In my penchant for finding proofs to support my belief that American culture is cult-like and that the mainstream media is backed by evil people and bad agendas that cannot be relied upon, I decided to look up the actual numbers, statistics, and percentages of a popular race issues to see what they reveal.

This post starts off by describing and summarizing issues, then delves into listing the actual numbers. (If you just want the hard-core numbers, then feel free to scroll down to "A Look at the Real Numbers.")

And just for knowing, LOCD stands for "leading cause of death."

Note to Europeans: This blog uses "Asian" in the American way, which refers to people from the Pacific and the Far East (like Japan, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc). I never refer to Indians, Pakistanis, or Nepalis as "Asian."

Okay, here we go...

So let's just look at one subject of lies and distortions propounded in America, and that's the claim that America is a racist society where women and minorities are being limited by discrimination and oppression, and that white males are "privileged."

Just to be clear: I'm not arguing whether racism exists; it does exist, unfortunately.

My problem is that it doesn't seem to be as a big a problem or as debilitating an obstacle as the mainstream media likes to promote.

So if you imbibe the mainstream media, you might start to think that white cops are one of the most prominent threats to non-white communities, especially to black communities.

You might think that racism in general and the "microaggressions" of white people are debilitating obstacles for the non-white communities.

However, as even the mainstream media admits (although it tries not to discuss it), the top killer for black males between the ages of 15-34 is another black male of the same age group.

This means that despite the Left's mantra of racism in America, a black male would actually be safest if you put him in an all-white neighborhood.

In fact, this statistic implies that if you would put every young black male in a solely white neighborhood, you would immediately halve the death rate of young black males.

And despite the attention spotlighting Black Lives Matter, an organization screaming against the racism (of which there is very little) of white police officers, the actual numbers are as follows:

• 1 in every 65 deaths of a young black male is caused by a police officer
• Around 60 out of every 65 deaths of a young black male is caused by another black male

Hm. 1 versus around 60.

Oh yeah, I would definitely focus on the 1 killer, not the other 60.

Especially since the cop was mostly likely defending himself or someone else, and not killing for revenge or anger or while drunk or high, I would definitely focus on that 1 cop.

Yeah, sure. That totally makes sense.

I can tell that the BLM adherents really care about black lives because they focus on the 1 black life ended by a cop as opposed to the other 60 black lives ended by non-cops.

Yeah, I totally believe that BLM cares about black lives. This totally proves it.

[sarc]

A lesser known but more alarming statistic is that homicide is the second leading cause of death for black children aged 1-4 (representing 15% of male deaths and 12% of female deaths) after unintentional injuries, which is the leading cause of death for this age group.

In contrast, the homicide rate for white children in that age group is half that for black children, while the homicide rate for Asian children aged 1-4 ranks as the sixth LOCD for males (2.7% of all deaths) and the fifth LOCD for Asian females (4.1%).

We all might want to analyze the Asian community to see how they manage to protect their little ones from homicide so much better than every one else.

Oh, wait, no. Instead, let's just keep analyzing why they're so good in math! Yeah, that's so much more important than preventing the murder of small children!

Interestingly, if a black male can make it to the age of 45, he's highly unlikely (or not likely at all) to be murdered or to kill himself. In fact, suicide doesn't rank at all for black men over age 45.

Yet that isn't true for other groups.

For example, there is a suicide rate (albeit a low one) for white males aged 45-64 and for Native American & Hispanic males aged 45-54 and for white woman aged 35-64, and for Native American women & Hispanic women aged 35-54.

In contrast, neither homicide nor suicide ranks at all for black females above the age of 45.

So if white males are so privileged, why are they killing themselves more than black males or black females?

Why are they so unhappy and so despairing despite the "privileged" color of their skin and their "privileged" gender?

And did you know that the second leading cause of death for male Native Americans aged 10-34 is suicide. Age 10?! Do you think that might be preventable? Maybe someone should create an organization to deal with that.

I also think that someone should take a look at the high percentage of death by homicide against Native American girls aged 1-4 (15% of all deaths, as high as for black males in that age group). Combine that with suicide as the #1 leading cause of death for teenage Native American girls (almost 40% of all their deaths result from suicide!!!).

But no, let's just fuss about how to refer to Native Americans (by their individual tribe? American-Indians? Native Americans? First Nations? Not Redskins, for sure!). Proper nouns are for sure more important the murdered babies or suicidal girls...

Right, mainstream media?

Let's look at Hispanics:

• The leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 1-44 is "unintentional injuries."
• The second leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 14-34 is homicide.
• The third leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 15-34 is suicide. 

WHO exactly is killing and depressing all these Hispanic males?

And are you wondering about the statistics for the much accused privileged white males? 
Well,

• the leading cause of death for white males aged 1-44 is "unintentional injuries."
• Yet the second leading cause of death for white males aged 10-34 is suicide.
• Homicide is the third leading cause of death for white males aged 15-24.

Who is murdering or depressing these young men? White cops?

It's shocking that homicide and suicide rank above cancer, heart disease, and most illnesses. We hear so much about cancer-prevention and helping children suffering from diseases or disabilities, but the statistics show we should be equally concerned about children of all races and ethnicities either being murdered or murdering themselves.

It seems that America is a nation of misplaced priorities, and it's those misplaced priorities are being set by Leftists and civil rights groups under the guise of being oh-so passionately compassionate and concerned.

In contrast, the second leading cause of death (after unintentional injuries) for white females aged 15-24 is suicide. Homicide comes in far after white males, with it being the 4th leading cause of death for white females aged 1-9 and 15-24, while it's the 5th leading cause of death for white females aged 10-14.

For black females aged 1-34, the leading cause of death is again, "unintentional injuries." (For black females above the age of 35, it's either cancer or heart disease.)

Disturbingly, homicide is the second leading cause of death among black females aged 1-4 and aged 14-24, a more common cause of death than disease, birth defects, or suicide.

As stated above, for Native American females, suicide is the #1 leading cause of death between the ages of 10-19.

• Suicide comprises 30.3% of deaths of Native American girls aged 10-14
• Suicide comprises 39.4% of deaths of Native American girls aged 15-19

Meaning, Native American teenage girls are more likely to die by their own hand than by disease, accidents, or anything else.

Does that bother you at all?

It bothers me.

Yet when do you hear people talking about this?

Then suicide decreases to the 2nd leading cause of death (16%, after unintentional injuries) for Native American females aged 20-24 and then ties for 2nd place with chronic liver disease for Native American females aged 25-34 with 8.7% of deaths resulting from either one. (The ranking of chronic liver disease is unique to Native Americans compared with all the other groups.)

In contrast to the other groups, cancer makes an appearance as a leading cause of death for Hispanic females, which it doesn't for other races or genders. Hispanic females aged 10-14 or 35-44 are most likely to die of cancer, and not than unintentional injuries or anything else. Suicide becomes the second leading cause of death for Hispanic females aged 15-24 and the 3rd leading cause for the ages 10-14 and 25-34.

What does that mean? I don't know.

Furthermore, despite the hype about white privileged males, the above statistics show that young white males are killing themselves as much as or even more than reputedly disadvantaged groups of the same age, like black or Hispanic females.

Why is that? What's going on? And why is no one talking about that either?

It's been said several times on this blog that American culture is basically a cult nowadays. If you just rely on mainstream media, you will think that black males are in urgent danger of being killed by white cops.

And yes, you may also hear that the leading cause of death for a young black male is murder by another young black male. At least they get that priority right.

You will also hear lots of stuff on racism and worry about the self-esteem of teenage girls, their body image, general self-image, depression, rights, and eating disorders.

You will also be under the impression that white males are "privileged" as if they live on Easy Street and can be dismissed or ignored. Even more, media propaganda gives the impression that white males need to make way for less advantaged groups -- like females and all non-white groups (in other words, literally everyone else in the country).

In other words, we don't need to worry about white guys.

But do you ever hear that the second leading cause of death in young white males is themselves?

There is a lot of propaganda going on and a lot of distraction to keep us from looking at real problems.

So for example, if I wanted to look at the lives of American teenagers and how to help them, I would start by looking at the 4 LOCD (leading causes of death) within genders and racial/ethnic groups.

The following is based on a much more extensive breakdown along genders, ages, races & ethnicities, which you can see at this link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/index.htm

And the initial breakdown looks like this:

So just looking at the ranking, I'm concerned that suicide is one of the top 3 leading causes of death in all groups, and even the top 2 or the leading cause of death in the case of Native American females.

Why on earth are young people in one of the best places to live killing themselves?

And because the 2nd and 3rd leading cause of death among white males is suicide and homicide (the same ranking, though not the same percentage, as for the truly underprivileged male Native Americans), I would immediately remove the classification of "privileged."

Unless, of course, you think it is a privilege to hate and despair of yourself and your future so much that you end your own life or you think it's a privilege to be murdered.

I'm also wondering what "unintentional injuries" are?

It's the leading cause or 2nd leading cause of death in all groups.

Does it mean that teenagers are clumsy? Living with irresponsible people? Driving badly or living in areas where people drive badly? Are they swimming irresponsibly? Engaging in daredevil activities? Sports? Eating spoiled food? Accidentally drinking bleach that someone stored in a water bottle?

Let's see what "unintentional injuries" kill teenagers in the USA...

You can read the full article on this subject and see all the graphs here:
https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/unintentional-injuries

Unintentional Killer #1: Vehicles
It was a bit difficult to get details on exactly what kind and how much of "unintentional injuries" kill teenagers, but motor vehicle accidents are the leading death by "unintentional injuries" in this age group. Now, motor vehicle deaths have gone down quite a lot for children and teenagers (perhaps due to safety features and improved medical treatment), but this still remains the highest cause of death for this age group.

Unintentional Killer #2: Poisoning
"Poisoning." It's not what you might think.

The 2012 statistic shows that 85% of "unintentional injury" of teens through "poisoning" is from drug overdose or alcohol poisoning (which I'm assuming means that the alcohol didn't poison them like drinking a bit of hemlock would, but that they drank too much alcohol at one time).

Now, you might think that drug or alcohol overdose is suicide (after all, it's self-inflicted and easily controllable), but it's only considered suicide if the person meant to commit suicide. If he or she only meant to get high or drunk, then the resulting death is an "unintentional injury."

Death by "poisoning" has actually increased in teenagers.

Because so much of it has to do with alcohol or drugs, it's a wholly preventable death.

And since there is no need to drink or take drugs (while there is a need to use motor vehicles), one wonders why teens are engaging in such self-destructive behavior.

I would also look at this "unintentional injury" in conjunction with the suicide rate and wonder why American teenagers are feeling so unhappy and so hopeless.

