CRAZY? Why I’m Considering Voting for Ahmed Tibi and the Arabs

As you may know, now that Feiglin is out for this round at least, I have no one to vote for. I originally considered not voting at all and going to the anti-Zionist Satmars and collecting $100 for not voting, but someone just proposed a radical, crazy idea that is interesting enough to work, theoretically if not practically.

The idea was proposed to me by a Feiglin activist who has a group going around on Facebook for it. I don’t think it will actually work because there aren’t many disenfranchised people like myself with the disdain for all parties and the State itself to do it. Even I am creeped out by the thought of putting in a petek for Tibi, Zoabi, Zahalka, Sarsur and company. Kal Vachomer (a fortiori) someone who loves the State. Not many will do this, though it would be pretty cool if they did.

In order to be able to do something like this, you have to start with the extreme case and extrapolate from there. The extreme case is that every vote is cast for Arabs, and they win all 120 seats. What happens then? What happens is the Jewish population completely ignores the results of the vote and the whole system is changed in a 180 degree turn. All Zionist party (defined very loosely from Meretz to Kahanists) heads will have to resign in embarrassment. Political revolution.

So then what happens if Arabs get, say, 40 seats? And how can that happen?

Here is a conversation we had on Facebook about it. She explains it better than I can.

Me: What is the reshima meshutefet?
Me: Oh, the arabs. I have no problem with that, but I don’t think you can convince a lot of people
Her: Yes. When I point out that they’re united for the first time, in an election that will have the lowest turnout, and that they usually vote 50% of the Jewish percentage, but now they have reason for aspiration & hope & change, and if they double our vote percentage and come out 80% to vote they can get 40 mandates, and nothing’s stopping them: I get 1,001 answers why it’ll fail and they’ll break apart and they won’t be able to form any coalition … basically that it doesn’t matter.Her: But when I say vote Joint List: It’s the ultimate protest, new elections will be held in 90 days, all party heads will have to resign permanently, the arabs won’t succeed in joining a second time, they’ll be exposed as patsies, the establishment will come down hard yo make provisions that it will not and cannot ever happen again, but most importantly: the message will go out to every Knesset member “You are not wanted! Go home and don’t come back!” It’s the greatest form of protest/political upheaval the country will ever see. You know what they say?

“The risks are to great.”

Me: hehe…I was going to take the $100 from the Satmar but voting arabs is not a bad idea
Me: I like the idea
Me: maybe I’ll do it, I‘m one of the few you’d be able to sway though, I fear
Her: … I know this can change the political scene forever, if we can get just 10% of disenfranchised Jews (between those who are going to throw away their votes – more than ever – and those who wouldn’t otherwise vote) each vote is worth 1,000 Jews protesting in the street. If 200 votes for the Joint List (arabs) come out of Kiryat Arba, 50 votes from Kochav haShachar, 500 votes from Hiryzeliya … politics here will never be the same.Why, if there are 1,001 reasons that there’s “nothing to fear” from the Arabs getting 40 mandates on their own” – why are people so afraid?!

I’m protesting on March 17, and I’m voting for the Arab Block.

Bibi, Buji, marionettes of the Elite “old money” who have their own personas but aren’t allowed to make any substantial change, and their lackies who line up behind them in their respective parties to play their roles and make sure the people do not count, it’s over, go home, you don’t represent anyone, if I don’t vote or vote for Green Leaf no one cares, but if they lose to “the Arabs” with the help of the disenfranchised Jewish vote, oh ho, they’ll notice! And nothing will ever be the same!

Sounds nuts eh? I’m thinking about it. What say you?


The meaning of “Devaluing a Currency” – Gold Versus the Euro

Stream of consciousness ahead…

The world right now is a disturbingly long and intricate wall of dominoes. The Greek domino is teetering.

Thinking about the structure of the whole Eurozone project. 13 countries in Europe come together to share a single currency. A single fiat, unbacked, paper currency. It sounds all wonderful and Kumbaya, no? Europe, which for hundreds of years did nothing but slaughter itself in war after war after war, is now coming together to share a currency. It must be heaven on Earth, or that’s what they thought when they set the thing up.

Thinking about this just now, a gold light went off in my head. As often happens in this head of mine. If a shared currency is such an idyll, and indeed there are economic advantages, then bloody hell why not gold, or silver, or something real? We all know what would happen at such a suggestion. The MSM and the econometricians will all bark like wild dogs about how insane the idea is, the barbarous relic etc., the evils of gold and the dangers of hard money blah blah blah.

