Marx Was Right: Universal Suffrage = Soft Communism!

Marx, in his “On the Jewish Question” (1843):

“Is not private property abolished in idea if the non-property owner has become legislator for the property owner? The property qualification for the suffrage is the last political form of giving recognition to private property.”

(I suggest reading the source for more context.)

Hans Hoppe (perhaps as an ex-Marxist?) took this insight seriously. We have written about his proposed transition plan to the natural order earlier here.

See especially the Shulchan Aruch (ruling that only property-owners get a vote).

Temple Denialism by the United Nations Is All OUR FAULT

People love looking forward to something; a vacation, the Super Bowl, or the day their kids (finally) leave for sleepaway camp. Everyone has their own list… but what about the world. Yes, the world. What should the world be looking forward to?

The Midrash teaches (Midrash Rabbah, Ba’Midbar 1) that “if the nations of the world realized the value of the Bet Ha’Mikdash to all of humanity, they would surround it with their armies and guard it for the Jews!”

In the book of Yeshayahu, there is an incredible prophecy; (Chapter 56, verse 7) “My House will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” We say this passuk many times a year, before the beautiful prayer of “Shema Kolenu”. We are stating, in very clear words, that the awesome place we want rebuilt – the holy Bet Ha’Mikdash – is not only for the Jewish nation… but for the entire world as well!

This is (or should be) the #1 item on “The world’s wish list” … for the Jews to return home and build the 3rd and final Temple in Jerusalem. There’s only one problem. Not only is this not item #1, the world is doing everything they can to make sure it does not happen at all.

Let me tell you about something that happened just 2 months ago. If not for Covid, this would have been the biggest story in the news. Unfortunately, it was not reported in any major media outlet – on both sides of the political spectrum. Sorry, but we can’t just blame this on CNN or Whoopi Goldberg.

The United Nations held a special vote on December 1, 2021, and here are the results: 129 countries voted that Israel does not have any ties to the Temple Mount. Those same 129 countries affirmed that the Temple Mount is to be recognized only by its Muslim name, al-Haram al-Sharif. Obviously, those 129 countries failed history class because Islam was founded in the 7th Century – and the first Bet Ha’Mikdash was built 1,400 years before that – but, as they say, don’t confuse me with the facts.

In case you are interested; who voted against this resolution that rewrites history? 11 countries including USA, Hungary and the Czech Republic… and who abstained? 31 countries including the United Kingdom, Kenya and Ukraine. (By the way, everyone’s new best friend – and the one with the most exciting glatt kosher, mehadrin, kitniyot free Pesach program – the United Arab Emirates – voted in support of this bill. But I thought they loved us?? I’m so confused…)

Now comes the important part of this article: Who do we blame? Whose fault is it that 129 countries voted this way? Allow me to be very clear with my answer; I don’t blame any of the 129 countries. How can Bangladesh and South Africa feel that the Temple Mount is an integral part of the Jewish Nation… if most of the Jewish Nation doesn’t feel that way? 70% of American Jews have never been to Israel even once in their life and have no desire to do so… so what do we expect from Cuba and Japan?

But let’s talk about the 30% who do come to Israel. Ask them what is the #1 holiest site in Israel today and I guarantee you that 98% will say “the Kotel”. Why is that? Why won’t we admit that the “Makom Ha’Mikdash” – the place of the Temple – is the holiest, most special place for Jews… and all of mankind? Don’t misunderstand me. I am not getting into the discussion of going up to Har Ha’Bayit or not. I’m simply trying to understand why this awesome place, described in our holy books as “where Heaven kisses earth” is not on most Jew’s radar.

What happens within 24 hours of landing in Israel? You rush to the Kotel, then Café Rimon in Mamilla. After that it’s Machane Yehuda and Mea Shearim for some shopping, Aroma for coffee, back to the Kotel and then Papagaio for dinner. How many times have you stopped, looked at the desecration on the Temple Mount, and shed a tear? Do you think mourning over the destruction of the Bet Ha’Mikdash is limited just to Tisha b’Av? I have no problem with davening at the Kotel but at least feel bad that you are in the garden and not in the palace.

