Are Jews required by Halacha to study Chassidus?

(Vilna Gaon thinks you should learn Chassidus. If you don’t believe this, listen to the Rabbi Zwecker’s shiur.)

Dixie Yid posted a link to a shiur by Rabbi Zal Zwecker, in which the latter brings down proofs from both Alter Rebbe and Vilna Gaon (the two great halachic and kabbalistic authorities) that a Jew nowadays is obligated to study Chassidus. Both say that it is required from all Jews to learn all levels of Torah, which includes the mystical level, Kabbalah. Each person is obligated to it, and if he cannot learn “straight” Kabbalah, he must learn teachings (like Chassidus) that explain Kabbalah and show its relevance in learning of Torah and a Jew’s service of G-d.

I really enjoyed the shiur and would like to thank Dixie Yid for posting. I do, however, want to note that Rabbi Zwecker did not bring all the reasons for learning Chassidus (besides the halachic one). I’d like to state the additional reasons I personally have heard:

1. Ramak (R’ Moishe Cardovero, a famous Kabbalist) says that someone who doesn’t learn pnimiyus haTorah (Kabbalah) is like a heretic. Why? What is meant (I forgot whose commentary it is — possibly by one of the Rebbeim Chabad) is if someone doesn’t learn Kabbalah, he has a good chance of becoming an apikoires, of looking at Torah from completely superficial point of view. Thinking that lulav and esrog are just fruits, tefillin are just boxes, Tehillim are magic words (something some contemporary rabbis worry about, apparently — see the comments in that post), and learning Gemara is an intellectual exercise. Learning Chassidus re-energizes a person with ability to see G-d behind Torah and Judaism.

2. Alter Rebbe says in one letter that whenever a chossid and a misnaged see some problem with an argument in a seifer of Torah, the chossid thinks the problem is with himself, and the misnaged thinks the problem is with the seifer. One person wrote an angry letter to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, asking for explanation, and it was provided.

In order to successfully learn Torah, much less pasken according to it, one needs to have certain faith in his own intellectual abilities in understanding the Infinity of Torah. One needs a certain degree of ga’avah and chutzpah (arrogance) — healthy ones. If, however, this faith in one’s intellect is not balanced by understanding that this is Hashem’s Torah (which can be acquired most acutely through study of Chassidus), one can get caught up in his intellectual arrogance and eventually come to the point where Torah for him is an intellectual game to be solved, like (lehavdil) a Math problem — in which there can be right and wrong approaches, of course. Thus, Chassidus not only prevents one from having heretical view of Judaism (as in first reason provided above), but also prevents one from learning Torah incorrectly — from purely superficial point of view, with great intellectual arrogance.

3. Chassidus must be studied because it is not only the soid (level of secrets of Torah) of Pardes (the four levels of Torah), as Rabbi Zwecker explains in his shiur, but is also the essence of Torah. Chassidus is not just “Kabbalah for dummies”, nor is its role confined to “saving the king’s son”, Jews of our generation. Teaching of Chassidus by Baal Shem Tov, Maggid and Maggid’s students (each founding his own dynasty and school of Chassidus) was revelation of the deepest aspect of Torah, which is related to all four aspects of Pardes, just like Hashem’s Essence is related to all four worlds and just like the fifth level of a Jew’s soul (yechida) is the essence of the other four levels. It’s not the case that yechida is “above” chaya; rather, it is “inside” nefesh, ruach, neshama and chaya and thus is closer to nefesh than chaya is. Likewise, Chassidus is closer to pshat of Torah than remez iz, so it is erroneous to think of Chassidus as a commentary on Kabbalah — it’s a whole independent (and most essential) level in itself. So, not studying Chassidus in our times is like not studying Mishnah in the times of R’ Yehuda HaNasi.

4. The most important reason, however, for studying Chassidus is that it is the recipe for bringing Mashiach. In every generation, there was a particular avoida of bringing Mashiach. E.g., in Rabbi Akiva’s time, the avoida constituted defeating of Romans. In our times, which are closest to the coming of Mashiach, the avoida is to directly draw the essential change that will happen during geulah: gilui (pun intended) of achdus between Eibeshter and this world. During the times of Mashiach it will be revealed that ein od milvado (“There is nothing but Him”) — and all the physical changes that are simanim of geulah (gathering of Jews in Eretz Yisroel, rebuilding of Beis HaMikdosh, korbanos, end to wars, diseases, famine, etc.) will be the results of this internal change.

Just like a spark reveals in gasoline its “internal” nature (the fact that it — like the spark — is fire, energy), our behavior in this generation will reveal the essence of the Era of Mashiach. Just like in the Era of Mashiach, it will be b’gilui that ein od milvado, when we behave in such a way as to show that there is literally nothing but Hashem, we draw closer that Era. What does it mean behaving in such a way? That’s what Chassidus teaches one — each school of Chassidus in its own way. Therefore, since it is obligation of every Jew to attempt to do everything to bring Mashiach as soon as possible (since the Era of Mashiach is the essential reason why the world was created), it is necessary for every Jew to learn Chassidus and allow its teachings shape his life and service of G-d.

Parshas Vayeira with Chabad-Chassidic commentary

Parshas Vayeira talks about destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Avraham’s arguing with G-d about them (one of the few cases when tzaddikim argued with Hashem), statement that Hashem is merciful G-d (which is important for rational argument for Divine Providence — necessary itself for explanation how our Oral Torah is genuine), miraculous birth of the second Jew, Yitzchok, story of Lot and his daughters (whose encounter gave birth to the nation of Midyan, whose member, Ruth, was a grandmother of Dovid HaMelech and, therefore, a descendant Mashiach), and birth of our cousins’ ancestor, Ishmoel, whose mother was one of the people Avraham converted to monotheism.

The parsha also has one of the most significant stories in Judaism — akeidas Yitzchok (the binding of Isaac), a story that redefined the understanding of a relationship with G-d.

For all of this and more, read parshas Vayeira with Chabad-Chassidic commentary.

Self-sacrifice refines us in proportion to the extent of the sacrifice involved. The greater the sacrifice, the more dedication to G-d we must evoke in order to motivate the sacrifice; in other words, we can only sacrifice something for G-d if G-d means more to us than whatever it is that we are sacrificing. The deeper the layer of our being that is exposed in this process, the more refined we become.

The devotion we must evoke in order to give up our physical lives for G-d refines us so profoundly and completely that it transforms the very physical matter of our body, rendering it fit to embody spirituality. The material nature of the body, which is normally too coarse to reveal the Divinity that sustains it, becomes spiritually transparent.

It is precisely this sublime level that Isaac reached when he willingly surrendered his life to G-d. According to Midrash, Isaac not only willing to die for G-d; he actually did die: while bound on the altar, his soul temporarily left him and ascended to heaven. It was in this respect that Isaac’s self-sacrifice showed himself ready to give up his life (at Ur of the Kasdites) and even his entire being (at the binding of Isaac), Isaac did give up his life.

