On the IDF Draft and Battered Woman Syndrome (Politically Correctly Stated as Battered Person Syndrome)

My niece Eden Farber is an IDF soldier. I was also one shortly after I made aliyah. I do not generally advertise this because I am not particularly proud of it.

Anyway, Eden just wrote this piece at Times of Israel. The IDF forced Eden to take down the piece. I found it on the Wayback Machine though, and they can’t take that down. Ha.

But anyway, call me biased, but it’s very well written. And to me it’s agonizing. It’s about her disillusionment with the Israeli army, how she went into it idealistic and wanting to serve, use her talents, be useful. Driven by Zionism, love of Israel, all the stuff we are taught in Jewish day school or Hebrew school or youth groups or home school all our lives.

But then she realized that the army is not that great. In fact it was the worst experience of her life. She’s still in it. Here are some relevant passages to the very sad point I’m going to try to make here. Eden writes (my bold):

I became depressed. I cried, more than I ever have. I couldn’t sleep more than a few hours in a row. I stopped eating. Food nauseated me. I could go a week eating just one box of cookies. I fought with my family, I canceled plans with my friends. I kept fighting to advance, putting in appeals, meeting with high ranking officers to show them who I am, but in the back of my head I began to ask myself, who am I? Why would I deserve this?

And then one sentence later (my bold):

I know that Israel needs the IDF, and I know that being a part of it is important in the big picture. But I wasn’t ready for this.

And then this (bold and italics mine):

I was able to get out of my depressive state. I was able to find myself outside of just being a cog in the machine. I’m a relatively happy soldier now, who hates her job, just like every other soldier, but does it anyways, just like every other soldier, and goes to the pool and the gym with her friends on breaks. I have had my share of important shifts, where I’ve done a great deal, as well as shifts so boring I started counting speckles on the ceiling tiles. I have set my naïveté aside and learned that the biggest challenge – the one nobody prepares you for – of being in the army is staying out of it, mentally and emotionally.

the process of separating yourself, the you that thinks and cares and wants, from the you that obeys and does and works, can be heartbreaking.

For this article she is being praised, and rightly so (partially) for being courageous enough to write an article that is not entirely flattering about an institution that most American Jews are trained to revere. The draft is like a חפצא של קדושה, a holy object. To say anything bad about it or unflattering is being courageous, and it is.

But Eden stops just short of the real conclusion, because to her the draft itself is holy. She would not object to that assertion.

I just googled battered woman syndrome. Political correctness has infected Google which brought me to Battered Person Syndrome. Here are some key symptoms:

Repeated cycles of violence and reconciliation can result in the following beliefs and attitudes:

  • The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
  • The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
  • The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

There are elements of all these symptoms in her article.

Repeated cycles of emotional violence and reconciliation with the IDF (being a part of it is important in her words) results in her thinking the violence is her fault: “I began to ask myself, who am I? Why would I deserve this (a promotion from a high ranking officer)?

The responsibility is elsewhere, never with the abuser, the IDF draft, who the battered person always returns to: “I know that Israel needs the IDF, and I know that being a part of it is important in the big picture. 

The belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient (in this case holy or godly), is in that same sentence.

Her solution? You can’t ever fault the draft itself. You can’t repudiate years of education meant to make you believe the word of a politician that you must be drafted is a holy word. So you disconnect from yourself. Stay in the marriage, become emotionally detached…a ghost of yourself…

…the biggest challenge – the one nobody prepares you for – of being in the army is staying out of it, mentally and emotionally.

Mentally and emotionally. Notice what she did not say. Physically.

In order to refrain from lashing out at the draft itself, which is what I have done, you have to disconnect from everything. Turn yourself off. Become a robot rather than a human. Learn to turn off your humanity.

But there’s a bigger challenge than staying out of the army mentally and emotionally. The biggest challenge – the one that causes you to fundamentally change the way you see the world – is to stay out of it physically. To put your foot down and say NO MORE.

You can get a divorce.

And here I’m not talking to Eden alone. I’m talking to everyone drafted against their will and miserable, you don’t have to do this to yourselves. You don’t have to stay married. You don’t have to return to your abusive spouse convinced that being part of an abusive marriage is important or idealistic. You don’t have to believe that it’s holy to serve in the army for the sake of serving in the army because it happens to be that a group of at least 61 out of 120 politicians who all lie, cheat, and steal from you for a living say that you have to do it. We all dislike politicians to some extent at least, yet we believe following their word is holy?

Let’s assume the IDF is holy. I believe it is, but not any more intrinsically holy than any other industry in Israel. IDF is just the defense industry. Israel needs all of its industry to survive, high tech and grocery stores included. But let’s accept that it is. That doesn’t mean, however that serving in the IDF is holier than serving anywhere else in the country. If everyone served in the IDF, everyone would starve because there would be no profit-driven division of labor. We’d turn into Mao’s Great Leap Forward where everyone was a soldier and simply die of starvation, just like the Chinese did, 45 million of them from 1958-62, when the whole country was drafted into a Chinese army all at once with Mao directing it.