Unintentional Killer #3: Drowning
Knowing American teens as I do, I can't help wondering how many of these unintentional drowning deaths are alcohol-related.

Unintentional Killer #4: Other
What does this comprise? I'm not sure. Yet it ranks out above unintentional death by fire, suffocation, and other transportation (planes, trains, etc).

Cancer & Disease
I'm also concerned about the ranking of cancer in teenagers. While no one is sure about the exact causes of cancer, there are interesting theories.

Many studies show a correlation between cancer and lifestyle & diet.

Yet newer and more probing theories suggest a correlation between cancer and one's inner world. People who eat themselves up with envy, resentment, bitterness, and hatred (of themselves or others) can find the cancer eating up their own body.

Just off the top of my head,  I can think of at least 2 people I knew who died of cancer that seemed to come from rage and helplessness. One repressed her negative feelings, but one admitted not long before she died that she "knew" her illness came from an maddening situation that seemed to have no end or resolution in sight.

Even seemingly cheerful or serene people can repress such emotions while these negative traits eat them up inside without them realizing the existence of these feelings.

And heart disease in such young people? What's going on?

Pregnancy Complications
I'm also concerned about death from pregnancy complications.

The percentage of teenage deaths resulting from pregnancy complications are as follows:

• Native American: 3%
• Black: 3%
• Hispanic: 1.1%
• White: 1%
• Asian: Doesn't even make the ranking

I'm assuming most of these girls aren't married and that these are irresponsibly conceived pregnancies.

And I'd look to Asian teens to see what they're doing, to learn why they don't die of pregnancy complications. Maybe discovering that can help the girls in other groups.

Homicide
What percentage of teen deaths result from murder?:

• Black males: 49.5%
• Hispanic males: 20.2%
• Black females: 17.9%
• Native American males: 14.2%
• White males: 8.6%
• Hispanic females: 8.5%
• Asian males: 6.6%
• White females: 4.9%
• Asian female: 2%
• Native American females: 1.5%

Oh, gosh.

This means that half the time you're looking at a dead teenage black boy, you're looking at a murder.

With Hispanic males and black females, around one out of every 5 or 6 teen deaths is a murder.

Who is killing these kids?

We know that young black men are the prime killers of other young black men, but who is killing all these black females and Native American males?

Do anyone really believe it's white cops or President Trump's rhetoric?

(It's not.)

Also, while the percentage of male Native American deaths via murder is high, the percentage for female Native Americans is lowest. But why? Is the reason reassuring or disturbing? For example, is it because Native American teenage girls are killing themselves before anyone else can?

It's all extremely disturbing and I don't understand why it's not being discussed more widely and frequently.

Also, please note that a larger percentage of white male death results from murder than Hispanic, Asian, White, and Native American females and Asian males.

Also, a white teenage male is twice as likely to be killed by a cop than an Asian teenage male.

What a tremendous privilege!

(Question: If white cops are racist, then why are they more likely to kill a white guy than, say, a Chinese guy?)

Suicide
What percentage of teen deaths result from suicide?:

• Native American females: 39.4%
• Native American males: 33%
• Asian males: 27.3%
• White males: 25.5%
• Asian female: 21.8%
• White females: 18.7%
• Hispanic males: 16.1%
• Hispanic females: 15.7%
• Black females: 9.2%
• Black males: 8.8%

This is so bizarre and disturbing.

This also leaves a lot of questions.

For example, is the percentage of black male suicide the lowest because black teenage boys are happier and more hopeful than everyone else or because other black youth kill them before they can kill themselves?

It also looks like, despite their "privileged" skin color and gender, white males are more deeply unhappy and despairing of themselves than white females, Asian females, Hispanics, and blacks -- some of the very groups generally considered underprivileged and disadvantaged.

Why is that? Why isn't their much-lauded white male privilege working for them?

It's all very disturbing with a lot of unknowns. (Unknown to me, at least. Likely, someone else knows.)

After reviewing all this, it's impossible not to be extremely concerned about Native American teenage girls.

As shown above, nearly 40% of Native American teen female deaths result from suicide. (And don't forget that the following cause of death is "unintentional injury," which includes a lot of self-inflicted drug and alcohol overdose.) The suicide rate for preteen Native American females is also whoppingly high at 30% and the homicide ranking for Native American females aged 1-4 is one of the highest (around 15%, the same as for black males aged 1-4).

Yet we don't see anyone blaring: "Native American Girl Lives Matter!" even though I really think that someone needs to tell Native American girls that their lives actually matter a lot because they don't seem to be realizing this on their own.

The Asian male suicide rate is also alarming, especially taking into account that the next Asian male age group of 20-24 ranks suicide as the #1 leading cause of death, making up 34.6% of the deaths in that age group, which is not so different than Native American female teens.

Why is that?

Perhaps we need to approach Asian males on college campuses and hand them a "Your Life Matters" sticker.

Anyway, someone might want to look into that.

But I think none of this information will gain any mileage because it doesn't fit the agenda of the people disseminating the propaganda.

I don't think they care about anyone's lives.

Okay, you know how Mark Twain said, "There are...lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

All the above represent percentage of deaths, but another important indicator is percentage of population. And that's missing from all the above.

For example, if black male teen death was super low, then the fact that half result from murder means something different than if black male teen death in general is very high.

Also, within that abstract and varied category of "unintentional injuries," it matters a lot what percentage of the fatal injuries resulted from motor vehicle accidents caused by the other driver and also what percentage were drug- and alcohol-related.

So the above numbers tell a lot and are very disturbing, but they are far from being the whole story. A lot of information is still missing.

Also, there is a lot of background information missing.

Cultural background plays a huge part in the above statistics.

For example, Native Americans endure an exceptional status in America and many live on reservation where they are given the impression of self-governance, yet are really at the mercy of non-Native American bureaucrats. Many reservations endure dismal conditions and offer dismal futures.

Because they're nations living within a nation, they experience differences in lifestyle, identity, and status compared to other American minorities. For example, many tribes attempt some form of self-governance on their reservation. (The strength and success of this attempt varies from place to place.) And there are hundreds of treaties made by the American government with different tribes, which are still considered in force today (even though they've all been violated at least once, usually by the American government).

As another example, the Kickapoo tribe was able to travel back and forth over the Mexican-US border using their official tribal enrollment card instead of an American passport like every other American citizen. In 2011, Pascua Yaqui & Kootenai tribes issued Enhanced Travel Cards that can be used between the Mexican-US border and on US domestic flights. In fact, the Iroquis/Haudenosaunee tribe has their own passport (but this is not honored globally). Many feel like they possess dual citizenship with their tribal nation and the USA and lack trust toward the American government (even as many are reliant of US government programs).

Finally, different tribes don't necessarily like each other, so it's difficult to create "the" best plan for Native Americans as a whole. Just like Native Americans have a history of war and broken treaties with the US government, they also have a history of wars and atrocities between different tribes. To this day, for example, there is animosity between the Lakota Sioux tribe and the Crow tribe.

Other background factors are that some Asian cultures view suicide as the acceptable or even honorable option in certain situations, so that may impact the high suicide rate among Asians.

Those are just 2 examples.

I can think of a lot more questions and possible contraindications and contradictions by looking at the above, but this post is long & convoluted enough as is.

But anyway, it seems to me that people fed by the media will continue to badly misunderstand and misprioritize the real problems in America and will assume that the problems can be solved by shouting slogans, wearing nonsensical symbols, ignoring facts, focusing on their own group while ignoring the hardships of other groups who may be suffering a lot more, protesting against Ben Shapiro speeches, and heaping blame on President Trump & white cops.

Anyway, we see that the issues of concern in society are complex and take a lot of research, and are horribly misrepresented or underrepresented in the media.

But it's clear that white cops are not a major problem in these issues.

Neither are President Trump's tweets or Ben Shapiro's presence on college campuses.

And black people are not the only people deserving of our care and attention.

So why all the distraction from real problems and their roots?

Also, it seems that racism is not the core of today's worst problems, but self-hatred is, along with a lack of hope or meaning in life, a lack of respect & appreciation for oneself and for others.

It seems that this is a result of an increasingly Godless society, where values such as realizing that everyone (including yourself) is made in God's Image, and that Godly values like compassion, forbearance, humility, perseverance, and emuna are considered naive, superstitious, or inapplicable.

Related Post:
Why No One Needs BLM; We Just Need God

I'm a bit late to the game regarding the toeva march in Eretz Yisrael; I've been paying a less attention to the news lately.

But it bears saying that if Hashem so opposed something, then it must be really bad.

If He calls it an "abomination" ("toeva"), then it must be REALLY bad -- and not just that uptight boors think it's bad, but that it actually hurts people, it hurts society, and it harms even at the simplest level in that it hurts just the two people people who are willingly involved.

Whenever Hashem declares something REALLY bad, then you can find compelling reasons in the natural world why that thing is bad, especially if it's also incumbent on non-Jews and included as a mitzvah or prohibition within the 7 Laws of Noach. Just as with polytheism, God expects us to know better.

(For the serious problems with polytheism, please see:
If the Torah is So Adamant, Then That Must Mean Something: Why Polytheism Really is So Awful

So what's up with toeva relationships, especially the big prohibition between 2 men? It's portrayed with so much compassion and naturalness in secular society, and there are some really nice people who happen to be attracted to their own gender. (Britain's Douglas Murray seems to be one, for example.)

So why is the Torah so adamant against it?

What's so bad about it?

First of all, the people who are behind the whole push to accept toeva relationships and toeva marriage are evil, corrupt people.

The whole push for this started in Hollywood. And even news outlets and book publishers are owned today by entertainment conglomerates.

An as has been an open secret in Hollywood for decades now, Hollywood bigwigs abuse children.

And the entire #metoo movement basically ignored this child abuse, even though these ladies certainly know about it.

Reports of assault on child actors by top movie stars or "grooming" parties in which pre-teen boys are invited to, say, a swimming pool by Hollywood moguls have been discussed for a long time now in the media (although it's never given the lengthy spot-light it deserves).

Corey Feldman in particular has been vocal about this abuse, his courage spurred on by the self-destructive behavior and eventual suicide of his close friend and fellow child actor, Corey Haim. Feldman never lost his conviction that Haim's penchant for self-destruction emanated from the profound pain he never managed to escape, the pain brought on by the abuse from Hollywood's heroes and idols.

Research points both to sxual abuse and the father-son relationship as being major influences on a guy's orientation.

No, it doesn't mean that every boy who lacks the paternal relationship he craves or who endures abuse will develop a taavah for mishkav zachar. Some never will and could never imagine being attracted to anyone but a woman. And some will develop an attraction to both genders.

