Barry Freundel Issues Apology, But Were his Actions a Crime?

First off, Freundel’s actions were absolutely a crime against God, and a חילול השם of the first order. I don’t know if God will forgive him for what he did. But is being a peeping Tom really a crime? It depends on the circumstances.

In Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms, Dr. Walter Block has a chapter on Peeing Toms. I have not read it yet, but from the snippets my wife reads to me, it seems that being a peeping Tom is not necessarily a crime. If it were, then looking a woman up and down would be a punishable offence. Men do this all the time, without even realizing it most of the time. I do it myself, admittedly, it’s just instinct. To deny it would just be stupid.

When straight men see an attractive woman, we all look at her sexually. The question is how fast we get back to our senses and the real world, and suppress it towards more appropriate outlets. The sickos don’t, the functional men do. That’s the way the human race works.

I would say, without reading what Dr. Block has written yet, that being a Peeping Tom in public places is definitely not a crime. It becomes a little more difficult if you’re looking through someone’s window into a private residence. But then again, it is up to the owners of the home to leave their shades up or down. If you’re leaving your shades up and someone with binoculars is looking into your home, it’s your problem. You should have left your shades down.

But, if someone plants a camera in your home to look at you no matter what you’re doing, naked or not, it is an actual crime, by libertarian standards. The crime is not “being a Peeping Tom”, but trespassing private property. It doesn’t matter what you see. It’s all a crime.

However, if a wife were to install a hidden camera in a husband’s bedroom suspecting he were having an affair, since the bedroom is her property, no crime.

In that sense, what Frendel did was an objective crime, assuming that the Mikveh he peeped on had privacy written or implied in the contract or verbally by whoever was supervising it, which was him. I’m assuming the mikveh did have that contract.

Freundel’s apology seems sincere. Forgiveness is not a requirement until certain prescriptions are fulfilled, which include bringing groups of people to each victim and begging three times. Freundel’s victims are under no responsibility to forgive, yet.

But keep in mind, there are much worse crimes than voyeurism, that are much more damaging, by Rabbis that are seen as social justice saints. I would consider crimes that lead to death as much worse, like advocating against organ donation, for example. Or being the Chief Rabbi of Israel and living off of stolen money.

As bad as Freundel’s חילול השם was, people recognize it as the actions of a single flawed human being, and can eventually write it off as not representing “Judaism” whatever that is. But the actions of an entire bureaucracy of tax-receiving Rabbis is much worse. That is an entire institution that lives off the livelihood of others that millions of people hate with a passion that will not end.

The Rabbinate is much worse than Barry Freundel. Let’s keep that in mind. In terms of halachic observance, if that is your value, the Rabbinate inflicts much more damage than a Peeping Tom.

State Controlled Medicine Believes My Daughter is Losing Weight Because of a Broken Scale

This post has been corrected from previously wrong details.

A letter my wife got in the mail today has me worried that State medical police are going to be kicking down my door very soon to take away my daughter. I’m not actively worried, but it’s possible.

A few months ago she went in to the “Drop of Milk” appointment, טיפת חלב as it’s called. It’s when the State follows up on your kids to make sure they’re still human and get vaccines.

At the appointment, they weighed her, and found that she miraculously lost 2 kilograms, even though she only weighs 12 kilos. She also shrunk 7 centimeters, somehow, without us noticing at all.

Other friends going to the same place were advised to feed their kids ice cream every day so they could all gain back the weight they lost. Everyone going to this Tipat Chalav were amazingly losing weight. My daughter additionally was shrinking because the nurse put her height in wrong previously.

My wife complains that other parents are getting crazy nutritional advice based on faulty scales. The letter we got barely references faulty scales. It was about how, two years ago, we were advised to go to an urgent appointment with a pediatric specialist because our daughter was supposedly too small.

The letter says the following:

In regards to your complaint, an investigation was made into the care that your daughter was given at the Tipat Chalav in Ginot Shomron. The following is what was found upon completion of the investigation.