If the IDF is holy, it needs support. It needs people outside of it in the economy to feed it. I’m one of those. Other people in Israel need people in the private sector to supply them with goods and services. When you get a job and make money, you are doing something holy because you are supporting the IDF that way. You are supporting the army, but you are also supporting everyone.

When you sit in the army and do nothing, you are not supporting the army. You are not supporting anyone. You are obeying politicians. That’s it. You are burdening the army. So the most courageous thing to do would be to simply leave and accept the consequences. If you are worried about prison, you need not be. You’re already in one.

Yes, if there was a war I’d fight in the IDF, and I’d be grudgingly OK with forced basic training only so we are prepared in case of an emergency. But serving just because it happens to be the artificial law agreed on by 61 out of 120 loathsome people is not a holy endeavor.

But let me close out by putting this into perspective. Eden is complaining, and rightly so, about being wasted in a vast bureaucratic system that doesn’t know its right from its left. But it gets much, much worse than that. Eden’s case is a mild one. Consider the families – the wives and children and parents – of soldiers who have died capturing murderers, who are then released by Netanyahu in a “good will gesture” to Abbas, and they go out and murder again.

Imagine how broken, beaten, downtrodden they are if they have any will to live at all. Eden has the luxury of reconnecting with her humanity on weekends or breaks or when she happens to maybe be doing something useful in the IDF in rare instances. Those people, they do not. They are broken for good. There is no way out of their eternal hell. They will die miserable, because of the IDF and the politicians who run it.

Some soldiers are not as strong as Eden. Many commit suicide. Suicide, in fact, is the leading cause of death of IDF soldiers.

You can break away. You can separate. You can love Israelthe people, the nation, the land, and the God of Israel – and hate the draft. Once I achieved that break, I became a happier person.

If you don’t think you’re doing anything useful, just leave. Don’t go back. If you are fighting and you don’t believe what you’re doing is helpful or morally acceptable, don’t risk your life. Leave. Don’t go back. Take the prison sentence and move on.

And if you’ve already been destroyed by the draft, or you have a loved one who was drafted who has already committed suicide, the only thing I can say to you is that Moshe Rabeinu placed the broken tablets in the same Aron (ark) as the full, unbroken set of tablets. You may be broken, but you’re still with us, והמקום ינחם אתכם בתוך שאר אבילי ציון וירושלים.

עד מתי, as they say in the army. It’s an inside army joke to some as I learned when I was a soldier, but a serious life-threatening question to others, some who cannot survive it.

Yidlach Shirai…Ad Mussai!

When will this hellish draft end? When the Jews realize it is not holy, and as we say in Avinu Malkeinu –

אבינו מלכנו, אין לנו מלך אלא אתה.

Our Father our King, we have no King but You.

When I say it, I mean it.

Chag Sameach.

 

It gets to anarcho-capitalism pretty fast on Facebook

I went to Brandeis University. Full disclosure, I despise Louis Dembitz Brandeis and most of what he stands for. The clueless statist Zionism, the totalitarianism, his position on the Supreme Court.

While I was at Brandeis, I was not a libertarian, but I was headed there, even then.

While I was at Brandeis, there was this guy Igor Pedan. I never met him. I think he was my editor in chief at The Hoot where I wrote humor columns.

Here’s the thread we had. Posting here because I assume it will be deleted soon and it’s not bad. In response to this video of another Brandeis guy who thinks its worth his time to get politicians to condemn people who hit Muslims. He’s probably an aspiring politician, as many lawyers are. Though he’s anti war so he’s less dangerous than the average neocon and he’s a good guy generally, just a bit confused. He wants to spend your money giving it to others who didn’t work for it while you did rather than spend it on killing foreigners. That’s less bad. If he runs for anything, vote for him, because he probably won’t kill people.

Context: Cahn argued for some resolution that politicians in New York City should condemn people who say bad things about Muslims. I think anyone should be able to say bad or good things about anybody for any reason. So I objected.

You’ll see that Cahn’s video is pretty much standard politician-speak meant to sound so obviously moralistic and taking advantage so he can run in the future for some office using these lines as an ad. There’s nothing sophisticated or deep about it, just cheap opportunistic talk. But if you’re a New Yorker vote for him anyway because he’s against war. Seriously. Hopefully he’ll stay that way but I doubt it. Politicians who use these opportunities to pedal nonsense rarely stay principled.

Rafi Farber what’s the resolution? that politicians should condemn people who commit violence against other people? Is this more hate crime legislation? Why aren’t current punishments against violence enough? Why do we need more laws? Aren’t there already laws against violence against innocents?
Albert Cahn Rafi, as you’ll see if you review the bill, the resolution does nothing of the sort. It’s
A resolution that expresses the sentiment of the council, not a law restricting individual liberty. Your objection seems a bit off pointhttp://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx…|Text|&Search=1230

