The new war against the Jews

The war against the Jews is not a new phenomena.  We saw it in the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties, We saw it in the sixteen forties, in the fourteen nineties and many times, before, after and in between.  Therefore there is nothing new in the new war against the Jews as it is now forming in the international community.  It is again, trying to isolate the Jews and than rob them of their possessions and lives.

However, based on the long historical experience, there should be a word of warning that most of my readers of both sides of the conflict are destined not to fully understand.

To keep the conversation as neutral as possible, one cannot initially say that the Jews are always right or always wrong and one cannot initially say about their opponents that they are always right or always wrong.  It is possible to find cases in which one can reasonably side with one party or the other.

It is later in the conflict where the propaganda against the Jews reaches a high pitch that one must choose sides.  And most people, being part of their respective, pretty biased cultures, choose to join the war against the Jews.  But, at that point, the right side is clearly the Jews who are now the subject of unreasonable hatred and uncalled for punishment.

It was a Jewish leader, Gold Meir, who once said that "When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons."  The Jews are now being blamed in a fashion that cannot be described in any other way but blood libel (something that the Europeans are good at.  But when we hold this quote to be the truth as it is, one may not avoid the conclusion that the blames against the Jews are unfounded and it is their side anybody who seek justice should choose.

In a poetic way we may describe it this way, every so many years, Satan gets an hold on the world and take it into a celebration of evil, mayhem and destruction, and the sure sign for such an era is when everybody blames the Jews and hates them 

We have to change the conversation

When Boko Haram kidnapped those poor girls, they threatened to SELL them and while all shed crocodile tears about how those poor girls would end in sexual servitude,  nobody was outraged.  But the truth is that there is slavery and there is market for slaves in this day and age, and the West was not outraged enough to decide to nuke the perpetrators out of existence.  There could be three reasons for why the West is so complacent with the situation, and each one of them is worse than the other:

1. The media and all those who influence the public opinion think that slavery is endemic to Africa and the Negros and thus nobody should not care - What a racist approach!

2. The media and all those who influence the public opinion think that slavery is endemic to the Islamic culture, and the Muslims are so powerful and good to do business with - What a short sighted and opportunistic approach!

3. The media and all those who influence the public opinion think that Islam is defined by poor asylum seekers, idealist Jihadists and the killing, persecution and enslavement, are all the acts of some crazy extremists...  This one is sheer stupid, but the media and all those who influence the public opinion condone this way of thought and inflict it on all of us by using '1984' style (*) Newspeak

We have to change the terminology and the conversation:

Instead of speaking about immigration and asylum, we should speak about Islamic-Colonialism!

Instead of speaking about Jihad and the Caliphate, we should speak about Islamic-Imperialism!

Instead of speaking about Boko Haram, we should speak about Islamic Lead Enslavement and Islamic Enslavement policies!

Instead of speaking about persecution of Christians in the Middle East, we should speak about Islamic lead Genocides and Islamic Genocidal Tendencies and Policies!
And instead of speaking about the Shari'a as a religious-legal system, we should speak about the Totalitarian ideology that is Islam and about the Shari'a as the manifestation of this Totalitarianism in this world 

And all of the sudden, we have Nazi Germany in Islamic garb all over again...

And we can't do business with that entity, and we can't risk giving away anybody (whether we like them or not) to that monster.  Such appeasement and complacent policies  failed with Nazi Germany and they would fail with the new Islamo-Nazi monster.

And one more comment, the behavior of ISIL and Boko Haram should show everybody that these people really say what they mean and mean what they say, and thus must be dealt with NOW and we cannot wait until they become even stronger.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) To the uninitiated, 1984 is George Orwell's book that deals with a totalitarian regime that. among other evil things, condone perpetuate war and enslavement with the infamous slogan:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Islamic-Imperialism - Islamic-Colonialism

So let's call the child in real name:

What the Muslims do to Europe and America are nothing but good ol' Colonialism.  They colonize what has been Christian majority countries in order to change the demographics and in the end take over.

What they do in other parts of the world, were people are aware about their end-game and resist them could be called in only one name, Islamo-Imperialism.  They say that they want to renew the Chalphat that was the epitome of the Islamic-Imperialism of  old.  They say what they mean and they mean what they say, exactly as did Hitler in his time... and the rest of us, as usual, we do not learn from history:

http://pkpolitics.com/files/2008/05/liddell-hart-why-dont-we-learn-from-history.PDF

The most surprising to me is Spain, they spent centuries for the effort to get rid of the Islamic-Imperialism, and what do they do now, they tolerate it anew.  Oh Well.

