Why our social ills are not cured by our social medicines: the case of “race discrimination”


Our social medicines do not cure our social ills since what we call the social medicines had created the social ills we are trying to cure, and the case with “race discrimination” demonstrates why it is so.

We have been witnessing an increased number of race-related, blacks-on-whites (and other varieties of color-on-color) disturbances. Here is the list of some recent explosive disorders with the black mobs attacking the police and destroying the private property:

  • University of California, Santa Barbara – black’s Deltopia party turns violent
  • Ferguson, Missouri – black’s violent riots after the death of teenager Michael Brown
  • New York City/Berkeley, California – black’s violent riots after prosecutors and a grand jury refused to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner
  • New Hampshire Pumpkin Festival Riots – black’s crowd set fires and threw bottles
  • Baltimore – black’s rioting and looting following the death of Freddie Gray.

Similar race-related violence is observed in many European countries and in many places around the world.

The news media and politicians are diagnosing the race-related violence as a sort of justified reaction of the rioters to the “race discrimination” – discrimination by both the police and the entire society. The following social cure is suggested: the society (meaning the white majority) have to stop discriminating against the blacks, and the blacks-on-whites violence would stop.

However, this social cure has not worked in the past and will not work in the future – because the blacks-on-whites violence, although race-related, is rooted not in “race discrimination”.  To understand the roots of this race-related violence we have to consider the origin of the race and the origin of the race discrimination.

Origin of the race

Billions of the descendants of Adam and Eve are not a homogeneous tribe with the same “social justice” for everybody. The descendants of Adam and Eve consist of many different groups who are distinguished from each other by many physical and intellectual traits. The different physical and intellectual traits have been developed to tailor better (of course, as many believe, in the God’s image and likeness) the human survival skills to the environmental conditions of their unique birthplaces. We call a group with distinguished physical and intellectual traits a race.

In different birthplaces, different races have different rules on what is moral and what is immoral, different ways of raising and supporting their families and communities.

When people of a certain race live in their own birthplace, everything looks OK. In their birthplace communities, they know what to do and how to do; they know what is moral and what is immoral.

Why our social ills are not cured by our social medicines: the case of “race discrimination”

Origin of the “race discrimination”

However, when people are moving out of their birthplace the racial tensions are unavoidable. Why? Because the new “habitat” place requires the change – a painful and difficult change from the old traditions, which are no good at the new place, to the new traditions, which are foreign to them.

There are two major categories of immigrants: those who are looking for individual freedoms and those who are trying to improve their lives economically. Normally, the freedom seekers do not complain in the new countries. They enjoy their new spiritual freedoms; in a new truly democratic country, they are doing their best to learn and follow the traditions of the new “habitat” country.

However, those who are trying to improve their lives economically, they are trying to follow in the new “habitat” place the traditions of the birthplace. The two traditions fight with each other on the public ground: the natives are trying to preserve the country’s spiritual realm as they have built it while the newcomers are trying to shrink the natives’ spiritual ground to gain the public territory for their own spiritual traditions. This fight produces the ill called “race discrimination”.

How to deal with the immigration-related “race discrimination”

There are two way of dealing with the immigration-related “race discrimination”.

One way is a wrong one, and it is the social-justice-guided way – this way creates the “race discrimination” since it treats the immigrants as unequal, unable to be equal because of their race, needed a special help to be elevated closer to the natives. The new immigrants love this way because it transfers their guilt of being destructive in the new countries to the guilt of the natives – the natives consider themselves to be at fault since they have not helped the newcomers in the way that the “social justice” requires. Some ascendants of those who were brought to the USA as slaves belong to this group as well – they are still straggling to abandon their ancestral traditions and bring themselves closer to the traditions of their new country.

The other way is a right one, and it is the Bible-guided way – this way does not create “race discrimination” since it treats the immigrants as spiritually equal since they are “created in the image and likeness of God” and therefore are able to elevate themselves to the level of the natives. They do not require any government and public assistance and always are grateful if the assistance is coming.