LEGISTAR.COUNCIL.NYC.GOV|BY DARIUS TAJANKO
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Wasn’t objecting. Just asking questions. I’m not sure what this will accomplish, but nothing objectionable in the text.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Actually, now that I read it carefully, it is objectionable. It condemns rhetoric and speech. For those who care about the constitution, that is unconstitutional, but that doesn’t really matter to most people. It is important for people say hateful things without the fear of being punished. Discrimination is also very important. Everyone discriminates. It’s why I married one female instead of 4 men.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Isn’t condemning also speech?
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Rafi are you sure you want to use the rhetorical gambit of claiming that you care more about the constitution than I do? I’m a full-time civil rights lawyer, I work every day to defend my clients’ rights, including their rights under the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits laws that punish individuals for speaking, it does not restrict the right of our deliberative assemblies to pass a resolution expressing their own opinions. If you think this is censorship, if you think this violates the First Amendment, then there are two centuries of contrary precedent that you need to review. As for the utility of the measure, there’s a power in using civic institutions to reinforce social norms, even if those measures lack the force of our penal law. The reshaping of our political dialogue in recent months has correlated with a significant increase in hate crimes and violence that cannot be readily explained by any other causal factor. If political rhetoric can push the trendline in one direction, what basis do you have for asserting rhetoric can’t push it in the countervailing direction?
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I do not care about the constitution at all. Condemning sure is free speech, but politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others. Their rights should be restricted because they are public officials. They should not be allowed to condemn the speech of others because they live off the money of others.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber You use academic legal language a lot. I don’t understand lawyer talk. I’m pretty stupid, as you can see. When I read that congress shall make no law restricting free speech I think that’s what it means. I must be wrong though. I just don’t see the point of getting politicians to say things when it’s already illegal to hit and harass innocent people.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Because ever since a certain Republican politician started saying very inflammatory things a whole lot more people started getting attacked, even though it was just as illegal as before he started talking. Words have impact.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Which politician? I don’t follow politics.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn You’re joking right? I’ll give you a hint, he’s brash and orange.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Rafi “politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others… because they live off the money of others.” First, only elected official actually live of the money of others. Second, pretty much everyone who is employed lives off the money of others. Third, what other things should politicians not be allowed to say? Is there a list somewhere (maybe in the Constitution?) that lists these banned topics for politicians only?
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Igor, I said before I don’t care about the constitution. And no, only politicians live off the money of others because they force others to give them money by threatening to kill them if they don’t give the money. Other private people engage in voluntary exchanges, so the money they make becomes theirs on the exchange. Everything politicians do, from their sex lives to going to the bathroom should be recorded 24/7. If you want to be a public official, your life should be 100% public, all of it, everything, no exceptions whatsoever. This way they won’t have any secrets whatsoever. If people want to watch it should be on C-Span.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber If it were up to me politicians should not be allowed to say anything at all.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Then how would you know what they stand for?
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I wouldn’t. I don’t care what private people stand for as long as they don’t hurt me. If politicians have no power over us what they stand for doesn’t matter.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan So you are against voting? Against Democracy? Against government (ala Sumolia)? What you just said make so little sense, it’s comical.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I’m not against voting. I am against democracy, and I am against government. If you want to vote, vote, but there’s no difference. Whoever leads will spend more money and kill more people than the guy before.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan That ends this discussion. Hope you never have to call the police, fire department, need to use roads, airports, etc.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Those should all be privatized. Then I wouldn’t have to complain to politicians who don’t care and have no responsibility when more people are killed on their roads than in all US wars combined.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan There wouldn’t be any roads.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber If there’s a market demand for roads there would be roads.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan That’s blatantly false.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber read the book, get back to me later
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber and I’d rather have private security directly responsible to me personally than a police force that locks people up for smoking pot and kills black people randomly.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan And someone with a bigger private security force will just kill you with no repercussions.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber they’d have to answer to my force. And wars between private police forces is much less scary than nuclear war between huge countries.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Rafi and Igor if you’d like to have a separate discussion about the merits of representative democracy versus anarcho-capitalism, i’ll gladly show up and bring the popcorn, but I’d respectfully suggest that this is not the preferred forum for such a debate.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber OK signing off. Your wall.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Albert, feel free to delete this thread. I didn’t realize Rafi prefers to live in Sumolia and that this conversation was headed there.
Rafi Farber

Rafi Farber Agree, delete the thread and I should move to Sumalia. Though I’m not sure how. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumalia

Sumalia is a genus of butterflies found in Southeast Asia ranging from the Indian…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

SURPRISE Obama Adds More to National Debt Than Any Other President Ever

Who would have guessed this? Apparently Obama has added $9,036,534,448,884.32 to the national debt. George W. Bush added only about $5 trillion.

Wasn’t the Obama administration always bragging about cutting the deficit, and that deficits under him were lower than anyone something blah blah? That’s like saying “I only cheated on my wife with hookers 4 trillion times and not 7 trillion times. I’m relatively faithful.”

Keep it coming guys. Pile it on. Let’s see how big it can get before it falls.

And when it does, make sure you reading this if you’re in America have plenty of riot gear and an exit strategy.

In fact, all those Jewish Obamaniks and other lefties who keep saying that Trump is Hitler and mean it seriously, I expect you to all get your tickets to Israel and get over here before the next 6 million are gassed.

He grabs vaginas apparently, so he’ll be grabbing them Jews next! Makes sense, no?

I wonder what the gematria of the debt will be when the world finally stops lending the American government any more dollars.