The daughter of Mrs. Farber has been cared for since she was born. At 18 months it was found that she had a significant slowdown in her growth rate, from 5th percentile to below all percentiles. The child was then referred to a pediatrician at Maccabi. (Editor’s note: we don’t even go to Maccabi.) The mother was also given nutritional advice for more densely caloric foods and not the foods that she had mentioned in her letter (referring to the nurse prescribing ice cream to babies on the basis of a faulty scale).

Etc. etc.

With regard to the measurement instruments, complaints should be forwarded to the Ministry of Health directly.

We appreciate etc. and we’re dedicated etc. to your etc.


Some bureaucratic nurse you’ve never heard of in some central office in Jerusalem whose job it is to fill out meaningless papers that could easily have been stamped and mailed by robots.

If the State weren’t so incompetent, they’d take Daf away on the pretext of parental negligence.

My impression of the Zehut Founders Conference

I have very high standards. I don’t trust anyone when it comes to political events, or what I term antipolitical events. The Zehut conference I see as an antipolitical event, which is why I attended. It is why I’m a paying member. There were about 20 people who each came up for a 90 second speech. Almost all of them were liberty-centered. One introduced herself as a feminist. Another as a homosexual. I don’t know which one took more courage.

There was only one speech that I did not like, which centered on improving people’s incomes and other economic interventionist stuff. But all the others were decent to very good. That is a very good record for a rag tag group of people who are not studied libertarians but only have a vague sense of a right direction.

There were all kinds of people there, most of whom I didn’t even recognize, and I’ve known Feiglinites for a long time. At the end, I saw a couple I know, who I was surprised actually came. I originally got them into Likud and they understand more about liberty than most.

The husband urged me to try to build myself up in the party and run for Knesset on the list. The thought of trying to build support for myself in that context in Hebrew makes me enervated and exhausted, but the wife then says, “There’s no way. Rafi has the least tact of any human being alive.”

That may be true, but I suggested I could be like Donald Trump (להבדיל), saying stuff that is so caustic that everyone loves me just for that. I may try, but I doubt I have the energy.

Sign up for Zehut here.

Palestinian Flag at the UN? Oh No! WHO CARES?

Here’s another piece of news that matters about as much to me, in the words of RJ Fletcher, “as a festering bowl of dog snot.”

The “Palestinian Flag” is about to waved at the UN. Oh boy. How exciting and important. The UN is the collection of the world’s worst human beings in one room. Those Jews who see some kind of religious meaning in UN recognition of statehood, as if that matters at all to anything, will be offended by this, just like right wing Christians are offended when gay people have a wedding ceremony, or just like Saudis are offended when women drive a car. These people look for things to be offended by while politicians steal their shirts.

I don’t care if gay people get married. I don’t care if Muslim women drive a car or go outside without their burkas. I do not care if a “Palestinian flag” is waved at some headquarters of a bunch of idiotic diplomats.

Wave this one. Here’s my flag. The Offensive Spangled Banner.

Gay Islamic-Christian Communazi Satan-Worshipping Pirates of the Confederate States of Israel
Gay Islamic-Christian Communazi Satan-Worshipping Pirates of the Confederate States of Israel

One Cheer for Moshe Kachlon – Lower Alcohol Taxes!

I’ve written a lot about Kachlon in the past and how much I can’t stand the guy. Notwithstanding all the damage he’s done already in raising all kinds of housing taxes, he actually did something good today and lowered alcohol taxes from 4.33 shekels per liter of beer to 2.33. He also lowered taxes on hard liquor from 106.9 shekels per liter of ethanol to 85 per liter.

This was the status quo ante 2012, when Yair Pretty Boy Lapid came into office, who I should mention is publicly know to have once been, and may still be, a raging alcoholic. Pretty Boy Lapid, seeing the light and crusading against alcoholism by making everyone who buys alcohol pay him more money, had the goal of lowering the consumption rate of alcohol in Israel.