God and Religion in the Torah – and they may disagree


Preface

I have received from MiKu the following comment: “So you discard a Talmudic idea because it doesn’t fit your agenda, then you aren’t qualified to invent “Intellectual Judaism””, and I have responded in the following way:

“Michael, I am not discarding anything. I am, in my human duty as a spiritual scientist, trying to find out why the purely Talmudic-based Orthodox Judaism is not attracting anymore the Jewish majority, and the Jews are testing something else such as conservatism, reformism, secularism, etc. You may believe the purely Talmudic-based orthodox rabbis are the guardians of Judaism but what guardianship is this if the Jewish majority do not follow them. So I have decided, after many unsuccessful attempts to discuss it with the purely Talmudic-based orthodox rabbis, to go back to the Torah and figure out what may be done to attract the Jews again to the Torah’s guidance. What spiritual objections do you have against my search?”

This post is a part of my search.

We the Jews are united as Jews, all of us from the Orthodox to the Secular, by our collective faith rooted in the Torah, transferred from generation to generation most probably genetically, and enhanced through Jewish education.

We the Jews, all of us from the Orthodox to the Secular, are disunited almost on everything by our diverse and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the Torah guidance.

Why the same Torah is the source of our unity and disunity?

The Torah comprises of two different universes.

One of them is the so-called God’s universe, where God with His multiple images such as Supreme Power, Adonai, Nature, Big Bang, etc. is the Higher Authority above us the humans. The other one is the Religion’s universe. They are different.

Naturally, God Himself created the God’s universe – in all His multiple images. Our human authoritative leaders called in the Jewish nation the Rabbis created the Religion’s universe.

The God’s universe is presented in the Torah with God’s guidance on how to build a human society where every human individual is acting in all his/her life endeavors in the individually understood “image and likeness” of God. We accepted the guidance of the Higher Authority above us the humans after the failure of numerous humans to play the role of such authority. The most fundamental part of this guidance is the so-called “Free Will” that encourages all human individuals to compete with each other for better designs of various parts of the God’s better world.

Based on the Torah’s guidance, the rabbis created the Religion’s universe with their guidance on how to understood the “image and likeness” of God in terms of human moral behavior. The rabbis’ role as teachers in this Religion’s universe was extremely valuable. However, in the course of religious history, the rabbis began to exercise another role – the role of authoritative rulers, and in this role, the rabbis created disunity. In order to secure his power as an authoritative ruler, a rabbi was declaring that only his guidance was the true God’s guidance, and all others were mistaken. This authoritative-ruler approach obviously breaded disunity.

When the Jews lived in the isolated Jewish communities (shtetls, ghettos), this disunity was hidden – the Jews were not interacting with the real God’s world outside the Jewish communities, knew only their rabbi’s guidance and obeyed him.

However about two centuries ago, things had begun to change – the Jews had begun to be accepted by the gentiles and begun real competitive coexistence in the gentile world. The life conditions for Jewish individuals had become completely different, and the rabbis were not able to adjust their spiritual guidance to specific life conditions of everybody. That was the end of the traditional Orthodox spiritual supremacy in the Jewish nation – not because of somebody’s revolt but rather because of inability of the Orthodox rabbis to adjust the Torah’s teachings to the changing times. The Orthodox rabbis were not prepared to tailor their teachings to the enormous changes in the world created along the lines of God’s laws of nature. The result: the birth of new spiritual Jewish movements – conservatism, reformism and secularism. Those feuding movements are trying to find the God’s guidance in new life circumstances, created in the God’s world by the God’s laws, – the guidance the orthodox rabbis were not able to provide.

One more proof that Ten Commandments are socially just and Social Justice is unjust


I am re-posting my recent post on Ten Commandments vs. Social Justice with a story on how the reinforcement of the Social Justice by the government of Greece failed the people of Greece and committed the injustice to Europe.

From the news media: a devastating result of replacing Judeo-Christian, Ten-Commandments-based work ethics by Social-Justice work ethics.

Greek PM Tsipras demands ‘socially just’ agreement at European Parliament. Tsipras is a socialist and the “socially just” agreement in his terminology means something foreign to the Judeo-Christian morals. It means that the “rich” European countries, who have made their wealth by hard creative work with relatively late retirement, short vacations and minimal freebies from the government, have to share their wealth with the “poor” countries like Greece, whose work ethics is characterized by much earlier retirement, more lengthy vacations, and much greater freebies from the government.