But why can’t I sound left wing freedomy and enlightened when I agree that I want one world currency, I just want it to be a commodity for God’s sake? Why does that have to sound as if I’m insane, backward, twisted, mangled, outdated and whatever else? A paper union is all wonderful and enlightened and beautiful, but a gold union is disgusting outdated and crazy? Why?

Evil in this world has gotten really sophisticated. A level beyond what most of us imagine. As Murray Rothbard said, it is the intellectuals, the PhD’s, the professors, that mold the thinking of the average guy on the street who doesn’t have time to think for a living. They team up with the State to dumb us down, everyone from our high school teachers who tell us to “rock the vote” to that prick Jonathan Gruber who is the absolute perfect example of a professional state sponsored piece of garbage faux intellectual, who teams up with the State to “advise” it in its next operation of massive theft in exchange for millions upon millions of dollars. How much money did Gruber rack up “advising” the Feds about how to glue Obamacare together with a wad of phlegm? Millions…upon millions of dollars.

They dish out the total bullshit. We eat it. They get millions. We get robbed. That is how it works. And one out of a thousand people – if that much – are able to see it, while the rest of us drool on about how we have to vote and it’s our holy obligation to do so.

And so it is with the grand Eurozone scheme. The European Jonathan Grubers all lubed up with their government sponsored PhD’s and the rest of their reeking intellectual trash all go out of the huddle and totally brainwash the populace into singing Kumbaya as a unified paper currency union is set up. Explain to us why the paper union is so great and wonderful and other vomit, and why the gold bugs are all insane crazy armageddonist preppers who should be committed.

So why demonize the gold people? Call them “bugs”? Because, when it’s a paper union, somebody has to control it. Somebody has to have the power – the absolutely exclusive power – to print it. And here’s the key my friends: Whoever has the power to print it, has the most powerful resource on the continent. And who is that?

It’s Germany.

But gold, if you have a gold currency, nobody nobody nobody can print it. You can either mine it, produce it, or trade for it, in honest to goodness economic activity. Nobody has a power-given advantage over anybody. People have to trade their advantages with each other in what is called import and export. There is no competitive devaluation. There is no devaluation at all! Ever! If you go bankrupt you go bankrupt!

Because what is devaluing a currency? That phrase we hear so often out of the mouths of those elitist PhD thugs clothed in such elegant language?

It’s when a government goes bankrupt, and instead of going out of business like any other bankrupt company, they print the paper money to death, “devalue it”, pay back their debts in nothing but in name only, and all the citizens end up with worthless paper, everything stolen from them.

Can you imagine the ludicrous suggestion of a private company, say Apple, going bankrupt, and then in order to pay back its debts, printing dollars? Wow would that start a riot at Apple headquarters. Apple suggesting the dollar be devalued so it can pay back its debts in worthless paper. Screwing every other dollar holder while it gets away from its creditors. The idea is crazy. But for the government, whenever they go bankrupt, they just literally, steal everything from everybody by destroying the currency everyone was forced by law to use. And the intellectual rats all say something sophisticated and complicated and meaningless about the necessity and elegance and beauty and classical music about “devaluing the currency” – everybody stay calm as you are raped, we are just “devaluing the currency,” no need to panic. It’s just “devaluation” that’s all. A beautiful wonderful thing too complicated for you to understand. I have a PhD.

And here’s my bill for $10 million in new currency for advising you on the best way to “devalue the currency”.

So let’s cut the Orwellian crap. “Devaluing a currency” is just an economic elitist phrase for “steal everything from the people you rule by inflating the money that you forced everyone to accept, to death, so nobody has anything left, empty out everything, take it, and to hell with everyone else.” That’s what it means.

So why is an artificial, central-bank-controlled paper union a Utopia, a “Grand Project” while a natural, voluntary gold union among anyone who wants to trade gold is insane crockery? So say the elitist intellectual establishment vermin? Because governments cannot devalue gold. Not unless they steal the entire supply from everybody like FDR yemach shmo and then arbitrarily declare a new price for it.

It’s not about European Unity. It never was. If it was, there would be no currency by force. There would only be what people want to voluntarily use as currency. That has always, always been gold and silver. Give people a choice they choose that.

The Eurozone is about control, slavery, devaluation. Control by the German government over everything. It’s always about control. Power.