And by some kind of miracle called markets and supply and demand (miracle to Lapid anyway), it didn’t work. Why not? Because it’s not that hard to brew your own alcohol. You can do it yourself with some grape juice, some yeast, and a Water distiller.

I used to buy Arak from time to time. I haven’t bought a single bottle since 2012. They will not get extra tax revenue from me. I can theoretically make my own Arak now with anise extract and all the above materials.

The politicians just figured this out, the idiots:

הצוות התייחס גם למיסוי המוטל על משקאות משכרים (כגון וודקה, וויסקי, עראק, ג’ין וכו’). מנכ”ל האוצר מסר לשר כי בחינת העלאת המס בשנים 2014-2015 הצביעה כי למרות התכנון המקורי, הרי שהעלאת מס הקנייה כלל לא הביאה לתוספת הכנסות במונחים ריאליים.

בהתאם להמלצות הצוות, נדרש שינוי מבני מיידי גם בשל ההתפתחויות השליליות בענף האלכוהול – התפתחות של תעשייה פיראטית שמייצרת משקאות מזיקים לבריאות, פגיעה בציבור העוסקים הישרים שנאלצים להתמודד עם שוק שחור בהיקפים לא מבוטלים ופגיעה בציבור הצרכנים בשל העלאת המס.

The committee also changed the tax level on hard drinks like vodka, whisky, arak and gin. The director of the finance department told Kachlon that the 2014-2015 tax raise showed that despite original planning (sic), raising the sales tax did not bring in additional tax revenue.

In keeping with the recommendations of the committee, an immediate change is needed due to the negative developments in the alcohol sector – the development of pirate manufacturing that can harm health, hurt the alcohol industry that needs to compete with a substantial black market, and hurting consumers who need to pay the higher tax.

And as an additional testament to the BS you often find in mainstream state-controlled media, here are two paragraphs. The second from the article about lowering the tax, and the first from an article when Lapid raised it.

מלשכת השר שטייניץ אמרו בתגובה לדברי לפיד על המס על האלכוהול: “בהמשך לדברי שר האוצר לפיד בנוגע להעלאת המס על האלכוהול האחרונה, אמר השר שטייניץ כי מעולם לא קיבל החלטה ולא התחייב לקבל החלטה לעלות את שיעור המס. במסגרת התהליך המבורך של קבלת ישראל ל-OECD הוסכם על שינוי שיטת המס החל משנת 2014, בהתאם למודל הנהוג במדינות הארגון. אולם, ההחלטה עצמה על גובה שיעור המס נותרה לשיקול דעתו של שר האוצר בלבד.

(Short translation: The rise in alcohol taxes is due to a deal with the OECD, which just accepted us yay, so we’re doing this as a favor to them, because they said so and we made a deal. And by the way, the actual level of the tax is only up to the Finance Minister, Pretty Boy Lapid, raising a big question about what the heck the first sentences of this paragraph about the OECD even means.)

And now for the article that just came out about lowering it back down:

רמת מיסוי הנהוגה כיום גבוהה משמעותית מזו הנהוגה במדינות ה-OECD. בחינת התוצאות של העלאת המס על בירה בשנים 2013-2015 הראתה כי למרות ההכפלה של המיסוי, הדבר כמעט ולא השפיע על היקפי הצריכה של בירה. המשמעות כי המס שהוטל בשנת 2012 הכביד על ציבור הצרכנים מבלי תרם באופן ממשי לעניין צמצום השתייה המזיקה.

Short translation: Taxes were lowered back down because they were much higher than the level accepted by the OECD. And tax revenue wasn’t increasing so there was no point.

You have to laugh at this. I hope Lapid falls off the wagon and goes binge drinking tonight. Maybe he’ll come down with the DT’s and have a near death experience, be saved in the emergency room and then retire. (I’m joking, I don’t wish him the DT’s.) I’ll fund his alcohol budget personally if he would just go away and stop passing any laws. I wish him well, and to leave me alone. As they say in Hebrew, תהיה בריא.

One cheer for Kachlon. Just one.