The episode of the binding of Isaac is recited daily as a prelude to morning prayers, since our ultimate objective in praying is to dedicate our entire being to G-d. If we pray with proper intention and devotion, this objective will be imbued with self-sacrifice; furthermore, our involvement in the physical world will be solely for the goal of enhancing our relationship with G-d and fulfilling our Divine mission in life. Even the most physical aspects of our lives — our “ashes” — will remain “on the altar”, part and parcel of our Divine lives.

You can also listen to Rabbi Paltiel’s audio-shiurim on the parsha: “A Perfect Reward” (how is G-d’s appearing to Avraham significant?), “From the Potential to Actual” (why was Avraham tested?), and “Hashem’s Investigation of Sedom” (what do antropomorphic terms of Hashem “seeing”, “descending” and “investigating” mean?).

Lawyers need guns

… in case they need a reason to get out of defending a client they don’t like.



In case you haven’t guessed, Denny Crane is a big supporter of the Second Amendment.



And, in light of recent elections, guns and racial relations:

— Watch. Wallet. Gun. Knee. Right foot. Left foot.

The real causes of the economic boom-and-bust cycles

(Nicholas Cage dressed as David Hume)

Marx was wrong about the causes of boom-and-bust cycle. Keynes was wrong too. Most of modern economists (even, or especially, the Nobel-prize–winning ones), politicians, professors, and radio hosts (even the more conservative ones, like Howie Carr) are wrong. Free market is not to blame. People’s greed is not to blame. If so, who is right and who is to blame?

To hear the answer, listen to this lecture: Economic Depressions — Their Cause and Cure (a part of the The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle audio-book). In it, Rothbard explains succinctly why the traditional models are wrong, how they are outside of standard theory of economics regarding supply and demand, what they cannot predict, and what the real causes of the boom-and-bust cycle are. (Summary of the lecture to follow.)

***

Additional readings: “Consumers Don’t Cause Depressions” (and neither greed nor thrift are to blame), “Did Capitalism Cause Depression?” (a review of a good book on the causes of Great Depression), “The Importance of Capital Theory” (sushi model of economics and critique of one famous Nobel-prize winning economist).

Support for libertarian anarchy

In the last post, I said that I don’t agree with libertarian anarchists who believe centralized “state” government is not necessary because I don’t completely understand their ideas or how they could work in reality.


(libertarian-anarchist view of political spectrum)

To be fair, anarchists are always misrepresented in the society, because when people hear anarchy, they think of left, revolutionary anarchists (or Attila the Hun). Libertarian anarchy (or rightist anarchy — although the name is obviously a misnomer and an oxymoron) looks at the government as a monopoly in two services: law and protection. Consequently, anarchists believe, central government is unnecessary, as any other monopoly. Just as any other services, law and protection do not require a central authority to be provided. A number of competing companies can provide telephone, Internet, rodent control, or lawn-mowing services, and the same is true regarding law and protection.

An immediate reaction of minirchists (libertarians believing in necessity of minimal government) like me is to say that the reason these services can be provided in the context of free market is because the latter is allowed to exist by the structure of the society — law and protection of people’s rights. The only way I can compete freely with a large company (and thus benefit the consumers the most) is if the large company doesn’t higher someone to “bust my cap” — and this happens only when the law (protecting my equal rights) is imposed by a central government, yes, sometimes in a form of aggressive protection. The good thing about democracy is that people control it and decide through this control (more or less) which people are the best for imposing this protection. Furthermore, the government is limited (in an ideal world, much more than today) by the Constitution, which prevents it from grabbing more power and destroying free market (obviously not the case today).

An anarchists would argue that the above is not true. Or at least the main assumption of it is not true — that law and protection must be provided by a centralized monopoly. Just like in any service, anarchists repeat, is successfully provided by free market, which regulates its quality and effectiveness, law and protection too can successfully be provided by free market. And no, this would not lead to chaos. Free, competing organizations dedicated to providing the services of law and protection would not engage in constant warfare but would come to a stable equilibrium — simply because such would be a more profitable situation for all parties involved. Just like today, sometimes force would have to be used, but much less frequently than today and more efficiently (and lawfully).

Furthermore, a democratic government is only as good, as honest, and as democratic as the people it serves. It is necessary for some ideas to be shared among the people in order for democracy to be successful (just compare democracies in Russia and the US). If democracy can be sustained by people that believe in certain ideals and does not turn into chaos (as English king George III believed would happen to the “Colonies”) or totalitarianism (as happened in France after its democratic revolution), the same is true for anarchy (as anarchists argue): as long as people living in an anarchist society believe in a set of ideas, anarchy will turn to neither chaos nor dictatorship.


(libertarian-anarchist view of stateless yet lawful society)

Two essays by Robert Murphy defend this argument in an easy-to-read, cohesive form.

Without question, the legal system is the one facet of society that supposedly requires State provision. Even such champions of laissez-faire as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed a government must exist to protect private property and define the “rules of the game”.

However, their arguments focused on the necessity of law itself. They simply assumed that the market is incapable of defining and protecting property rights. They were wrong. In this essay, I argue that the elimination of the State will not
lead to lawless chaos. Voluntary institutions will emerge to effectively and peacefully resolve the disputes arising in everyday life. Not only will market law be more efficient, it will also be more equitable, than the government alternative.

Just as right-wing hawks embrace the Orwellian notion that War is Peace, left-wing egalitarians believe that Slavery is Freedom. The hawks wage endless war to end war, while the social democrats engage in massive theft — or “taxation” as they call it — to eliminate crime. It is high time to abandon such monstrous paradoxes. It took no king to produce language, money, or science, and it takes no government to produce a just legal system.

Even if you don’t completely agree with the described ideas (like me, who is a right-wing hawk, despite being libertarian in almost all other aspects), the two papers are still an interesting read. More to follow.

Changing political views. Why Republicans lost

For a long time after coming to the US, I thought the difference between Democrats and Republicans was smaller than between Pepsi and Coke. It was evident to me that somehow Republicans were better internationally — Democrat presidents usually bent over for foreign powers and were therefore loved by foreign leaders (by the way, theleader of Communist Party in Russia is exultant over Obama being elected — as is Hugo Chavez), while Republicans were tough, threatened to nuke or invade, tended to invade, and usually got things solved in political crises (unless they ran out of time and Democrats who came to power next fucked things up). At the same time, I thought that Democrats are better for social issues. I was quite a believer in all social support programs at the time.