How Libertarianism Changed my View of Halacha

Referring to this paragraph written in my previous post:

And on top of all of that, call me a Messianist, but I don’t even believe in the right of the Moshiach to be king! I don’t even say את צמח דוד in my Shmoneh Esrei! I have stated publicly that if the Moshiach is declared and he starts instituting halacha laws, that I will break them!

Chaim, a reader, asks:
How do you explain this and justify your point of view from a halachic perspective as an observant jew? I’m trying to imagine for myself as well as explain to others that aggression is wrong, no matter who does it. You also don’t strike me as the kind of guy to light a match on shabbat and break halacha.
My view on kingdom is that just like אשת יפת תואר, it is no good to do it. But if you already go so far with taking a non-jewish woman as wife, that’s the procedure to follow. Dito with a king: Shmuel hanavi was against having a king, and explained clearly why. But if we already want a king, that’s the procedure to follow.
To get back to moshiach, please help me out. And it it mandatory to have a king, who by definition can commit aggression in impunity?

First of all, I’ve touched these subjects in these two posts.

The technical answer is that the Yerushalmi’s nusach shmoneh esrei is sans את צמח דוד. Since I don’t want a powerful king (a voluntary privately funded Davidic figurehead is fine) I find it silly to dedicate a special bracha to one, and I don’t like davening for something I don’t want. I may as well be a Hare Krishna chanting stoner if I do that. Unlike the תפילה לשלום המדינה though, I will still say את צמח דוד if asked to daven in חזרת הש״ץ because I can self-interpret as praying for the return of a Davidic king who will set us free and then renounce power. This is what I think will actually happen. I cannot justify praying for State leaders in any way though, not to myself at least.

There are two sides to the machloket of malchut (kingship). The Bavli believes in a king as mandatory. The Yerushalmi does not, including the Abarbanel and the Ibn Ezra. But this is all trivia, interesting and fun, but doesn’t get to the point. Let’s cut straight to the heart of the matter. I don’t mince words or baffle with bull.

What is Halacha? What is the point of it?

Let me begin with an example that just happened yesterday, fortuitously or so set up by God, who knows. Not very often does a yoreh yoreh question come up in my house. It just happened to yesterday. My wife was looking for a gift for her mom’s birthday. She came across a site that sells gourmet licorice candy. No hechsher, so we looked at the ingredients. They all look fine, except for something called “shellac”.
We google it. It’s basically bug juice. For whatever reason I have never encountered the question of shellac before, though I admit I really should have, because it is ubiquitous. I tell my wife it can’t be kosher, because it is “a resin secreted by the female lac bug, on trees in the forests of India and Thailand”. That certainly sounds traif to me.
I say to my wife, pretty much these words, “Look, the only way it can be kosher is if some posek makes an argument that it’s equivalent to bee’s honey on the logic that the resin is basically bug feces instead of bug juice produced from the bug’s body. But that sounds really stretchy, and the only reason honey was ever considered kosher is that it’s in the Tanach way too many times and there’s no way that any authority can consider it traif. So they had to come up with some excuse.”
For a few minutes I just assumed it was traif and that we couldn’t get the licorice candy. But then I don’t know what happened, we Googled it again, and turns out, lo and behold! Rav Moshe actually paskins in Igros Moshe Yoreh De’ah II:24 (II is really volume 5) that shellac is indeed kosher, goes through all the sources, does his pilpul, weighs the sides, and shellac is kosher because it’s equivalent to bee honey etc. I found the teshuva on but annoyingly the meat of the teshuva is missing from the pdf file which inexplicably skips from page 31 to 34 and I don’t have a hard copy. (I still have my Yeshivish reading skills and they haven’t dimmed, so I can can still read this stuff pretty quickly.)
So here’s the issue nobody wants to confront. Did Rav Moshe really TEST whether shellac comes from digestion or whether it’s secreted from a gland like pig’s milk? Did anyone actually test it? Did anyone put the bug under a microscope and see where the shellac is coming from? Is there a lab test cited in any teshuva anywhere on the lac bug?
No. Absolutely not. There is no test. Nobody, at least no Rabbi or posek, knows whether shellac is feces or secretion. All they know is how to cite sources and make logical assumptions that follow, that could be completely wrong when up against physical reality. I’m not saying that shellac is either secretion or feces. I don’t know, and I don’t care. I’m saying that in order to arrive at his psak, Rav Moshe did not ask for a lab report on shellac. It didn’t matter.
The point is, whether shellac is kosher halachically or not has nothing to do with the actual physical, ontological question of what this stuff actually is. Conclusion: It’s all a game.