Shimon Peres is Dead and the Thought Police Are Out Guns Blazing if You Don’t Think He Was Awesome

He’s dead. No joy, no sadness, just relief. He will no longer harm anyone ever again. The following are two Facebook posts I made after being rather infuriated by gushing lovey dovey “We Love Shimon Peres” posts.

Post #1

Alright Facebook. Another politician dead and here come the deep meaningful posts about what we can all learn from his life. The gushing, the love, and even the people who didn’t like him at all saying things like “Say what you want about Shimon Something, but he positive positive blah blah. He may have destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of people and worse, but at least he was a great blah blah blah.”

The aura of thought police is exuding, totally exuding today. I’m not interrupting or trolling comment threads about this Peres guy, except I will say this on my own.

There are many, many people who hate the guy’s guts, and justifiably so. It should be legitimate for them to have their own catharsis of relief that he’s gone.

That’s how it is in politics. You take from one group you give to the other. Those that were taken from have a right to resent it, and resent it intensely. Those that gained from it will likely love him, but only they are allowed to post things because they liked him? No.

Me personally, I don’t care. The world is not better or worse off now that he’s dead, because he’s been inactive for a while. But the people whose lives have been destroyed by him should not feel embarrassed or afraid to call him every bad name in the book and if their life or their home was destroyed by him, they should feel that it’s OK to cry in relief that this man is no longer breathing the same air that they are.

It’s OK to say bad things about dead politicians. It’s not pasul. You can do it, and it’s legitimate.

Post #2

Here’s a follow up on the lovey dovey Peres posts. As expected the Jewish thought police rang the alarm on me defending those who do not mourn the passing of Shimon Peres. I am one of those people and there are many many others.

There were the hysterical types calling me names, but they are more entertaining than annoying. Then there are the sagacious types who respond with counterpoints that sound reasonable but actually are not reasonable at all.

One case in point is a friend of mine who responded to me by saying something along the lines that Jewish etiquette encourages seeing the good side of people that just died, even politiciians, and that after the shiva we can all engage in a “dispassionate” debate about the merits and failures of the politicians.

Dispassionate? Dispassionate? If you have something critical to say you have to be DISpassionate and wait, while everyone else gushing over an evil man gets to be as passionate as they please, immediately upon hearing of the death?

No. Double standard.

Think about it this way. Imagine you are a person whose son committed suicide in the aftermath of the expulsion from Gush Katif. Your family is ruined, you livelihood gone, you live in a caravan and your marriage is a shell. You hate this man with a PASSION and you have to watch everyone else say great things about him while implying that anyone who says bad things about him now is doing something illegitimate.

You, the victim of Peres, on the other hand, even though your life was destroyed by this man, YOU have to wait, and you can only be DISpassionate even if you are allowed to criticize, eventually, after a certain buffer zone invented by the other side.

So I say no. We call the emperor nude when we see it. We do not praise him and then when nobody cares anymore, only then point out his nudity DISpassionately in retrospect, when it’s not in the news anymore and nobody is paying attention.

So I’m turning the tables. I say, if you have anything good to say about Shimon Peres, be quiet now, let his direct victims have their say first, PASSIONATELY, and then one week from now after shiva, anyone who wants to praise his legacy do so DISpassionately, when nobody gives anymore.

Otherwise, you are grievously insulting everyone whose lives this man destroyed.

And keep in mind, anyone he ever helped, by definition, he did it by taking money by force from others.

Farber out.

Is There a Statute of Limitations in Libertarianism, Part II

You know when Hillary Clinton says something so stupid and inane that literally everyone, even her fans, knows she’s either seriously mentally handicapped or deliberately lying? Yeah, well, she’s not the only one.

Back in our debate on the legitimacy of Israel from a libertarian perspective, which was challenging as Hammond gave me decent arguments that at least had the pretense of some sort of logic, Hammond insisted that there does exist a statute of limitations in libertarianism as far as claims to previously homesteaded land goes.

Our argument is that there is no statute of limitations in libertarianism in terms of a hard specific quantitative amount of time that must pass before a claim from the past becomes null and void. Such a statute cannot be in libertarianism because any specific quantitative time limit would be a posteriori and would null claims that could, in theory, be proven based on actual hard physical evidence of previous homesteading.

Now, Hammond is challenging me to “make an argument”. Obviously, what follows below will not qualify as “an argument” according to him, because according to him, I have never “made an argument”. I’ll just let you all judge for yourselves if I’m raving nonsense or presenting a very simple logical progression here.

Hammond, in his debate with me, quoted a footnote from our paper, in which we said the following:

But are there no statutes of limitation? Surely, two millennia and counting would more than qualify for any statute of limitations. There is such a thing, for the libertarian, as a “natural” statute of limitations: the further back ones goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter any relevant evidence. Since the burden of proof always rests with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, mere passage of time can serve as a natural limitation.

Now, woe is me, I was not fully versed in every single footnote of our paper on the fly verbatim, so I thought he caught us in a contradiction. This sure sounds like we are accepting the notion of statutes of limitations in libertarianism based on time limits. During the debate, I knew this could not be, but I had no time to skim through the whole paper to look for the footnote as I was writing notes at the time to rebut his opening statement.