I saw political system in a one-linear way (by the way, the traditional separation of political powers into “right” and “left” comes from French Parliament where political parties took the respective sides of the room) bent into a second dimension (where crazy radical rightist fascists were not far from radical leftist socialists):



I thought that I was a centrist, even though I understood to begin with that my views were only statistically centrist. In some aspects I was conservative, in some aspects — quite liberal. In some aspects quite a radical, in either direction, in some aspects — pretty moderate. When one of my friends called himself “moderate — another word for ‘smart’”, it made sense to me, although having all views as moderate did not — I never liked compromises too much. I couldn’t quite understand why one’s views have to be lumped into some category.

Then I started realizing that even liberal social programs are not so good and can be quite bad and damaging to those they are trying to help. Yet, I was weary of conservatives’ lack of compassion and tolerance in a few issues and ignorance in science issues. I still did not understand why one had to be a member of some club, such that if one believes in conservatism in fiscal questions and internationally, one cannot at the same time believe in Theory of Evolution.

After I became religious and saw damage that liberalism can do in other areas of life. I realized how crazy liberal thinking based on emotions is.

Then I saw libertarian ideas and Austrian school of economics (Hayek, Mises, and their followers), and things suddenly started making sense — for the first time in my life did I start seeing things clearly from economic and political points of view. I also realized why I was annoyed with old one-dimensional view of the politics — it was unable to divorce economic philosophy from political one. I discovered Nolan chart which did so, clearly delineating every political/economic philosophy’s positions:



My political views are similar to my religious views: I am a maximalist and prefer to take maximum good from each position, instead of compromising, which is why I chose Chabad and — lehavdil — libertarianism.

Discovering libertarian philosophy also made me realize how pervasive Marxist thinking has become — no matter where people belong politically, they cannot let go of stereotypes about supposed problems of free market and necessity of central government to poke its nose into private affairs in order to “govern”.

By the way, now that I am on the topic of Nolan charts, here is the reason why Republicans lost (and what I was talking about during the lunch) — voting patterns of both parties (blue is Dem’s; red is Rep’s):

I wonder who the single libertarian Republican is.

As you can see, economically, Republicans were not too different from Democrats (the same amount of government regulation of economy), while socially, they remained conservative. Democratic average is closer to centrist policies (which is what people usually want) than Republican average, which is fascist.

Now, people don’t realize that two axes of politics actually exist (economic and personal freedom) and associate lack of personal freedom (Conservative philosophy) with free market (also Conservative philosophy), without realization that the two freedoms can be combined — in a Libertarian philosophy. Which is why, as I said, free market is being blamed for Republicans’ social and economic policies, while the latter are not free-market–style at all.

On my way to work last night, I was hearing on the radio how the four years of socialists in Presidential Office and some time of their domination in the Congress should give time to Republicans to re-evaluate themselves and realize that compromises with liberalism are not effective. Some politicians start admitting it: “Compassionate Conservatism was a mistake”. Yeh think?

Media admits to kissing Obama’s ass

As previously reported, some journalists start beating their chests and admitting the fact that they, in fact, аre journalists and therefore have tendency to lie, commit slander, and twist facts, under-cover, over-cover, take things out context, blow them out of proportion, sweep them under the rug and do other things journalists in theory are not supposed to do, but in practice, have to do to stay in business (and receive personal and professional enjoyment from their work).

First, they admitted that Bush was unfairly treated. Now it’s about coverage of the campaign.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

Now, that’s just shocking news. Who could’ve expected a liberal socialist to be covered more by our unbiased media? I am just astounded.

Fears of Obama administration boost gun sales

Who said Obama will be bad for economy? One industry is already being helped by him being elected — the gun industry.

Last month, as an Obama win looked increasingly inevitable, there were more than 108,000 more background checks for gun purchases than in October 2007, a 15 percent increase. And they were up about 8 percent for the year as of Oct. 26, according to the FBI.

No data was available for gun purchases this week, but gun shops from suburban Virginia to the Rockies report record sales since Tuesday's election.

“They’re scared to death of losing their rights,” said David Hancock, manager of Bob Moates, where sales have nearly doubled in the past week and are up 15 percent for the year. On Election Day, salespeople were called in on their day off because of the crowd.

Mother Rachel’s yartzeit

Commentaries tell us that while Leia wanted to be loved by her husband (Yakov originally wanted to marry her sister; Leia was forced upon him by her father Lavan), Rochel wanted children (she had only two).

When Yakov Avinu was on his deathbed, he asked his son, Yosef, to burry him in Eretz Yisroel. Asked very strongly. Rashi comments: he was worried that Yosef was hurt by the fact that his mother, Rochel, was burried along a road to Beis Lechem, not in a city. The medrash explains that Yakov Avinu fulfilled Rochel’s desire to be buried there. She foresaw prophetically that when Jews would be exiled, they would walk by her grave and pray at it. Her merits would then protect them and ensure their safety and eventual return to Eretz Yisroel. As this site explains:

The Navi in Yermiyahu tells us that when Bnei Yisroel were exiled to Bavel, they walked past Kever Rachel and stopped there to daven to her. He continues that all of our ancestors — Avraham, Yitzchak, Ya’akov, Sarah, Rivka, and Leah gathered before the Heavenly Throne to pray for Bnei Yisroel, but Hashem did not answer their cries. Then kol baramah neshamah, a voice was heard crying on high. It was Rachel crying for her children. Rashi tells us that [she] beseeched the Ribbono Shel Olam in this way: “Lord of the Universe! Whose mercy is greater — Yours or the mercy of a person of flesh and blood? Surely, Yours is greater. Have I not brought my rival, Leah, into my house? For all the work which Ya’akov did for my father was for my sake. When I came to enter the Chupah, Leah was put in my place. And not only did I keep silent, I gave my signs. You too — though Your children have brought Your enemy into Your house — be silent with them.”

Hashem answered, “Rachel, how beautiful you spoke for your children. Do not fear, meni koleach mi’bechi — stop your voice from crying — v’shavu m’eretz oyev — they will be returned from the land of their exile.

While Leia’s wish to be close to her husband was fulfilled, with her being burried next to Yakov Avinu, Rochel’s desire to have more children was fulfilled as well:

Rachel may have given birth to only two of Ya’akov’s sons, but throughout our history she has been referred to as “Our Mother Rachel”. Her Kever has become a place where women go to pray when they are infertile. Let us hope that our mother in Heaven will continue to pray for her children and that in her merit will be worthy of the true Geulah.

Today is Mother Rochel’s yartzeit.


(source: Mystical Paths)

I would like to use this opportunity to publicly ask Hashem for refuah sheleima for my grand-aunt, Rochel bas Golda-Rivka.

Faithful idiots and ungrateful brats

This article states: “To imagine that the nation would entrust the most powerful job on Earth to a young black-skinned man with a Kenyan father, a Muslim heritage, and a name that sounds like it comes off a terrorist watch list — that was an act of supreme faith.”