Halacha is a game. This is not to demean halacha, put it down, encourage people to break with the system or anything else. It is simply a statement of fact. Deal with it how you want, that’s what Halacha is. Its core is not ontological reality about what things are. Its core is shakla vetarya about what you can prove through sources that begin with the Gemara through a game of logic and quoting and rules of interpretation and how far you can stretch them. That’s it. That’s what it is, regardless of what you feel about it or want to believe.

At bottom – at the core of it – why is shellac kosher? Because it’s everywhere, in every fruit and vegetable waxed with shellac for presentation, in every candy, it is unavoidable by the average person who doesn’t want to grow his own fruit and vegetable garden. There is simply no way that Rav Moshe can possibly say that shellac is traif with the stuff being everywhere. So he came up with a halachic (game) reason why it’s kosher. Fine. He played the game, by the rules, and he found an answer.

Shellac is by far not the only manifestation of this. Why is turkey kosher? Because, according to the game, it’s a chicken. Is it a chicken? No, a turkey is not a chicken. But halachically it’s a chicken because somebody in the game said so. I eat turkey. You probably eat turkey. It is in no way a chicken. It just isn’t. It’s traif. But it’s kosher because by the time somebody asked the question, everybody was eating it already.

A woman that bleeds vaginally constantly, can she have sex with her husband, ever? Yes, because she is able to “intuit” if her blood is period blood or some kind of other abnormal wound. Is that real? Who cares. You can’t tell a couple to divorce because of this, so you just play the game.

Is a conservative or reform marriage a halachic marriage? If it is, half the Jewish people are mamzerim and can’t marry with the other half of the Jewish people, because they don’t do gets when they divorce and everything goes to hell if they have any kids from a second marriage. So Rav Moshe says there are no edim to anything at these “weddings”, it’s not a marriage, it’s just pritzus, and the nation stays together because the kids are not mamzerim. Are there really no edim? What about the hundreds of people watching? What if 2 of them are halachic? Do you have to test at each wedding? No. Why? Who cares. He answered how he had to answer. There was no other choice.

This extends into the issue of Agunot. This issue really pisses me off to no end. I hate men who don’t give their wives a get out of spite. I hate them and I understand the urge to beat them to within an inch of their lives until they give it over.

But I’m also against beating people who have not been violent. Refusing a get is not violent. It’s just assholery. It’s the equivalent of a boycott. So why not, for the love of God, set up a halachic court on the logic of the Rambam of כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני, spin in a little מקח טעות or whatever you want to say and have the court give the expletive get and end this misery!?

Halacha is a game. It’s a valuable game. Without the halachic game, there would be no Jewish people. We would not have survived. I believe we all have a chiyuv to play the game, and live within the rules of the game, up until the point where it conflicts with morality. That is why I consider myself a halacha following Jew. Anyone who disagrees is free to not count me in your minyan, one guy for not saying the Prayer for the State of Israel, another for saying halacha is a game.

But I do not confuse ontological reality as I perceive it, with a game. I don’t say את צמח דוד because I don’t want to. Because I don’t believe in it. If someone tells me that halachically, according to some game, a king has a right to just take my property because he’s king, or kill someone for insulting him, and quote me a bunch of Rishonim that say so, then the game has crossed the lines into being immoral and evil, and at that point I stop playing. I exit the game, I go into actual ontological reality, I draw my line, I’m telling you where it is, and that’s it.

Anyone can justify any murderous halacha any time. Eradicate Amalek, man woman and child, this people is Amalek here’s my pilpul, kill the babies, I’m yotzeh.

A Rabbi says I should be happy paying taxes because taxes go to chessed. Do I laugh at him for being ludicrous or do I play the game because he’s a halachic player? I laugh at him. A turkey being kosher I don’t care. I have no moral opinion about whether turkeys should be kosher or not. Let them players play. But I have a real moral opinion about whether taxes are good. They are not, and no Rabbi, not Moshiach himself, can convince me otherwise. So if Moshiach levies taxes, I know he’s a fake.

A State sponsored Rabbi, who makes his living through taxes, tells me it’s my religious obligation to pay taxes, do I listen to him because he’s part of some game, or do I tell him that really, he’s wong? He’s wrong. I won’t play the game anymore. I know when to play, and I know when to exit.