Let me be very clear, for Hammond’s sake. He is accusing us of contradicting ourselves with regard to statutes of limitations. On the one hand, we supposedly say that there is such a thing as statutes of limitation, and on the other hand, we supposedly accept the claim of Jews to land obviously and demonstrably previously homesteaded by Jews in Judea. How can we accept these claims and say they are legitimate if we accept a statute of limitations according to this footnote in the paper itself?

In Hammond’s words, this argument “fails even on its own terms” because we both accept and reject a statute of limitations.

OK, follow me so far? I’m going very very slowly here, deliberately, so even someone with zero background in logic can understand. I’m presenting “an argument” to expose Hammond’s dishonesty. He will no doubt say that he has no idea what I’m talking about and that this is not “an argument”. I can’t go any slower than I’m going now. So stay with me. (Obviously I don’t think Hammond is an idiot. He’s just playing one because he knows we caught him on this and he can’t get out of it.)

Now, what is the meaning of this footnote he has cited? As a co-author of the paper, I will give it you. Let’s go sentence by sentence.

Surely, two millennia and counting would more than qualify for any statute of limitations.

Meaning, yes, in general, 2,000 years does qualify as a statute of limitations. How so? הכא במאי עסקינן? במה דברים אמורים? (In what case does 2,000 years qualify as a statute of limitations? תניא (The text states)

There is such a thing, for the libertarian, as a “natural” statute of limitations: the further back one goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter any relevant evidenceץ

תיובתא דרפי פרבר? (Is this a refutation of Farber et al?)

אדרבא. Just the opposite.

2,000 years is a “natural” statute of limitations only because in general, the further back one goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter relevant evidence of past claims. This is only an observation of general natural trends. The “naturalness” of the statute of limitations for the libertarian is הכי השתא (one and the same as, intertwined with) the lack of hard, relevant, physical evidence of a claim in the first place. The limitation is not inherent in the amount of time passed, which would be a posteriori, but intrinsic only in the lack of evidence generally due to the passage of time.

גופא (going back to the quote) תני תוהא (we already know)

Since the burden of proof always rests with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, mere passage of time can serve as a natural limitation.

“Can” כתיב, “Must” לא כתיב. It says “can”. It does not say “must”. When “can” 2,000 years serve as a natural statute of limitations? Only when there is no longer any hard physical evidence of past claims due to the “natural” passage of time. This would apply to all land in Israel for which there is no hard physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. The Right of Return for non-Jewish Palestinians who do not descend from Jews applies only to that land.

Meaning, if and where there is hard physical evidence of previous claims, the mere passage of time does not constitute a statute of limitations for the libertarian.

Now, what did Hammond leave out of his selective quotation of this footnote? Only this:

However, there can be no man-made statute in this regard, at least not for the libertarian. If there were, injustice would prevail when the plaintiff can marshal proof that a property title is illicit, and yet the court would not uphold it. This would also spell almost the death knell for reparations, surely a basic element of the libertarian philosophy. See on this note 75.

Now, I have challenged Hammond to quote the footnote in full on this dishonest incomplete lazy excuse for a rebuttal on his site here. And suprise suprise, he thinks the rest of the footnote is irrelevant.

Anyone forming pictures of Hillary Clinton in their heads right now? I certainly am!

I actually feel stupid, as if I’m talking to a 10 year old in an introductory course to symbolic logic and Aristotle’s basic premise that contradictions don’t exist. How could this not be relevant? I don’t know. I don’t know what to say anymore other than Hammond is being deliberately stupid so as not to get himself caught in the contradiction he has placed himself in.

What contradiction specifically? He says that our argument “fails on its own terms”. What “terms” are those? The terms that Jews’ claim on land previously homesteaded by Jews in Judea, with hard physical and indisputable evidence of previous homesteading by Jews (Har Habayit, Ma’aarat Hamachpela, most of East Jerusalem in Ir David), is valid because there is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, when supposedly in this footnote that he quotes, without quoting the end of it, we supposedly admit that we believe in a statute of limitations for the libertarian when we do not and we never did.

So let me make this very clear to you Jeremy Hammond and fans, even though I am absolutely positive you all already understand perfectly and are just feigning idiocy in order to stem yourselves from admitting your contradiction:

There is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, nor can there possibly be one, by the very a priori nature of libertarianism itself. The only natural statute of limitations in libertarianism is when there is no longer any hard evidence of previous claims, whether due to mere passage of time or anything else that erases evidence. OR there is an explicit relinquishment of all claims, as in the case of ייאוש.

But in cases where there is hard evidence of previous homesteading and no ייאוש, plus hard evidence that the nearest of kin to those original legitimate homesteaders still exist and claim this land and never ever relinquished their claims…

Well then, all land with hard physical evidence of previous homesteading by Jews, must go to the nearest of kin, which are Jews, by shares of stock in that landregardless of any subsequent homesteader on that land.

Practically speaking then, because there is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, all land with hard physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading from the Roman period, must go to the descendants of those original homesteaders, given that no one Jew can prove descent from any specific homesteader. Therefore, all of it must go to all verifiable genetic Jews with certain Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers by shares, to be determined by impartial third-party judges with zero connection to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim line.

Is this “an argument”?

