Liberals want your bitterness and will not tell you how to solve many social problems

In most situations in life, when one makes mistakes, one is expected to walk through each step one made and discover what one did wrong in order to improve any given situation for the future.

If a nurse makes a medication error, she is called to the nurse manager to go through step by step all the factors that contributed to her mistake, and there is, most of the time, something she could have done differently that was completely in her control to prevent the mistake.

Even in cases where there were extreme external factors, the nurse is expected to be level headed and focused and able to withstand external pressures so as to not make an error in medication administration.

But since today's liberal wants you to be frustrated, today's liberal will take issues that they favor and project any problem out to some huge social problem that can nary be fixed.

For example, they will blame date rape on, say, "the patriarchy" or on "rape culture'. Blaming on things so huge and unfixable, the victim becomes victimized yet again.

It is the rare huge social problem that causes a nurse to make a medication error.

But when faced with subjects say like date rape, unplanned pregnancy, family dysfunction, or poor educational standards, the liberal will blame "rape culture", "toxic masculinity", "sexism" and "systemic racism" instead of walking one through what steps can be taken to prevent and treat social problems.

What steps can be taken to prevent a medication error?

1 - the five "rights" - right patient, right medicine, right dose, right time, right route.

2 - no tolerance for intimidation by the patient or a visitor to alter these five rights.

What steps can be taken to prevent date rape?

1 - Awareness of the following: alcohol lowers your inhibitions. There is an urge for sexual behavior starting in the early teens. Some music, clothes and actions provoke sexual frustration. 

Therefore:

2 - Train your kids from a young age to favor being at home and getting to bed early. Socializing happens in the home under parental supervision. You do not send your teenage daughter to visit her male friend, even if they are "just friends" alone away from parental supervision. You do not leave kids home alone. By the time your kids are teens, they will be in the habit of socializing under parental supervision at home.

3 -  You do not attend parties. See #1 and #2 above.

4 - Drinking alcohol and dancing to suggestive music breeds a culture of sexual frustration. Since you have trained your kids to socialize at home, they will not even know about this possibility.

5 - engaging in sex before marriage is unthinkable. Not forbidden, but unthinkable. Or in Jordan Petersen's words, "you have to be very very very careful with sex." Very.

Just a few basic assumptions will prevent tragic social situations.

But liberals want you to have bitter experiences, become embittered, and be ready to spring to fight causes that do not even benefit you.

Are you sure those are all the needs you have?

Being a revolutionary, I mean.

You sure you have no other needs than to be an activist and change society? And, are your sure YOU can be the one to do that?

You were groomed to be an activist. You were decidedly not groomed to evaluate whether or not your activism was wanted or even necessary.

Affirmative Action breaks two of the Ten Commandments.

 

 

Christians struggle with understanding scripture. They study and question and often have unresolved issues with their faith.

Bible study can be a struggle - but it does not warp one's mind.

Liberal ideology does.

Brookline Massachusetts in the 1970's and 1980's, most of us were Jewish, or part Jewish like me, liberal, and ensconced in comfortable neighborhoods with "no parking overnight" signs on every street.

I thought the no parking overnight was so the street cleaners could have it easy.

But that was not the case, which I only found out later.

We were all for affirmative action, because it was only fair to compensate for past injustice via giving small breaks to minorities.

But affirmative action turned out not to be a small break. It actually hurt the minorities it claimed to help.

I thought it would be - college entrance means a white student with grade point average of 3.6 versus a black student with a grade point average of 3.4. Give the seat at college to the black student, they are practically equal, and we are just compensating for prejudice.

But when I arrived at college, 1985, I could not escape the fact that the black students were struggling in ways that were out of proportion to their presence on campus.

The black students from south America and Zaire were excelling.  They were from wealthy families and had never benefited from affirmative action; their skills, smarts and talent got them that college seat.

The American black students at Middlebury College were not keeping up. A popular black student who flunked and transferred to a state school so upset the students that a huge meeting was called to discuss it.

What conclusions could you come to? Since you could NEVER question affirmative action without being dubbed racist, you have to conclude either that the system is so inherently corrupt and racist that it could never be fixed and needed to be smashed, Marxist style - an angry and warped way of thinking indeed. And a cynical call to revolution.

I began to wake up to the injustice of being unable to question affirmative action, and saw that plenty of minority students were thriving because they had earned their seat via merit. I then considered that affirmative action is theft (taking away a deserved college seat and giving to one who does not deserve it) and falsehood. 