So let me get back to that paragraph. I do not recognize the right of Moshiach to have any power over me. I am human, he is human. He has a role, I have a role. Quote me whatever you want, I don’t play the game that far, not into NAP territory. Once you get to the NAP, I go into ontological reality and out of the halachic realm.

If there is a source within the game that justifies my position, good. In the case of את צמח דוד, there is the Yerushalmi, and Shmuel HaNavi, and Abarbanel and Ibn Ezra and whoever else I care to gather, I take that, regardless of whether “we” (whoever “we” is) paskin that way or not, and I adopt it. And that’s it. I’m out of the game at that point, so stop trying to bring me back in. I’m not playing anymore.

Pruzbul is a game. Eradication of Yibum is a game. Heter Mechira is a game. So is Otzar Beis Din. So you play it. That’s all legitimate out-of-NAP territory, pick your side, I don’t care. But don’t try to tell me that some guy has a right to steal from me because a game says so. I’ll find a source that says the opposite, and tell you it’s correct not because “we paskin that way” according to some made up rules, but because, ontologically, it’s correct.


The first time someone objected to me, in the smaller minyan, not saying the prayer for the welfare of the State of Israel, he said to me, after davening, “Halachically  you have to.” So I said, “Then I’m against Halacha.” Because really, I’m not interested in playing a game about what is moral and what isn’t. I know what is moral and what isn’t. I judge it for myself. I decide personally. I have a mind, given to me by God, so I use it. Nobody else dare decide morality for me. They can help and advise if I ask, but I make the final decision with my own mind. 

I have no interest in playing the Halachic game with people on the legitimacy of morality. I will play halacha as far as the NAP, and no further. Any further and I will find the sources to defend myself if I’m interested in doing so, just to show I’m not alone, and I’m not. There are anarchic sources for every position I have. For me at least.

Pick your values. Stick to them. Halacha is a value of mine. I believe God told me to play the game. I can’t prove that at all, to anyone. So I play it, because I value it. Without halacha there would be no Jews. And Jews are necessary for the liberation of the planet. But if halacha ever conflicts with my core values, I pick my values, and ditch the game.

I call on you to do the same.

Yanis Varoufakis is Threatening to Push the Greek Default Button!

He may be a confused “Marxist libertarian” whatever that means, which is what he calls himself, but whatever fire is in him, though it isn’t a total “kosher blue flame” as my 10th grade chemistry teacher called it in lab, Yanis Varoufakis is heating up. This is what happens when a human being, though not perfect, walks into a den of politicians with his resignation letter on the inside pocket in case he succumbs to politician-hood. Yanis Varoufakis is trying to keep his soul and that’s what makes him so exciting.

I’m not sure he will succeed, but he’s trying. He’s no Ron Paul, but he’s closer than most. He’s threatening to push the default button…the beautiful shiny jolly candy-like button.

Varoufakis has said he does not intend to cooperate with the Troika (that conglomeration of bailout funds with different acronyms) and will NOT seek an extension to its bailout funds.

Yanis is taking Greece into default. The Greek Government will not be able to borrow any more, from anyone for a long time. If they want to stay in the euro, they are going to have to cut, slash, and burn like there’s no tomorrow. But I doubt they will do that, because politicians have voters to bribe.

Varoufakis will bring them into default, the Greeks will complain and scream, and they’ll start printing Drachmas into hyperinflation. Italy’s next.



Rachmana Litzlan MeHai Daita / Rachmana Litzlan MeDaita Didach!

A commenter went on a tirade against me in response to my post on Charlie Hebdo. Some of his points are good enough to respond to. Towards the end though it gets hyperbolic, calling me “appalling” and “lacking basic human decency”.

For those who want to see the whole thing, I have pasted it here and respond point by point.

First off, let me say that in written communication where two people don’t see or know each other, things tend to get very emotional and exaggerated. So I try to subtract the hysteria and try to get to the meat of things, because I know that in person he wouldn’t accuse me of “lacking basic human decency”. I really try to avoid this, but when I do get into a heated Facebook comment war with somebody, I just discount the vitriol and don’t hold it against him. People have called me – people I know, not people I only know through Facebook – all kinds of horrible things specifically for my views on the purpose of Holocaust awareness and laws against Holocaust denial. I would still have lunch with these people and stay friends with them.