To put it in oversimplified terms, it's like the potential is there but it's not activated until the abuse or relationship flip that orientation-switch, so to speak.

Many people refuse to accept the above, yet it's impossible to ignore the huge percentage of males attracted to their own gender who suffered abuse and/or a poor father-son relationship.

(I also want to point out the correlation between, say, an absentee, neglectful, or scary father and sxual abuse. Abusers prey on vulnerable children. If a predator senses that a child lacks protection, that the child's father is either not there, uninterested, weak, or conversely, so scary that the child will not confide in the father, then that is an ideal victim in the eyes of a predator. This goes for daughters too, BTW.)

And the Hollywood moguls want to keep feeding this lie because if orientation is entirely genetic and "born that way," then that lets them off the hook. The generally false theory of genetics and being "born that way" discourages people from digging further.

Also, these Hollywood creeps are not exactly family men, so they don't want to acknowledge a father's role in the well-being of his children. If father's aren't necessary to child development, then men can keep doing whatever they want and needn't commit to or invest in their children.

Furthermore, with the rise in single-motherhood (whether unwed mothers or divorced mothers), we've seen a rise in men attracted to their own gender.

Correlation does not prove causation. But when we add up all the correlations together, it creates an arrow that points at causation.

(And yes, I realized that some divorce and of course widowhood cannot be prevented. At the same time, what I keep seeing and hearing from the secular world and the reasons for many -- though not all -- divorces lack conviction. Widowhood is no one's fault and unfortunately, Hashem sometimes sends hard challenges our way, yet He also helps us at the same time. There's a difference between facing a challenge purely from Hashem -- like widowhood or a truly unavoidable divorce -- and facing a challenge brought on by your own bad middot, which are also from Hashem, but still.)

But the main indicator is this:
If the Torah condemned such behavior in such strong terms, then that means something.

It means that something about this behavior is extremely harmful.

Throughout human history, evil always appears in the guise of compassion.

Pharaoh portrayed himself as merely concerned for Egypt; all those Hebrew foreigners breeding and multiplying -- what's a pharaoh to do? (And most of the Jews got carried along with this propaganda and decided to prove their loyalty by volunteering for work.)

The Communist claim was simply a cry for rights and equality. The poor must be fed and cared for! Who can argue with or oppose such a compassionate and noble cause? Yet Communism became the impetus for millions of deaths, the impoverishment of millions, and slow torturous dying in Siberia. Even today, Communism is synonymous with government corruption & kangaroo court trials.

Nazism also came under the guise of caring for the poor and the disadvantaged. It opposed dangerous work conditions in factories and stopped class discrimination in schools. The first people sent to concentration camps were mostly not Jews; they were habitual criminals and corrupt people that no one wants in their society (plus some inconvenient political rivals). The first Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was ignored by the German population. In fact, the only businesses successfully boycotted that day were enforced my Nazi brownshirts; otherwise the German people would've patronized those businesses too.

Shocking but true, here is a DIRECT quote from the fiendish fuhrer (yemach shemo) himself in 1943:
"We want a society with neither castes nor ranks…we want this people to be peace-loving, but at the same time to be courageous...both peace-loving and strong.”

In 1943, the Nazis were rounding up and executing the anti-Nazi White Rose members, liquidating the Krakow ghetto, burning alive all 156 inhabitants of Khatyn Belarus, fighting the starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, rounding up the Roma people for extermination, invading peaceful countries, and appointing Mengele as chief medical officer in Auschwitz. Horrifically, the Auschwitz gas chambers and crematoria of 1943 were fully functioning and in use, decimating the Jewish people.

Does any of that sound peace-loving to you?

Does that sound like a society free of castes or ranks?

Didn't think so.

Yet as the Germans enjoyed their improved working conditions, their sharp reduction in debilitating unemployment, their new VW bugs, their newly affordable vacation resorts, their new equality regardless of class, the humane new laws for animal protection, and their new glorious self-image...the Nazis insisted that "racial purity" was the answer and therefore, the Jews must go.

So the same people who cared so much about the poor and underprivileged ended up burying babies alive and pushing toddlers in gas chambers.

Evil always presents itself in the guise of compassion.

So the people behind the scenes who are feeding the public with all sorts of propaganda regarding same-gender attraction to the point that if you disagree with one word they say (no matter your own observations and scientific studies and Torah Law), then you'll be shouted down and smeared.

But the ones pushing this agenda onto society, the ones hiding behind the scenes don't care about real freedom or fulfillment or love or compassion or any of those nice-sounding ideas.

All those pretty rainbows don't mean a thing; it's just pretty paint over a dark idea.

They just want to be able to keep abusing little boys.

And no matter how good and sincere your intentions may be, if you support same-gender marriage and the toeva march, and if you oppose any kind of reparative options, then please understand what you're really supporting and opposing.

Just for knowing, I stand against violence (including verbal harassment), except for cases of self-defense.

Anyone can do teshuvah and toeva is no exception.

No one is perfect and everyone has the right to try and even fail -- and then try again.

But approval? Never.
_______________
If you want to see the actual numbers, studies, and stories, you can start here:
Part I: What's So Bad about Adam and Steve?

For more about evil's guise of compassion and general deception, you can go to this 12-part series: America's Scary New Direction. Feel free to click on whatever part interests you, no need to read it all or go in order.

Although it has become very popular in America for American citizens to attack their own country as an evil bastion of racism, it's just not true.

Furthermore, decent people do not need to be bullied into treating other races and ethnicities fairly.

And bullying or thought-and-speech policing nasty people will not change them.

Furthermore, regarding people who aren't decent, we have the law.

And yes, sometimes even the law isn't enough. Sadly, some criminals get away with their crime, whether motivated by racism, financial gain, power, taavah, or just plain sadism.

BLM (Black Lives Matter) and similar groups and their followers who attack others do nothing for their communities, especially since the top killer for black males between the ages of 15-34 is another black male. (A lesser known but far more alarming statistic is that homicide is the second leading cause of death for black children aged 1-4 & 10-14, after unintentional injuries, which is the leading cause of death for those age groups. So BLM might want to look into see who's murdering black one-year-olds. Helpful hint: It's not white cops!)

The fact the BLM and other groups posing as protectors of racial minorities refuse to even address what actually destroys black lives - and it's not white cops - demonstrates their total lack of caring and compassion for the very people they claim to protect.

So let's look at some historical examples of people who WEREN'T racist, even when it was legal to be racist.

And they did so without BLM or civil rights thugs threatening them.

Born in Massachusetts in 1735, Martha served her community as midwife and general medical practitioner who treated the ill and delivered over 800 babies in 27 years until her death in 1812.

Among the women she treated, there were free blacks who received the same dedication and care as Martha's white patients, even if it meant that Martha (along with a neighborly assistant) had to sit up all night in uncomfortable conditions. Also, Martha's diary records her interactions with a little Native American girl who used to come out of the forest to Martha's home, and Martha freely gave her foodstuffs.

Needless to say, Martha did all this without any pressure to be politically correct or culturally plural.

She was a profoundly religious woman who simply cared about others.

Harriet Jacobs was born into slavery in North Carolina in 1813. Taught to read by her her first lady owner, she eventually made her way to Massachusetts and published her memoir Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl under the pen name Linda Brent in 1862. 

But before escaping to the North, Harriet hid out in the plantation home of a white woman who refused to sell her slaves for any reason. The white woman hid Harriet for several days, despite the danger to the white woman's reputation, legal penalties, and the generous reward offered for Harriet's return.

In fact, Harriet's greatest threat was a fellow black slave named Jenny.

The other black slaves labeled her as "naughty."

Described as "always got the devil in her" by her fellow slaves, Jenny suspected the house hid a fugitive and wanted to flush out Harriet to return her to her slave owners.

Yet after the other female slaves informed the white mistress of Jenny's interference, the white mistress kept Jenny busy in the kitchen until plans were made to go spend the day in the country, taking Jenny with her, and allowing Harriet to find a better hiding place.

Considering travel in those times, this day-outing was a big inconvenience and likely the devil-inhabited Jenny wasn't an enjoyable person with whom to spend the day.

Yet the white mistress did so anyway.

Not because BLM told her to, but because of her own sense of decency and compassion.

In fact, many white people helped Harriet along her journey to freedom - again, out of decency and compassion, not BLM thuggery.

(Although BLM might want to have some words with Jenny...)

It's worth noting that the Underground Railroad that helped black slaves and the freedoms black people eventually enjoyed could not have and did not happen without the dedicated participation of good-hearted white people.

The full memoir of Harriet Jacobs is available online and makes for some fascinating reading:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/JACOBS/hj-site-index.htm

Until 1836, black orphans (unwanted in white orphanages) were housed in alms houses with all the homeless adults and received no nurturing, education, or protection.

So 3 white Quaker ladies decided to open an orphanage to care for the black children.

It was quite an undertaking because no one would rent out a building for black children, so the ladies were forced to buy one. As soon as they managed to get it up and running in 1836, these ladies headed straight to the almshouse and immediately collected 11 orphans to bring them to refuge in the new orphanage.

The orphanage grew to accept more and more black children, and also accepted Native American children in need of better care.

They also provided work for the brilliant black doctor, Dr James McCune Smith, who traveled all the way to Glasgow to receive his medical degree due to the racist restrictions of that time in American medical schools. He was appointed the orphanage's medical director.

Both the black doctor and the white matrons encouraged the children to make the most of themselves and to succeed in life.

The Quaker ladies did all this despite the fact that slavery was still legal in the South and blacks suffered limited rights in the North.

When the overflow of the Civil War draft riots turned into a racist mob (comprised not of Americans, but of Irish immigrants) and attacked the orphanage in 1863, one of the white matrons risked her life to lead every single one of the 233 orphans to safety.

Two Irish firemen also risked their lives to fight the terrible fire, endangering themselves to save the black children from both the mob and the raging fire.

While the people in the mob were obviously evil, I'm not sure that waving posters proclaiming "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or Antifa could do to change their minds or stop them. (This is despite the fact that, unlike BLM's target of a mostly non-racist police force, the above incident was actual violence with deadly intent against a purely innocent populace and motivated by genuine racism.)

Also, it would probably shock Leftists today to learn that white people are capable of such courage and compassion on behalf of black children, with no ACLU or BLM or thought police to bully them into it.

Jewish pioneers of the Sante Fe Trail of New Mexico, Levi Speigelberg arrived with his brothers from Germany, then sought out a nice Jewish girl from afar and brought over the pretty 29-year-old Betty in 1860. (Betty was a classy version of a mail-order bride.)

With few women in the area, Levi's pretty new wife stuck out to the point that a buggy drive past army headquarters caused the soldiers to sit up and take notice, with one saying, "By Gingo! What a beautiful woman in these war times. A fellow might be tempted to kidnap her."