The 129 countries of the world want you to remain in the garden. They want to disconnect you from your most cherished and special place. They want you to forget about it and simply sing it as a song; “Next Year in Jerusalem…” Unfortunately, many of us have already done this and while we wouldn’t actively vote with Iran or Indonesia, our actions tell a different story.

Dearest friends: stop blaming the world and start realizing that it’s all about us. How do we feel about Har Ha’Bayit? How connected are we to the Makom Ha’Mikdash? How many of us can look at a drawing of the Bet Ha’Mikdash and correctly identify many of the areas? We are now reading the Torah portions that deal with the Mishkan – which is a miniature Bet Ha’Mikdash – and its vital we make those Torah portions real.

Don’t let the 129 countries of the world win. Focus on the Bet Ha’Mikdash and make sure you understand the connection between our Nation, our future, our destiny, and this great and awesome place. And most importantly of all, don’t just sing about it… make sure you live it as well!

Am Yisrael Chai!

Of Lower East Side Jews

From “The Poor In Great Cities: The Problems And What Is Doing To Solve Them“, copyright 1892 by reformist journalist Jacob A. Riis (author of “How the Other Half Lives“):

The Italian who comes here gravitates naturally to the oldest and most dilapidated tenements in search of cheap rents, which he doesn’t find. The Jew has another plan, characteristic of the man. He seeks out the biggest ones and makes the rent come within his means by taking in boarders, “sweating” his flat to the point of police intervention. That that point is a long way beyond human decency, let alone comfort, an instance from Ludlow Street, that came to my notice while writing this, quite clearly demonstrates. The offender was a tailor, who lived with his wife, two children, and two boarders in two rooms on the top floor. [It is always the top floor; in fifteen years of active service as a police reporter I have had to climb to the top floor five times for every one my business was further down, irrespective of where the tenement was or what kind of people lived in it. Crime, suicide, and police business generally seem to bear the same relation to the stairs in a tenement that they bear to poverty itself. The more stairs the more trouble. The deepest poverty is at home in the attic.] But this tailor; with his immediate household, including the boarders, he occupied the larger of the two rooms. The other, a bedroom eight feet square, he sublet to a second tailor and his wife; which couple, following his example as their opportunities allowed, divided the bedroom in two by hanging a curtain in the middle, took one-half for themselves and let the other half to still another tailor with a wife and child. A midnight inspection by the sanitary police was followed by the arrest of the housekeeper and the original tailor, and they were fined or warned in the police-court, I forget which. It doesn’t much matter. That the real point was missed was shown by the appearance of the owner of the house, a woman, at Sanitary Headquarters, on the day following, with the charge against the policeman that he was robbing her of her tenants.

The story of inhuman packing of human swarms, of bitter poverty, of landlord greed, of sweater slavery, of darkness and squalor and misery, which these tenements have to tell, is equalled, I suppose, nowhere in a civilized land. Despite the prevalence of the boarder, who is usually a married man, come over alone the better to be able to prepare the way for the family, the census shows that fifty-four per cent of the entire population of immigrant Jews were children, or under age. Every steamer has added to their number since, and judging from the sights one sees daily in the office of the United Hebrew Charities, and from the general appearance of Ludlow Street, the proportion of children has suffered no decrease. Let the reader who would know for himself what they are like, and what their chances are, take that street some evening from Hester Street down and observe what he sees going on there. Not that it is the only place where he can find them. The census I spoke of embraced forty-five streets in the Seventh, Tenth, and Thirteenth Wards. But at that end of Ludlow Street the tenements are taller and the crowds always denser than anywhere else. Let him watch the little pedlars hawking their shoe-strings, their matches, and their penny paper-pads, with the restless energy that seems so strangely out of proportion to the reward it reaps; the half-grown children staggering under heavy bundles of clothes from the sweater’s shop; the ragamuffins at their fretful play, play yet, discouraged though it be by the nasty surroundings—thank goodness, every year brings its Passover with the scrubbing brigade to Ludlow Street, and the dirt is shifted from the houses to the streets once anyhow; if it does find its way back, something may be lost on the way—the crowding, the pushing for elbow-room, the wails of bruised babies that keep falling down-stairs, or rolling off the stoop, and the raids of angry mothers swooping down upon their offspring and distributing thumps right and left to pay for the bruises, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Whose eye, whose tooth, is of less account in Jewtown than that the capital put out bears lawful interest in kind. What kind of interest may society some day expect to reap from Ghettos like these, where even the sunny temper of childhood is soured by want and woe, or smothered in filth? It is a long time since I have heard a good honest laugh, a child’s gleeful shout, in Ludlow Street. Angry cries, jeers, enough. They are as much part of the place as the dirty pavements; but joyous, honest laughs, like soap and water, are at a premium there.