Politician-Dense Capital Cities Have the Most Ashley Madison Accounts Per Capita

Enough World War II revisionism for one day. Let’s move on to more fun politician bashing. Ashley Madison, the site that sets up married people to have discreet affairs was of course hacked a few weeks ago. I’m not sure what I think about that morally. On the one hand, affairs are not necessarily immoral provided there is mutual agreement for an open marriage. But in most cases they are immoral by breach of contract.

Preliminarily, I would say Ashley Madison is a legitimate site provided that it has a disclaimer that anyone who uses it does not legally breach their marriage contracts, whatever they may say. But I haven’t completely thought it through yet, so I am open to other opinions. Besides, I doubt the site had such a disclaimer.

In any case, I discovered today that the 4 cities with the most Ashley Madison accounts per capita, besides Ottawa where 1 in 5 residents has an account, are:

  1. Athens,
  2. Oslo,
  3. Berlin,
  4. And good old Washington D.C.

All capital cities where the highest densities of politicians and government workers hang out. To surf porn and plan affairs and regulate our lives ad infinitum. I can’t think of 4 cities I dislike more for their politicians, perhaps even in that very order.

It just goes to show, once again, that democracy puts the worst of the worst in charge, and whoever has political ambitions is a morally challenged human being until proven otherwise.


Did War on Hitler Actually Cause the Holocaust?

Despite turning 180o on almost all of my historical perspectives, there are some establishment positions that, even for me, are hard to give up. Some of my reversals are well known to the readers of TJL. For example, The United States government is the cause of evil not good. Abraham Lincoln was a murderer, not a hero. The South was justified in seceding from the US, and the North was the aggressor for invading the South. Iran is not going to nuke anybody. AIPAC is a detrimental organization and should be shut down. Those who claim Israel controls much of US foreign policy are correct, not anti Semitic. The US should have sent Japan a letter of apology for the oil embargo after Pearl Harbor instead of declaring war.

And so on.

But for me, there was one major establishment position that still stuck in me like a dagger and was only loosened last week. That is, declaring and winning World War II was justified if only in order to save what was left of European Jewry.

On the face of it, this makes sense. Hitler is exterminating us wholesale, so naturally you want Britain, Russia, America to invade and stop it. They liberate death camps in 1945 and save what is left of the survivors. Obviously they should have invaded much sooner to stop it that much quicker, no? If only Britain and America had declared war in 1933 immediately when Hitler rose to power.

But then I read Ralph Raico, a libertarian historian and student of Ludwig von Mises. And he said something that totally took me for a loop. Here’s Raico, in his collection of essays, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal: (My bold.)

In 1940 Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically enough when the Chamberlain government resigned because of the Norwegian fiasco—which Churchill, more than anyone else, had helped to bring about.80 As he had fought against a negotiated peace after the fall of Poland, so he continued to resist any suggestion of negotiations with Hitler. Many of the relevant documents are still sealed—after all these years81 —but it is clear that a strong peace party existed in the country and the government. It included Lloyd George in the House of Commons, and Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, in the Cabinet. Even after the fall of France, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler’s renewed peace overtures, whether sincere or not.

This, more than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his greatness. The British historian John Charmley raised a storm of outraged protest when he suggested that a negotiated peace in 1940 might have been to the advantage of Britain and Europe. A Yale historian, writing in the New York Times Book Review, referred to Charmley’s thesis as “morally sickening.” Yet Charmley’s scholarly and detailed work makes the crucial point that Churchill’s obdurate refusal even to listen to peace terms in 1940 doomed what he claimed was dearest to him—the Empire and a Britain that was non-socialist and independent in world affairs. One may add that it may also have doomed European Jewry.84 It is amazing that half a century after the fact, there are critical theses concerning World War II that are off-limits to historical debate.

Churchill’s refusal to listen to Hitler’s peace overtures may have doomed European Jewry. When I first read that sentence I did a double take. I didn’t even understand what Raico was saying on a basic level, the thought was so foreign to me. So I read it again. And again. Was I reading this right? How can that be?