Upon hearing a report of these words, Levi forbade his wife to even look out the bedroom window (for fear of her being seen) while his 3 brothers slept in an adjoining room with loaded shotguns to defend Betty from any potential abduction.

Yet one day, Betty heard a female voice crying out and moaning from under her bedroom window: "For God's sake, help me! I'm starving and bleeding to death!"

Afraid to approach her window, yet unwilling to ignore the young female's desperate situation, Betty ran across the yard to her husband's store, but he was trying to hold off all the rowdy soldiers fighting and shouting for provisions.

Rushing back to her room, Betty listened to the piteous cries for help until she dared to look out the window and saw a young black girl, still begging for help.

With assistance from Betty's Mexican maid, Betty succeeded in dragging the girl into her house where she washed, fed, and listened to the girl and sent for a doctor.

Soldiers had snatched the young black girl from her plantation, then assaulted and abused her until she managed to escape and make her way to Betty's bedroom window. If she was "starving," the assault and abuse must have gone on for at least a couple of days.

Going out for the girl must have been terrifying for Betty, who saw on the battered and bleeding girl what had been threatened to Betty.

Yet Betty did it anyway.

There's no record of Levi Speigelberg's initial reaction to his wife's daring heroism, but Levi allowed the girl to stay while he and his brothers pooled their financial resources to buy the girl's freedom.

And not only did the Speigelbergs help this particular black girl, but also a black male slave and they rescued a Native American girl captured by soldiers.

I want to point out that it's unlikely that the Spiegelbergs had encountered non-white people before coming to America. And regardless of your own race, if you didn't grow up with people of other races, then people of other races often look strange until you get used to them.

(Case in point: A friend of mine went to a village in Ghana where white people hadn't been before, so she and her friends were the first white people the children had seen. After being faced with a trio of pre-teen boys who walked backwards so they could stare at the 3 white people who were walking along, one of the boys quipped, "Man, you people sure are UGLY.")

Yet good-hearted people respond with compassion and courage anyway.

The Spiegelbergs didn't need anyone shouting out them "Black lives matter!" or "Black is beautiful!" in order to risk their lives or put forth serious financial resources to help black people.

Then there's the story of my grandpa, who rescued a black man falsely accused of murder. It happened in New York, in the 1930s or 1940s. You can read that here:
Values: When People Want to BE Good & Not Just Feel Good

This black man could have been executed for a crime he never committed, but Grandpa intervened to save his life.

It's worthwhile noting that the above heroes did not use politically correct terminology.

For example, my grandpa used the term "colored" and "black," but I never heard him say "African-American." "Negro" was common for a while in the USA, and even the "n-word" was common and not considered innately racist. (Actually, it's merely a corruption of the word "Negro," which is just the Spanish word for the color black with no secret evil meaning.)

Just as an amusing digression: I have a copy of a book of poems written by a Southern family member who was born just 2 years after the end of America's Civil War. In the book, she references black people by using the n-word, but she usually describes them sympathetically or even admiringly. It was quite a mind-bender when I first read it to see a sympathetic or admiring portrayal of a black person using the n-word! But a Southern friend explained to me that the word's usage wasn't then what it is now.

In fact, the above-mentioned orphanage for black children was officially called "The Colored Orphan Asylum." In today's language, that paints a picture of a building full of mentally deranged little black kids, but in reality, the children nurtured by The Colored Orphan Asylum turned out well, both morally and practically, and had good memories of their stint in the orphanage. One former charge even expressed concern that today's foster care system is a step down from the group home environment she experienced in The Colored Orphan Asylum. 

I personally do not use derogatory language to describe my fellow human beings' race or ethnicity, but as long as you are using acceptable terms that aren't inherently racist and you don't have racist intent when you use them, then what is the big deal?

So I prefer a person who innocently calls black people "colored" and will risk being burned to death to save black children from a fire to the thought-and-speech police who are makpid to use whatever politically correct language is in vogue (and fanatically correct the speech of others), but do nothing for humanity.

And I think that's right.

My point isn't that there hasn't been racism (there has) or that there isn't racism (there is) or even that laws can solve everything (they can't).

The point is that all of the above people were familiar with the idea of every human being being made in God's Image with some familiarity of verses like: "Justice, justice, you shall pursue" and "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Even though my grandpa wasn't a religious person, he'd been raised with Torah Judaism (albeit practiced and understood on a superficial level). I don't know how religious the Speigelbergs were, but the Speigelberg brothers were connected enough to Jewish values that they waited until they'd saved up enough to go all the way back to Germany to marry a Jewish wife.

So this is the running thread through many of these acts of courage and compassion by white people toward disadvantaged minorities.

And yes, I realize that there are people who read the Bible and claim to be religious, but are racist.

What can I tell you? Some people refuse to internalize Hashem's value system.

My point is that the key to fighting racism is imbuing ourselves with the idea that every human being really is made in God's Image.

Also, it's up to us to emulate Hashem's Ways, to respect and embrace how HE views the world.

And as stated in Tehillim/Psalms 145:9: "Tov Hashem l'kol v'rachamav al kol ma'asav - Hashem is Good to all and His Compassion is upon all His creations."

Violence, ranting, witch-hunting, self-righteous mobs, and reverse racism can't do that.

In fact, such people may want to read about Joyce Gladwell here:
Anyone Can Talk to the Big Master

It's only about Hashem and getting back to Torah values.

One of the obstacles for women to reading original sources is their discussion of women. And at some point, the Sage will mention women's daat kalah.

I think a lot of women don't know quite how to respond in their own mind to this, and I think there is trepidation or a lack of skills in looking it up. So a lot of people (including men) fall back on apologetics or trying to pretend it's not there or trying to understand it superficially (with all the negativity that implies).

But first, here's an explanation of daat (or daas, if you prefer):
Daat is very hard to translate because it means different things in different contexts. In some contexts, daat means “knowledge” or “mind,” but neither of those definitions relate to daat in this context.

In Kiddushin 80b, Rashi explains daat kalah as being more "easily swayed/influenced/seduced” by subjective factors.

So there you go.

And yes, men are also swayed by subjective factors, like their physical needs (which is why some men can "forget" really important things or behave irresponsibly and selfishly when they are tired or hungry or worse), but an observant person will see that it's still different than the way in which women are swayed and influenced.

For example, it's easier to convince women to act against their own interests or values or integrity or knowledge than it is for men IF the women are not firmly anchored in emuna.

This is why history is replete with out-of-wedlock conceptions and women functioning as "ladies of the evening" and more recently, the feminist movement and the female pro-abortion stance and joining military combat units. It's immoral men and immoral women taking advantage of such women's daat kalah for their own evil agendas.

In contrast, Chazal heaps praises on women's steadfast emuna and loyalty to Hashem, praising women for keeping the halachot they know more faithfully than men.

So steadfast emuna counteracts any downside to daat kalah.

The prime daat source—Chazal—imbues every person with a center of spiritual gravity to hold him or her securely in place. The more one learns AND internalizes Torah, the more daat he or she has.

Women don't completely lack daat, we are just daat-lite. Men have both daat and binah, but women are lighter than men on daat and heavier than men on binah, baruch Hashem.

And here is the truth with which many modern women understandably struggle when reading Chazal:
If you are female, you are innately light on daat.

Yes, you are.

But it doesn't mean that you can't achieve personal greatness.

Sara Imeinu was a higher-level prophet than her husband, yet she still had daat kalah.

Beruria was a screaming genius and a baalat emuna, yet she still had daat kalah.

Chana merited to birth Shmuel and is the prototype for tefillah, but she still had daat kalah.

Hashem set things up like this for everyone's benefit. Men are supposed to provide women with daat. It's part of the innate giver role with which Hashem imbued men.

A lot of men refuse to access their own daat, let alone let it overflow onto others, which is one of the major reasons why things have gotten so wonky in the frum world.

If women are lucky, they have fathers or husbands who are a healthy source of daat. This is a significant part of the male role in family and society. Unfortunately, many men don't know to fulfill this role properly and many women don't understand the importance of being receptive to this male contribution.

If you are a woman and you don't have the appropriate men in your life, or the men you do have are either amei haaretz or namby-pamby misers about providing you with your rightful quantities of daat, then you can turn to learning mussar on your own, learning a halacha a day, consulting with a rav (if he's right for you), or just turn straight to the Source Himself: Hashem (which is exactly what smart Jewish women have done for millennia, actually.)

But it's vitally important to note what daat kalah is NOT.

Daat kalah is NOT synonymous with being:

• stupid
• pathetic
• hysterical
• unworthy
• deserving of disrespect
• blindly obedient
• inconsequential
• an excuse to denigrate women (including a self-denigrating woman)

It CAN be the root of or exacerbate the above negative qualities, but it doesn't NEED to.

And again, this can't be said enough:
Daat in this context has nothing to do with intellectual IQ.

You (ladies) can have skipped 2 grades in elementary school, achieve early entrance to Harvard medical school, and graduate at the top of your class...and still be controlled by your daat kalah. (Yep. I've seen it, and it ain't pretty.)

On the other hand, you can be a regular student and get married out of high school and balance keeping house while sitting pregnant at your part-time desk job...and be wise beyond your years, a fountain of good middot, wisdom, and brilliantly applied binah. (I've seen this too and believe me, it's something to aim for.)

Please remember that in the same breath (or quill) that Chazal mention a woman's daat kalah, they also mention her extra binah, an ishah chachamah (a wise woman), an ishah maskilah (an intelligent woman), female prophetesses, along with the great emuna, fidelity, mesirut nefesh possible in women.

The Torah itself is compared to a Woman of Valor (Eishet Chayil), and other exalted holy female characterizations are:

• the holy Jewish neshamah
• the Shechinah
• Eretz Yisrael
• the Jewish people
• the Sabbath (Shabbat Kallah/Bride)

So in a nutshell, you can have daat kalah and still become:

• a prophetess
• a woman of great wisdom
• a woman of profound intelligence
• a holy woman
• a tzadekes (a completely righteous woman)
• the best adviser to your husband (so says Bava Metzia 59a)

On the other hand, a man has normal amounts of daat, but he can still be an evil pig.

So to sum it all up:

Women who allow their innate negatives to control them are a pain in the neck and damage society.

Men who allow their innate negatives to control them are a pain in the neck and damage society.

Women who use properly what Hashem gives them become a merit for the world (as the Kli Yakar says in Chayei Sara, that righteous women are as vital to the world as the rotation of the Sun).

Men who use properly what Hashem gives them become a merit for the world (like the 36 tzaddikim in whose merit Hashem allows the world to exist) 

So everything depends on what you do with it.