But children laugh because they are happy. They are not happy in Ludlow Street. Nobody is except the landlord. Why should they be? Born to toil and trouble, they claim their heritage early and part with it late. There is even less time than there is room for play in Jewtown, good reason why the quality of the play is poor. There is work for the weakest hands, a step for the smallest feet in the vast tread-mill of these East Side homes. A thing is worth there what it will bring. All other considerations, ambitions, desires, yield to that. Education pays as an investment, and therefore the child is sent to school. The moment his immediate value as a worker overbalances the gain in prospect by keeping him at his books, he goes to the shop. The testimony of Jewish observers, who have had quite unusual opportunities for judging, is that the average age at which these children leave school for good is rather below twelve than beyond it, by which time their work at home, helping their parents, has qualified them to earn wages that will more than pay for their keep. They are certainly on the safe side in their reckoning, if the children are not. The legal age for shop employment is fourteen. On my visits among the homes workshops, and evening schools of Jewtown, I was always struck by the number of diminutive wage-earners who were invariably “just fourteen.” It was clearly not the child which the tenement had dwarfed in their case, but the memory or the moral sense of the parents.

If, indeed, the shop were an exchange for the home; if the child quit the one upon entering the other, there might be little objection to make; but too often they are two names for the same thing; where they are not, the shop is probably preferable, bad as that may be. When, in the midnight hour, the noise of the sewing-machine was stilled at last, I have gone the rounds of Ludlow and Hester and Essex Streets among the poorest of the Russian Jews, with the sanitary police, and counted often four, five, and even six of the little ones in a single bed, sometimes a shake-down on the hard floor, often a pile of half-finished clothing brought home from the sweater, in the stuffy rooms of their tenements. In one I visited very lately, the only bed was occupied by the entire family lying lengthwise and crosswise, literally in layers, three children at the feet, all except a boy of ten or twelve, for whom there was no room. He slept with his clothes on to keep him warm, in a pile of rags just inside the door. It seemed to me impossible that families of children could be raised at all in such dens as I had my daily and nightly walks in. And yet the vital statistics and all close observation agree in allotting to these Jews even an unusual degree of good health. The records of the Sanitary Bureau show that while the Italians have the highest death-rate, the mortality in the lower part of the Tenth Ward, of which Ludlow Street is the heart and type, is the lowest in the city. Even the baby death-rate is very low. But for the fact that the ravages of diphtheria, croup, and measles run up the record in the houses occupied entirely by tailors—in other words, in the sweater district, where contagion always runs riot — the Tenth Ward would seem to be the healthiest spot in the city, as well as the dirtiest and the most crowded. The temperate habits of the Jew and his freedom from enfeebling vices generally must account for this, along with his marvellous vitality. I cannot now recall ever having known a Jewish drunkard. On the other hand, I have never come across a Prohibitionist among them. The absence of the one renders the other superfluous

Whatever the effect upon the physical health of the children, it cannot be otherwise, of course, than that such conditions should corrupt their morals. I have the authority of a distinguished rabbi, whose field and daily walk are among the poorest of his people, to support me in the statement that the moral tone of the young girls is distinctly lower than it was. The entire absence of privacy in their homes and the foul contact of the sweaters’ shops, where men and women work side by side from morning till night, scarcely half clad in the hot summer weather, does for the girls what the street completes in the boy. But for the patriarchal family life of the Jew that is his strongest virtue, their ruin would long since have been complete. It is that which pilots him safely through shoals upon which the Gentile would have been inevitably wrecked. It is that which keeps the almshouse from casting its shadow over Ludlow Street to add to its gloom. It is the one quality which redeems, and on the Sabbath eve when he gathers his household about his board, scant though the fare be, dignifies the darkest slum of Jewtown.