As you can probably guess if you read this blog, I don’t believe it is a gentile’s responsibility to remember the Holocaust, and I don’t care about Holocaust denial.

But anyway, this kind of hyperbolic language in comments is nothing new. It happened in the Gemara and among the Rishonim and Acharonim all the time. Nasty, horrible comments that we now wrap in a book of Rabbinical humor. What first comes to mind off the top of my head is the boxing line between Chazal “רחמנא ליצלן מהאי דעתה” and the reprisal “רחמנא ליצלן מדעתה דידך!” Or the fact that the Yerushalmi Chazal referred to Hillel HaZaken as “The Babylonian” just as Haredim refer to Rav Soloveitchik as JB. Or the fact that the ראב”ד said of the Rambam that people “better than him” believed that God was a physical being. Or that the Rambam called Rashi (not by name) a moron for believing that it was a good thing that Hizkiyahu buried ספר הרפואות. Or if you want to see some really hysterical language, check out שד”ל on pretty much anyone who disagrees with him.

So anyway, I’ll just take the hyperbolic tone as a continuation of the Jewish tradition of tearing the other side apart through comments. Fine.

As for responding to the comment, first of all, here it is, and I will respond part by part:

You are being obtuse and, though I realise that this is a coping strategy, this is important enough that I shall elaborate.

1) To begin we must detail exactly how outrageous the entire premise of your post, namely the comparison between Charlie Hebdo and Der Sturmer, really is:

(i) Charlie Hebdo is a left wing magazine that takes a pro-immigration editorial line and has specifically called for the banning of the National Front.
(ii) Anti Islam/Mohammed cartoons represent a tiny fraction of Charlie Hebdo’s output.
(iii) Charlie Hebdo has been as rude, or ruder, about many other religions and ideologies, including, to re-iterate, the French far right.
(iv) Muslims in Europe are not a persecuted minority, but a persecuting minority, responsible for an disproportionate amount of both violent and petty crime, gang violence, political violence, pimping, sexual assault and rape.
(v) Muslims in Europe are not a persecuted minority, but the beneficiaries of an ongoing ‘awareness lowering’ campaign by political elites. For example Muslims who commit crimes are almost invariably referred to as “Asian”, even when they are from Eritrea. They also maintain a very effective ‘frontlash’ designed to stigmatise any indigenous Europeans who object to the latest Muslim outrage as leading a non-existent Islamophobic backlash (your own post is a typical example). In addition, they disproportionately benefit from European welfare states.

I agree with all of this, except that Muslims are not persecuted. They are persecuted and they are also persecuting. There is a Muslim problem in Europe. Therefore, what? He doesn’t say. Should Europe expel them all? He can’t say that, just like the MSM in Europe has to call Muslims “Asians” even if they’re Eritrean. How about kill them all? Certainly can’t say that, and wouldn’t support that. Neither would I. Pay them to leave, like the Feiglin plan? Maybe he would support that. We’ll have to ask him. He’s invited to post here directly and I’ll publish it. I would support that, too. Europe pays Muslims to leave voluntarily and go back to…I don’t know…wherever. No problem with that at all.

But there’s also a black problem in America. And there’s a Haredi problem in Israel. Are all these problems absolutely identical? No. Haredim in Israel are not Muslims, and blacks in America are not either. They are all different manifestations of the same problem- welfare, drug laws, forced public schooling, minimum wage laws, gun laws, some of which apply more to some problems and not others. What they all have in common is a festering group of people with similar lifestyles or religious laws whose society is degrading because of government intrusion. Welfare is common to them all. Gun laws mostly to South Side Chicago blacks. Drug laws to blacks and Muslims. The draft to Haredim. Minimum wage to all of them. Get rid of all those things and Muslims will be less violent, Haredim lass insular and defensive, and blacks won’t kill each other as much.

In sum, the comparison with Der Sturmer is utterly ludicrous for all the above reasons. To make it so soon after 12 people were gunned down in broad daylight with AK 47s in what used to be a first world capital, is moral idiocy of the first order. I should also note that you seem barely unable to acknowledge the murder of four Jews shortly afterwards.

The people killed at Charlie Hebdo were innocents, and the killers murderers. Those who killed my Jewish brothers in France have the din of בועל ארמית קנאים פוגעים בו in my opinion. They should all die for their crimes as soon as possible. I’m יוצא now.