Distribution of Wealth

So here goes

The Pope came with the idea of legitimate redistribution of wealth via governments and the UN.  Obama and his supporters want that for years.  The Europeans go for it and the UN is interested (more power to the world government!)  Now, the elite is not concerned because they can always (as they did throughout history) get away with murder.  The poor, they will get something and continue naving.  It is the middle class that would have to pay and be destroyed through the process

So what could we do?  The usual answer is to use the tax code (or loopholes in it thereof).  The problem  with this method is twofold: a) we depend on the tax code and the ruling regime may change that at will, and b) the middle class does not usually have the means to use the real loopholes - that are preserved therefore for the elite

The idea is to find a solution that does not depend on the tax code but on the economics itself and in the same time distance one from their own wealth so they cannot be taxed, no matter what

In order to implement the idea we must have a rogue country that would provide the connection and benefit from it, but even if that country surrender and provide details about the individuals (as Switzerland did and Lichtenstein and Andorra are pressed to do as well), that country would not be able to provide any useful information.  Indeed, the information should be in the open and known to one and all and still be useless to the wealth distributors.  As you'll see, that country must have and maintain a strict honesty because using the system demand a huge leap of faith and there is no substitution to well maintained and justified reputation

Now, let's specify the idea itself.  One's wealth may not be invested according to one's will and desires.  There must be a total separation between the 'owner' of the wealth and the wealth itself.  A complete legal separation, to the point that the owner does not even have an account on his name.  The only thing that one may point to is a line of credit.  Yes, in essence I call to replace any ownership of wealth into line of credit

So how, you would ask, would that be done?  Pretty simple indeed.  Let's begin from depositing the wealth.  There are two classes of people, sole owners of small businesses and individuals who usually get salary, some investment income, etc.  The first class would contact legitimate businesses located in the aforementioned country and contract them for hefty sums for some consultation or training.  From the business point of view, this would be a legitimate business expense and hopefully (if the current tax code prevails) tax deductible.  The consulting firm, after taking its fee, would pay most of the money as tax, which the government of that country may entrust under its own name to local (global) bank as investment that would be invested in a responsible, conservative and profitable way.  The business who'd spent the money would be mentioned as an entity that spent a big sum, contributing that sum to the local economics, a published and legitimate statistics

Individuals could purchase, perhaps via eBay or Amazon, some perishable, useless and worthless exotic fruit or trendy, equally worthless and perishable product that cost close to nothing to produce and leaves no trace, but the legitimate spending receipt from the merchant.  From here the process above repeats itself, but without the tax benefits, but remember, nobody could blame you (yet) for wasting your own money on your bizarre desires

 Now, this dully published statistics must be known to the actuaries of another company, a credit card, like entity which by its own actuary calculation, using the fact that one has contributed to the economy as a factor (nobody could tell us what should and should not be a legitimate factor in our calculations :) would mark that person as a good credit target and give him (or her) the appropriate line of credit with low interest as such a good customer deserves

Other, useful idiots, could apply for credit as well, but what could we do that the actuaries, missing the factor of contributing to the economics, would give them lower line of credit with higher interest rate and treat them the same as any other credit card company would treat its customers

The line of credit will grow relatively to the contribution (minus loan actually taken and coined as debt) within the growing economics.  If one actually takes a loan, he or she 'has' to return it which, minus the interest   (fees) will go back to the line of credit... really an economical perpetuum mobile

And what happens when one dies.  Well the estate has to return all debts, which in turn decrease the amount of death tax and the inheritors would happily pay.  And then, the line of credit would be distributed among the inheritors... the real distribution of wealth as it was meant to be

And what would happen if the government begin to tax lines of credit as the are destined to do.  Well, on one hand they would shoot their own economy on the foot, and the only modification we have to do is to abolish or lower the published line of credit and leave the other government with only debt to tax... a fit that would kill the local economy indeed
BTW, obviously, I do not call for money laundering.  All money that is transferred must be legitimate and so should the transactions (consultation must be given, merchandise must be delivered, etc.)  If a foreign government presents enough evidence that the holder of a line of credit is a criminal organization, terrorist organization or even a tax cheater or that the money spent was otherwise illegitimate, there must be provisions that should be strictly enforced in accordance with other countries and international law, to freeze any such illegitimate line of credit of any type

