תבנית של שיחות עם חילונים

החילונים חסידי תנועות כמו מרץ ושינוי טוענים כי הם, החלונים הינם פתוחים ונוקטים בשיטה של חייה ותן לחיות. הם בטוחים שאין כל כפיה חילונית. ניסיתי פעמים רבות להראות להם כי אין הדבר כך וכי יש כפיה חילונית חזקה. המענין הוא כי שיחות אלו נוטות לשאת תבנית קבועה שמובילה להתנתקות חילונית. השיחות הולכות כך
אחרי הפתיחה הרגילה של יש כפיה דתית ואין כפיה חילונית אני טוען כי יש לי דוגמא מוכחת להראות כי אכן יש כפיה חילונית. אני מביא את נסיונה של שולמית אלוני להרחיק את הדתים מן הכלכלה הישראלית על ידי אילוצם לעבד בשבת. התגובה הראשונית של החילונים היא שזה אכן הצעה טובה ונכונה ושאני מפרש אותה לא נכון. אני מסביר כי אכן ההצעה נראית תמימה אבל בהקשר של מדינת ישראל שבה הממשלה מחליטה מי חיב ומי לא חיב לעבד בשבת זו אכן כפיה חילונית
כאן מגיע החלק המענין בתבנית. זה קרה כל כך הרבה פעמים שאני כבר צופה את זה מראש. החילוני אומר לי למה אתם הדתיים נתקעים לדוגמא אחת שקרתה לפני עשרים או עשרים וחמש שנים. אני מסכים ושואל אם כך כמה דוגמאות וכמה קרובות בזמן להיום אני צריך להביא כדי שאוכל להוכיח את טענתי
כאן, בלי שום סטיה מהתבנית, החילונים מנתקים מגע ומסרבים להמשיך בשיחה. הסיבה להתנהגות הזאת לא בדיוק ברורה לי. ההסבר הטוב ביותר שיש לי הוא שהחילונים לא מוכנים להתמודד עם האמת שנביאי זכויות האזרח כביכל הינם לא יותר מרודנים גזעניים בפוטנציה. אני מוכן לקבל סיבות אחרות אם תוצענה

On Linguistics

I happened to stumble upon an interesting book "The origin of the Speeches" which takes a very non-Darwinistic and non-Linguistic approach to the research on the subject of the origin of languages. The author, being non-Linguist and not Eurocentric, brings a huge amount of examples that show how many languages of totally different language families share many basic root words (based on sound) and attribute the origin of all languages to a Semitic like language, close to the Biblical Hebrew.
I've discussed that theory with a friend who is a Linguist by trade (PhD in Linguistics.) That honest man listened to the arguments and began to bring counter arguments. At a certain moment I've asked, OK, let's dismiss any questionable method that the author is using, we are still left with a lot of examples. In that case how many examples would constitute a statistical proof? If we want to know the answer for that question, we should go to a Statistician who would consider all factors, like the number of languages involved in our samples, the number of words, etc. and we could come with a scientifically acceptable sample size that would establish a reasonable enough statistical fact.
To my surprise, the linguist said that for some reasons that he could not remember at the time, Linguistics deny the usage of Statistics in many cases, including that type of cases. Imagine that, there is a discipline which is by itself extremely speculative, that envision itself above all other sciences and on principle, would not accept regular established scientific methods to prove or disprove its theories. It would allow usage of Statistics only in a very narrow range that would not allow disproving the basis of that discipline itself. We are dealing with a group of people who call themselves scientists but they are above any other science (I have not heard before of any science that would intentionally limit the use of Statistics and would a-priori not accept any statistical prove if it oppose their speculations.)
To me, it's audacity in the highest form. I do not care whether the theory that was presented in the book that has initiated the conversation is correct or not. Really, who knows? I did not go to a statistician to check it. What bothers me is that no matter what, the Linguists would deny any attempt to a different approach on the circular argument that any such approach is wrong because... it is not their approach.
But coming to think about it and remembering who is the persona behind that science , one name Noam Chomsky, a virulent Communist, we could understand that all he does is to apply the tyrannical methods of the old Communist party to science. And the scientific truth, intellectual freedom and creativity... who needs them when Communism, Stalin and Chomsky's style is in control.

