about their Jewishness. So they find some Jewish equivalent of a Guru. That the trouble with this is they somewhat clear since they have nothing to sell. No enlightenment. Still the temptations enormous,
Therefore the Gra put the whole cult into excommunication that wanted to capitalize on peoples' need for a guru. My general impression of Jewish Gurus is that they are from the Sitra Achra/the Dark Side.  The Gra certainly saw this and if I had been smart I would have simply accepted this as fact base on the idea that the Gra probably knew a thing or two about Torah more than me.

Sadly  I fell into this temptation, instead of just sticking with straight Torah. The way this happens is simple. It is not just my on or other's nativity. It is rather because there are organizations that the majority of people involved are not aware of the ultimate purpose of the organization.

to repeat one whole chapter 40 days in a row

In my fervor for learning fast I have not mentioned on my blog another way of learning that I have found effective-the forty days in a row idea. This is not a way to make a lot of progress, but it is a way that when you find some essential kernel in your learning-- to internalize it.  I did this  a few times in Joos's book Theoretical Physics  and also  in math. [Differential equations]This idea I also applied to Tosphot. [That is I would review the same Tosphot or same page of Gemara for a few weeks --every day the same material]

But with Tosphot and or the Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik I would usually not get up to exactly forty days.

In any case, for a person  like myself, the forty days in a row I have found helps in understanding what I learn, and also in retaining it. [That is to repeat one whole chapter 40 days in a row.]

Torah with Derech Eretz [the way of the Earth, a vocation and manners] especially Math and Physics. Exactly like the Rambam said [concerning Physics and Metaphysics.]

In the Lekutai Moharan Volume 3 chapter 8 it says on Rosh HaShanah to be in an authentic Litvak yeshiva. That is, at any rate, what the language there implies. That "The same thing that is accomplished on Rosh Hashanah is accomplished by being in a true authentic yeshiva with an authentic rosh yeshiva."

In the absence of such a thing I can understand why people come to Uman. But Reb Nachman did not say to come to his grave on Rosh Hashanah. He said to come to his grave for the ten psalms. He never mentioned Rosh Hashanah in connection with his grave.
And after all what counts as an authentic yeshiva? My own experience with yeshivas was in the red. The minus column was generally longer than the profits.[They are after all human institutions, they are not divine.] And besides that my on parents were heavily into Torah with Derech Eretz [the way of the Earth, a vocation and manners] especially Math and Physics. Exactly like the Rambam said [concerning Physics and Metaphysics.]
The weight of the evidence suggests my parents and the Rambam were right. This results in my four point approach: Gemara, Musar, Math, and Physics. In this case the Math and Physics are part of the service of God--not secular.

I have great respect for the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter and the yeshivas founded on their principles but I also have great and greater respect for my parents as the Torah itself demands and they were certainly worthy of that respect. [I do realize there are parents that do not merit much respect, but that is not relevant in my case.] Plus my own experience  suggests something is a bit off in the yeshiva world, and I am sure I am not alone in this awareness. In fact, the entire religious world seems to be a bit insane. So by theory and by experience, I come to this basic path of Torah, Math, and Physics.

(There is something troubling about the entire religious world but it is hard to put my finger on it--or to see exactly what it is. My parents got out of the problem by simply avoiding it altogether and attending a Reform Temple and sending us brothers to public school. This approach makes sense to me except that I think one needs to learn the Oral and Written Law either at home or in some Litvak yeshiva setting and to keep the Torah. But the world of the religious  is certainly farther from Torah than the Reform. It has some kind of kelipa in it.   )

The State of Israel

Dr Kelley Ross  in his essay on Israel is critical of nationalist principle.
But the Alt Right has resurrected the nationalist principle which seems to make sense to me simply based on human nature [super-organism, social meme, natural hierarchy the pecking order.] This seems to go in a Hegelian direction. And Hegel is difficult. Sometimes he is amazingly enlightening and sometimes amazingly infuriating. Still in any case it looks like  nationalism is important.

The Alt Right [Brett Stevens] has noticed that Theodore Herzl was building the idea of a State of Israel on the concept of nationalism. So nowadays when globalism is an obvious failure it seems logical to go back to nationalism as a founding principle.

[Dr Ross is very supportive of the State of Israel but more from an Enlightenment perspective rather than a nationalist principle.]

The thing that to me this all comes down to is Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle.


The right  however is looking at this more from an ethnic principle while I a thinking more along Howard Bloom's idea of a super-organism based on a social meme--the meme in this case being Law of Moses.[i.e. the Written and Oral Law].

Music for the glory of God

s45 C Major  [this needs editing] s44 E minor Edited I think this new version of s44 is slightly better


s51 D minor 6-8 time