Search Results for: popular

‘Eleven Stars’

Let’s hear it for 3×4=11

Mac Slavo, a lousy rotten twelveist (see below) wrote this horrid contribution to LRC:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/mac-slavo/3-x-4-11/. In it he made fun of that nice young woman teacher who was defending 3×4=11. Well, I have this to say about that reprobate, Slavo:

Here’s my “reasoning” as to why 3×4=11:

The number twelve is more popular than the number 11. This is unfair. We have to give equal opportunity to the number 11; we have to have affirmative action for it. This number 11 has long been discriminated against compared to 12. Twelve is divisible by all sorts of other numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12. How many numbers is 11 divisible by? Just 1 and 11.  Twelve equals a dozen. Where is the equivalent for eleven? Nowhere, that’s where. Even the number 13 has an appellation: a baker’s dozen. Eleven, as usual, is left out in the cold. The poverty and unemployment rate for 11 is much higher than that for 12. Too many 11s are in jail. A disproportionate number (so to speak) of them.

This is an injustice that cries out to the heavens for redress. We have to close this unwarranted “gap” between 11 and 12. How best to do this? I’m not sure. But one way is to demand that 3×4=11! All those who oppose this modest proposal are lousy rotten twelveists. The number 11 is downtrodden by white males, mainly. 3×4=12 is just a white male hetero plot. We must overthrow this imperialism!

Mac, it’s people like you, you pig, who are the enemy of liberal progressives. No, wait, I take that back. That would be an insult to pigs. Who cares about bridges and planes; about physics and engineering. Only white male heteros. Not I, not I. My only interest is in human (well, number) rights.

It is at this point the Lew usually insists that I say this is all a joke; that I don’t mean any of this. But, this time, I refuse. I meant every word (well, number) mentioned above. Long live the number 11. Down with number 12 (if we subtract 7 from 12, we’ll get 11).

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

The United States Government Created Islamic State

How We Know ISIS was ‘MADE IN THE USA

By

August 20, 2016

Judicial Watch proved it. Under a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch was able to obtain a (heavily redacted) copy of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) directive that initiated the creation of ISIS in 2012. the DIA report states, 

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION . . . [SUPPORT] ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA . . . IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME . . .”. 

Not even Judicial Watch seems to have appreciated the significance of this document, where its press release focused on the Benghazi attack. Recent releases of Hillary’s emails, moreover, confirm that taking out Assad has nothing to do with his alleged abuse of the Syrian people but because it will help Israel.

Just in case it has slipped anyone’s mind, Hillary was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Barack was inaugurated in 2008 and steps down in 2016. It happened on their watch. It could not have happened without their approval. They really did create ISIS!

The chemical attacks on Syrian citizens on 21 August 2013 was meant to justify lobbing cruise missiles into Syria. Obama was ready, but Americans were not. And when the ploy was debunked by a 50-page dossier the Russians provided to the UN, they resorted to “Plan B”, which was the creation of ISIS by the DIA.

The chemical weapons are widely believed to have been provided to the “rebels” by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, to whom the Bush family refers as “Bandar Bush”. But recent releases of Hillary’s emails suggest that she was directing the transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria and chemical weapons may have been among them.

The Benghazi attack appears to have been initiated because Ambassador Christ Stevens was concerned that some of the weapons being sent to Syria could be used against the civilian population. The Obama administration has stonewalled inquiries as to whether Benghazi had anything to do with transferring weapons to the rebels. That means “Yes!”

The signs have been there right along the way, but the media has not been reporting them. Here are some of the facts reported in a recent study about ISIS:

* On 23 February 2015, *FARS* reported that the (much maligned) Iraqi Army had downed 2 UK cargo planes carrying weapons for ISIS, which was among the first signs that things were not as the world was being told by Western—and especially US—news sources.

* On 1 March 2015, *FARS* reported that Iraqi popular forces are known as “Al-Hashad Al-Shabi” shot down a US helicopter carrying weapons for ISIL in Al-Anbar province of which they had photographs.

* On 10 April 2015, *Press TV* reported that, in response to a request by Syrian that ISIL be named a terrorist organization, the US, Britain, France, and Jordan refused, which was rather baffling on its face.

* Photographs were appearing contemporaneously showing ISIS members sporting “US Army” tattoos, which the American media has yet to acknowledge. Confirm this for yourself by searching for “ISIS members sporting US Army tattoos” online.

* On 19 May 2015, Brad Hoof of levantreport.com, “2012 Defense intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State ‘in order to isolate the Syrian regime”, based upon the release of a selection of formerly classified documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the US Department of Defense and Department of State.

* On 22 June 2015, ex-CIA contractor, Steven Kelley, explained the US “created ISIL for sake of Israel” and to have a “never-ending war” in the Middle East, which would make the countries there “unable to stand up to Israel” and to provide “the constant flow of orders for weapons from the military-industrial complex at home, which is feeding a lot of money to the senators pushing for these wars”.

There’s more–a lot more, including photographs of Sen. John McCain with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. You can find dozens of them on the internet. In Washington, ISIS is widely known as “John McCain’s army”. So what’s wrong with a candidate for president making the point that his opponent and her most prominent support actually created ISIS?  Trump is right.