First, no need to overstate the obvious: Obama support has turned into a form of a cult (you thought Onion was joking, huh?) — except that in cults, leaders take money from the followers; here, followers ask leaders to take others’ money. Second, add to that a list of racist, terrorist, and mafia friends, no experience, liberal-college–textbook view of the world and a plan of how to ruin the country through socialism (not a well thought-out one, if that’s any consolation), and an act of supreme faith turns into an act of supreme stupidity. Which faith not based on any reason most often is.

(As a side note, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb states in his audio lecture on Oral Torah, the term “faith” got into our vocabulary from Christianity, but it does not mean the same thing when we say it. In Christianity it means irrational and baseless belief based on emotions, superstition or ungrounded intuition. In, lehavdil, Judaism, it means reasonable trust.

It’s not unreasonable to trust a good source that’s proved its own validity and trustworthiness, or if the evidence lends greater support to trust than to doubt. It is unreasonable to “just believe” — and it is ridiculous to say that “just believing” is more praiseworthy than believing with rational basis. If you think about it, says Rabbi Gottlieb, people who have the most respect in Judaism, like Avraham and Moses, like tzaddikim of all the generations, believed in G-d based on direct evidence of Divine revelation. And, in case of Avraham and many others, based on rational argument. If faith is greater than reason, as Christians believe, then agnostics of all sorts are holier than those tzaddikim who experienced G-dliness directly? What sort of nonsense is that?)

So, ironically, after calling Bush and his supporters stupid for eight years, liberals committed an even greater act of stupidity. Which some observers start to come in terms with. Now that we elected a president through an affirmative-action type of logic, some people start appreciating Bush more. The realization that journalists behaved disgracefully throughout the years of Bush presidency (perhaps even more than is natural for them) begins to dawn. As well as the fact that people who claim that we have it bad are idiots. David Letterman, quoted by Circus Tent, discusses how amidst greatest prosperity (geographic and historical), Americans, coached by the media, still complain — about the fact of how good life is, apparently. Reality is always stranger than any Onion video or article. Especially, liberal reality.

I started thinking, “What are we so unhappy about?”

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?
B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state.
F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.

They complain about the President who tried to protect our country with our own armed forces (consisting of people who signed up for the job). They want a change — a change towards what? Russia? North Korea? France? How about a change back to what this country was supposed to be originally, and what made it what it is today — “a land of the free”?

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank G-d several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

A good read.

Not that I don’t believe that Bush, his administration and the Republicans made mistakes. First, many of their actions were very socialist in themselves. Saying that Republican party strayed from its path would be a massive understatement. Second, they made a mistake of seeking compromises (trying to play both camps) and pursuing a strategy of half-measures. (Let’s invade a country… but with not enough forces. Yeah. That will be a nice compromise between “hawks” and “pigeons”.)

Third, and most importantly, they forgot that they are dealing with a herd of people with intellectual habits of a four-year-old: responding best to attractive imagery and thinking in a knee-jerk fashion. All things need to be explained slowly and in a fool-proof way, knowing, beforehand, that left media will distort everything.

The war in Iraq is the best example. Most people today have an erroneous idea why we went there in the first place (because we knew about WMD? Wrong! To get control over oil? Wrong!), what justification was provided for it, and why we had to do it. Why? Because it was not explained to them properly, like you would explain something to a child, step-by-step, slowly, with visual imagery, preparing him for the propaganda that his teacher in school will try to fill his mind with.

Obama’s victory makes his supporters realize how empty their lives are

The Garlic has finally found something worthy to make fun of (before it was mostly a good tool to show how it’s not too far off from real journalist practices).

— Do you see an end to this, Jane?
— Well, you know Andrea, I think a lot of people just hope these people will die.
— I think you’re right.
— You know, worst case scenario is that someone with evil intent seizes control of them.
— Sure.
— They’ve proven their minds can be taken over by empty rhetoric.
— So if someone were to come up with a catch phrase as simple and vague as, “Yes we can...”
— Oh, awful. They would have an entire army of extremely energetic, insufferably annoying, mindless pawns at their command.
— OK. Well we’re going to pray that that does not happen. Thank you, Jane.

(Source)

On a related note: conservative media (especially talk radio) will have a four-year-long party. Even usually liberally-oriented cynics like The Onion will have no choice but to make fun of the incumbent Symbol. As somebody said, whoever signed up a contract with Rush made a good deal.

Chabad-Chassidic commentary on Lech Lecha — a soul’s journey

Third installation (large file) of Kehot-edition Chumash with Rebbe’s (and generally Chabad-Chassidic) commentaries — this time, on parshas Lech Lecha. I have enjoyed Bereishis and Noach so far and have already ordered a copy for myself (it’s back in stock). This editions is amazing. Of course, there is nothing like studying Chassidus in original — reading the sichos, the ma’amorim, the letters concerning each parsha (or using such publications as Dvar Malchus, where this is compiled for each week). This book, however, is the second best thing, especially for English readers who want introduction into Chassidus or Chassidic commentary to Chumash.

The more I read this edition, the more I realize one aspect of its advantage — it is a commentary on its own. It doesn’t just provide a selection of the Rebbe’s sichos on a particular topic or a parsha (which is a very good thing in itself), it has its own system of commentary that draws on a great wealth of sources, with Chabad Chassidus being a main guiding theme. The depth of the commentary (combined with conciseness — something I need to learn) is unbelievable. Just from reading the provided free chapters on Bereishis and Lech Lecha (I didn’t have so much opportunity to study Noach in depth) one can learn major basics of Chabad Chassidus. I want to quote everything, but quoting first “Inner Dimensions” will suffice for now:

Go from your land and from your birthplace: go away from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you:

Metaphorically, this command is given to every soul about to be born, which must then descend from its source in the heavenly spheres through progressively lower gradations, gaining more definition, self-awareness, and distance from G-d at each step, until it reaches the physical plane. Its next step is to begin the process of ascent, traveling back in the opposite direction to transcend the shortsighted perspective of the body. Finally, it must then transcend even its own holy inclinations. This verse thus can be explained as follows:

Go: Descend from the highest levels—

From your land: The word for “land” (eretz) is related to the word for “will” or “desire” (ratzon). “Land” therefore alludes to G-d’s will, which is identified with the sefirah of keter. The soul is thus told to take leave of its lofty roots (keter) and descend to the next level, chochmah.

From your birthplace: Divine insight (chochmah) is called “father”, since chochmah “fathers” and gives birth to ideas. The soul must leave this level as well and descend even further, into the realm of understanding (binah).

Your father’s house: Binah is the womb where the seed of chochmah is developed and expanded, which is why it is called “your father’s house”. The soul must descend even further—

To the land, i.e., to the physical world: This is the ultimate, most difficult descent, yet through it the soul arrives in this world, which is the “land”—

That I will show you: The non-descriptive “I” refers to G-d’s essence, which is likewise beyond description. G-d promises the soul that in the merit of descending into this world and fulfilling the commandments, it will be shown the “I” of G-d, enabling it to cleave to G-d’s essence [through Torah and mitzvos].