To understand the fundamentals of the Greece failure, we have to compare Ten Commandments and Social Justice as the two systems for redistribution of individually created wealth aimed at making a better world for everybody.

In the Judeo-Christian universe, the Ten Commandments and the entire Bible define justice and injustice. Those definitions are coming from the Higher Authority above us called God. We may disagree on the image of this Authority (God, Adonai, Supreme Power, Nature, Big Band, etc.) but not with the need for and the importance of such authority. This Authority unites all of us since, as the Bible declares, this Authority creates all of us as equals – in His image and likeness. If we are created as equals, the definition of justice and injustice, which is coming from this Authority, have to be considered just for everybody.

The guidance of this Authority for creating a better world, which is just for everybody, is clear and simple.

—A better world, which is just for everybody, is the world where every individual has the opportunity to be an individual spiritual and material wealth creator in all areas of his/her life – family, community, religious institutions, employment, politics, social development, charity/mitzvah, etc. Moreover, to be personally responsible for the results of individual creative work.

—The purpose of government is to secure the individual opportunities, not to impose on the individuals the government’s own ideas on social justice. The government has to legislate along the lines of the Bible – to strengthen individual families, to provide safety for families and communities, to keep forceful confiscation of wealth to a minimal level just needed to support a minimal government.

—About 10% of the individually created wealth should be used for helping the less fortunate to enhance their individual opportunities through individual charity/mitzvah wealth transfer – not to enslave them in the welfare system forever.

In the secular universe, an elected or non-elected government plays a role of the Higher Authority and defines what is just and what is unjust. Any human government, although necessary at some minimal level, disunites people. Why? Because any human government operates with one important goal in mind – to preserve its power at a next election cycle and it is using an established practice of how to preserve the power.

—A government convinces the society that not all people are created equal, and therefore the role of a government is to be a sort of equalizer. To perform this role, a government finds a small group of wealthy individuals with a lot of individually made wealth but with a negligible voting power, and forcefully confiscates a significant part of their wealth.

—Then, a government redistributes the confiscated wealth to a large group of less wealthy (most of them are not poor in a classical definition of this word) but with a decisive voting power. If the redistribution is correct, the government preserves its power.

—However, such redistribution is unjust for the entire society. The wealthy individuals are unhappy – they think the injustice was committed against them. They believe so not because the money was taken from them – but rather because the money was taken forcefully without their consent on how much to take and how to redistribute. The injustice is committed as well against those who are receiving the redistributed money. It is so since the government decides what is good and what is bad for them – they are deprived the opportunity to make their own choices.

The Greece social failure is the best proof of the greatness of the Ten Commandments and the entire Bible as the guidance for creating a social justice for everybody. And other countries, which continue believing in the “social justice’ as the best design for a better world for everybody, should study this failure and return to the Ten Commandments design.

The Ten Commandments vs. Social Justice


The Ten Commandments and the Social Justice are the two systems for redistribution of individually created wealth aimed at making a better world for everybody, or Tikkun Olam in Jewish spiritual terms.

If we have two wealth-redistribution systems suggested for creating a better world for everybody, we have to figure out which system is better. The great majority would agree that a better world for everybody should be a just world. If it is so, the most important is to define what is just and unjust in both systems.

In the Judeo-Christian universe (observant and non-observant), the Ten Commandments and the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments), which is tailoring the Ten Commandments to various life circumstances, define justice and injustice. Those definitions are coming from the Higher Authority above us called God. We may disagree on the image of this Authority (God, Adonai, Supreme Power, Nature, Big Band, etc.) but not with the need for and the importance of such authority. This Authority unites all of us since, as the Bible declares, this Authority creates all of us as equals – in His image and likeness. If we are created as equals, the definition of justice and injustice, which is coming from this Authority, have to be considered just for everybody.

The guidance of this Authority for creating a better world, which is just for everybody, is clear and simple:

  • A better world, which is just for everybody, is the world where every individual has the opportunity to be an individual spiritual and material wealth creator in all areas of his/her life – family, community, religious institutions, employment, politics, social development, charity/mitzvah, etc. Moreover, to be personally responsible for the results of individual creative work.
  • The purpose of government is to secure the individual opportunities, not to impose on the individuals the government’s own ideas on social justice. The government has to legislate along the lines of the Bible – to strengthen individual families, to provide safety for families and communities, to keep forceful confiscation of wealth to a minimal level just needed to support a minimal government.
  • About 10% of the individually created wealth should be used for helping the less fortunate to enhance their individual opportunities through individual charity/mitzvah wealth transfer – not to enslave them in the welfare system forever.