2) The next stage is to ask what could lead you to such detestable and foolish pronouncements. This is not difficult. In certain intellectual circles, it has become an article of faith to deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a major global problem, and to argue that, to the extent that it is, it is the fault of western, (mostly U.S.) foreign policy. The reason why people maintain this position is because (i) they oppose interventionist US foreign policy (ii) they are lazy. Whilst there are plenty of cogent arguments to be made against neo-conservatism that take due account of the questions it is designed to answer, these people cannot be bothered. and so simply deny there is any problem with Islamic fundamentalism, or Islam, at all.

Islamic fundamentalism is a major global problem. But which problem is more major? US foreign policy, or Islamic fundamentalism? You can’t beat the math. US foreign policy causes so many more deaths than Islamic fundamentalism that to compare the two is “detestable and foolish” in commenter’s words. US foreign policy has killed millions. Islamic fundamentalism tens of thousands. The only difference is that one is organized by a state and systemetized, surrounded by effective propaganda to make people think that the murder of millions is necessary for their security and “freedom”, and the other is perpetrated by a disorganized mob, both equally murderous, both equally evil.

Maybe he wants to say that US foreign policy is not motivated by religious hatred? I say it is. Christian religious evil. George Bush invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands because of Jesus. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Lybia, Mexico, Vietnam, God knows what other countries I’m missing and there are certainly a bunch, all invaded by Christians who think they are “exceptional”. “American Exceptionalism” it’s called. It’s an offshoot of Christian religious doctrine, the same bullshit that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadores, the slaughter of countless Indians, and now this same Christianity is leading us into yet another cold war with Russia after almost destroying the entire damn planet in nuclear Armageddon in 1962.

We have a serious Christian Fundamentalism problem on this planet. Can the commenter deny that? If he does, he is buying into a very thin veil of “freedom” and “security” propaganda that has no bounds as to what it can justify. Am I to take the Western Side of this battle just because Christians are wise enough to clothe their murder in a few catchphrases? So the US can kill millions as long as it says it’s for “protecting freedom”?

Muslims are different. They kill you and say they hate you, instead of killing you and saying they love you, like the Christians do. Who cares what they say. They both kill you.

The problem is that Islamic fundamentalists continually embarrass their apologists by performing spectacularly indefensible acts, like bursting into a school in Pakistan and shooting a hundred kids, trapping an entire ethnic group up a mountain so they can kill them in broad daylight, or massacring the staff of an obscure liberal magazine because they published some poxy cartoons.

I’m not an apologist for Islamic fundamentalists. They are evil. My suggestion is, stop oppressing Muslims and Muslim countries, and less people will become Islamic fundamentalists. Islamic fundamentalists will burst into a school and kill hundreds of kids in the name of Allah. Christian fundamentalists will bomb the school from the air in a B52 and call it “collateral damage” in the name of “defending freedom”. Either way, the kids are dead. How many children has America killed defending freedom through collateral damage? Just because they say “oops” and “We really love you, sorry,” I’m supposed to turn a blind eye? They’ve killed much more than Muslims have killed defending Allah.

The apologists therefore have to continually one up each other by coming up with ever more outlandish arguments, riding roughshod over whatever principles they started out with. Apparently oblivious to the fact they are making total fools of themselves, and breezily unconcerned with the moral sewer they are wading through, they plumb the depths patting each other on the back for the latest *incite*, of which your post represents a sort of nadir, at least as far as I know.

What is outlandish about what I’m saying? How is it foolish? Is it factually incorrect? I’m the one pointing out that everyone is killing everyone and just justifying it differently, and suggesting that, in order to calm the world down a bitthe Christians should stop killing Muslims, and their governments stop oppressing them through the laws I mentioned above. Is that what puts me in a moral sewer?

There’s a big fight going on. The Christians versus the Muslims. The Christians kill and say I love you. The Muslims kill and say I hate you. The Christians kill children in an organized way with excuses. The Muslims kill in a disorganized guerrilla way. Right now, the Christians are more powerful, so I suggest to the more powerful side to stop inciting the less powerful side. Both sides are equally evil.

So I suggest that Muslims stop killing people, but I am culturally Western rather than Islamic, so I try to convince “my side” so to speak, also because it is more powerful and therefore has more power to stop the fight.