Will Hammond quote the entire footnote at that dishonest article of his? No, because he thinks it’s “irrelevant”.

Why will he not actually quote the entire thing in reality, when he knows full well that it’s VERY relevant? Because he knows if he does, the stupidity he is currently feigning will become obvious even to the densest of his own readers.

When your only defense is to play dumb (I don’t know what “C” means on these classified emails! I never knew you couldn’t have a private email server! What’s the definition of “is”?) then I may as well be arguing with Hillary Clinton, which really, is not worth anyone’s time.

If Hammond wants to continue acting like Hillary Clinton, he is welcome to it. But if that’s really the best that the anti-Israel libertarian crowd has to offer, it’s really sub par.

Give me and every other genetic Jew on the planet (including Palestinian non Jews with Jewish genes!) Har Habayit by shares of stock. Give us Ma’arat Hamachpela, give us every single piece of land in Israel with verifiable physical hard evidence of previous Jewish homesteading, and the “Palestinians” can have the right of return to the rest. (See? I accept the right of return by Palestinians, but only to land where there is no hard and obvious physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. There is no hard obvious physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading in most of Israel, so practically, we actually agree on much even though he insists I reject the right of return, which  I DO NOT.)

So does our argument “fail on its own terms”? NO. It fails on his terms, which are that libertarianism necessitates a time-bound man-made a posteriori statute of limitations. These terms are wrong.

Dramatic effect follows for rhetorical emphasis only, no violence implied against any government official (skip to 1:21, and FYI Mandy Patinkin is a Jew):

Offer me money. (Not really, not interested.) Power too. Promise me that. (Not interested either.) Offer me everything I ask for. (Har Habayit, Ma’arat HaMachpela, and every parcel of land with hard evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. That I actually DO demand. Not of Hammond. He is irrelevant. Of the Israeli government yemach shemam. They are my real enemy.)

I want my Beis HaMikdash back Binyamin Netanyahu you son of a bitch. The Feiglinites are coming.

The Jews are back. The exiles are gathered. Our only stumbling block left is the Israeli government itself. After this post I will get back to only that, because these Hammondeers only dig in by deliberately acting progressively more ignorant of basic English and logic.

Put the whole quote on the post. Yeah, no chance of that. Because it’s irrelevant obviously. Whatever Hillary. C is for Clinton, that’s good enough for you.

 

Moshe Feiglin & Zehut Charidy Money Bomb Donate NOW – $400,000 Goal

Donate here until 6pm Israel time tomorrow, which is 11am EST.

Every donation will be matched 4x. Here is what Shmuel Sackett sent me. I donated $1,000, which is matched by donors to $4,000.

Go to this website right now at Charidy.com to donate!

Note: I sent the email below to 200 people. In order for this big event to work, we MUST get pre-pledges before the start of the telethon.

It is now time for me to start sending to our team, as well – and that means you… and me.

Just to let you know:
Moshe Feiglin pledged 1,000 shekel.

Shai Malka pledged 1,000 shekel.

Shmuel Sackett pledged 1,000 shekel – after they twisted and almost broke my arm… just kidding!

(With the current exchange rate, 1,000 shekel is around $270)

Anyway, we need your pledge as well.

Please read the email and REPLY to me with your pledge.

Thanks,

Shmuel

 

Things for ZEHUT are going very well, Baruch Hashem.

The Jerusalem Post ran an article about us last week and Moshe is interviewed 3-4 times/week on radio and tv.

Lapid is rising in the polls – which is good for us – because we are the “flip-side” of everything he says.

Lapid and Feiglin have succeeded in changing the narrative from right/left to Israeli/Jewish.

We now have 15 chapters around the country plus another 7 in universities and our office in Tel Aviv is bussing with volunteers.

A recent poll was taken by “Ma’agar Mochot” showing that 71% of our supporters identify themselves as either “secular” or “traditional”.

This proves that we are getting to the right people…

 

As you know, TOMORROW we are running a big “Charidy” crowd-funding event where all donations are matched 4-1.

Aish HaTorah ran a Charidy program and they raised $1,364,557.

Charidy has run 900 programs so far including for the Lakewood Yeshiva, dozens of Chabad organizations, Hatzola and even Mayanot where they raised $2,306,044!!

These guys are very good and extremely professional.

Actually, today starts their biggest campaign ever. Yeshiva University is looking to raise a whopping $5,000,000!!

Our goal is to raise a total of $400,000. (We are very humble guys…)

The way it works is that on the actual day of Charidy – which is tomorrow – Sept 21st – the 18th of Elul (the birthday of the Ba’al Shem Tov) – we try to raise $100,000.

Before that day, it has been my job to find “MATCHERS” which will commit to a total of $300,000.

They will ONLY give their money if we hit our goal of $100,000 on Wednesday.

 

I divided the $300,000 into 3 groups.

#1 – One matcher for $100,000. I am proud to say that I achieved this goal! Michael Farkas of Miami Beach, FL has pledged this entire amount. Baruch Hashem.

#2 – Several USA matchers that collectively pledged $100,000. Baruch Hashem I reached that goal with 14 different donors.

#3 – Several ISRAELI matchers that collectively pledged $100,000. Baruch Hashem, just yesterday we hit our goal with 13 donors who actually pledged a total of $102,900.