Chazal doesn't denigrate women, it states a fact for the benefit of both men and women. (And really, since they mostly expected men to read their words, they mostly wanted men to understand this IN ORDER for men to take proper responsibility.)

Well, if this was your issue (as it was mine at one time), I hope this helped.
__________
Related post:
Halacha: The Best Boost for Daat Kalah

May we all complete our tikkun in this lifetime without trials or tribulations.

In the previous post, the future (or lack thereof) of England was discussed.

At the risk of sounding like fear-mongering, I just want to point out that one of England's leading Conservative activists, Douglas Murray, is the one who's saying that the British people don't have an "Israel" to go to when the tide changes.

And he's made this point several times. Here are just two quotes from him...

From his London Central Synagogue speech:

More recently at a Jewish book club event, he repeated:

It's not coming from us.

Murray and others concerned for England's future are funneling their resources into saving England. The problem, as noted in the previous post, is that they seem unable to focus on either the moral value system or the economic system that could possibly save them.

They refuse to uphold a God-based structure of morality and they refuse to wean their society off socialism. In fact, there is such resistance to a more capitalist society that even right-wing politicians tiptoe carefully around the topic of de-socializing anything.

This is compounded by the overwhelming influx of people from other countries who do not respect even the secular British value system.

And in light of all this, there have been passionate calls for British (and European) Jews to make aliyah on the double.

I think aliyah is a great idea, of course.

However, given the prediction of Chessed L'Avraham, which states that a very small percentage of Jews in Eretz Yisrael will survive the End of Days, I don't think that geographical location is necessarily the secret to survival.

Where you are in your head and heart seem to be just as important.

(Please don't get me wrong; living in Eretz Yisrael is huge mitzvah and one we should do if at all possible, even if it means a descent in one's material standing -- and it usually does mean that for most people, although not all. But what defines "possible"?)

The thing is, not everyone stuck in chutz l'Aretz is stuck for reasons of superficiality, mule-headedness, or a fascination with materialism.

I admit that until a couple of years ago, I didn't realize that a Jew could REALLY want to make aliyah, but just can't.

It took the heartfelt pleas for understanding for me to realize the myriad of complex situations some people face, and that I was lucky enough not to undergo (through no credit of my own).

Some Jews in chutz l'Aretz are living hand-to-mouth. To make things worse, they are often surrounded by people who are doing really well and so their "have-not" status is constantly in their face. (I temporarily lived like this once in the US, with very limited finances around people with mansions, live-in help, and even some with the means to rent a helicopter to get to their Shabbos destination. I constantly pined away for my simple Israeli neighborhood and small apartment with my heimish neighbors where I hardly ever felt poor or deprived. There in my fancy address, I often sobbed myself to sleep. It was awful.)

Other Jews are dealing with infirm or ill relatives for whom they're responsible. Some have handicapped spouses or children. Some really can't figure out a way to keep their head above water, financially speaking, in Eretz Yisrael -- not re-create an American lifestyle in Israel, but just stay out of debilitating poverty.

Along with physical illness, some families are dealing with mental illness -- including depression or eating disorders. If a spouse or child is depressed, for example, what is the other spouse supposed to do about it regarding aliyah?

Now it's true that moving to Israel can actually improve mental health, but there's no guarantee of this. (And how to motivate a depressed person do anything in the first place?)

And what about a divorced family? Should a parent abandon his or her young children for aliyah? (There are situation were this can still work, like say if the children are already approaching age 18 and taking into account other factors, but it's not something I would recommend outright. Each situation needs to be examined carefully.)

Some people are very afraid of the emotional and practical upheaval and how it might affect their children. People who are settled solidly -- religiously, financially, socially -- in chutz l'Aretz understandably have a lot of trepidation toward upending all that.

For some people, it's not a matter of giving up a spacious luxury home or luxury cars. (Although for some people, it is about that.) It's much more complex and frustrating.

There's no question that in America, you can get caught up in a lifestyle bursting with meaningless materialism and bestow importance on things that are so NOT important, it's ridiculous and obnoxious already. But it doesn't mean that everyone is like that.

I don't know why I didn't realize all this on my own much earlier, but baruch Hashem, some people spoke up from the heart and explained things.

For example, please see all of Eli's comments in this post #Free Tommy: The Writing is on the Wall. (Aside from Eli's comments, the actual post by Rabbi Brody is very worthwhile reading.)

Please also see Rachel's last comment HERE.

These are just 2 of the most recent I've seen over the past couple of years.

Yes, I think it's important to encourage aliyah. Both the Kli Yakar and the Pele Yoetz have some very strong ideas about it. (Please click "Aliyah" on the sidebar categories for more details about their views.)

But as Eli wrote: "I have encountered too many times the attitudes of some veteran olim, and it often smacks of 'by the strength of my hand'."

It's true that those of us who live in Eretz Yisrael should be grateful and realize it's a tremendous chessed from Hashem that allowed us to be where we are today.

Frankly, just the fact that I not only cannot stand living in the US, but I have no desire to even visit (although I used to want to visit periodically, but now not at all), and am just in love with Eretz Yisrael, is a huge chessed from Hashem. Why do I feel this way? Just because! I didn't do anything to feel this way. I just feel the way I do.

If you managed to learn Hebrew, found decent schools for your kids, found a good community and cherish the neighborhood in which you live, then ashreichem.

Yes, those of us who live here worked for it. And we had to get weaned off a certain amount of materialism, no matter how financially prepared we were for aliyah or how unmaterialistic we were. Some olim sacrificed even more via combat service.

But there is also a lot of siyata d'Shmaya too.

Okay, so how does that square up with predicting the inevitable downfall of England and Europe?

So like I said, it's not just me who's saying that if England doesn't make MAJOR IMMEDIATE changes, then it's over. Douglas Murray says it.

And as far as pure economics, plus politics? England simply is not willing to make the changes their economy demands.

Socially, England is facing shocking and frightening changes. The Conservatives acknowledge this, but no one else does. Objectively speaking, it perfectly lines up with Edward Cline's mathematical observations noted years ago. You've probably read it already, but for your convenience, it's HERE.

(Because it's outdated, England's figures are higher now than portrayed in the original article. England's population percentage now stands at around 5%.)

Of course, this doesn't even begin to cover the upswing of popular support for Leftist extremists, like that Corbyn creep.

Economically and socially, England's policies are simply not sustainable.

So does that mean that you should beat England's Jewish population over the head with plane tickets to Tel Aviv? Should you do that to your French brothers and sisters or your Norwegian ones?

And while I try to facilitate feelings of love all my people, the thought of fully assimilated self-hating extreme Leftists (as some British Jews are) making aliyah does give me room for pause.

Anyway...

If Jews want to come and can come, then they do. If they don't want to come, you can't force them. And if they want to come, but can't...?

Rav Eliezer Papo provided a solution in the Pele Yoetz, back when Eretz Yisrael was under Turkish occupation and was truly a difficult place to live.

Prayer.

Please see A Prayer to Make Aliyah & Live in Eretz Yisrael.

(And as for those Jews who are fully assimilated self-hating extreme Leftists? Prayer can help them too!)

Beseeching Hashem for the welfare and spiritual state of fellow Jews is something tzaddikim always had in common with each other. Whether it was Neviim of the Tanach or tzaddikim of today, the concern for fellow Jews -- even the ones who don't seem to deserve such compassion -- is the common thread running through them all.

May all Jews succeed in coming to Eretz Yisrael smoothly and easily with great joy and nachat.

Related links:
#Free Tommy: The Writing is on the Wall
The Sun Setting on the British Empire

Tommy Robinson's imprisonment and its accompanying media mute button got me thinking. And reading.

Interestingly, the media itself can't seem to settle exactly on what Tommy did wrong.

• Contempt of court -- he posted a video of himself saying things, when he'd been told not to
• Mortgage fraud
• Vigorously defending himself against a Somalian immigrant who attempted to throw boiling sugar-water on Tommy
• Other things I can't remember

None of these seem like imprisonable offenses to me. Mortgage fraud is bad, but not exactly a physical threat to society.

It's impossible to miss the media and Establishment pursuit of Tommy over the years. The son of Irish immigrants, Tommy is a working-class bloke with a history of brawling, a feisty guy who works hard (he owned a sunbed shop) and drinks hard, and who never managed to put behind him the grim rough town of Luton where he grew up. This all makes him an easy target for people with classier accents, better education, uppercrust lives, and more power and influence. A LOT more power.

And I can't prove this, but I also can't help feeling that the British Establishment resent someone they view as disdainfully "common" leaving his "place" and fighting against his "superiors." Down, serf, down!

It's impossible to miss the genuine compassion Tommy expresses regarding the events that led to him establish the EDL (which wasn't meant to be a racist organization and Tommy himself isn't a racist). He's clearly fighting for both the underdog and for people he admires, like British servicemen.

Yet while the British media vigorously defends itself (the media blackout was to ensure a fair jury, etc.), it's hard to believe them when the same media and members of the Establishment allow those who commit truly appalling crimes to literally get away with murder.

(Early Communist and Nazi imprisonment also offered convincing excuses for imprisonment and censorship, and were defended by many members of society.)

Is Tommy's imprisonment and the accompanying media blackout a turning point? I'm not sure.

Everything has been leading up to this, and it's not surprising.

For a couple of years now, I've felt like England has no future. I feel this way about most of the Eurozone countries too. They're too far gone and too stuck in traditional, class-based mindsets.

For example, I couldn't figure out why even right-wing politicians like Nigel Farage refused to promise serious change to the entire Socialist system. It's so clear that the country is drowning in Socialism.

For example, a British friend of mine was living in a nice home with a garden in a nice centrally located neighborhood in England -- care of the government. Obviously, I don't want her and her children living in public housing and rough neighborhoods, but objectively speaking, I thought this was a bit much. Though grateful for the benefits, she herself agreed that objectively speaking, it really wasn't fair to the middle-class tax-payers. She went on to explain that there are people living in government-funded housing in really posh areas while middle-class tax-payers living on a lower standard are funding this posh lifestyle.

This is so unfair and demoralizing.

Then there was an interview with an unmarried 19-year-old with 2 children by 2 different fathers. She complained bitterly about not yet being given an entire house by the government. The media interviewing her was clearly on her side.

I was floored.

Her unwavering sense of entitlement confounded me. She's obviously irresponsible and lacks good sense -- why should she be rewarded with an entire house? (Yes, I realize that the children are innocent victims in this scenario, but I don't see benefits as the best way to improve their situation.) And birthing children outside of marriage while bringing strange men in and out of their lives indicates she's not a very caring mother either (despite the image of her attentively spinning them on a metal carousel at a local park).