Once the soul enters this world and becomes garbled in a human body, it is commanded and given strength to—

Go: this time in the opposite direction, from the lowest sphere to the highest—

From your land: “Land”, as we have explained above, alludes to will and desire. Firstly, the soul must transcend the animalistic desires of the body. It is then told to go—

From your birthplace: i.e., to transcend the assumptions and limited perspective of the intellect and emotions of the ego. It must then go—

From your father’s house: i.e., to transcend those behavioral habits that it acquired and became accustomed to due to a faulty education and less-than-perfect environment. It must go beyond all of these limitations—

To the land that I will show you: to a holy place, such as a synagogue of place of Torah study, where desires of the Divine soul dominate and prevail.

Only after we have successfully transcended the limitations of the body’s animating soul can we then proceed to the next task, that of transcending even the inclinations of the Divine soul, its own ratzon (land), chochmah (birthplace), and binah (father’s house), and reach a level that is beyond reason, “the land that I will show you”, a place where the sould does not merely comprehend Divinity [as was before the birth, in the Upper Worlds] but actually sees it.

[Based on Likutei Sichot, vol. 1, pp. 15–18.]

This was one of the first sichos of the Rebbe I ever studied by myself. I remember sitting on Shabbos in 770 and learning it.

The regular commentary provides a slightly different explanation on the first sentence of Lech Lecha, from Rebbe Rashab’s teachings. Read inside.

Other links.

Parshas Lech Lecha — leaving your boundaries. Ignoramus is forbidden to eat meat

In comments to my last post, I said that one of the proposed strategies in dealing with the world is “to recognize that in our lives, there are Jewish needs and there are regular, human needs. Just make sure they don’t contradict (and if they do, figure out, what’s more important in [each] case — and if you can choose a more lenient way in Judaism to accommodate a conflicting ‘worldly’ need, then do so).” Chabad Chassidus rejects this approach. Why? What’s wrong with a compromise between stringent and lenient, between Judaism and the worldly pleasures? The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s sicha on parshas Lech Lecha discusses this question.

Torah (whose name means “teaching”) provides an everyday lesson for us. Of course, Torah is the source of Halacha which governs our everyday life, but what about the portions of Torah that are not related to specific laws (or the immediately applicable laws)? The answer is that Torah that we see is only one dimension of the whole Torah. Stories and even laws presented in it hint at processes that happen in the spiritual realities of the Universe, whose study concerns us everyday and reveals more general themes of our service of G-d and life. Lech Lecha teaches us the meaning of “going away”, out of one’s current situation, one’s current bounds, for the sake of elevation.

One may think this means physical bounds and even spiritual bounds. No, says the Rebbe, it included the bounds of Torah, holy bounds — these also need to be broken, in order to go higher than one’s current position.

[E]ven before the circumcision, and even before the command to [440] “go forth from your land,” Avraham Avinu was at a lofty level. In the words of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [Rayatz], in the sichah of Simchas Torah, 5710 [1949] [441], Avraham Avinu was then a Jew of 75, master of many estates and master of all areas of his conduct. He had attained all the levels that he could have possibly attained by his own efforts, including even the level [in the apprehension of Divinity] known as [442] shekol hane'elam mikol ra'ayon.

And at that point he was commanded to “go forth from your land” i.e., to elevate himself to an even loftier level, and then he was commanded further concerning the circumcision. From this we may gain some notion of the sublime level which his circumcision enabled him to attain. […]

The mitzvah of circumcision elicits a flow of divine lights so sublime that they utterly transcend the created universe and Seder Hishtalshelus, the chainlike scheme of orderly descent by which divine light is progressively contracted. […] Furthermore, the mitzvah of circumcision upgrades the individual out of all proportion to his former spiritual state — like birth. [...]

As a preparation for the circumcision (which signifies a birthlike revelation and elicitation of sublime spiritual lights), Avraham Avinu was commanded: “Go forth from your land,” and so on. I.e., in order to arrive at the level of such lights, he first had to step out of his present bounds, even holy bounds.

The way to break out of the bounds and restrictions imposed by the animal soul is to conduct oneself according to the Shulchan Aruch and to study ethical writings. This enables a person to realize that materiality is utterly worthless [451]. As a result he will free himself of the restrictions of the animal soul, and of course from the restrictions of the body. However, when it comes to freeing oneself from restricting bounds in holy matters, that's quite a different story.

Exactly what are the latter restraints?

Concerning the study of Torah a man might argue: It’s enough for me that I am one of the [452] “supporters of the Torah”; it's enough that I study [453] “one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening”; the shiur after davenen will suffice; studying without exerting the soul or the flesh will be quite enough; it's enough that I study nigleh, the revealed plane of the Torah: do I have to study Chassidus as well?!

Concerning avodah, i.e., davenen, the same individual argues that it's quite enough that he arrives at shul in the middle of davenen; according to the Shulchan Aruch he can then skip most of Pesukei DeZimrah, the psalms of praise — i.e., three-quarters of the davenen — so long as he prays together with the congregation [454]. Surely it's enough that he hastily churns and chops his way through the words [455], without taking time off to think what they mean [456]. If he does think about what the words mean, without meditating for a moment on Whom he is addressing [457], then surely that's more than enough. As to the earnest frame of mind [458] that is supposed to precede prayer, he discharges this obligation by clasping his hands like a servant before his master;[459] now, having done that, he can allow his thoughts to fly hither and thither...

Concerning tzedakah, this individual argues that the Shulchan Aruch [460] itself lays down limits. There is a certain quota required by the Torah, deoraysa, and there is a certain quota required by the Sages, deRabbanan — and surely he is not obliged to give away more than the prescribed minimum. As to giving away more than a fifth of his income, then this is not only not obligatory, but (he argues) forbidden! For did not the Sages say that[461] “he who gives freely should not give away more than a fifth” [462]?

Besides, this individual argues, in no area of his life should a man make more stringent demands on himself than the Torah requires him to. For this stance he quotes the Talmud Yerushalmi [463]: “Let the Torah's prohibitions suffice for you!” “Tell me,” he protests, “am I expected to be more pious than the Yerushalmi?!” In similar vein such a man contends that it is not proper to expect him to do things that go beyond the letter of the law [464]: if only he would conduct himself according to the law, he says, according to the Shulchan Aruch…

These arguments derive from the limitations of one’s mindset — including the limitations of one’s mindset in holy matters.

Next, explaining the statement in Gemara “an ignoramus is forbidden to eat meat”, the Rebbe talks about the revolutionary understanding of Chassidus of the role of a Jew’s life in this world, the mission for which his soul descended into this world, so that it can ascend. He also discusses why even things permitted by Halacha need to be avoided, if they don’t serve a holy purpose directly.

My revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [Rayatz], once remarked [465] that in America there is an illness called “you're allowed to”.

On a number of occasions, by way of contrast, he related that chassidim are accustomed to say [466]: “What you're not allowed to do, you're not allowed to do, and what you are allowed to do, you don't have to do."

Along these lines it is taught that[467] “an ignoramus is forbidden to eat meat.” This does not signify an actual prohibition [468], for something that is actually forbidden (assur) is irredeemably bound (assur) in the clutches of the kelipos [469], and one cannot pronounce a blessing over it. In contrast, meat eaten by an ignoramus is not bound in the clutches of the kelipos; moreover, the ignoramus is obliged to pronounce a blessing before and after eating. Rather, the brakes applied above to the ignoramus echo the traditional advice: “What you are allowed to do, you don't have to do.”

Chassidus discusses the question [470] of whom eating is mainly intended to benefit. Eating is not primarily intended to serve the needs of man by enabling him to be a recipient and derive his nourishment from it, for man's spiritual standing is higher than that of the food he eats. Rather, eating is mainly intended to serve the needs of the food. The food desires and waits for man to eat it, so that he can sift its materiality and discover the divine sparks embedded in it and thereby elevate it.

In this spirit my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [Rayatz], once related that one day a morsel of food fell from his father's fork into his plate. The Rebbe Rashab smiled and remarked: “He's not yet agreeable…”

When does the food desire that a man should eat it? — Only when he eats it not for the sake of his own desire but for the sake of the food's desire; i.e., he eats in order to elevate the food. If, however, he eats because of his own desire — i.e., he eats the food for his own need, since he wants to be a recipient and derive his nourishment from it — then not only does he not elevate the food, but in fact the food downgrades his spiritual standing. This in turn downgrades the standing of the food itself, because through it the man stumbled [471].

Along similar lines, my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [Rayatz], once stated in a sichah [472]: While walking down the street one should think about words of Torah. (The subject matter varies from person to person — Chassidus, Gemara, Mishnayos, Ein Yaakov, or at least [473] a verse of Chumash or Tehillim.) If he does not think about words of Torah, the cobblestone on which he steps cries out to him: “Clod! Who are you to tread on me?”

It is true that the man is more elevated than the stone — a medaber, an articulate human, as against a domem, an inanimate object. However, the medaber is superior only when his conduct is directed by his intellective soul [474]. But when a spirit of folly [475] enters him, so that he does not fulfill his function as a thinking being and is therefore called a clod, then the cobblestone protests: “Clod! Who are you to tread on me?”

Nevertheless, even after all these reasoned explanations have been made, the mortal mind (including the mind of a Jew) is still bothered by a question: Granted that what the Torah forbids is forbidden — but when it comes to things that are permitted according to the Torah and the Shulchan Aruch, why should a person be told that these too should not be done?

In response to this question: One should not debate it by means of human logic, because here one will find a kashe (a logical query) based on a statement in the Talmud Bavli, and there one will find a kashe based on a statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi, and so on and so forth. Rather, the approach that is called for is kabbalas ol, an unquestioning acceptance of the yoke of heaven, and mesirus nefesh, self-sacrifice. What is required in the early stages of one’s avodah is kabbalas ol; at a higher level this becomes mesirus nefesh — for, as Chassidus explains, mesirus nefesh (lit., “surrendering one’s soul”) basically means mesiras haratzon (“surrendering one's will”), because nefesh [also] means “will”. This surrender of one's will also includes one's will in matters of kedushah (which is a Jew’s real will, as Rambam states as a psak din in the course of a halachic decision [476]). Such a surrender of the will obligates one to leap out of all his inhibiting restraints, including those involving kedushah.

This approach is especially required in the time of galus (now that [477] “because of our sins we were exiled from our Land”) — because at a time like this, avodah that follows the dictates of reason and commonsense will not suffice. What is needed is mesirus nefesh, for this is what gives Jews the stamina to survive the trek through galus. (Tanya[478] explains why “Moshe Rabbeinu… commanded… to the generation that entered the Land that they recite the Shema twice daily in order to acknowledge the Sovereignty of Heaven with self-sacrifice” — but this explanation speaks only of potential self-sacrifice, whereas the era of exile requires actual self-sacrifice.) One of the proofs for this is the fact that it is specifically during the era of exile that self-sacrifice is present and manifest.

To revert to Avraham Avinu: We can now appreciate why, when he began his period of exile, G-d commanded him to “go forth from your land”, to step beyond his accustomed limits [479]. This would empower him to go “to the land”, to go out to the world. He knew that though [480] “travel lessens three things”, not only would nothing be weakened with relation to himself, but, moreover [481], “I shall make your name great” — i.e., Your Name, the Divine Name Havayah, the Name of G-d's Essence (as is expounded in Chassidus [482]). Moreover, Avraham Avinu’s self-transcendence would empower him to attain the level of the circumcision — the revelation of sublime spiritual lights, a revelation that resembles birth [483].

Read more in the sicha.

How can a Jew deal with the outside world?

I saw this movie with my friend, Nosson Zand (now travelling with Matisyahu), starring an LA yeshiva bochur who got attracted to rapping. It’s a classical Jewish story of “inside vs. outside”; one of the early 20th-century Jewish writers (Mendele, Peretz, Sholom Aleichem, Isaac Babel) could’ve written it, had they lived in our times (I believe there is actually a story like that by Babel which I read in middle school). The plot has everything: a rabbi’s son who rebels, attraction of the outside culture, a friendly goy, a non-friendly goy who gets Jews in trouble, another “boy scout” Jew who is hypocritical, although he pretends to be sincere, and last but not least: an intolerant, well-meaning but a bit backward rabbi who just doesn’t get the main protagonist.


מזמור לדוד — Song of David the Movie (with Hebrew Subtitles)
(Click on the link for better movie quality.)

As it turns out, it’s very strange to see somebody you know personally (and in a different context) act in a movie. I didn’t like the movie so much, for obvious reasons, but I did like Nosson’s acting; the role comes to him naturally, even though his story is actually a polar opposite of his character’s.

Regarding the movie itself — two issues:

1. The question of intersection of secular and Jewish cultures is really the question of intersection of material and spiritual, finite and infinite, the topic of Chabad Chassidus. The question of what to do with one’s secular “baggage” after returning to Judaism is a relatively easy one. When asked for advice, the Rebbe always said not to make all the years devoted to secular education (and secular life) go to waste, but to use them for the purpose of Judaism. Nullification of something negative is good; transformation of it to good is better. A more difficult question is: if one has a choice to begin with, should one lower oneself in klippah, expecting to turn it into kedusha?