Reference:

http://www.iranreview.org/cont ent/Documents/How-We-Know-ISIS -Was-MADE-IN-THE-USA-.htm

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

How Should the Sanhedrin Save Lives?

In Leshichno Tidreshu the Steipler is quoted as saying the number of traffic accidents is outrageous. If there were a Sanhedrin today, he goes on, they would forbid using cars entirely.

The important point here is that road tragedies are not the way of the world.

I have a different idea to reduce traffic accidents: desocialize the roads. That way someone has the incentive to protect customers. See more about this in The Privatization of Roads and Highways. How about we try my idea first?

See the first Mishna in Shekalim that Beis Din must fix broken roads…

Related: Someone once asked Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (during an Arab popular uprising, or “Intifada”) whether Israel was deemed a “Makom sakana” (a dangerous place) one must leave. Rabbi Elyashiv said: when the number of dead matches the number who die in traffic accidents, God forbid, then Israel will be a “Makom sakana”. (It never even got close.)

Democracy – The Downward Spiral

What the doctrine of balancing budgets over a period of many years really means is this: As long as our own party is in office, we will enhance our popularity by reckless spending. We do not want to annoy our friends by cutting down expenditure. We want the voters to feel happy under the artificial short-lived prosperity which the easy money policy and rich supply of additional money generate. Later, when our adversaries will be in office, the inevitable consequence of our expansionist policy, viz., depression, will appear. Then we shall blame them for the disaster and assail them for their failure to balance the budget properly.

It is very unlikely that the practice of deficit spending will be abandoned in the not too distant future. As a fiscal policy it is very convenient to inept governments. It is passionately advocated by hosts of pseudo‑economists. It is praised at the universities as the most beneficial expedient of “unorthodox,” really “progressive” and “anti‑fascist” methods of public finance. A radical change of ideologies would be required to restore the prestige of sound fiscal procedures, today decried as “orthodox” and “reactionary.”

Such an overthrow of an almost universally accepted doc trine is unlikely to occur as long as the living generation of professors and politicians has not passed away. The present writer, having for more than forty years uncompromisingly fought against all varieties of credit expansion and inflation, is forced sadly to admit that the prospects for a speedy return to sound management of monetary affairs are rather thin. A realistic evaluation of the state of public opinion, the doctrines taught at the universities and the mentality of politicians and pressure groups must show us that the inflationist tendencies will prevail for many years.

Mussar Is Mushy

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA – PINCHAS

Here are excerpts of a representative Mussar homily interspersed with comments. This is a good example of the sort of mushy thinking found in Mussar.

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables[1].” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people[2]? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago – that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash – this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people – that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah – that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’[3].

This article is a great example of the intellectual dishonesty of Mussar literature. The strongest characteristic of Mussar is probably maliciously poor attention to the text. Had Chazal said “were not osek beTorah”, I would agree perhaps Moshe’s sons learned Torah but did not teach. But anyone familiar with “Talmudese” realizes that “sitting” means refraining from learning at all, as in the prohibition of forgetting one’s learning through “עד שישב ויסירם מליבו”.

Another mark of our age is the refusal to entertain any thought insufficiently complimentary of a Jewish hero. Since the writer compares only to himself, he cannot accept the fact that Moshe might not have known about his sons’ true situation. The “nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua” is simple. It’s Kal Vachomer (minor ad major). Moshe’s sons did not help teach; they did not even learn. Yehoshua, by contrast, not only taught himself Torah but also helped teach it.

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation[4], however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it – it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah – the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children[5]. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

How typical of our Brisk-infested world. One quotes Chazal only via Rambam…

…

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah – his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

Actually, the whole discussion is silly. Moshe was only referring to dynastic political leadership, equivalent to a Shofet. There is no amorphous “Torah leadership”, the concept of which began with the politics of Agudas Yisrael and like precedents. The head of the Sanhedrin is chosen by merit alone, not mere inheritance, so God does not “appoint” them. For example, Yiftach was a Shofet, at the same time Pinchas was head of the Sanhedrin. (And yes, that specific example is meant to destroy a popular canard of Appeal to Authority.)

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah – it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.

As usual, Mussar invents ridiculous principles like “between man and himself” and corrupts the mind with vapid verbose “helps develop our appreciation of…” Blah blah. What’s the difference between Mussar and secular psychology? There isn’t any!

[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14.
[2] This question is asked by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita, Divrei Aggada, p.319.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See his continuation in Divrei Aggada, p.319-20 where he elaborates on the necessity to share one’s Torah with those who are distant from the true path. We also learn from his explanation that the ability and willingness to share Torah with others is a key trait in determining an effective leader.

[5] The Mishna in Avos, 1:1 tells us that we must “establish many students.” The Tiferes Yisroel writes that it is not enough to merely teach one’s own children but one must teach other Jews as well.

…

Mussar has nothing in common with Judaism. Whenever you come across Mussar literature, ask yourself this: Can you take the author’s words alone (without the Jewish sources meant to grant them legitimacy), and picture them being spoken by a Cursedian Galach (“priest”) in his house of idol worship?

The original article was shortened, but you can see the rest in the link.