It wasn't until I read The Shuttle (authored by the same woman who wrote The Secret Garden and Little Princess) that the light bulb went on.

Traditionally, England maintained a type of serf system. (And even after serfdom was officially over, you still had tax-paying peasants and villagers dependent on lords.) You had royalty and the like living in manors on sprawling estates surrounded by very poor people eking out a living. Because of their poverty, they were dependent on the manor lords for their survival. A serious illness in the family or the death of a spouse lead to a crisis situation that could only be alleviated by the magnanimity of those in the manor.

The poor people paid taxes to the rich people in the manor and in return, the rich people were supposed to take care of their village. They didn't always do so because they didn't care much. (The wealthy also often spent their money frivolously. How awful it must have been for the villagers to see their hard-earned wages going to fund such extravagance while they lived in a dreary cottage with barely enough to eat.)

And as far as I can tell, English royalty had a religious side to it. Meaning, if you're royalty, there's a certain "chosenness" implied. Until today, the British anthem is "God Save the Queen." British coronations are quasi-religious events that take place in an abbey and performed by religious clerics. The original "Supreme Head of the Church of England" was that degenerate lump, King Henry the Eighth. (If you remember, European royalty was at one time referred to as "the Holy Roman Emperor" and you were a prince in the "Holy Roman Empire." "Holy," eh? What a joke.)

So non-royals were considered to lack those "holy" genes.

(Oh, the royal gene pool...yikes. Even today, Europe's royal families suffer the results of inbreeding, which is why they've all started marrying "commoners" and even marry outside their ethnicity and nationality.)

Then Social Darwinism entered the picture, downgrading the poor even more. Religious class discrimination now developed an "unbiased" scientific side to it. (i.e., "We're not racists or bad people, it's just objective scientific fact!")

The point is that British people feel entitled to benefits and favors (or feel that the poor are entitled to benefits and favors) from their higher-ups because that's always how it was. They were exploited by their higher-ups, and they deserve to be reimbursed and cared for. (Also, because they were "property," they didn't have much choice than to beg for favors from their rich masters.)

They basically went from serfdom to Socialism, and now they're stuck.

As an American, this was mind-boggling to me because I grew up reading about pioneers and people who felt marvelous about striking out on their own, whether it was joining a gold rush or building their own cabin with just an axe and their own muscle, while subsisting on hunting and fishing. These people rejoicing at being "free and independent" and they mostly were free and independent.

The thought of hand-outs was repugnant to them and they even resented paying taxes.

In fact, in one classic fictionalized biography of the author's grandmother, the British father inherited a massive luxury estate in England and stood to receive coveted titles along with the estate, yet he and his American wife and children decided against leaving America and giving up their US citizenship because they wanted to remain free and independent, and not enter a classist system.

Yes, they preferred their log cabin and flour mill to an extravagant mansion with peacocks on the lawn.

And while the entitlement mentality has burgeoned in America, it's considered un-American by many Americans. American Conservatives argue vigorously for a free-market system and deregulation, plus the freedom to both succeed and the freedom to fail (along with the freedom to pick up oneself and try again).

I simply wasn't aware of how much a history and a different system could affect a modern system today.

The point is that, with some exceptions, even Conservative right-wing British don't WANT out of a system and mentality that is leading to their downfall.

As far as I can tell, there isn't a religious right with any influence in British society. In fact, one of the best leaders of the Conservative side is Douglas Murray, an atheist attracted to his own gender. And while he defends the rights and beauty of religious thought with eloquence and conviction, he doesn't actually believe in any of this himself.

Even the appealing Tommy Robinson complains about Muslim infringement on the right to stumble home drunk from the pubs at night.

This just isn't good enough.

Douglas Murray has stated many times that the British need to save Britain because "we don't have an Israel to escape to."

And that's correct.

The Jews of Britain can ultimately leave when things get too intolerable.

The non-Jews of Britain have nowhere to go (although I suppose some can try getting into America or Australia or New Zealand; Nigel Farage is quite popular with American Conservatives).

But as long as the UK is only blabbing about individual rights -- however inane or harmful those rights may be -- it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You have to have some kind of God-based moral highground and outside of certain pockets, that moral highground doesn't seem to exist.

In fact, when a UKIP rep stated his opposition to same-gender marriage, UKIP saw the need to oust him (albeit reluctantly) and Nigel Farage set about excusing his behavior by explaining that he was of "that generation."

Even the right-wing Conservative party could not bring itself to defend a moral position on moral grounds. Instead, they chose to "excuse" this position.

This is very different than the American right defending traditional marriage as a moral ideal.

For example, America's Vice-President Mike Pence has unapolegtically declared his position that funding for AIDS be moved to provide assistance for "those seeking to change their sxual behavior." He signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law (which means that religious people don't have to cater to people who act in opposition to to religious morals), and has stood very firmly against legalizing same-gender marriage (while all the time opposing the mistreatment or persecution of those with same-gender attraction).

American Conservatives never try to tone Pence's views as those of "that generation." Rather, they rigorously defend his views as the moral highground. As far as I know, President Trump himself has not feel the need to "excuse" or apologize for the pro-traditional marriage views of his Vice-President.
__________

Well, these are my thoughts on what's happening. If I got British history wrong, you can feel free to correct me. (I'm new to British history & politics, after all.)
__________
Related Links:
Can You Stop the Sun from Setting? Only by Prayer (a continuation of this post)
Standing for Nothing: The UK

A century ago, one of the charedi leaders of yore (maybe it was Rav Shmuel Salant?) was heard talking to a group of Syrian chachamim (sages) in Hebrew using their Sefardi pronunciation.

Why was this a big deal?

In 1913, what later became known as "The Language War" began when the Haifa Institute of Technology decided to adopt German as their official language of instruction. (I know, I know...)

Later, it turned to a tug-of-war between Yiddish and Hebrew. Assimilated Jewish linguists insisted on secularizing the holy Hebrew language and instill it as the official language of Eretz Yisrael.

Others objected the secularization of the holy tongue, along with the unsavory political agenda behind it.

Some also felt that using Hebrew for mundane talk or in places like the bathroom profaned the holy tongue. (They weren't wrong. My kids happily chattered away in Hebrew in the bathtub and Hebrew is the language in Israeli discotheques, smutty movies, and coarse stand-up routines.)

So why did a great rav who came firmly down on the side of the pro-Yiddish camp, a sage known for his courtesy toward others, yet who when addressed in Hebrew by someone with an agenda, refused to answer in any language -- why did he turn around and all of the sudden start not only speaking in Hebrew, but speaking with a totally different and unfamiliar pronunciation (when he was strict about using Ashkenazi pronunciation in his prayers)?

As the rav explained, the Sefardi chachamim spoke classical Hebrew, the beautiful Hebrew of the commentators and ancient Sages. They spoke that language as their mother tongue and according to their traditional pronunciation.

He also spoke Sefardi-accented Hebrew with regular non-Yiddish-speaking Sefardim.

The pro-Yiddish rav spoke to them in kind because they couldn't know Yiddish (so that was a practical reason) and because the whole language divide wasn't about language, but about politics, "isms," and an anti-Torah agenda, all of which had nothing to do with the Sefardi community.

Yet when Hebrew could be spoken as a need by people who really knew how to use the language, the rav happily spoke Hebrew and spoke it using the pronunciation best understood by his fellow Sefardi Jews.

The great leader of what became known as the charedi stream of Orthodox Judaism, and a tremendous tzaddik, Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, sided with the pro-Yiddish side due to the assimilationist agenda behind the leaders of pro-Hebrew side.

Yet in response to a British government survey which asked what language was spoken by the respondent, Rav Sonnenfeld not only answered "Hebrew," but advised others to answer the same--even though Rav Sonnenfeld's conversational language was indeed Yiddish.

When some of the pro-Yiddish camp objected, Rav Sonnenfeld replied, "What can I do? When I speak to God, I speak only in Hebrew--how can I deny that?!"

Obviously, Rav Sonnenfeld considered his main language to be the one in which he spoke to his Creator.

At one point, Rav Sonnefeld mused that it was perhaps a mistake for the religious community NOT to have adopted Hebrew immediately upon arrival in Eretz Yisrael. "By doing so, we would've pre-empted the irreligious camp...We would have then not been forced into taking a negative stand against Hebrew being the official language."

But these things are hard to predict.

Anyway, what I learned from all this was:

• Don't get caught up in the technicalities of a gadol's opinion; understand the real motivation behind the opinion.
• A gadol is coming from a place of love and not a place of fanaticism with getting all yipped-up on misplaced zealotry.
• Communicate in the language OTHERS understand best (this goes beyond mere language choice, BTW)
• The goal is to meet the other as far as you can, and not assert yourself over the your fellow.

Figuring out how to do this with each situation can take a bit of trial and error, but as long as we're trying, then that's really good.
___________

*Quotes were taken from pages 322-323 of Guardian of Jerusalem: The Life and Times of Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld.
Related links:
The Only "ism" You'll Ever Need
What is the Heart's Nusach?

Note: If you choose to comment, please use coded language or purposely misspelled words to mention topics that, say, you wouldn't discuss around children because my filter is fickle and can block me from seeing my own post if it picks up on certain words. Sorry for the inconvenience!
___________
For a long time, I also held the view that many frum women hold: that while feminism brought a lot of bad stuff, it also served as a conduit for some good things too.

They claim when that there were real problems within society that needed to be fixed, and we've all benefited from those positive changes that came along with feminism.

The problem is that while yes, there were real problems that needed to be fixed, it isn't actually true that feminism was the answer, and that the positive changes since the feminist movement resulted purely from the feminist movement.

The misogynist or limited aspects of society were already changing even before feminism officially bombarded the scene.

In an interesting book called Let Them Journey: Uniting the Past with the Future, we meet the British daughter of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants, Etta bat Shlomo HaLevi (her last name wasn't mentioned), who qualified as a barrister (a common-law lawyer) in 1944 while she was a married woman with 3 young children.

(She wasn't the first female barrister, but she was one of a tiny minority of female barristers.)

She was the only woman in her class and yes, she did have to put up with a snipey comment from her lecturer and active obstruction later from another barrister to whom she was apprenticed. (This type of barrister is known as "a barrister principal.")

Yet rather than indulging in flamboyant protests and slogan-chanting, she simply put her nose to the grindstone to prove her professional worth.

And it worked!

Through Etta's intelligence and competence, she turned her barrister principal around & he ended up sending her work out as his own, assuring her a place in the barristers' chambers. (Yes, I know that copping her work as his own is far from ideal, but it could be that this was the common practice with their male apprentices too, and not only acceptable, but even complimentary. It's not clear to me either way from the context.)