2. My initial reaction was to post this video, but the second one was not to post it, because it portrays religious Jews negatively and the whole community and yeshiva system as intolerant. In the end, I decided to post it, because I think this issue must be addressed. Intolerance to the secular culture may or may not be a bad thing in this case, in absolute terms (see question one). In relative terms, however, it has been my opinion for a long time that a major problem of the frum world was inflexibility and inability to do ischapcha with issues that changing time throws into our face, choosing to dismiss or supress (iskafiya) them instead. A few generations of Jews who went “off the derech”, the success of Reform and Conservative movement are the results of this inflexibility.

As a response to the problem, there are a few choices: a) increase our defenses, raise the walls, call everything “outside” of the walls evil; b) compromise — create a balance between our inner values and outer values; shape our life in such a way that it is effectively on the “outside”, but the twist of an “insider”; c) transform the “outside” into the “inside”.

In my personal opinion, there are major problems with first two approaches. The first one results in losing Jews on the one hand and prevents one from transforming this world into a G-dly place on the other (at least, it doesn’t maximize our efforts in doing so). The second approach may look attractive, with one caveat: in practice, the “outside” always sucks people in; at the end of the day, you stop being a Jew — you become a doctor, a businessman, a scientist, a lawyer, a brick-layer, who is “also Jewish”. Everything Jewish which cannot compete with the world is swept away. The essence of Judaism is lost; it becomes just another culture, just another “ethnic wisdom”, just another strategy to deal with the world. In theory it shouldn’t happen; in practice it happens all too often.

The third approach is the most difficult one. But, in my opinion, it maximizes the essence of our role, as Jews, in this world. The third approach is approach of Chabad Chassidus. The difficulty of the first question and the dangers of the second approach always remain, but Chabad Chassidus grants a Jew one tool the first two strategies do not (in my humble opinion): it allows a Jew to always remember why he is here, and in front of whom he is standing. When in a palace of a king, it is easy to forget about the king and concentrate on the palace. Solution? Study about the king. Then the palace will not only not distruct one from the king but will also enhance one’s understanding of who the king is (which is why one came to the palace in the first place — right?).

Some examples of how good liberals are for economic progress

An interesting article about what happened to the Great Lake states and how good Obama-styles policies (together with the labor unions) are for progress and development.

One really has to ask the obvious question: If Obama’s economic policies work so well, why isn’t Detroit a paradise?

In 1950, America produced 51% of the GNP for the entire world. Of that production, roughly 70% took place in the eight states surrounding the Great Lakes: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The productive capability of this small area of earth staggers the imagination. Virtually everything that rebuilt the industrial bases of Europe and Japan came from those eight states. Cars, planes, electronics, machine tools, consumer goods, generators, concrete — any conceivable item manufactured by industrial humanity poured out this tiny region and enriched the world. The region shone with widespread prosperity. People migrated from the South and West to work in these Herculean engines of industry.

The wealth, power and economic dominance of the region at the time cannot be overstated. Nothing like it has existed in human history.

Yet, a mere 30 years later, by 1980, we called that area the “rustbelt” and it became synonymous with joblessness, collapsing cities, high crime, failing schools and general hopelessness.

What the hell happened?

Obama happened.

Of course, not Obama personally but rather the same ideas that Obama espouses. What those ideas did to the Great Lakes states, they can do to the entire country.

Read on. He talks about how two things crippled those states’ economy: 1) labor unions, 2) invasive government. By the way, the first impressions of a famous Soviet dissident, Victor Suvorov, after coming in 1978 to the Great Britain are interesting to read, in light of the above article:

[After arriving to the UK] I was astonished by the extremely low level of life. Not as in the famished Soviet Union, of course, but impossible to compare with Switzerland, from which I escaped. London was filled with garbage, lines were snaking around the streets, stores were standing half-empty… The winter of 1978-79 was a winter of destruction.

The thing is: by that time, Britain was already long-ruled by socialists who destroyed the economy as only they know how. At that point, everybody was on strike — garbage collectors, transport workers… It was a sight to see! As soon as the railroad workers’ strike ended, the train drivers’ strike began. Then went the ticket collectors. Labor unions had huge power, and the country was inevitably rolling towards a cliff. I was just amazed — after Geneva I’d thought that all of the West was prospering. And it turned out that socialism got its hands on England too. Unbelievable! Such a great country brought to a level of some Bulgaria.

Fortunately, the elections were won by Margarita — Margaret Thatcher. She came to power and started breaking apart socialism and saving Britain. The most difficult thing was to defeat the miners. It was unprofitable to mine coal in England, and every ton of coal was impoverishing the country. Just like in the Soviet Union — the more meat a collective farm produced, the more losses for the country’s budget. Margarita started closing down the mines; the miners started striking, since they were accustomed to robbing their own country, being parasites on it. But the Iron Lady did not give up.

It wasn’t just the miners either! Dockers were the second major enemy. All the world by that time was already using highly-efficient container unloading of ships. But English dockers’ union was against innovations, because container unloading increased productivity, leading to firing of additional workers. Sometimes it was like a comics strip: container-carrying ships would arrive at Dutch Rotterdam; there, everything was unloaded on trains and delivered to England by railroad. While the dockers were still getting paid, since the labor union forced this out of the business owners.

Or another idiocy… Socialists decided to defend English cinematography. Before, cameras were inefficient and had to be assisted by three people. Then cameras became better and could be served only by one person. But the socialists enacted a law where three people had to work on a camera anyway! What, should we fire a worker because of some progress?! At that point English cinematography could not compete with Hollywood and lost the juice.

Socialism is a national suicide. And Margaret with her iron hand started to choke it, saving her country. She showed utmost will not to give up. And she won. After that, the country started climbing out of the nightmare. And now England is one of the world leaders. It blossomed virtually in front of my eyes. No wonder Russian oligarchs come here…

Yet, socialism is not dead everywhere. [He goes on to give some modern examples where unions or state-sponsored monopolies drive prices up and slow down the progress.]

Powerful stuff, huh? Some more links about labor unions, relevant to Jews: “The New Gangster”, “Can you say witch hunt?”

Now, let’s see what happens in the next four years.

How traffic jams happen; good book to read about traffic

This video (seen at Alex Exler’s blog) shows one of the main reasons why the traffic jams happen resulting in the wave-like pattern of traffic (which always reminded me of business cycles):



The reason, as it turns out (and as I always suspected) is simple: it is due to the stupid [expletives deleted by Administration] bastards who sleep behind the wheel, drive slowly, and do all the other things leading them to slow down, create “gaps” in the traffic and create a jam for the cars behind.

My suggestion? Be a good driver (take some defensive driving lessons, read books, etc.), have good breaks, be alert (invest in caffeine IV drip if necessary), cut the bullshit while in the car, drive aggressively and screw the two-second rule while in close traffic.