On writing histories

This blog post started as a little argument in my local shul email chat group, but since it summarize my position about expressing the truth, I’d like to repeat it here. What initiated it was one of those standard comments that the truth does not give us the license to be mean (posted by my friend Rabbi R.) To that I responded:

It is true that the truth does not give us a license to be mean, but it Is also true that if we avoid telling the truth then two bad things will eventually happen:
1. Somebody else, more sinister, will tell their own version of the Truth and our next generation will not know enough to fence against it. And...
2. Our next generation will not have even a slight chance to avoid the previous generation's mistakes because they won't know about those mistakes altogether (assuming that there are some rare individuals who actually do learn from history...)
Actually, the teaching of the Chofetz Chaim and Rabbi Schwab, both Ztz"l, directly lead to the phenomenon of the CIS books in which the children are told stories about some never-existed characters; stories that are portrayed to be accurate accounts of real, previous generations Rabbis. Children who are exposed to that THING(*), either have a much distorted picture of the world, or if they are somewhat smarter, reject these books as, hmmm, THING(*). (Some of Rabbi Schwab's article, including the one in which he recommend to never write histories, have been published by CIS.)
Now, in order to avoid Loshon Hara', I should have not say anything About that type of literature and allow it to continue without protesting it, or should I?

Comments:
There was once a very smart man, even though he was a Rasha' (so I won't tell you his name). This man had said that the truth is indeed indivisible but on the other hand one can add, subtract and multiply it!

(*) I would've liked to call it by what it is, but I do not want to Cross over to direct Loshon Hara. My daughter was introduced to these books at the age of 8 or 9 and she had rejected them after the first one, using the "g" word.

Rabbi R. responded:

Rabbi Schwab strongly objected to any perversion of the truth - and therefore I think WADR that you are completely missing his point.
Rav Shcwab did NOT want polished history, instead he suggested inspirational stories. Maybe he meant as fiction or just perhaps stories without going into all the negative aspects. in no way did he suggest re-writing history - aderabbah he suggested that NO history is a better idea.

My response:

No, I did not miss the point of Rav Schwab's opinion, I just happen to be a practical person.
I understand that Rabbi Schwab had dreamt the impossible; however, the practical result of his ideology in this world IS the phenomenon of CIS books. I do not, Has Ve-Halila imply that Rabbi Schwab would ever endorse anything but either the truth or explicitly stated inspirational stories.
However, the CIS books are neither of those possibilities. They are fairy tales that are implicitly presented as the truth. In other words they are a distortion of the truth!
The ideology of preventing Loshon Hora' by all costs is indeed, morally better then the practice of saying Loshon Hora'! But, the practical results of that ideology, when taken to its extreme, might be worse!

Globalization - The destruction of the Middle Class

The globalization of the world economics signals the destruction of the middle class in the West. The middle class with its high salaries and expensive benefits is very costly and stand in the way of the ruling oligarchies for obtaining more maney and power. It is easier and in the short term more benefitial, to kill that class (and benefit from robing the remains) then truly protecting it. Also the economies of the west are much more expensive then those of the third world and getting rid of the middle class would make the west economies less expensive and more competitive while making the oligarchy richer and more powerfull.
For the long run, countries without middle class are countries without social skeleton. Such countries are weaker then their rivals. In other words they are third world countries.
There is a new middle class forming in countries with chipper economies such as India and China. Once that middle class is strong enough, these countries will become the new powers of the world and will colonize the weaker countries of the West.

האסלם - הפתרון החדש לבעיות העולם

קראתי בסי.אן.אן ציטוט מפי אחד מראשי המיליציה האיסלמית שמשתלטת ברגעים אלו ממש על סומליה. בציטוט אמר האיש דבר פשוט. הסוציאליזם נכשל, הדמוקרטיה בדרך לכשלון, לא נותר אלא לנסות את האיסלם. בעצם הוא צודק. האיסלם, לפחות בצורתו הנוכחית, הינו אכן אידאולוגיה מקבילה לסוציאליזם (ולאחיו הפשיזם) . כמותן, זוהי אידאולוגיה מדכאת, דורסנית ואכזרית. אידאולוגיה שאינה יכלה ליצר, רק להרוס