Anyway, as a working barrister, she argued her cases with intelligence, grace, and tenacious patience before male judges against other male barristers, winning the judges to her side.

She also developed a method for dealing with juries, which consisted of repeating her point 6 times, a method which persuaded them to vote in favor of her clients.

So as a lone woman working in a male-dominated profession, she not only became a barrister, but a highly successful barrister -- without feminism or employing feminist tactics of social change.

She became successful because she possessed innate talent and because she worked very hard, both mentally and practically.

Meanwhile, back in America: The woman feminists love to hate, Phyllis Schlafly, worked her way through a prestigious university and earned such high marks and so impressed her professors with her intellectual brilliance that Harvard Law School was willing to accept her around 1944 even though at that time, Harvard Law School was not accepting female students. (Officially, Harvard Law School did not start admitting women until the 1950s.)

Phyllis didn't know this. She assumed that Harvard Law School had suddenly started accepting women prior to her admittance, and had no idea they'd made an exception specifically for her based on her intellectual qualifications and remarkable analytical abilities. (Nonetheless, she decided to go work in Washington D.C. instead.)

Again, this exception was made for Phyllis based on her phenomenal competency, and not via the feminist movement, which hadn't even revved up yet.

In fact, opportunities and expectations for women had been changing since the 1920s.

On the other hand, even prior to official advancements for women, American women enjoyed many freedoms and rights. 19th-Century pioneer women, for example, had the right to own their own land and proved up both land claims and tree claims, same as men. They carried pistols and rifles and worked in stores and newspaper presses, among other jobs.

At the same time, no one can deny the social and official limitations women faced when trying to engage in traditionally male activities and professions. In addition, the way women were portrayed in movies, TV, and ads really was a problem, such as floor wax ads featuring a women in full makeup, set hair, an insipid smile, and heels while waxing a kitchen floor. (And those were just the more innocent portrayals of women in advertising.)

Many movie & TV portrayals of women were just awful, making light of women being groped, harassed, or disdained by one of the male leads or women being exploited or physically abused in a way Hollywood portrayed as justified or funny.

Because Hollywood had been projecting their trash and corruption since at least the 1920s, it's hard to say whether the legitimate feminist complaints were a product of society or whether such deplorable male behaviors and attitudes were inculcated into society by Hollywood.

Who was around to remember society before Hollywood? And those who were old enough to remember, did they have any way of expressing themselves?

(The post after this one will detail Hollywood's role in the mistreatment of women.)

Another friend of mine remembers female police officers (in uniformed skirts) in the 1950s. She explained that female officers were necessary for arresting female offenders because it wasn't thought appropriate for men to deal with a female offender the way they dealt with male offenders (i.e. patting them down, touching or wrestling with her in the process of putting on handcuffs and getting the female perp into a police car).

The truth is, women's journeys through traditionally male professions initially mirrored the Jewish journey of upward mobility in America. Schools of higher education placed quotas against Jews and many upscale clubs while companies rejected Jewish membership and participation.

In fact, when the intermarried Groucho Marx wanted to use a beach associated with an upscale club that did not allow Jews, he pleaded with them by quipping, "My kids are only half Jewish. Can't they at least go in the water up to their knees?"

(Ironically, his children weren't Jewish at all according to halacha and should've been allowed entrance as full-fledged non-Jews. But try reasoning with antisemites about such things...anyway, such discrimination was the wake-up call Groucho got for spitting on Torah Law.)

The point is that Jews and other minorities faced discrimination by putting their nose to the grindstone and working their way to the top. They proved themselves, first by "working twice as hard to be considered just as good," and then making a name for themselves to the point that, for example, Jews and Chinese are stereotyped as hard-working, good in school, smart, and successful. Yes, Chinese people must face down the stereotype of "being good at math," a stereotype that dogs them at every step.

What's so awful about that?

And why couldn't women have done the same?

(In fact, Yetta bat Shlomo HaLevi did so for herself. A male barrister who lost to her after a hard fight in court told another barrister, "I was Yettaed."

I realize that many women who've been traumatized by the chauvinism of yore cannot see that things were already changing and would continue to change without the official blitzkrieg of the feminist movement.

(If you've been traumatized, you want things to change YESTERDAY. The pain is unbearable and you feel like you can't bear it for another moment.)

Many also couldn't see that the chauvinism was incited and encouraged by more modern influences, like Hollywood. (Yeah, feminists criticized Hollywood, but couldn't see that men themselves weren't the innate problem, but that Hollywood was.)

The rejection and discrimination many women experienced caused profound trauma, which is why no matter how much they see their daughters and grand-daughters facing traumas of their own brought on by feminism, such as premarital wantonness, abortion, much increased violence & abuse against women & girls, a sharp upturn in brutal female violence, low self-esteem, confusion, eating disorders, marital difficulties, suicide, depression, and much more, they continue with their mantra of:

"But when I was a girl, we were told we could only be teachers and nurses rather than doctors & lawyers!"

This is despite the fact that most of them -- and most men, for that matter -- don't aim to become and indeed don't become lawyers or doctors.

But it's the principle that bothers them.

Disturbingly, this principle bothers them more than the killing of unborn babies and the effect that has on the aborting mother, or the rampant wanton behavior popular among young girls for decades now, the increased violence and violation against females and children in general, with its higher incidence of low self-esteem and depression and self-destructive behaviors among females, and the savage assaults girls commit in growing numbers.

In fact, these feminist sympathizers seem to feel that being discouraged from being a doctor (which again, most of them didn't want to be in the first place) is worse than actual hands-on abuse or violation of girls, which became much more common in the wake of feminist advancement.

(BTW, I don't deny that if you really yearn for a certain calling and you were born with the abilities to excel at the calling, that it's not devastating to be blocked from your heart's yearning simply because of your gender and societal expectations. It IS devastating! But that still doesn't justify all the abuses and harmful ideas that came along with the freedom to fulfill your own calling.)

Isn't it ironic that feminism came under the guise of wanting to stop the abuse of women and girls, and ended up at the forefront of facilitating such abuse?

Yet if you confront feminists with this, they'll merely make 2 points:

• (1) No, there is EXACTLY the same amount of abuse going on, but just that back then, it was rarely reported.

It's true that sxual abuse was vastly underreported. (It's still underreported today, BTW.) But there is nothing to show that levels back then were even close to today's levels. Furthermore, there are social realities that facilitate abuse, which weren't as common back then. Also, assault on dates happens often enough today. Are you trying to tell me that in the 1950s, "date assault" was also common? (I'm not arguing whether it happened at all, I'm asking whether it was common.) Feminists also claim there is an epidemic of male students violating female students on college campuses. Did this same alleged epidemic exist also in the 1950s?

(Yes, I realize there were far fewer women on campus back then than there are now. But were the women who were on co-ed campuses being taken advantage of while drunk and assaulted in the numbers they are today?)

And what about some serious brutal assaults and murders committed by teenage girls, something almost unheard of prior to the feminist movement? Female violence has risen 250% since 1973. Is that progress?

• (2) At least today, we have resources to treat victims -- and that's a feminist accomplishment.

This is true that today there are more official resources. Yet it seems that the plethora of resources developed due to an ever-rising need for them. (Meaning, an increase in abuse led to an increase in the need for organizations to handle it. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these resources is questionable. Some therapists do wonderful work with victims, some don't. Ditto with organizations.)

And how well did those trained professionals and resources work out for, say, the 16-year ordeal of the Rotherham girls? Or for abused Muslim women and children in these "progressive" Western countries when courts or social services side with Sharia law?

As another example: Look at how feminists scream assault about acts that sometimes aren't even actually assault, yet ignore the thousands of cases of very real and horrific exploitation and assaults on vulnerable young girls from Rotherham, England to Yazidi girls in the Middle East?

In the Rotherham case, we see that having women in professional positions doesn't automatically help females. (That was one of the big claims of the feminist movement.) This is because we need good professionals, regardless of gender. Mothers, female social workers, female councilwomen, female staff in care homes, female directors, female cops, etc. did little to nothing to protect female victims.

Yes, Rotherham was exposed and prosecuted by several female professionals (along with their male colleagues) and several mothers also took action, but the mere act of having females in traditionally male professions or having females involved at all did not automatically prevent or help the abuse and exploitation of females. Having GOOD women (and men!) in professional positions is what ultimately helped.

(In fact, even after all the facts came to light, a female MP and Jeremy Corbyn supporter, Naz Shah, retweeted and liked the following post in 2017: "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.")
_________
Most notable case-in-point: In response to the poisoning of a Russian double-agent, England's female Prime Minister:

• IMMEDIATELY launched investigations
• expelled 23 diplomats
• is taking measures against an entire COUNTRY

Yet her initial response to the Rotherham horror?

• Accused authorities of "dereliction of duty"
• Blamed several factors
• Promised to appoint a chair to investigate

And that was only after the whole thing went very public. Remember, the initial abuses went on for 16 years.

(And yes, I realize Theresa May was "only" Home Secretary at the initial expose of the crimes, but my point is that she still had the power to do more and could also take Prime Ministerly action now. Yet from then until now, her response toward the crimes against the girls has been weak in comparison to what she's apparently capable of.)

Let's hear it for grrrl power! [sarc]

In short, many women mistakenly credit feminism with the progress we like when that progress was already happening anyway. And as for the very disturbing casualties of the feminist movement? Well, they seem to just think it's an unavoidable pity.

And anyway, we see that the mere act of having a woman in a position of authority does nothing to help victimized women or stop the victimization of women and children, unless she happens to be a GOOD PERSON.

Just like with men.

The more I learn, the more I realize that emphasizing the "good" aspects of feminism while minimizing the bad aspects is like doing so for any fascist movement.

I know that sounds extreme, but I hope you'll read yesterday's post to understand why one might feel this way: The Only "ism" You'll Ever Need.

Likewise, I was already seeing the ravages of feminism as a pre-teen, but I was brainwashed into thinking that it was either good or that the 1950s (and all time prior) were even worse. And I can't help noticing a steady decline in female well-being since my own girlhood. The problem is that women and girls are still being fed the same slop I was, and cultishly insist that their suffering is either good or at least still better than the pre-Sixties upheaval. And like with me and the girls in my generation, they're continuously conditioned to believe that the genuine problems that did exist could only be solved by feminism, and any worsening of society is simply a necessary and unavoidable evil.

The fact that the bad stuff was already improving and the role that Hollywood actively played in increasing the mistreatment of women from the early 20th Century is ignored and even denied.

But the truth is that we've benefited from feminism the way that Germans benefited from Nazism or Communists benefited from Communism (i.e. free health care, free education, housing, and some initially poor revolutionaries achieved high status, leadership, and wealth).