See also this simulation.

I would like to use this opportunity to advertise Tom Vanderbilt’s book Traffic, in which he researches and explains many everyday phenomena of traffic, from physical, mechanical, dynamical, psychological and mostly commonsensical point of view. He starts of the book with asking which strategy is better for reducing traffic in a situation when “Left lane ends soon” and one has to shift to the right lane eventually: to drive down the left lane until the end and shift in the last possible moment, whenever the opportunity comes (trying to follow your own interest as much as possible), or be a nice guy and shift as early as possible, instead of selfishly driving down the empty left lane? He calls the first strategy “Live Free or Die” (the motto of libertarian state New Hampshire), and the second one — “Do Random Acts of Kindness”.

As it turns out, the first strategy is the best for reducing traffic, simply because it leads to traffic using two lanes (up to a certain point) instead of one, speeding up the flow. If one sits down and thinks about it, it will make sense. So, even though it instinctively seems “unfair” to people that shifted already to the right lane, this strategy (if used by everyone) actually speeds up the movement of traffic — for the people who shifted already as well.

So, let’s see: do-what’s-best-for-you, libertarian-style strategy is better for everybody involved than feel-good liberal-style strategy. Who could’ve thought?

Arnold against Obama

One particular actor does not support Obama and is not a liberal, like most of the others. What’s the difference between him and the rest of the actors? He knows what it takes to make money in real business, not when people pay you for being a symbol. According to Wikipedia,

Arnold Schwarzenegger has also had a highly successful business career. Following his move to the United States, Schwarzenegger became a “prolific goal setter” and would write his objectives at the start of the year on index cards, like starting a mail order business or buying a new car — and succeed in doing so. By the age of 30, Schwarzenegger was a millionaire, well before his career in Hollywood. His financial independence came from a series of successful business ventures and investments.

This guy knows that in order to make products and services more available to the consumers, capital investments are necessary. When the society taxes people who make these investments, not only does it steal money from them to give a quick fix to the masses made dependent on this corrupting “help”, but also it removes from the entrepreneurs the means to develop their businesses, create the progress and increase common welfare that socialists believe it is government’s job to do.

Schwarzenegger talks about Europe’s history of implementing socialist policies that cost it businesses and economics development — a mistake Europe recently realized and tried to rectify by rolling back some of the “spread the wealth” policies. Now Obama wants to implement the same ideas in US — and raise taxes not due to economic requirements but on ideological basis.



“If only some meat could be put around [Obama’s] ideas.” Then he would not be a Democrat. Probably wouldn’t be in the government to begin with.

So, how bad is this guy going to be: as bad as Jimmy Carter, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, or, G-d forbid, FDR?

What is Chabad? Who is the Rebbe?

Sometimes people ask me, why I “chose” Chabad. Sometimes people ask me to tell them about Chabad philosophy and what makes it stand aside. Sometimes people ask me: “Who is the Rebbe? Tell me about the Rebbe.”

In reality, the three questions are one. The Lubavitcher Rebbe cannot be separated from Chabad Chassidus and his Chassidim; the latter cannot be separated from their Rebbe and his teachings; Chabad “philosophy” is one with the channel through which it was revealed in this world.

In reality, it is a very simply idea. Ein od milvado. There is nothing besides G-d. That is the beginning, that is the reality, that is the end, the destination. That is what all the world is about. That is what being a Jew is all about. And the Rebbe teaches us that, in detail, what it means, how we can achieve that, how we can live that and bring the world to realization and revelation of it. He teaches us through his life, through his Chassidus, through his relationship with the world and the Jews. In a very intellectual, very shocking, very serious, very profound and very human way.

This video says it all — what the Rebbe says in it is our reality, it is with us today, right now:



Another Jew’s reflections about the Rebbe — an article by Elie Wiesel, re-published at CrownHeights.info:

I will always remember my first visit to Lubavitch. It happened some thirty years ago. Though a Chasid of Wizhnitz, I had heard of Chabad and its renowned leader. A foreign correspondent for Israel's evening paper “Yediot Achronot,” I had thought of doing a story about the way Lubavitcher chasidim celebrate the liberation of the first — or the “Alter” — Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi from Czarist prison. When I left in the early morning hours, I still belonged to Wizhnitz, but I was already caught by something or someone one finds only in Lubavitch.

I remember: in a “shul” that seems both huge and intimate, thousands and thousands of chasidim, young and old, from all over the world, are dancing vertically, as if not moving from their place, yet forcing their rhythm onto the entire universe.

Their eyes closed, they sing as only chasidim can. Ten times, fifty times, they repeat the same words, the same tune, and the song bursts their chests and lights a thousands flames in their eyes before rising higher and higher, up to the seventh heaven, if not higher, to the “Heichel hanegina,” source and sanctuary of all songs.

The center is the Rebbe. The Chasid in me looks at him with wonder. There is something melancholy and profoundly moving about his personality. Disturbing and reassuring at the same time. He feels what everyone here feels, he helps all attain the unattainable. In his presence, one feels more Jewish, more authentically Jewish. Seen by him, one comes in closer contact with one's own inner Jewish center.

Am unable to take my eyes off him. His gaze encompasses everyone and everything. I have rarely witnessed such control of and concern over such a large assembly. Thousands of eyes follow his most imperceptible movements. When he talks, everybody listens breathlessly, absorbing every word, every sigh. When he sighs, the whole world sighs with him and us.

I remember: hours long I stood there, at 770 Eastern Parkway, as in a dream, looking at the Rebbe who was looking at his followers. At times, he smiled and night vanished from their lives. There were moments when he seemed serious and somber. And, between songs, his fervent listeners trembled between fear and hope.

Suddenly I saw myself as a child again. Spending a Shabbat at the court of the Wizhnitzer Rebbe. There, too, the souls became strings and played ancient melodies. Yet here in Lubavitch it is different. The world is different. Countless invisible cemeteries separate the past from the present. In Lubavitch I think even about Wizhnitz in a different manner. What the Rebbe of Lubavitch is doing, what he is accomplishing here can be felt beyond Lubavitch.

This I came to understand much later. As I began traveling around the country, I discovered the Rebbe's emissaries in the most forsaken places. Were it not for them and their devotion, were it not for the mission entrusted onto them by the Rebbe, in the forty-two years of his leadership, who knows how many Jewish souls would have been lost to our people.

It is part of the Rebbe's greatness that he knows whom to send where and when. Not all their accomplishments have been made public. Some must remain secret. When they will be revealed — soon, I hope — they will surely increase the existing admiration for the Rebbe's vision.

Thus the Jewish people owe the Rebbe a great debt of recognition and gratitude. I do, too. I have learned much from Lubavitch in Lubavitch. Had I not participated in the “Chag HaGeula” of Chabad some thirty years ago, I wonder whether I would be who I am now.