3) Now we come to the last bit, the specific flabbergasting tomfoolery of you. Central to Islamist apologetic is, of course, pointing out all the things that Islamists have alleged good cause to be so very angry about. Now, the main thing Muslims the world over complain about (even more than the Iraq war) is West Bank settlers and people invading their precious Al Aqsa. This is why, with the exception of you and your nameless co-thinkers, all apologists for Islam make a point of demonising West Bank settlers and people who want to go up on the Temple Mount. A quick google search of “Libertarian” websites on the matter makes for grim reading indeed.

Yeah, that sucks. But libertarians yelling at Jewish settlers breaks the NAP not. If anti settler libertarians were consistent in believing in Lockean homesteading theory, they would leave us alone. My “settlement” is not built on Arab land. It was built on vacant land. There is no Arab land besides what is homesteaded by an Arab person. There is no Jewish land besides what is homesteaded by a Jewish person.

But, in truth, they are on much better ground here than with Charlie Hebdo. Jewish settlers really are trying to settle land that is and has been for centuries majority Arab, and arguably violating international law, whereas the French cartoonists were just doing what, depending on how you look at it, has been legal in France, their own country, for two centuries (mocking religion) or forever (mocking Mohammed). Palestinians really are suffering unlike French Muslims who have no real grievances against a country that took them in and gave them a far greater standard of living than they could ever have forged for themselves. Thousands of Palestinians have died as a consequence of dispute ownership of Yesha, no-one has died because French people drew cartoons (unless we count all the people Muslims have killed over it).

You call yourself a Misesian Jew, but here you betray yourself by quoting “international law” and calling unhomesteaded land “Arab land”. You call me obtuse but say that French Muslims are not suffering and have no grievance against a country that “took them in”. I guess blacks have “no real grievance” against America because they have a higher standard of living in America than they would have had in Africa. Right? No real grievance? What about minimum wage laws, gun laws, drug laws, forced public schooling that keeps them in poverty and unable to work? None of that is grievance worthy? Both for the blacks and the Muslims? You’re lucky you come from a people (the Jews) talented enough to rise above all the government meant to push you down, but blacks and Muslims are not as resourceful or lucky.

And here’s you, a Jewish settler who goes up on the temple mount, and therefore the chief object of loathing, both for a billion Muslims and their millions of Leftist and Libertarians supporters, brazenly dumping over the memory of French cartoonists in the most wildly hyperbolous manner possible in a pathetic (and, trust me, futile) attempt to suck up to the freak show internet cult which is the Ron Paul fanboy movement.

I am the Chief Object of Loathing. Because I am the pivot of all of this. I am the top of the pyramid. The Apex. Me and my types are only a bare handful on the planet. I know where I sit. The Libertarian Anarchist Ron Paul Jewish Settler Temple Mount Invader. It all revolves around me and a few others, because I represent what every single side of this murderous conflict hates. Including you.

And yet I sympathize with every single side as well. The libertarians, the Christians, the Muslims, the Blacks, the Haredim. All of them. Strange, huh? This means that I, or someone like me with leadership potential (the closest is Feiglin) am the hope for humanity presently, because only I or someone like me can mediate the conflict. And I’m knocking at Har Habayit to boot, the center of it all.

And on top of all of that, call me a Messianist, but I don’t even believe in the right of the Moshiach to be king! I don’t even say את צמח דוד in my Shmoneh Esrei! I have stated publicly that if the Moshiach is declared and he starts instituting halacha laws, that I will break them!

More than that you imagine that implementation of the Feiglin plan will somehow mollify world Islamic opinion and make Israel less despised by Muslims and American Libertarians, a prospect so patently opposite to reality that one has to suspect you are already in the first stages of meltdown.

Well, I do believe that. Once Feiglin leads the Jewish people, these problems will start solving themselves through the Or LaGoyim model. It will take an economic catastrophe and reset that is in the process of happening.

It’s not too late for you to turn your brain back on, nor repent the appalling forays into the moral gutter you are making. It’s possible to maintain a belief in Misesian economics and Libertarian political theory without signing on to every extravagant and nonsensical canard you come across at All you need is a level head and some basic human decency.

I challenge the commenter to give me his Final Solution to the Muslim Problem. What is it? My solution is to stop killing Muslims and repressing them through government laws. I suggest Muslims stop killing Christians or their Western cultural descendants regardless of whether they are religious or not, but I’m not culturally Muslim, and of the two sides, I believe the West has a better chance at stopping the killing first, despite the fact that they do much more of it.

Rafi, from the moral gutter, signing off.