It's always amazing & validating to see how much applicable guidance the Torah contains.
A huge chunk of its wisdom lies in how the Torah demonstrates what great people did wrong AND what they did right.
The Torah proves exceptional in that respect.
With their insight into the Torah limited & distorted by their own sense of self-importance & narrow-mindedness, the am ha'aretzim & the Jew-haters misinterpret the Torah's analyzations of failures & mistakes by both tzaddikim & reshaim.
This prevents them from eliciting the invaluable lessons contained within.
A huge chunk of its wisdom lies in how the Torah demonstrates what great people did wrong AND what they did right.
The Torah proves exceptional in that respect.
With their insight into the Torah limited & distorted by their own sense of self-importance & narrow-mindedness, the am ha'aretzim & the Jew-haters misinterpret the Torah's analyzations of failures & mistakes by both tzaddikim & reshaim.
This prevents them from eliciting the invaluable lessons contained within.
When to Collect a Large Percentage of Citizen Earnings & When Not To
For example, I remember reading the stories of the kings of Yisrael and coming across the repeated theme of how raised taxes produced a disgruntled society.
As a youngster, I never thought to apply that to modern times because the assimilated Jewish environment in which I grew up dismissed most of authentic Judaism as impractical or irrelevant, only deriving the most superficial lessons from it (i.e., whatever is emotionally appealing to the secular liberal mind).
But modern economic theories show that, indeed, lower taxes mean more money for spending, which means more income for workers.
It creates a happy, productive cycle.
Yet we also find the example of Yosef Hatzaddik.
As second to Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, Yosef Hatzaddik tithed a tremendous amount from that nation—but only for a specified time period (7 years) and for a reason derived from exceptional forethought: to maintain Egypt's abundance.
In other words, Yosef's goal of accumulating Egyptian production was not for the personal extravagance of the royal family nor for ego-driven wars.
Yosef acted for the people & for their future.
So when the predicted 7-year famine arrived, Egyptians not only found themselves on top of the world, both personally & nationally, but those years of famine turned into years of plenty for Egypt as the entire world turned to Egypt to survive the famine, bringing Egypt income of all varieties.
And despite its superficial similarities to other movements, Yosef's strategy contrasts sharply to seemingly similar systems, like Communism & Socialism.
As a youngster, I never thought to apply that to modern times because the assimilated Jewish environment in which I grew up dismissed most of authentic Judaism as impractical or irrelevant, only deriving the most superficial lessons from it (i.e., whatever is emotionally appealing to the secular liberal mind).
But modern economic theories show that, indeed, lower taxes mean more money for spending, which means more income for workers.
It creates a happy, productive cycle.
Yet we also find the example of Yosef Hatzaddik.
As second to Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, Yosef Hatzaddik tithed a tremendous amount from that nation—but only for a specified time period (7 years) and for a reason derived from exceptional forethought: to maintain Egypt's abundance.
In other words, Yosef's goal of accumulating Egyptian production was not for the personal extravagance of the royal family nor for ego-driven wars.
Yosef acted for the people & for their future.
So when the predicted 7-year famine arrived, Egyptians not only found themselves on top of the world, both personally & nationally, but those years of famine turned into years of plenty for Egypt as the entire world turned to Egypt to survive the famine, bringing Egypt income of all varieties.
And despite its superficial similarities to other movements, Yosef's strategy contrasts sharply to seemingly similar systems, like Communism & Socialism.
How Yosef HaTzaddik's Policies Differ from Communism & Socialism
For example, Yosef set a time-limit for this mass stockpiling.
It was not an eternal way of life as it is with Socialist & Communist societies.
But most importantly, Yosef did it for the people.
He set aside their own goods to provide for them in tough times.
He also displayed incredible integrity in organization, accounting, and supervision as he knew exactly what was happening, how much, and where it went.
Communist societies reveal their glaring hypocrisy in how the political leaders & mafias get rich off the people, permanently trapping their people in the lower-middle-class-to-poor stratum.
The successful (at least temporarily) Socialist societies (like Scandinavia) resign the entire society to a relatively content middle class. With some exceptions, less innovation or advancement occurs due to lack of motivation. (Working hard won't earn you much more & anyway, life is pretty decent, so why push yourself?)
Contrast this to how, for example, the need to irrigate land in new areas led Israel to become one of the world's best innovators in irrigation.
However, socialism not considered a good long-term system and it also depends on a society that remains of one mind on the value system making the system work (i.e., who won't exploit the benefits by not doing their share, like not working, or by using their free time for criminal & other harmful activities).
As we see now, a tremendous amount of drinking takes place in all the Scandinavian countries, plus their daisies-and-unicorns immigration policies and vapid attitude toward crime (including toward expressions of Jew-hatred—even when the Jew-hatred turns violent), these societies are starting to sink.
Furthermore, the Russian bear sometimes makes noises at their borders. (The truth is, anyone who'd want to conquer Finland, Norway, or Sweden could do so easily at this point.)