I wanted to demand from someone, anyone: "who thought this horrible system up, and why are we intimidated from questioning it with the threat of being dubbed racist?" 

I wanted answers for why I was set up to have to believe in a system that many minorities themselves do not believe in, that makes you fearful of questioning, that when you finally wake up out of it you realize that your previous way of thinking was warped, and I came to realize:

Affirmative Action breaks two of the Ten Commandments: it is theft and it is false witness

When Christians struggle with their faith, they read, debate, pray, and reflect. 

But Bible study does not warp one's mind.

Liberalism does.

And the no parking overnight in Brookline Mass?  that was to keep vagrants out in a not-in-my-backyard fashion - just another sign that liberals bet that none of the policies they dream up will really affect them.

Charles and Diana and Chastity

 Of course none of us really know anyone else's inside story.

So the following is not a deep analysis of the relationship between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer.

 

It is a statement on chastity and its deeper meaning.

Evidently, the future king of England was instructed to marry a virgin. 

He apparently was not instructed as to what that means.

Those societies and individuals who protect chastity have an entire culture, both social and personal, built around the maintenance of healthy boundaries between men and women.

Protecting virginity is not simply in order to preserve an intact hymen. It involves a whole range of personal characteristics that prevent free interpersonal socializing between men and women.

Chaste societies limit interaction between men and women. When a man and woman interact, they should be focused on a goal, and not bantering freely, not sharing deep feelings, and not in isolation from others and in no area that could lead to intimacy.

Men and women who believe in chastity are modest in their demeanor and in their interactions. They are naturally guarded.

Lady Diana Spencer was known as "shy Di". Evidently she had not had a boyfriend, not due to her surrounding culture, but uniquely so due to her insecurities borne of a sensitive nature, a nature that would eventually lead to the whole world adoring her loving and charitable nature.

In a traditional society, she would have fit right in, but she was at odds with the upper crust British set in which one is expected to shine at social occasions with witticisms, fashion and culture. Getting attention is considered a good thing, strutting and one-upmanship to be admired. The heir was often seen in such social situations in his youth, and fitting in well to that milieu.

Do witticisms, fashion, high culture and outshining others in a one-upmanship fashion in social situations amount to promiscuity? 

What is the connection?

Well there is a connection. Social competitiveness and climbing can easily lead to attraction between men and women and then to relationships - and those relationships that are borne of social climbing are part of efforts in outshining the Other. Besting the other, competing and winning is the goal, love is secondary, should it exist at all.

Part of the future king's adultery was that he and his mistress had bested Diana. Enough said.

One-upmanship pervades social interactions in British high society already, as it does in liberal society in America. It continues in other parts of life - including the bedroom.

Diana went on to devote her passion to advocating for children and in promoting charitable work. She was not into social one-upmanship, but devoted to helping others.

I believe Diana's love affairs were a product of her pain and not commensurate with her nature. We will never know if she would have married David, the man she was killed with, but the affairs she did have were disastrous for her.

And that is because Diana's nature was a chaste one.

It is a cynical hypocrisy that any man is instructed to marry a virgin but not appreciate one, nor behave himself in a chaste fashion, with all the personality traits and social mores that accompany the virtue of chastity. 

There is a connection between chastity and charity, and between competitive socializing and promiscuity.

And one who has a chaste nature, wed to one who decidedly lacks it, can only make for a situation that ends in tragedy.

 

How Abusers Manipulate

Abusers and manipulators lead you to draw your own conclusions, making you feel that you figured out something on your own.

 By leading you to draw your own conclusions, then you became a voluntary participant in their manipulation. It is thus becomes not their fault at all, it becomes your doing.

You need also to understand the difference between being tactful in order to be a mensch and spare someone's feelings, and bending the truth because you are in fear of the manipulator's anger and consequences that they may mete out, including threats of deprivation or public embarrassment.

Being tactful is a wonderful thing to do. But if you find yourself inventing white lies and spending energy bending the truth because you fear the other's expression of anger and its consequences, then you are being manipulated.

Here are some real life examples:

A harried sounding school administrator calls the mother of a child at their school, "your ex husband told us that you do not send her report cards to him, his lawyers sent us a copy of your divorce agreement and we consulted our lawyers who concluded that he has a right to the report card, so we will be sending a copy to him from now on."

See how this administrator had already drawn a conclusion without hearing the mother's side.