Then I saw that little 84 footnote. And I read that. Here’s what the footnote said:

84 On March 27, 1942, Goebbels commented in his diary on the destruction of the European Jews, which was then underway: “Here, too, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately, a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.” The Goebbels Diaries, 1942–1943, Louis P. Lochner, ed. and trans. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1948), p. 148.

When I read the footnote I understood. It was very possible that World War II cemented the Final Solution. Straight out of Goebbels’ diary. Without an all-out war, Hitler would not have been able to exterminate us on a systematic global scale. War enabled him to enact radical measures and we were doomed.

Had Churchill made peace with Hitler in 1939, it is much more likely that the worst that would have happened to the Jews is that most would have been slaves rather than be exterminated. Yes, Hitler would have killed Jews. Perhaps even hundreds of thousands. But in order to embark on a project to exterminate millions, you need the full support of an entire country, and Hitler could have only gotten that through war.

And then I just stared into space for a minute and said to myself, “Oh my God.”

It may have been Winston Churchill who set the Final Solution and the Holocaust in motion. Adolf Hitler was only the vehicle and the direct cause. Winston Churchill may have been the ultimate enabler.

And for all the naysayers out there who will point to British and American liberation of death camps in 1945, we all know that World War II had absolutely nothing to do with saving Jews. Churchill and Roosevelt could have saved every single Jew before the war by buying them out. They didn’t. They could have saved hundreds of thousands by bombing the camps or the tracks leading to them. They specifically didn’t. They were both complicit.

And deeper than that, the whole war, allying with Stalin against Hitler, made no sense. Stalin had killed many more innocent people by 1939 than Hitler did. And yet the allies sided with Stalin over Hitler. Here’s Raico again:

But the Churchill–Roosevelt intrigue should, one might think, matter to Americans. Here, however, criticism is halted before it starts. A moral postulate of our time is that in pursuit of the destruction of Hitler, all things were permissible. Yet why is it self evident that morality required a crusade against Hitler in 1939 and 1940, and not against Stalin? At that point, Hitler had slain his thousands, but Stalin had already slain his millions. In fact, up to June, 1941, the Soviets behaved far more murderously toward the Poles in their zone of occupation than the Nazis did in theirs. Around 1,500,000 Poles were deported to the Gulag, with about half of them dying within the first two years. As Norman Davies writes: “Stalin was outpacing Hitler in his desire to reduce the Poles to the condition of a slave nation.”103 Of course, there were balance-of-power considerations that created distinctions between the two dictators. But it has yet to be explained why there should exist a double standard ordaining that compromise with one murderous dictator would have been “morally sickening,” while collaboration with the other was morally irreproachable.

What is the moral difference between siding with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and siding with Hitler to defeat Stalin?

Nothing really.

Had I been stuck in the Nazi death camps in 1945, would I have rooted for the Americans, British, and Russians to save me? Of course I would. But that doesn’t change any of the facts written above.

There were millions of innocent Russians that were surely rooting for the Americans to save them from Stalin, to no avail. In fact, America forcibly repatriated hundreds of thousands of terrified Russian political dissidents back to the Soviet Union after World War II. To their deaths. That is why the question of who killed more innocent people – Roosevelt/Truman or Hitler, is indeed not such a clear cut answer at all.

The few Jewish Holocaust survivors liberated by the Americans and British were simply the beneficiaries of a historical accident. Nothing more. If Stalin had specifically gone after Jews, Roosevelt and Truman would have, and indeed did – hand over to Stalin every Russian Jew they could get their hands on.

In the end, what I’m saying is this on a calculus basis. On a scale of horror 1-1000, 1000 being the most horrific, the Holocaust was a 998. Very few survived. Total annihilation would have been 1000. It happened together with World War II. The war did certainly did not help stop the genocide. Therefore, the chances of the scale of horror lowering to 600 or 700 without World War II are greater than it rising to 1000. And perhaps, World War II is what brought the Holocaust from a 600 to a 998 in horror.