NOT because opportunities for women is a bad thing (they aren't), but because those opportunities were already opening up and presumably would've continued to do so had not feminism come along to slash things open like a mega-monster jeep on spiked wheels.
____________
For specific examples of Hollywood's role in corrupting society's attitude toward women, and in polluting society in general, please see:
How Hollywood Corrupted America.

Related links:
The Relationship Between Multiple Partners & Anxiety, Depression, Substance Abuse Disorders: A Cohort Study (You can scroll down to the end for the tables and results.)
How Childhood Abuse Leads to Wanton Behavior
More Statistics on Child Abuse, Or, Why Single Moms Should Probably Stay That Way
(Clarification: I definitely think divorce is the best solution is some situations and I also have known of several superb stepfathers. HOWEVER, from a purely statistical point of view, introducing strange men into one's home -- whether it's a boyfriend or a new husband -- statistically raises the chance of abuse of one's children, and increased child abuse has been one result of the increased divorce rate -- even though practically speaking, it's not always true. In secular society, divorces often (not always, but often) occur unnecessarily or without taking the child's well-being into consideration. The increased secular divorce rate and the not-dire reasons for this increased divorce rate are a direct result of feminism.)

Myrtle Rising related links:
"America's Scary New Direction" series (for specific correlations to Nazism, please see Part III and onwards)
Breaking Out of the Big Lie about Motherhood
When a Woman's Right is a Moral Wrong
Creating the Victim Mentality: A How-To Guide

The only "ism" you need is Judaism.

(And even if you aren't Jewish, Judaism still provides you with the value system you need to be an upstanding non-Jew.)

With all the other "isms" available today, it's easy to get caught up in other philosophies that seem to provide what Judaism appears to not provide.

So people turn to Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, feminism, nationalism, atheism, polytheism, humanism, environmentalism, materialism, and so on.

But if you delve into the original Jewish sources or receive Torah from people who are in touch with authentic Judaism, then you enable yourself to receive everything you need from one source: Judaism.

I can't deny that looking into the original Torah sources takes some adjustment if you haven't studied them before.

And even Jews born into the religious community and who attended religious schools can face a similar adjustment if they've been very influenced by the attitudes of non-Jewish society and/or received their education from people who've been unconsciously influenced by surrounding attitudes and outlooks or by authority figures who simply didn't have the capability to pass on and explain the authentic Torah mindset.

Like everything else, understanding what's already been laid out for you by Chazal (the Torah Sages) is a process.

Your mind needs to adjust to a new (and better) way of thinking and perceiving yourself and the world around you, and perceiving God.

Fine! That's exactly what God put us here to accomplish.

Before Communism, countries like China and Russia were run by imperialists. Regular folk were at the mercy of royals and landholders.

No matter how hard you worked or how talented and brilliant you were, there was no way for you to get ahead. You were stuck in miserable grinding poverty, no matter what you did or what potential you possessed.

Furthermore, if someone from the gentry class decided to beat you, whether because you didn't fill your quota on the field or simply because the bigwig wanted an outlet for his sadism, then you had no recourse. If your superior chose to shove you in an underground prison to slowly starve to death, that was his prerogative. If he felt like assaulting and violating your wife or daughter, then again, there was no recourse and nothing to do to prevent it or heal from it later.

And we all know how Russian superiors and Cossacks treated the Jews, regardless of any Jew's position.

So when Communism came along proclaiming both social and economic equality for all, that was irresistible to your average peasant.

And even those who believed in God didn't mind the spiritual "equality" part and parcel of Communist belief. Ultimately, Communist leaders didn't want ANY superior above them -- not even God.

Some of the only people who could see the cruel fascism underneath the veneer of Communism were Orthodox Jews (but even then, not all of them). 

So Communism came to correct some very real and tragically widespread human rights abuses. It came to remedy very real and genuinely unjust oppression.

But because it wasn't based on the right value system (the core idea of saying that your work and accomplishments don't belong to you and can't benefit you is in itself a huge problem), it was doomed to failure and ended up oppressing and abusing people far more than imperialism.

Communism was predicated on despair.

The reason why impoverished people agreed to such equality is because they didn't feel they could have a much better life anyway. Let everyone have their basic needs met -- a decent roof over their heads, enough to eat, basic medical care, etc. -- and that's enough! At least they wouldn't have to see the rich enjoying what the poor couldn't. Let everyone be kind of poor (but not too poor).

(Revenge played a part in this too, of course. Let's punish the rich!)

Likewise, Nazism initially came under the guise of compassion for the underdog.

The period after WWI consisted of hopeless suffering and impoverishment for the German people. Disenchanted youth abounded (including former soldiers), who discarded respect for rank and age. Communism's promise of equality and an end to poverty exerted a magnetic pull on many German youth.

But even after the initial phase of poverty eased prior to the victory of the Nazi party, many German working class still suffered.

Factories exposed workers to dangerous conditions without compensation. Transportation and journeys to the countryside were for the rich who had cars and could afford to pay for vacation resorts.

In fact, class discrimination in pre-WWII Germany was so severe that in school, the child of blue collar workers could receive a lower grade (no matter how high he actually scored) just to keep him beneath the children of doctors and professors. So the idea of making everybody equal (except the Jews) with equal opportunities solely on the basis of merit (i.e. loyalty to the Nazi party and its leader) was a very big deal back then.

(Incidentally, Hitler [yemach shemo - may his name be erased] barely mentioned the Jews in speeches between 1932-1933, making the Jew-hatred endemic in Nazi dogma less obvious.)

And to be sure, YM"SH (yemach shemo - may his name be erased) temporarily produced exciting progress for Nazi society.

Under the Nazi party, Germany nearly eradicated unemployment (for Aryans), broke down class barriers and enabled new and much-needed opportunities for the poor (especially the children), it greatly improved working conditions in formerly dangerous factory environments that sometimes injured or even killed workers, and Germany expanded workers rights in general, significantly improved the quality of life for working-class Germans (they could now afford cars via the German-made VW bug and vacations at newly built affordable resorts), and more.

Furthermore, the Nazi party instituted great strides in environmentalism, animal rights, organic foods, and anti-smoking attitudes. They also fought Communism (not because they opposed Communist principles -- Nazism and Communism proclaim similar ideals -- but because they didn't want to share power). They also made society safer by sending habitual criminals and sx offenders to concentration camps. (Yes, the first victims of concentration camps tended not to be Jews, but non-Jews considered asocial, criminal, or politically incorrect.)

The above is why some people say that had YM"SH dropped dead in 1938, he'd have been hailed a hero (despite the cruel anti-Jewish legislation he'd already enacted by March 1933 and onwards because in the end, economic comfort and ego-stroking trump Jewish suffering in the eyes of many).

And some Germans still privately believe that Nazism had its positive side.

The implication is that the initial Jewish suffering, torture, and eventual genocide was just a lamentable side effect of German progression.

People (particularly the youth) are always trying to re-invent the wheel.

The same problems crop up generation after generation (inequalities, discrimination, unfortunates who fall through the cracks, etc.) and the wheel turns, somersaulting those once on the bottom to the top, while those on top plunge to the bottom.

In trying to analyze how the German people could've turned into such a barbaric killing machine that even treated babies and toddlers with ruthless sadism, the prelude to that genocidal era is rarely discussed. Ditto with Communism and many other isms.

The human rights abuses were very real.

The pain and trauma that catapulted people into their respective "isms" was very real and justified.

However, you see that all these people actually cared nothing for others.

All the cries for equality and compassion and "rights for all!" were mere slogans that secretly meant: "Compassion for me, equality (which actually meant superiority) for me, rights for me."

And the movements continue to snake their way through society, replacing the prefix of their chosen "ism" with another prefix ad nauseam.

And it's always done under the battle-cry of compassion and fairness...

...when all they really care about is rights for oneself and everyone else be damned.

Except for Judaism.

Whatever good exists in another movement already exists within Judaism.

And anything that Judaism rejects or forbids cannot be justified within the good points of another movement.

We've already seen too many times what happens when people believe otherwise.
_____
Related post:
How Ingratitude Leads to Genocide

One of the most significant changes in society today is the phenomenon of people standing for nothing.

On the other side of the Atlantic, you have a new book out called iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us. 

I haven’t read it, but there are some intriguing articles about it.

There is a lot of food for thought in this meticulous research, but one thing that stood out was the lament of both the researchers and readers:

• Teens are becoming intimate later; they’re waiting all the way until 11th grade!
• They don’t hang out at malls so much anymore!
• They party less and drink less!
• Teen homicide is down! (Okay, that wasn't said lamentingly, but it is true, baruch Hashem.)

And then there are the inevitable comparisons to teens of previous generations who hung out smoking and drinking at skating rinks in the Seventies and got their drivers license in the Eighties as soon as possible to go cruising and escape parental supervision in order to indulge their taavos.

(Interestingly, they don't yearn for the days when young adults married earlier and with better results, started families earlier, volunteered for military service in greater numbers, or went to work earlier, and so on.)

To be fair, the point of the research is to show that kids aren’t avoiding these indulgences out of rising morals but because of their attachment to their phones and social media.

And yes, I get the disturbing point that smartphones are so compelling, they even override the most compelling millennia-old taavos.

That’s pretty disturbing. So I definitely understand this point made by the researchers.

Furthermore, because teens are socializing less face-to-face, plus suffering from social media-induced depression and loneliness, author Jean Twenge observes:

That's downright chilling.

Jean Twenge and her assistants are doing society a big service by getting this information out to everyone.

But you should see the people lamenting how “kids don’t hang out at the malls anymore,” and so on.

Again, this lamenting about the good ol’ days when teens immediately got a drivers license for the freedom it offered (mostly to engage in unsavory or meaningless behavior), when teens hung out at skating rinks, and engaged in meaningless physical relationships earlier, and so on…

What are they saying?

Put down your smartphones, kids, and then...do what, exactly?

You can’t revolutionize society based on these values.

Like I said, it’s not just the superficial stuff. I know that all these well-meaning people and groups are not that superficial.

But my point is that they’re proclaiming these meaningless things alongside the more serious and meaningful issues.

Why should someone get off her suicide-inducing social media in order to go to a party where she can drink until she vomits and get exploited by equally drunk boys?

Or to wander the mall in search of the latest meaningless trendy trinket or outfit?

American youth with Western values have nothing to stand for and nothing to live for.
(Actually, they DO, but many just don't realize it within their cultural value system.)

So what's going to happen?
__________________
The really eye-opening article mentioned above:
Has the Smartphone Destroyed a Generation?

Another post on this subject:
How Would You like to Take Your Poison: Scrambled or Sunnyside Up?
Standing for Nothing: UK