The mother responded, "ok, fine." and the conversation ended there.

Note how the administrator did not even try an easier route, like just calling the mother directly and saying "hey, your ex wants a copy of the report card sent directly from the school, is that okay?"

But the administrator, who was normally a nice woman, expressed the signs of having been manipulated - she sounded harried, and she did not give the other side a chance to speak. She also did not show any tact to the mother, in telling the mother how the admin of that school and its lawyers were involved.

The ex husband had succeeded in embarrassing his ex wife. It was mental abuse by proxy. 

The mother wisely just said "okay" and did not offer her view or in any way say anything that could escalate the situation. Even if she had said, "but I do send him a copy of the report card", which was true, that could have escalated the situation, as it would have thrown doubt upon the ex husband's truthfulness and the school administration's professionalism.

Here is another example:

A divorced single mother remarries a man who lovingly helps raise her daughter from her first marriage.

The daughter tactfully downplays her step father's role in her life when she visits her biological father. Over the years, she lets him believe that the step father is a minor character in her life.  This is in response to her biological father's expression of curiosity about her life and her sixth sense that she should be tactful.

Then the biological father hears that his daughter wishes to attend the stepfather's birthday celebration. He also hears his daughter's son refer to the stepfather as "saba", which is Hebrew for "grandfather".

The biological grandfather is referred to by the Yiddish "zaide", so different words were used for each grandfather. The third grandfather, that is, the father of the husband, was referred to in the English "grandpa". 

Should the biological father respond with a heartfelt wish that he hopes he is still appreciated even though his daughter wishes to attend the celebration, and hopes he is not being supplanted in the grandson's mind by the step father, that would be fine.

But a disturbing expression of anger in the form of a harsh facial expression, tone of voice, and adding, "you have no other saba, I am the saba, I will be angry if you call him saba!" to a child, with the mother under stress in trying to figure out how to placate the biological father....that crosses the line from the call for tact to the need to recognize abusiveness.

The Decline of the American secular Protestant family, 20th century America

 

Let me tell you my inside story of witnessing an extended American Protestant family over three generations in contrast with a Jewish family.

This lack of cohesion of the American family opened up American society to many problems, including:

- The public school was able to indoctrinate, in place of parents. 

- Teens sought affection in the form of sexual activity whereas just a generation before their parents were able to wait til marriage, no problem. 

Contrast between two families:

1920, Dorchester Massachusetts, the Goldstein family was hard at work eking out a living. The oldest daughter Bessie had to leave school at the age of 16 and work in a factory to help support her parents and eight siblings. She withstood both anti-semitic comments as well as was told the following: "you Jews are lucky, your husbands come home at night. Ours go to the pub after work."

Bessie's mother had put her children to bed every night with stories from the Bible and from the Chassidic Jews in Eastern Europe, overcoming adversity with faith. The Messiah would come, and we will all be together in Jerusalem some day with their call to remember. Do not forget.  You marry and bring children into the world as it is a mitzvah and anyway our numbers are often getting decimated, with the pogroms a fresh memory.

1920, Vergennes Vermont, the Bridge family home boasted fine rugs, graceful furniture, household help. They had two daughters, of course you do not want too many children, they may muss the furniture.

The Bridges attended church every so often, with a lackadaisical attitude concerning religion. You were a good citizen because it was the right thing to do, but no Bible study permeated the rooms of their stately home. You married right after normal school for girls or trade school for boys, because that was accepted, that was done. The next generation graduated college and got married right after college.

Goldstein family - you are expected to give tithes, help people out, and your home is open. Uncle Shaya crowded in to their small apartment and slept in the living room after he returned from World War I until he found a place of his own. 

 

Bridge family - you are expected to give tithes to the church. The home is well manicured and an overnight guest is close to an anathema.

Siblings in the Goldstein family had a sense that they would be helping each other out all the way down the road, in the Bridge family, siblings were competitors of each other,  each expected to make it on their own by pulling themselves up by their own boot straps. You could not have too many children as each one eventually inherits either the fine china or the fine silverware, too many siblings would make dividing up the estate impossibly unfair, plus mussing the fine rugs.

 

As the economy changed and as their hard work paid off, the extended Goldstein family graduated from penury to attaining the American dream. The second generation bought homes. As they kept the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish holidays, they would get together often. They were not looking for personality clashes, in fact, they would brush off such friction as the goal was the success of the whole. They saw the success of their siblings as a reflection of themselves, a strong family would confer yiches, that is, good family background, making it easier to get the matchmaker to propose a good match to you.