Sure, historical hindsight is 20/20. But the point is, not even the most seemingly justified offensive wars are so clear cut.

The Nuking of Japan Led to the Spread of the Soviet Union

There’s this guy that always comments here about how great war is and how it’s always justified. He’s annoying. His last comment:

Yet again, a “libertarian” regurgitates Soviet/Fascist anti-capitalist propaganda as if it’s just an obvious fact. There’s a well known theory that peoples’ negative views towards Truman’s use of the bomb is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of Japanese conduct in WW2. You certainly conform to the rule perfectly.

Reflective people are happy that Japan was crushed and is now a productive and peaceful part of the international division of labour, rather than the epitome of bloodthirsty, destructive statism and are aware of the chain of causation that brought about this change. Infantile “libertarians” not so much.

First of all, I’m very aware of Japanese war crimes, but he thinks I’m not. I wonder if Gavriel has ever seen the movie “City of Life and Death.” There was a period about two years ago that I watched a whole litany of films on Japanese war crimes during the 1930’s. It started when I saw Ip Man, the movie about Bruce Lee’s martial arts Rebbe. Then I read about him and how he had run away from the Japanese.

I then saw this movie with Christian Bale called the Flowers of War. It’s about the Japanese rape of Nanjing, then capital of China. A mortician is trapped in a monastery with Chinese girls, preteens. The Japanese have conquered the city and attempt to rape the girls. One Chinese soldier saves them. Then the Japanese army demands the girls, and thankfully prostitutes replace them in a clandestine operation and the girls escape the city.

That was nothing compared to the movie City of Life and Death, which is a more historical account of the sickness that happened there. In that movie, the only good guy was a Nazi named John Rabe, who was trying to protect Chinese civilians from Japanese rapist soldiers. The movie had me rooting for a Nazi. The movie was sickening.

After that movie I read more about Nanjing, but Gavriel wants to think that I’m ignorant. The fact is that Gavriel justifies the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people because of what the Japanese army did. Here’s Ralph Raico on that:

Puzzlingly, high decision-makers continued to justify the mass murder of Japanese civilians by reference to atrocities committed by Japan’s military. In May, for instance, Marshall met with General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project and Henry (“Hap”) Arnold, commander of the Army Air Force. Marshall cautioned that “we should guard against too much gratification” over the success of the air campaign because of the number of innocent casualties. Groves replied that he wasn’t thinking of those victims but rather of the victims of the Bataan death march. When Groves and Arnold left, Arnold slapped his companion on the back, saying, “I’m glad you said that—it’s just the way I feel.”89 Arguments along these lines were used by many leaders, up to and including Truman.

It is difficult to come to grips with what these men were saying. How could cruelty on the part of the Japanese army—at Bataan, in China, or anywhere else—possibly validate the deliberate killing of Japanese innocents, let alone hundreds of thousands of them? Those who employed, or continue to employ, such a calculus live in a strangely amoral mental world.

Genocidal fantasies flitted about in the minds of some. Admiral Halsey, commander in the South Pacific, compared the Japanese unfavorably to the Germans. While the Germans were at worst misled, “at least they react like men. But the Japanese are like animals. . . .

They take to the jungle as if they had been bred there, and like some beasts you never see them until they are dead.” Such beasts had simply to be annihilated. At the first interdepartmental meeting of a committee on how Japan was to be treated after the war, a representative of the Navy recommended “the almost total elimination of the Japanese as a race.” Paul V. McNut, former Democratic governor of Indiana and before and after the war U.S. High Commissioner to the Philippines, was chairman of the War Manpower Commission. His recommendation was “the extermination of the Japanese in toto.”

Elliot Roosevelt, one of the President’s sons, proposed bombing Japan until “half the Japanese civilian population” was killed off.

Gavriel also says it is Soviet/Fascist anti-capitalist propaganda to be against the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anti capitalist? What the hell is he talking about? In order to be a capitalist you have to support the nuclear bombing of civilians? How can Gavriel not be insane?