(Note: I will gladly send you the names and amount of all “matchers’, if you would like to see them. This is 100% real – nothing is “fudged”)

Is There a Statute of Limitations in Libertarianism? Yes, It’s Called ייאוש

In my debate with Jeremy Hammond on the legitimacy of the State of Israel from a libertarian perspective, the center of Hammond’s argument is that a 2,000 year old claim to previously homesteaded land is invalid because there is a statute of limitations in libertarianism.

First of all, he quotes a footnote in the paper that reads as follows.

But are there no statutes of limitation? Surely, two millenia and counting would more than qualify for any statute of limitations. There is such a thing, for the libertarian, as a ‘natural’ statute of limitations: the further back ones [sic] goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter any relevant evidence. Since the burden of proof always rests with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, mere passage of time can serve as a natural limitation.

Sure sounds like there is a statute of limitations according to our paper! But Hammond deliberately leaves out the second part of the footnote to give the impression that we hold that libertarianism does support a statute of limitations, when we hold no such thing. Here is the full footnote. Note the However after Jeremy’s selective out of context quote:

statute-of-limitations

I have requested that Jeremy put up the full quote on his article on his site discussing this very issue. I put it in the comments in any case.

But anyway, there is a statute of limitations in libertarianism, and it is a priori, but it has nothing to do with time passed. It cannot have anything to do with time passed because any measurement of time is a posteriori, whereas libertarianism, or should I say the positive Austrian method of deductive analysis as set forth by Ludwig Von Mises in “Economic Science and the Austrian Method” which leads to normative libertarianism, is a priori.

So what is the statute of limitations in libertarianism? It is when a claim is entirely foregone. When a claim is foregone, that claim cannot be picked up by subsequent generations. Once someone gives up a claim, that claim is gone and can no longer be inherited. In halacha the concept is called ייאוש, transliterated ye’ush. Giving up.

In Judaism for example there is a religious obligation to return lost objects to their previous owners. Lost objects cannot ever be taken regardless of the amount of time passed, unless there is ייאוש by the person who lost the object. It is not time-dependent. It is ייאוש dependent.

Once there is וודאי ייאוש, or definite relinquishing of claims, there is no longer any obligation to return a lost object, and the person who found it can keep it.

Now let’s reason this out deductively, just like Mises reasoned out the business cycle and just like Chazal reasoned out ייאוש in בבא קמא. If a person declares a piece of his property hefker (ownerless) and someone takes that piece of property, the child of that person can no longer claim that piece of property as his inheritance, obviously. Further, if a parent’s property was stolen and the parent has ייאוש, meaning he completely gives up on ever getting the property back, the child’s claim is now null and void and the child can no longer claim the property either, even though the property was lost unjustly in the first place.

If we now enlarge the sample size, do Mexicans have a claim on California and Texas? No, they do not, because Mexicans have given up their claims entirely. I don’t hear of any Mexicans claiming these places. Do Native Americans have a claim on their stolen land? In that case I am not 100% certain because I am unfamiliar with Indian tribes, but in the event that they have given up any hope of ever getting their stolen land back, then subsequent generations cannot claim it back either.

So, have Jews ever given up their claims to Judea/Israel/Palestine? No, not ever. We have never had any ייאוש regarding our eventual return to our homesteaded land. Not for a single generation. Our claims are reinforced every single day of our lives without exception and we are in fact commanded never to give up our claims. This is inherent in our mandated belief in the גאולה, the redemption of the Jewish People by the משיח at whatever point in the future and the ingathering of the exiles, which in fact has already happened.

Have some Jews given up their claims? Certainly. Have some Jews experienced ייאוש? Absolutely. Most of those Jews are no longer part of the nation. They are gone, assimilated, kaput. Many Jews have not had ייאוש, including yours truly. If and when a Jew who has given up his claims to his homeland marries one who has not, he or she re-inherits the continuous unbroken claim through marriage. Think of the Jewish Nation as one body, like Wolverine or the T-1000. If one strand breaks off and gives up the claim, the core heals and makes the body, the claim, full again. One piece flies off, but if it is found by the core and reabsorbed, the claim is restored through joining back up with the unbroken, whole Nation.

The only thing I need to prove is actual physical descent from the original homesteaders. All land with evidence of previous Jewish homesteading goes to the nearest of kin, which are Jews, whether they happen to practice Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism it does not matter. Since there is no one Jew who can prove individual ownership of any plot of land, all land with evidence of previous Jewish homesteading goes to the descendants of Jews by shares of stock, whether these descendants call themselves Palestinian or Israeli or whatever.

I can easily prove descent. I have the genes and I have the claim, repeated constantly and never, ever broken. Anyone else who can prove decent also has a right to previously homesteaded land, unless he has had ייאוש. Most Palestinians have not had ייאוש either.

So here’s what it comes down to practically:

Since possession is 9/10ths of the law, any human being sitting on homesteaded land in Israel that has no previous evidence of any homesteading by Jews, gets to stay there. If there is previous evidence of homesteading by Jews, anyone on that land must prove descent from Jews, and if they cannot, they must leave. All people who were expelled from their homesteaded land unjustly in 1948 or whenever, has a right of return. If he descends from Jews, he can return regardless of whether the land he was expelled from was homesteaded by Jews in the past or not. If he is not descended from Jews, he only has a right of return if the land he was on has no previous evidence of homesteading by Jews.