Yet most refuse to see their society's downward turn because of: "Please don't disturb my Scandinavian socialist utopia."
I think we could also fit France in here because they also had a seemingly socialist society, but I'm not sure about the details. Anyway, France is also tanking now.
In England, you have some people living off benefits in posh neighborhoods with more money than the middle-class workers who fund their benefits.
(BTW, most Brits on benefits do not find themselves in fine neighborhoods & good housing; it depends on their situation and the terms for receiving benefits. But it's bizarre & unfair that such a situation happens at all.)
This is obviously unfair & unequal and in opposition to the ideals of economic & social equality Socialism claims to provide.
Similar to feudal societies, you have the poor providing for the luxuries of the rich while the poor struggle or go without.
At the same time, you also have the working-to-middle-class providing for those who make easily avoidable yet bad decisions that cripple their income or provide for those who don't wish to work at all.
Increasingly, this dynamic appears in America too.
America, moving toward socialism over the years, also lives off its working class, middle class, and upper class, all of whom provide for the extravagant lifestyle of its political leaders (i.e., Obama constant retreats to Martha's Vineyard for golf & treating his daughter, plus her 12 friends, to a $115,000 vacation in the foreign country of Mexico, Congressman flying around in private planes & treating themselves to exorbitantly expensive haircuts, etc.).
As in England, American tax-payers fund those who make easily avoidable yet bad decisions that cripple their income, in addition to funding those who don't wish to work at all...
...all while raising taxes & prices on a wide variety of necessities.
Ironically, the welfare system—originally intended as a safety net for those fallen onto hard times—makes it difficult to get back on one's feet, in addition to funding a pool of dependents who haven't simply fallen on hard times and need a hand up, but instead fund a pool of poor decision-makers (as the majority; there exists a minority who really do need the welfare).
Even more ironically, the growing tent camps of homeless in American cities display the thousands of people who fall between the cracks.
In one online forum, a previously employed non-drug-addicted man had accepted upon himself a temporary stint of homelessness (less risky for a man than for a woman) in order to get back on his feet.
This man inquired about the most comfortable place to be homeless while he sought a new job, saying he expected to endure his homeless state for only 1 month. He figured on getting some kind of job pretty quickly, then being able to move in to a low-rent apartment after saving on rent & utilities during that 1 months.
He had no drugs, crimes, or warrants in his background, had a good job history, and rarely drank.
He preferred Idaho for its quality of living, but heard that homeless weren't welcome there.
It's true that, due to police & citizens more sympathetic to normal decent people (as opposed to drug-addicted/mentally ill who do nothing to help themselves), Idaho lacks the drug-addicted & mentally ill homeless taking over parks and streets occurring in other cities, and who thus endanger normal people & children, which also block these people from utilizing the parks & other facilities paid by their own taxes.
For example, the homeless shelter in Boise, Idaho, apparently limits stays to 17 days and the Boise campground limits stays to 3 days. People loitering in closed parks after dark face a $40 fine if caught.
People suggested this guy move to southern California, where more benefits & facilities exist for the homeless, plus the police leave the homeless alone (even when they commit crimes) & the citizens either ignore them or give them handouts. Plus the weather is really good for outdoor living.
(Although some made the sensible recommendation of applying for a job at Idaho's Sun Valley ski resort, which offers dorm facilities to employees.)
It's weird that someone decent like him cannot get government help for his temporary downturn, which is what many claim the welfare system is set up to do and what many tax-payers wouldn't mind funding.
And there you have it, folks.
Either way, the system seems to not work the way it claims it does.
And whether they sit among the oblivious wearers of rose-colored glasses or among the resentful observers, the above societies are suffering from their lack of integrity & morality in the ruling classes...unlike the ancient Egyptians under the rule of Yosef HaTzaddik.
It was not an eternal way of life as it is with Socialist & Communist societies.
But most importantly, Yosef did it for the people.
He set aside their own goods to provide for them in tough times.
He also displayed incredible integrity in organization, accounting, and supervision as he knew exactly what was happening, how much, and where it went.
Communist societies reveal their glaring hypocrisy in how the political leaders & mafias get rich off the people, permanently trapping their people in the lower-middle-class-to-poor stratum.
The successful (at least temporarily) Socialist societies (like Scandinavia) resign the entire society to a relatively content middle class. With some exceptions, less innovation or advancement occurs due to lack of motivation. (Working hard won't earn you much more & anyway, life is pretty decent, so why push yourself?)
Contrast this to how, for example, the need to irrigate land in new areas led Israel to become one of the world's best innovators in irrigation.
However, socialism not considered a good long-term system and it also depends on a society that remains of one mind on the value system making the system work (i.e., who won't exploit the benefits by not doing their share, like not working, or by using their free time for criminal & other harmful activities).
As we see now, a tremendous amount of drinking takes place in all the Scandinavian countries, plus their daisies-and-unicorns immigration policies and vapid attitude toward crime (including toward expressions of Jew-hatred—even when the Jew-hatred turns violent), these societies are starting to sink.