But there’s something even he, חכם שאין כמהו hasn’t considered. Maybe the nuking of Japan contributed to the spread of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Raico again:

Establishment writers on World War II often like to deal in lurid speculations. For instance: if the United States had not entered the war, then Hitler would have “conquered the world” (a sad undervaluation of the Red Army, it would appear; moreover, wasn’t it Japan that was trying to “conquer the world”?) and killed untold millions. Now, applying conjectural history in this case: assume that the Pacific war had ended in the way wars customarily do—through negotiation of the terms of surrender. And assume the worst—that the Japanese had adamantly insisted on preserving part of their Empire, say, Korea and Formosa, even Manchuria. In that event, it is quite possible that Japan would have been in a position to prevent the Communists from coming to power in China. And that could have meant that the many millions of deaths now attributed to the Maoist regime would not have occurred.

Like all ignorant shills for murder, and Keynesians on economic theory, Gavriel does not think more than one step deep. The Japanese army committed war crimes. The Chinese army did too under Mao. The Soviets did as well. And the Nazis. And the American army just as well.

By Gavriel’s logic, the nuking of innocent civilians in America, Russia, China, Germany and Japan that had absolutely nothing to do with their respective army’s atrocities would all be justified and good. And if he doesn’t agree with that, he is “anti-capitalist”. That is the kind of world that Gavriel and other apologists for the nuclear atrocities are logically advocating for.

Because of people like Gavriel, there are atrocities in this world.

Not all crashes happened during Shemitah Year

Non Jews are starting to get a little frantic about the end of Shmitah 5775. I’m starting to see it everywhere. I just saw an article about how people in India are even getting a little nervous. Now it’s the “supermoon” final tetrad lunar eclipse of the four blood moons on Succot in 3 weeks or so.

The eclipse will supposedly happen as the moon is at its closest distance to Earth, so it will look abnormally large, and I read that it will be visible from Jerusalem at around 2am.

There’s this kabbalistic Jewish guy at Yearsofawe that seems to think Moshiach (the Messiah) is coming and revealing himself on Hoshana Rabbah, the final day of Succot. He’s really esoteric and reminds me of that episode of Star Trek Voyager when 7 of 9 has an overload of data and weaves all these whacked out conspiracy theories that all sound more or less plausible, but it turns out she’s just nutty.

To reiterate my position, I find all of this somewhat entertaining, which is why I write about it. It would be nice if it all worked out nice and neat, but I’m not willing to bet on it. I’ve already placed my bets for an eventual total collapse of the financial world, but they have no time limit on them. Betting on this would be betting the farm on a very highly leveraged put contract on the entire world that expires on September 28. Or October 5. Or whatever date you think it is.

For the gentiles, let’s clarify a few things. The crash of 1987 did not happen on a Shemitah year. It happened on the 26th of Tishrei of the following year, 26 days after the Shemita of 1987 had already ended. Gold did peak on January 21, 1980, nearly collapsing the dollar, on a Shmitah year. The 1973 stagflation arguably began on a Shmitah year, though was officially recorded as beginning 1 month later.

The liberation of Jerusalem did not happen on a Shmitah year, and neither did Israel’s independence. The crash of 1929 did not happen on a Shemitah year. It happened during Succot of the following year, 20 days into year 1 of the 7 year cycle.

This could be stretched to say that crashes happen somewhere in the end-of-shmitah beginning-of-rishon (year one) around the holidays or thereabouts. But not everything happened on Shemitah.

So if you believe there will be a financial reset, then you’re probably right. But if you’re leveraging everything on a specific date, you’re taking a very big risk with your mind as well as your finances.

“Rafi, you’ll have come up with your own topic today, we’re too busy with the market collapse.”

I just called one of my editors for a topic. He answers the phone and I hear screaming in the background. I ask if everything is OK. He says yeah.

And he tells me, “Sorry, you’ll have to come up with your own topic today. We’re too busy with the market collapse.”

We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.