How strong is this attachment to home and kindred that makes the Jew cling to the humblest hearth and gather his children and his children’s children about it, though grinding poverty leave them only a bare crust to share, I saw in the case of little Jette Brodsky, who strayed away from her own door, looking for her papa. They were strangers and ignorant and poor, so that weeks went by before they could make their loss known and get a hearing, and meanwhile Jette, who had been picked up and taken to Police Headquarters, had been hidden away in an asylum, given another name when nobody came to claim her, and had been quite forgotten. But in the two years that passed before she was found at last, her empty chair stood ever by her father’s, at the family board, and no Sabbath eve but heard his prayer for the restoration of their lost one. It happened once that I came in on a Friday evening at the breaking of bread, just as the four candles upon the table had been lit with the Sabbath blessing upon the home and all it sheltered. Their light fell on little else than empty plates and anxious faces; but in the patriarchal host who arose and bade the guest welcome with a dignity a king might have envied I recognized with difficulty the humble pedlar I had known only from the street and from the police office, where he hardly ventured beyond the door.

But the tenement that has power to turn purest gold to dross digs a pit for the Jew even through this virtue that has been his shield against its power for evil. In its atmosphere it turns too often to a curse by helping to crowd his lodgings, already overflowing, beyond the point of official forbearance. Then follow orders to “reduce” the number of tenants that mean increased rent, which the family cannot pay, or the breaking up of the home. An appeal to avert such a calamity came to the Board of Health recently from one of the refugee tenements. The tenant was a man with a houseful of children, too full for the official scale as applied to the flat, and his plea was backed by the influence of his only friend in need—the family undertaker. There was something so cruelly suggestive in the idea that the laugh it raised died without an echo.

Here, then, are conditions as unfavorable to the satisfactory, even safe, development of child life in the chief American city, as could well be imagined, more unfavorable even than with the Bohemians, who have at least their faith in common with us, if safety lies in the merging through the rising generation of the discordant elements into a common harmony. A community set apart, set sharply against the rest in every clashing interest, social and industrial; foreign in language, in faith, and in tradition; repaying dislike with distrust; expanding under the new relief from oppression in the unpopular qualities of greed and contentiousness fostered by ages of tyranny unresistingly borne. But what says the record of this? That of the sixty thousand children, including the fifteen thousand young men and women over fourteen who earn a large share of the money that pays for rent and food, and the twenty-three thousand toddlers under six years, fully one-third go to school. Deducting the two extremes, little more than a thousand children of between six and fourteen years, that is, of school age, were put down as receiving no instruction at the time the census was taken; nor is it at all likely that this condition was permanent in the case of the greater number of these. The poorest Hebrew knows — the poorer he is, the better he knows it — that knowledge is power, and power as the means of getting on in the world that has spurned him so long, is what his soul yearns for. He lets no opportunity slip to obtain it. Day and night-schools are crowded with his children, who learn rapidly and with ease. Every synagogue, every second rear tenement or dark back-yard, has its school and its school-master, with his scourge to intercept those who might otherwise escape. In the census there are put down 251 Jewish teachers as living in these tenements, nearly all of whom probably conduct such schools, so that, as the children form always more than one-half of the population in the Jewish quarter, the evidence is, after all, that even here, with the tremendous inpour of a destitute, ignorant people, the cause of progress along the safe line is holding its own.

See the rest here (especially the comparison to the non-Jews)…

(Of course, there is much to criticize in the economic understanding of the author. Thomas Sowell hinted at this. And I left out some of the bad bits.)