So does a statute of limitations exist in libertarianism? Yes. It is called ייאוש, ye’ush. Jews never had ye’ush, our claim is still valid, and it must be so a priori. All previously homesteaded land in Israel belongs to us by shares, simply because it is impossible to know which Jew owns which plot of land. Shares of stock in previously homesteaded land in the areas currently under the control of the Jewish State, must be distributed to all demonstrable descendants of the Jews that originally homesteaded the land.

As for Har Habayit, that specific land was homesteaded with Jewish money, donated and taxed, on the condition that it be used for the Beit HaMikdash. Any other use of it is a violation of contract. Therefore, according to libertarianism, the Beit HaMikdash, the Temple, must be rebuilt.

 

Top Ten Things That Piss Me Off About Anti Israel Libertarians

These issues are usually in my subconscious. Recent events have brought them out to my conscious thought. I don’t like discussing this stuff in general because these are Jewish issues and what non Jews think doesn’t concern me. But I’ve been brought in to the fold, so here are my thoughts.

  1. Anti Israel libertarians say settlements are immoral because they are not annexed by the State of Israel, even though settling land is the crux of the entire libertarian homesteading theory, and libertarians are against states annexing anything in the first place.
  2. Statist institutions and instruments like the UN and “international law,” suddenly become relevant and important regarding what these institutions say about Israel, even though they are despised and ignored and reviled in every single other case.
  3. Anti Israel libertarians rail against the “ethnic cleansing” of “Palestine” while they simultaneously egg on the actual ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria of Jews, because “settlements” are “illegal” according to “international law” and should all be evacuated. I wonder what John Locke would say about THAT.
  4. Libertarians hold that homesteading is the way one comes to own property, yet anti Israel libertarians like Jeremy Hammond can hold, only in the case of Israel, that it is legitimate to own UNhomesteaded land just because some statist body says that uncultivable land can be “owned”.land-ownership-palestine
  5. Israel is by FAR the most liberal state in the entire middle east in terms of economic and religious freedom, which means that it is the MOST libertarian state by any and EVERY measure, and yet it is the MOST hated by many libertarians.
  6. Regarding Israel, suddenly statist political boundaries become relevant when they are reviled in any other case. The boundary between Israel and Judea and Samaria somehow is very important when libertarians, in any other case, revile the notion of political boundaries in the first place. Except with regard to Israel.
  7. When the State of Israel expels Jews from their homes that were built on vacant unhomesteaded land as in the case of Gush Katif, anti Israel libertarians cheer. In any other case of statist violence such as this, libertarians jeer. In other words, ethnic cleansing of non Jews is evil, but ethnic cleansing of Jews is justice.
  8. Regarding Israel, libertarians suddenly become supportive of overtly socialist schemes like “the right to strike”, which Murray Rothbard accused Israel of denying to Arabs, when in every other case besides Israel, there is no right to strike, because the right to strike means the right to prevent others from voluntarily contracting to work in a job that you have already quit.
  9. Anti Israel libertarians insist that Arabs have a right to a “state of their own” even though in every other case, libertarians hold that nobody has a right to a state at all.
  10. Anti Israel libertarians have no respect for the founders of their entire philosophy, the Jewish People, who by giving the world the story of the Exodus from Egypt, established the foundations of libertarianism itself for the entire Western World.

Libertarians are my ideological allies in the vast, vast majority of cases, and will continue to be so, even if they hate me. What they think of me personally makes no difference to me. Even the most bona fide anti-semitic libertarian, assuming there is one and the term “anti Semitic” actually means something, is my ideological ally in most cases.

But libertarians will never be my family just because they are libertarians. Jews are my family. The commies, the socialists, the lefties, the Kahanists, the Likudniks, all of them. Many of them are bad people and ideological enemies, but they are my family nonethless, and I can’t choose them. I care about them first, and if physically attacked, I would defend the life of the most socialist communist totalitarianist Jew against the attacks of the most anarcho libertarian, just because blood comes first, and that’s it.

As for the anti Israel Jewish libertarians, I can only sigh and move on. This is why Murray Rothbard’s attacks on Israel are mostly irrelevant to me and I just gloss over it all. But now that I have been brought into the fold of this intractable argument, people should know my thoughts.

My faith in God and His directing of Jewish history is too strong to be bothered all that much by anti Israel libertarians. But these thoughts of mine, while almost always dormant, are my thoughts.

One day libertarianism will conquer the world, and through the instrument of the Jewish People. Without the Jews, libertarianism cannot win. We are the כלי through which it will win, eventually.

One day Jewish libertarians will tear down the State of Israel and Jews will be free. But in the mean time, let’s be clear. The State of Israel, as a State, is much less evil than most other States on this planet right now, with the exception of maybe Switzerland. I gotta give props for centuries of sustained neutrality. Pleased don’t bother me Jews, about them financing Hitler. I know. But the US financed Stalin. Wake up.