The Bridge family assumed you would find a marriage partner on your own merits. Individual achievement is what counted. A sibling who is floundering, not only would that not reflect negatively on you, as it would in the Goldstein family, but it would almost make the other sibling look better in contrast. There simply was no motivation within the New England American Protestant family to see to the success of their own family members, as there was in the traditional Jewish family. 

As the economy changed and the Bridges were not accustomed to discomfort, the second generation chafed at how difficult it was to make a living. A feeling of unfairness permeated two of the three siblings who did not have the standard of living that their parents had. The third sibling had married a man with inherited money, so she did not feel this pinch. One sibling became a liberal democrat, feeling that the government should provide better, the other became a conservative libertarian, which caused further friction between them, and both were somewhat bitter, waiting for their ship to come in. Oh they worked, but they could not fathom why the dollar did not go as far.

The Goldsteins remembered the Exodus from Egypt at their Passover Seder, in which family members were reunited for better or for worse, they remembered their hard work, and felt a sense of gratitude and the continual need to nurture a strong extended family which would ultimately reflect well on them, besides being charitable. They were pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in a communal way.

 

The Bridge's remembered their previous wealth with a certain bitterness. It did not occur to them to pull together as they had been raised with the idea of pulling yourself up with your own bootstraps completely on your own. There were cousins who only lived a four hour drive away whom they never met. What good would it have been? None whatsoever, as you needed to spend your time and energy grooming yourself for individual success. 

Which values would better suit the individual, the community, and even the United States of America?

Individuals who are not well supported have less to offer society. Rugged individualism may have had its place in some circumstances, but not here. 

The lackadaisical attitude, borne of living a stable life, would lead to not questioning the infiltration of political correctness into the educational system. The American Protestant was not paying attention, favoring aesthetics and the assumption that society is pretty stable. 

Their kids returned from public school completely foreign to them.

The Jewish community is notorious for its constant internal debate, breakaway synagogues and schools are founded as robust debate begets robust urgency and robust building. Let alone the emergency attitude that permeates Judaism in general, celebrating holidays like Passover, Purim and Chanukah in which we celebrate not having been decimated, and the call to remember. Do not forget.

Take a vacation from a Jewish community and you will return to see two new synagogues and three new schools that were founded while you were away. Many of these start in basements, as philosophy is more important that finery.

The Goldstein family may have much in common with many immigrant families who pulled together, kept their eye closely on education, and preserved their heritage.

The modern American liberal Protestant just did not have these values. So they declined.

 Do not rest on your laurels. Do not imagine that having made it in America, you can be more individualistic. Who knows? Maybe the Protestant family in the 1800's also had familial and communal supportive values that were lost with their growing wealth.

 Remember what worked, and what caused a sharp decline, and let's learn from this: 

-  Keep up your familial and communal support. Getting together with family members should not be an act of competition and one-upmanship but seen in light of the success of the many is my success also.

-  Take the religion you inherited seriously, read up on it, study it at home even if you are not a believer, your kids should know their religious heritage even if they question aspects of it. No one should be illiterate in their religion.

-  Ask your kids what they learned that day/week in school. Be robust in your child rearing and in the values you want to impart. I know too many liberals who were surprised and hurt at how their own children morphed into the unrecognizable. I saw this in the lackadaisical and a little too comfortable secular American Protestant. 

So please - be robust in your family and community building, and in your religious literacy. The success of the many is yours as well. 

Remember. Do not forget. 

Time to build something else, despite liberal self-loathing, and love America again. I am an orthodox Jew, living in Israel, grateful for the refuge that the USA gave to my forebears, and praying for the USA to redeem itself, and fast.

I have both WASP and Eastern European Jewish roots.

The above is my story. I am witness.

I am a descendant of Puritan leader John Bridge, as well as of the Moses Sofer, a scribe in Poland who, it is said, when he wrote, fire leapt from his pen. Two illustrious ancestors, but John Bridge leaves a statue and scant family memory, my Jewish cousins take pride in the Moses Sofer and try to live up to his memory.

 

 

 

 

Those who declare sexuality as absolute are the real homophobes.

 "It is the ultimate rejection of the phallic symbol."

"It is a stand against the patriarchy and male dominance."

The above was told to me in praise of lesbianism.

But is sexuality was absolute, why the need to praise it?