קצת הבהרות

הבלוג הקודם היה תגובה לכל שנאת החנם שמטרידה אותי כבר זמן רב, אבל הקש ששבר את גב הגמל היתה תגובתו של רבי ק' לטענותי בנושא המציצה בפה ושמלות אדומות.  הבקר דברתי אתו שוב ובקשתי הבהרות וגם אני הבהרתי את עמדתי (אולי גם לעצמי.)  הבעיה אינה בכך שקבוצות מסוימות קובעות סטנדרטים משוגעים לעצמן!  הבעיה היא כרגיל, שנאת החנם שנובעת מן הסטנדרטים האלו.  בשנים האחרונות אנו רואים קבוצות שמצנזרות את תורת גדולי התורה בדורות קודמים כי פסקי הצדיקים הנ"ל לא מספיק חרדים בשבילם.  [זה כל כך שונה מדורות קודמים שהתוכחו עם קודמיהם תוך כבוד רב, או חפשו דרכים להראות שקודמיהם היו מסכימים אתם לו חיו בזמן הזה].  אנו רואים קבוצות שדוחות קבוצות אחרות כנחותות מהם... בקצור, שנאת חינם.
לא עולה על דעתו של אף אחד מקובעי הסטנדרטים הקיצונים להגיד כי דרכן של קבוצות אחרות, הנוקטות בסטנדרטים פחות מחמירים, גם היא אולי דרך נכונה ויש להן על מי לסמוך, כל עוד שקבוצות אלו מכריזות על דביקותן בכל תורת ישראל.  לא עולה על דעתו של אף אחד מן המצנזרים כי הצנזורה הזו היא חצפה ועזות מצח.  מי אתה, הרב החי כיום, שתעיז למחק את תורתו של החתם סופר או כל אחד אחר מן הדורות הקודמים?!  אתה רוצה להתוכח אתו, זה בסדר, אבל למחק את תורתו?
אלא שהחברה שנוקטת בשטת "דעת תורה" ושהרבנים אינם יכלים לטעות, לא יכלה לפעל אחרת.  מי ששטתו מבוססת על שקר [ולשקר אין רגלים כידוע] לא יכל שלא להגדיל את השקר ולכסות עוד ועוד שטחים כדי ששקרו לא יתגלה!

על רבנים וחסר אחריות

ידוע הספור על "ענותנונו" של רבי זכריה בן אבקולס (בסוף המעשה על קרמצא ובר קמצא) שמנע מרבותינו לעשות מעשה כלשהו ולהציל את בית המקדש והכל לשם שמים ושמירה מדקדקת על ההלכה (גיטין דף נו. עמ' א).  היום אנו נמצאים שוב במצב של שנאת חינם בין חילונים לדתים ובין חרדים מסוג זה לחרדים מסוג אחר וכו'.  והנה רבנינו, במקום לקחת מנהיגות וללחום בשנאת חינם, נכנעים ללחץ של "יתד נאמן" ודומיו מצד אחד ולפסיקות הלכה קצוניות של משוגעים וסופם שיחריבו את עמינו וארצינו לעוד אלפים שנה.

על שלשה פשעי יהודה...

אני כותב את הרשימה הזו בכאב!
ישנן שלש קבוצות בחברה הישראלית שעושות ככל שביכלתן להשמיד את החברה הזו.  בעבר היו אלו קבוצות שולים רעשניות ואחת מהן כבר לא במיוחד חשובה אבל שתי האחרות הן במרכז החברה הישראלית.
החילונים הקיצוניים מיסודה של איזבל אלוני מעדיפים את 'זכויות' ההומואים (איזה כף שאני לא פוליטקאי ואני יכל לקרא לילד בשמו) על יציבות החברה הישראלית או אף על עצם קיומה של החברה הזו.  'זכויות' ההומואים זו רק מטפורה, הם ממציאים 'זכויות' אחרות חדשים לבקרים והכל כדי לעשות רעש, להרג, להשמיד ולאבד.
הדתיים הקיצוניים מיסודם של קטני התורה מצנזרים את כל מה שגדולי הדורות הקודמים אמרו אם זה לא מסכים לדעתם הקטנה.  לדוגמא החתם סופר התיר לסיים ברית מילה עם מציצה על ידי ספוג ובכך פרק את המרעום (defused the land mine) ממוקש נוראי.  אז מה עושים היום, טוענים שזה זיוף (זה לא) ושזו היתה הוראת שעה (בודאי שלא) ומחזירים את המרעום (re-fuse - pun intended) כדי שהמוקש יתפוצץ.  או כשרואים שיש בעית אמת של יהודים למחצה שהגיעו לארץ ורוצים לחזור לעם היהודי אז מסתמכים על דעת יחיד לפסול אותם.  והכל כדי לזכות בנקודות של מי יותר קיצוני ותוך כך להרג, להשמיד ולאבד.  אגב,  לא מדבר רק על צנזורה אלא גם  על שכתוב ההיסטוריה ובכך יש להם על מי להסתמך, על גדולים אמיתיים כמו החפץ חיים  זצ"ל ורב שמעון שוואב זצ"ל שלא ראו את התוצאות האפשריות של האידאולוגיה שלהם.
הקבוצה השלישת כבר עשתה את הנזק שלה ונדחתה על ידי שתי הקבוצות הנ"ל לשולים אבל רצוי להזכיר את המתנחלים שהעדיפו את אבני חברון על יציבות החברה הישראלית כי לדעתם הקב"ה עמנו כלומר הם החזיקו את הקב"ה בכיס ולא ראו כי ההפך הוא הנכון. 