In the secular universe, which might be even artificially observant, an elected or non-elected government defines what is just and what is unjust. Any human government, although necessary at some minimal level, disunites people. Why? Because any human government operates with one important goal in mind – to preserve its power at a next election cycle.

There is an established practice of how to preserve the power in this secular universe:

  • A government convinces the society that not all people are created equal, and therefore the role of a government is to be a sort of equalizer. To perform this role, a government finds a small group of wealthy individuals with a lot of individually made wealth but with a negligible voting power, and forcefully confiscates a significant part of their wealth.
  • Then, a government redistributes the confiscated wealth to a large group of less wealthy (most of them are not poor in a classical definition of this word) but with a decisive voting power. If the redistribution is correct, the government preserves its power.
  • However, such redistribution is unjust for the entire society. The wealthy individuals are unhappy – they think the injustice was committed against them. They believe so not because the money was taken from them – but rather because the money was taken forcefully without their consent on how much to take and how to redistribute. The injustice is committed as well against those who are receiving the redistributed money. It is so since the government decides what is good and what is bad for them – they are deprived the opportunity to make their own choices.

Europe is awakening while Obama holds his country disoriented on the dangers of Islamism


Unfortunately, that is the case, and the latest publications in the news media make it unmistakably clear.

News from the United Kingdom

Prime Minister of UK Cameron has determined to challenge the conspiracy theories of a powerful Jewish cabal because these theories are camouflaging the real dangers of Islamic radicalization in UK and all over the world that, Cameron believes, we must to address and fight.

News from France

President Nicholas Sarkozy will crack down on the Islamization of his country, after all, as many begin to believe. Just days after saying that multiculturalism had failed in France, President Sarkozy is launching a debate on religion and the secular state, focusing primarily on what limits should be placed on Islam.

News from Netherlands

The Netherlands has banned the black flag of jihad ahead of a large demonstration in Amsterdam to support Hamas against Israel, and Amsterdam begins outlawing the public demonstration of Islamic laws.

News from the public opinion poll on Israel and USA

59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel with whom they have analogous fundamental moral values, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians many of whom on the side of Islamic radicalization.

However, the news from the White House are completely different  

US President Obama blames Israel for its interference in US affairs over Iran deal although Israel is not interfering in US affairs – Israel is trying to counter Iran’s actions aimed at Islamic radicalization of the Middle East and the entire world. The empowerment of Iran through the engineered by Obama Iran’s deal would arm Islamic radicals with nuclear armaments and further advance Islamic radicalization.

Thus, European countries have begun recognizing the dangers of Islamic radicalization and devising the legal instruments for restraining these dangers. The US White House under Obama’s autocratic rule is trying to pretend there are no dangers of Islamic radicalization neither for the USA nor for Israel. Why?

Here is my own “not politically correct” answer.

Elected leaders of European countries, as well as the majority of their citizens, are people with strong feeling of the history and traditions of their countries, and they are trying to defend and protect their countries as they are – with the traditional mix of political, social and religious movements. The traditions of the European countries are Bible-based Judeo-Christian traditions, which are strong in spite of declining influence of official religious organizations.

The same has been true for the USA – normally, elected American leaders have been people with genuine respect for American Bible-based values and desire to preserve them. However, in the last few decades the Bible-based values have begun to be substituted by newly created values of “social justice” and “human rights”. This has opened the door for people with no respect for Bible-based traditional values to be elected, and Barak Obama was one of them. How might it happen if the majority of the country is still the Bible-based moral majority? It looks like the Bible-based moral majority just abandoned the elections since they have not found in the “social-justice-human-rights” electoral slogans anything worthwhile to vote for.

The US President Barak Obama has no good feelings for the traditional American Bible-based moral values. His moral values are closer to authoritarian Islamic values. Therefore, Obama is trying to keep the country disoriented about the dangers of Islamic radicalization to have Islamic idea obtaining a legitimacy in the country.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 589 other followers