If homosexuality was really just an inherent and unchangeable feeling, then there would not be these philosophical overtones to it. There would not be a sense that lesbianism was in any way defiant. 

To the extent that lesbianism is defiant of the (so-called) patriarchy, or if it is somehow an affront to men, then it really is not just a feeling.

When I was liberal, I witnessed lesbianism get mixed with politics and social activism.

I also witnessed people experimenting with homosexuality, then living straight lives, and the opposite.

A friend told me that a lesbian tried to see if she would be interested in her, she did not ask my friend, "are you straight?' Michael propositioned John, after John had asserted he was straight.

 If people can experiment, that means that sexuality is flexible.

We see an inconsistency in liberal rhetoric concerning sexuality - on the one hand, it is genetic or constitutional, absolute and etched in stone.

On the other hand, lesbianism is defiant of the patriarchy.

To declare sexuality as absolute is in fact to ignore all those people whom you know full well to have lived one lifestyle and then turned to another. 

To declare sexuality as absolute is really a form of pushing gays away into another category altogether and for the straight person to declare, "this has nothing to do with me" - homophobe after all. And this is an opening to rounding up the gays with their so-called genetic tendency which can quickly morph into being seen as genetic defect and hauling them away, they did that in the Holocaust, other-izing and finally throwing them into concentration camps.

Your liberal rhetoric may lead to terrible consequences.

The majority of people could have been gay or straight, depending on what had influenced them. That is clear from all those who come out of the closet after decades of a straight marriage, or who experiment with homosexuality and then get into a straight relationship.

We should related to homosexuality as any variance of human nature, regard it as a black box in which you have no idea why that person became gay and it is really not your business. They can marry. They can adopt. They can rent and purchase a home. They can work.

Sexuality does not affect one's civil rights. 

Trump should have been appreciated for his defense of homosexuality but liberals were so busy loathing him they could not give credit where credit is due.

But back to the false and dangerous claim that sexuality is constitutional or genetic - should a woman find herself angry at men, and liberals like you to be angry, she may latch on to this "defiance of the patriarchy/rejection of the phallic symbol" philosophy, entering lesbian relationships when in fact with a bit of guidance she could have channeled her energies into correct activism for women, and been in a healthy straight relationship that may have been closer to her nature.

 

Treatment and Prevention of Abuse in the Jewish Home

There is a Jewish saying that "God sends the cure before He sends the illness."

There are safeguards in Jewish practice that can be used to detect, prevent, and treat abuse in the Jewish home.

Here is one example:

Taharat HaMishpacha - Family Purity

The Jewish Marriage laws involve abstinence during the woman's menstrual period and for seven days following. The married couple do not touch, nor hand things to each other during this time, which lasts a minimum of 12 days every month (five days for the period, then seven clean days).

This also holds for bleeding post childbirth. Post-birth bleeding must stop, then she waits seven clean days. The couple are abstinent for this entire time, which can take from six weeks at least.

After this, she bathes and then immerses in a mikveh, which is housed in a special building as it must conform to the requirements of Jewish law.

These regular times of complete abstinence can be a challenge for the couple, but if they are committed to these laws, and in a healthy relationship, one feels a sense of accomplishment and renewal each month.

A young Jewish woman was discouraged with how long it was taking her to count the seven clean days after childbirth. One evening she called a Rabbanit in tears. The Rabbanit and her husband, the Rabbi, went to the young woman's house and counseled her and her husband. They listened and gave the couple encouragement.

This is an example of communal and marital support in a healthy situation.

And these laws can also be used to detect and treat abuse.

The following situations are clear signs of an unhealthy marital relationship that can be more quickly detected when a couple keeps the laws of family purity:

1 - The husband is not looking forward to "mikvah night". He acts aloof and disinterested.

2 - The wife is not looking forward to mikvah night.  She feels revolted by the idea of sleeping with her husband.

3 -  The husband is verbally or physically abusive regarding these laws, for example, should her immersion be delayed and this angers him.

The above may be due to marital incompatibility, homosexuality, a dysfunctional relationship, lack of commitment to these laws, an abusive nature. 

In one case the husband admitted in counseling that he is attracted to young girls and not "smelly women". They divorced and a restraining order was placed on him to stay away from girls, communal leaders were alerted.

Case number 3 above involves a sense of violence and is more urgent, especially if the couple has children. Attending the mikvah in a communal building means the woman must leave her home, if there is a sense of fear and violence in the home with children present, this causes her stress to even leave the home for the immersion, which is time consuming. 