Furthermore, the Russian bear sometimes makes noises at their borders. (The truth is, anyone who'd want to conquer Finland, Norway, or Sweden could do so easily at this point.)
Yet most refuse to see their society's downward turn because of: "Please don't disturb my Scandinavian socialist utopia."
I think we could also fit France in here because they also had a seemingly socialist society, but I'm not sure about the details. Anyway, France is also tanking now.
In England, you have some people living off benefits in posh neighborhoods with more money than the middle-class workers who fund their benefits.
(BTW, most Brits on benefits do not find themselves in fine neighborhoods & good housing; it depends on their situation and the terms for receiving benefits. But it's bizarre & unfair that such a situation happens at all.)
This is obviously unfair & unequal and in opposition to the ideals of economic & social equality Socialism claims to provide.
Similar to feudal societies, you have the poor providing for the luxuries of the rich while the poor struggle or go without.
At the same time, you also have the working-to-middle-class providing for those who make easily avoidable yet bad decisions that cripple their income or provide for those who don't wish to work at all.
Increasingly, this dynamic appears in America too.
America, moving toward socialism over the years, also lives off its working class, middle class, and upper class, all of whom provide for the extravagant lifestyle of its political leaders (i.e., Obama constant retreats to Martha's Vineyard for golf & treating his daughter, plus her 12 friends, to a $115,000 vacation in the foreign country of Mexico, Congressman flying around in private planes & treating themselves to exorbitantly expensive haircuts, etc.).
As in England, American tax-payers fund those who make easily avoidable yet bad decisions that cripple their income, in addition to funding those who don't wish to work at all...
...all while raising taxes & prices on a wide variety of necessities.
Ironically, the welfare system—originally intended as a safety net for those fallen onto hard times—makes it difficult to get back on one's feet, in addition to funding a pool of dependents who haven't simply fallen on hard times and need a hand up, but instead fund a pool of poor decision-makers (as the majority; there exists a minority who really do need the welfare).
Even more ironically, the growing tent camps of homeless in American cities display the thousands of people who fall between the cracks.
In one online forum, a previously employed non-drug-addicted man had accepted upon himself a temporary stint of homelessness (less risky for a man than for a woman) in order to get back on his feet.
This man inquired about the most comfortable place to be homeless while he sought a new job, saying he expected to endure his homeless state for only 1 month. He figured on getting some kind of job pretty quickly, then being able to move in to a low-rent apartment after saving on rent & utilities during that 1 months.
He had no drugs, crimes, or warrants in his background, had a good job history, and rarely drank.
He preferred Idaho for its quality of living, but heard that homeless weren't welcome there.
It's true that, due to police & citizens more sympathetic to normal decent people (as opposed to drug-addicted/mentally ill who do nothing to help themselves), Idaho lacks the drug-addicted & mentally ill homeless taking over parks and streets occurring in other cities, and who thus endanger normal people & children, which also block these people from utilizing the parks & other facilities paid by their own taxes.
For example, the homeless shelter in Boise, Idaho, apparently limits stays to 17 days and the Boise campground limits stays to 3 days. People loitering in closed parks after dark face a $40 fine if caught.
People suggested this guy move to southern California, where more benefits & facilities exist for the homeless, plus the police leave the homeless alone (even when they commit crimes) & the citizens either ignore them or give them handouts. Plus the weather is really good for outdoor living.
(Although some made the sensible recommendation of applying for a job at Idaho's Sun Valley ski resort, which offers dorm facilities to employees.)
It's weird that someone decent like him cannot get government help for his temporary downturn, which is what many claim the welfare system is set up to do and what many tax-payers wouldn't mind funding.
And there you have it, folks.
Either way, the system seems to not work the way it claims it does.
And whether they sit among the oblivious wearers of rose-colored glasses or among the resentful observers, the above societies are suffering from their lack of integrity & morality in the ruling classes...unlike the ancient Egyptians under the rule of Yosef HaTzaddik.
WHAT MOST SOCIALIST POLICIES ARE REALLY ABOUT: FEEL-GOOD VIRTUE-SIGNALING—AND A WAY TO STAY IN POWER
Some sources used in the above article:
https://jcpa.org/article/recent-anti-semitism-in-scandinavia/ (the last half of it)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-records-detailing-government-funds-expended-on-first-daughter-malia-obamas-spring-break-trip-to-mexico/
Continue on to Part 2:
http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/14-strategies-necessary-for-creating-a-successful-nation-or-society-as-gleaned-from-chapter-9-of-melachimkings-i
https://jcpa.org/article/recent-anti-semitism-in-scandinavia/ (the last half of it)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-records-detailing-government-funds-expended-on-first-daughter-malia-obamas-spring-break-trip-to-mexico/
Continue on to Part 2:
http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/14-strategies-necessary-for-creating-a-successful-nation-or-society-as-gleaned-from-chapter-9-of-melachimkings-i
RSS Feed