Ideas on how to measure oppressive countries and societies

This is a first and unedited draft.

It is a sad fact that the worse aspects of Socialism (of all parties), their ability to misuse language, to agitate through propaganda and viciously attack their opponents or, worse, their scapegoats, are griping the international arena as well as national and local societies.

Unfortunately, the next generation evil 'ism', the Islamic Fascism, adopted the use of same techniques for their own vicious 'religious' agenda. And make no mistake, the liberals, under the guise of 'science' and 'Separation of State and Church' enforce their own deity-less 'religion' which is not less vicious then the aforementioned.

Liberals took sexual orientation as their cause, muddling the individual possible right to stick with his/her sexual orientation with the 'right' to associate, organize and worse, sanction such orientation as a legitimate socially accepted instead of what it really is - inherent or acquired handicap. All this, disregarding the health of society as a whole.

Not that the other side is so righteous. It is a common phenomenon that highly paid individuals are paid bonuses - that most people understand as rewards for success - even in time of failure. Well, this is a kind of robbery.

The above are but just some of the most visible types of oppression that are common in the world.

In this world where evil is presented as good and good is vilified, it is about time to create a measure for true oppressiveness and to present governments, movements and societies in their true evil light as a counter measure for the liberals' twisted presentation. What I am trying to do here is to give some preliminary basic principles that could be the basis of a comprehensive and cohesive set of rules and measures to test such entities.

The main principle is that the true freedom of the individual must rule supreme, but not at the cost of destabilization of society.

Individual freedoms and rights are only the rights of the individual to do or own something or to prevent government from doing or confiscating something! Never the right of the individual to receive anything or the government to provide it. Entitlements are not freedoms, on the contrary they are type of enslavement (or serfdom) by forcing the individual to receive or, even worse, to provide something, potentially against their will. Moreover, it forces individuals to pay for the entitlements of others, which is another kind of robbery.

However, there is a tendency to create and enforce entitlements on individuals and providers and to enforce religions (e.g. Malaysia and basically most Muslim law countries) even if they are deity-less. Note that in the US for example, education up to a certain age is an entitlement which is misused to coerce the captive recipients and willful (serf) providers to expose or be exposed to the propaganda of the deity-less religion, and to coerce people to pay for it whether they benefit from it, agree with it or not.

Thus the most important right should be the right to opt out of the entitlement or the religion (including the deity-less).

Note that governments are supposed to protect us against robberies, not to either rob us themselves (by funding the entitlements) or side with the robbers (supporting the influential people who take unwarranted bonuses.)

Taxes are a necessary evil! The questions are how high and who is affected. Too high taxes (e.g. Sweden) are a known measure of oppression against the population as a whole or worse, against certain classes or ethnic or religious groups. To add insult to injury, these high taxes are usually used for entitlements of people who are not those that pay the taxes or even are their direct enemies.

Progressive taxes are a direct measure of class warfare and are inherently oppressive.

The best measurement is how equal are the taxes (same percentage for all) and what percentage is the government involvement (taxing and spending) in the GDP. If we impose a minimum threshold for paying taxes, then the question is, are there any safeguards against the poor imposing over-taxation on the non-poor? This question is amplified when there are entitlements for the poor.

Worse then progressive taxes is a new tendency to link a punishment to the individual rather then to the crime (e.g. Finland.) While the current system use same percentage for everybody, the next incarnation would surely be progressive.

Society taboos are not necessarily anti-freedom if they do not prevent upward social mobility of the individual. But the individual must obey these taboos, at least in public. Thus, a cast system that allows for untouchable (e.g. India) should be considered oppressive. Religious taboos and actions should usually be protected, but not when curb the freedom of the adult individual.

Asylum is not a right but a privilege. The state may (or even default to) not giving asylum at all or reserve it to whoever is deemed oppressed by its own standards. Poverty is probably NOT a good enough measurement for granting asylum. Also, one must consider the impact on his/her own society when incompatible ideas trickle in.

There is really no way to formalize all this to a constitution and to protect this constitution against those who would try to corrupt it as we see what is happening in the US toady. What we need to do is to set measurements based on the vague principles above and weigh countries and societies based on these principles. We might be surprised to find Sweden up in the list with Saudi Arabia, but they probably would be very close up there