In case number 3, what should happen is similar to what happened with the couple who was discouraged, a Rabbi and Rabbanit came to their home and counseled them. If there is a certain amount of tension, escalating to abuse, surrounding the laws of family purity, then an deeper evaluation needs to occur.

The following questions may be posed:

Do you look forward to mikvah night?

What do you object to regarding your spouse?

Do these objections reflect something superficial and treatable or are the objections so deep that the marriage may need to be dissolved?

Mikvah night cannot occur together with a sense of fear and violence. Mikvah night will be postponed until there is some resolution - either in the direction of improving the marriage, or in recognizing that this marriage cannot be saved.

In Jewish law, should a couple decide to divorce, they are forbidden to touch each other. "Break-up sex" is forbidden.

This teaching too can add clarity to the direction a couple should go in. If the woman is relieved to not be touched again by him, if the man only wants sex to release frustration but not to be intimate with a woman he loves, then clarity has been achieved.

----

There are some weaknesses/values in the Jewish community that need to be identified in order to prevent them from becoming fertile ground for abuse in the Jewish home.

One - a value on "Yiches" - family connections and ancestry. 

Converts or those who do not descend from important Rabbis or "askanim" (communally active people) may feel second class to those who have "Yiches". Yiches can be a cover for a bad character. One may be duped into marrying someone with yiches, who may really not make a healthy spouse.

Two - a value on having a strong family.

Those who are struggling in their marriages or child raising may be embarrassed to seek help. Problems may worsen before help is sought. 

Recognizing weaknesses in any community can raise awareness and prevent situations from becoming abusive.

---

The Sabbath

Observant Jews do not use electricity on the Sabbath, which is from Friday night sundown to Saturday night after nightfall.

In the abusive home, there may need to be an allowance to make phone calls to Jewish help lines in another time zone for whom the Sabbath has not yet begun. 

Say a woman is feeling threatened by her husband on Friday night. It is the Sabbath for her in Jerusalem, but the Sabbath has not yet begun in New York, which is in a time zone seven hours behind.

In cases of abuse, her mental anguish and fear should allow her to make a phone call for help and advice. She should be considered to be in a state of "pikuach nefesh" - danger - and be allowed to make calls.

One phone call may indeed prevent the escalation of an abusive situation that could lead to even more Sabbath desecration.

I hope our communal leaders will consider this - the permissibility of making phone calls on the Sabbath to get help and advice in the abusive home.  

If your relationships are healthy, then the Jewish sabbath is a delight as people spend quality time together with no distractions from social media, TV, phone calls, travel by car or bus, etc. 

But if there is friction in the home, the Sabbath can feel very constraining, with no outlet.

We do not carry in the public domain on the Sabbath, unless there is a special "eruv" that designates that carrying is permissible in that outside space.

Some feel that this "eruv" is an unnecessary leniency, and some communal leaders thwart the building of an "eruv."

This means that in neighborhoods with no "eruv", babies cannot carried or put in a stroller. This means that in the tense or abusive home, women of nursing babies and toddlers who cannot yet walk long distances can be really trapped.

Communities need to strive to provide public "eruv" in consideration of those who may really suffer in isolation on the Sabbath. If there is no public eruv, then arrangements need to be made for those in tense situations to be hosted in an accepting environment until there is resolution in the family.

 

From social revolution to - this is no big deal

 

In the liberal and relativist world, off handed comments in social situations are what shape your world view. 

Your basic assumptions are decided by the majority vote of those around you (paraphrase from the writings of Rachel Pomerantz). 

Should  you chafe at such a culture, should you resist the assumption that your reality is decided by impression and feeling, should you ask critical thinking questions, should you introduce the concept of facts, you may find yourself pressured, when in a social situation.

 

Should you chafe at the social pressure, you are told, “oh what she said is no big deal, that is just how she is, she can be a bit harsh, take no notice, don’t be too sensitive.”

 Wait, so was the liberal trying to make a point, or just… behaving? 

Which one is it? 

Thus liberals pull the intellectual rug out from under you. You are confronted, then when you object, the response is, “oh that is just the way she is.”

---

The sexual revolution was supposed to liberate society from the shackles of sexual repression and the patriarchy. 

Actually, then the idea transformed to: “sex is no big deal”.

Wait a second. Those in chaste relationships, upon a break up, do not suffer like those who had been in an intimate relationship. Bring up this important point, and,  you hear, “don’t be so sensitive”.

Was this a sexual revolution, or no big deal? Isn’t a revolution supposed to confront people with new ideas? If so, you would expect a sensory reaction to any revolution. 

"Don’t be so sensitive", and, "this is no big deal", are contrary to the call to revolution, right?

You cannot have a revolution that is no big deal and that no one notices. 

You cannot wage a social battle and then say, "oh, take no notice, it is no big deal."

---

Merle Hoffman runs an abortion clinic and had admitted that abortion is an act of power and is indeed stopping a beating heart.  

 

Power over a helpless fetus…I am not sure what kind of power that is.

 

Most pro-choice advocates claim that removing the unborn from its mother's womb is like removing a polyp, a cluster of cells, no big deal, and that woman’s choice takes precedent anyway. 

(Why bring up woman’s choice if it is only a cluster of cells?)

Answer - you only bring up woman’s choice when you are about to confront the humanity of the unborn.

 

So which is it, a mere cluster of cells, no big deal, or an act of power and “stopping a beating heart”?

 ---

The group that calls itself the women of the wall, at the Western Wall of Jerusalem, insists on behaving in ways that offend the religious sensitivities of orthodox Jewish women. One of their stated goals is in order to “liberate” the orthodox Jewish women.

 

(How is a desecration of holy objects and holy space a way to “liberate” religious people?)

 

Others say that the orthodox women should ignore them.

 

Wait, is this an effort at liberation, or something to be ignored, like it is no big deal? 

“We hope to liberate you, actually if we offend you, just ignore us, this is no big deal.” 

How does that make any sense?

 

The only way the above examples concerning social pressure by liberals, the sexual revolution, abortion, and the women of the wall group, in short: "we are waging a revolution, actually what we are doing is no big deal", can be coherent is when operating in opposition to a real or imagined “authority figure”. 

Remove the liberal's stance in opposition to religion or to the “establishment”, have them sit alone with and ponder whether what they are believing in makes any sense, they are left with intellectual anarchy.

Some find their way out.

 

Haredi ("ultra orthodox") Jewish schools do not teach religion.

That's right.

You see, there is so much variety within Haredi orthodox Jewish society, their schools cannot teach religion.

Their focus is textual study.

Interpretation is learned at home and synagogue.

 - Those families who embrace the study of the  Zohar, a book of mysticism, do so at home or with private tutors. 

They do not even think to impose mystical teachings on the school.

- Those who reject the study of the Zohar emphasize Bible and Talmud learning at home.

They do not even think to impose their eschewing of for mysticism on the school.

 See more examples below

Thus, in Haredi schools in Israel, when children learn scripture, they are NOT indoctrinated.  

They are simply learning classic texts and commentary.

Schools in the USA may like to try this. 

Stop indoctrinating.

Teach classic texts, science and mathematics, and leave interpretation to the home.

---

Haredi means "shaker" or "quaker", and connotes fundamentalism. 

Within this segment of society you have many diverse streams, here are but a few:

Chassidic - follow the teachings of the Ba'al Shem Tov, founded in early 1700's to uplift the poor Jewish masses spiritually.

Within this group you have much variety, the following groups still bear the names of the towns in Eastern Europe from which they hailed:

--- Gur Chassidim - emphasize secular careers, husband and wife relationship a formal one.

--- Slonim Chassidim - emphasize Talmud learning, similar marriage philosophy as Gur.

---Viznitz and Sanz  - emphasize interpersonal warmth and awe of their Rebbe (Rabbi).

--- Breslov - emphasize simplicity and happiness, hold that Rebbe Nachman of Breslov was unique in that cleaving to his teachings can rectify one's soul.

--- Satmar - emphasize building strong family and community, anti nationalist regarding the state of Israel.

--- Sqvere - interpersonal warmth, separation from host society

Lithuania ("Litvishe") - rational, do not study mysticism, less in awe of their Rabbi.

Chabad Lubavitch - follow the line of teaching of the Chabad Lubavitch Rabbis. Study the "Tanya" , a mystical text.

In the country of Yemen, there were three major streams:

Yemenite Baladi - rationalist, reject mysticism

Yemenite Shami - study the Zohar, a mystical text

Yemenite Dor Dai - cleave to the teaching of Maimonides, reject the Zohar

Morocco - also host to streams more rational and streams that studied mysticism.

And this is just a start.

Therefore, in Haredi schools, when children learn scripture, they are not indoctrinated. 

They are simply learning classic texts and commentary.

Those who hold that the teachings of Maimonides are to be followed, emphasize this at home and at their synagogues.

They do not even think to impose Maimonides' traditions on the school. 

Those Chassidic Jews who hold that their Rebbe is a unique saint teach their children this in their homes and their synagogues.

They do not even think to impose the uniqueness of their Rebbe on the school. 

Those who hold that Rebbe Nachman of Breslov's teachings can rectify one's spiritual imperfections teach this at home and in the synagogue.

They do not even think to impose the soul-mastery of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov on the school. 

Those who hold that the state of Israel is premature teach their stance at home, likewise those who believe that the state of Israel is the herald of the messianic age teach this at home.

They do not even think to impose their ideas on nationalism, for or against, on the school.

 

Sex education is done at home. Should the school see a need, they will speak to parents privately.

One group holds that you teach sex-ed just before marriage.

Another holds that you teach sex-ed upon puberty.

They do not even think to impose sex ed on the school. 

 

If religious fundamentalists can respect other groups' interpretations, and leave school as a place to master classic text and commentary, then why on earth are secular relativists given free reign to impose everything from scorn for religion, to contempt for police, to concepts of sexuality, to dividing children based on race in the classroom?

Stop indoctrinating. Start learning the classics.

 

The message that western society is inherently racist and sexist leaves children cynical and paralyzed. And it is simply not true.

It would have been ok to be liberal if I could have built a wall inside myself.

 

But I was a sensitive child. It did not occur to me to think, “this is just what people here say, but not how they live”, bowed my head, focused on making myself into something and lived with the inconsistency until I made a life for myself.

 

Tell a sensitive child that black people are forever oppressed because of the horrendous “system” you live within, she will feel overwhelmed, hopeless, paralyzed, cynical. This propaganda persists despite strides in civil rights, cultural re-conditioning via the media, for example Fred Rogers’ hosting black singer Francoise Clemens, and programs like affirmative action.

After all these strides, after voting in a black president for two terms, we need to teach critical race theory to elementary school children?  

 

Have not we cured so much of racism and sexism? 

 

Why keep these issues on life support?

 

If I could have been told, “you care about black people? Great! Focus on your studies, secure a career in which you can really help others, then offer assistance.”

 

But feeling overwhelmed by the injustice of it all made me suspect the very school in which I was learning, I mean, if the “system” is inherently corrupt, why should I listen to teachers, follow any instruction? Runkle school and Brookline High in the 70’s and 80’s must also be part of that corrupt “system”, right?

 

Or the harping on the “oppressive patriarchy” lectured by teenage girls going home at the end of the day to a beautiful house, elegant supper, and solid income, thanks to a mother who takes care of home life and a father who is a professor at a university…um, where was the oppressive patriarchy?  On to a highly competitive New England college thanks to nurturing by mom who freed you to study and engage in extracurricular activities, plus a sizeable income thanks to dad - was that not gender role differentiation that freed you up and allowed you to sneer at the very traditional family structure that nurtured you?

 

So you may need to to have a split personality. Now, even more so, until this battle against CRT indoctrination in schools is won.

 

You may need to nod your head up and down to statements that we live in an inherently racist culture and an oppressive patriarchy as if facing a religious fundamentalism that could turn to inquisition and excommunication.

 

Go along and pretend outwardly that people are born gay or straight, even when you see first hand that sexuality is flexible: straights become gay, gays become straight - but do not dare say that.

 

And remember that if you succumb to the cynicism of the modern liberal narrative, you will be paralyzed into inaction, self-loathing, with no ability to act and thus no future.

 

And then you notice that those harping stridently on the systemic racism and patriarchy and p.c. sexuality are somehow benefiting mightily from all that capitalism that they say they loathe.

 

They are your college professors, journalists, lawyers, paid activists.

 

So some will have to pretend to go along with it. Put your head down and bow before the lifeless liberal idol, though your conscience pricks, do not get into debates until you are strong, and that not will happen for a few years into building a career, way after college years.

 

You will get past it, you will be free once you solidify your job skills or career path, develop respectful interpersonal characteristics, marry even, engage in healthy habits.

 

You are not likely to have much strength until well into your 20’s.  

 

So build that wall inside yourself in the meantime.

 

Let the strong engage in the fight against critical race theory and other forms of indoctrination, because it is not over yet.