How to correctly study and learn the Talmud.

A sermon from 1935

The Torah was given at Sinai along with the tools—the middot (hermeneutical principles)—for deriving halakha from the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael codified the 13 logical principles (middot) by which halakha is deduced from the written Torah. This is not transmission of content but inductive reasoning—a system of legal logic.

Rabbi Akiva, especially through the Kabbalah of PaRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod), emphasized that every detail in the Torah—down to the crowns of letters—was a potential basis for halakhic inference. Again: it’s a system of interpretation, not rote transmission.

Example: The Oven of Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b)
Rabbi Eliezer calls on miracles and even a Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice) to prove his halakhic ruling. But the other rabbis reject it, quoting:
“לא בשמים היא” (It is not in Heaven)—Deut. 30:12
This affirms that halakha is decided through human debate using proper reasoning and hermeneutics, not by appeal to prophetic or mystical authority—even from Heaven.

When people say “Orthodoxy believes the Oral Torah was revealed at Sinai,” they often flatten the nuance and make it sound like the Mishnah or Gemara were dictated by God. This is not the Talmud’s view, and it’s not the view of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS or Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot. Halacha serves as precedents used to re-interpret a different face of the language of the Mishna. Much like the 3 different views of a blue-print permits the contractor to understand a three-dimensional idea from a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

The Oral Torah is not a set of dictated content (like a second scroll from Heaven) but a system of legal reasoning handed down with the Written Torah. The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael and PaRDeS hermeneutics of Rabbi Akiva are not simply “interpretation”—they are the constitutional logic system embedded in the covenantal structure of Torah common law. Halakha is not mysticism nor the product of prophecy—it is an earthly, oath-bound legal tradition, decided through human debate and precedent within the beit din. “Torah lo bashamayim hi” (It is not in Heaven) proves decisively that halakhic authority does not rest in divine voice, but in national legal common law process.

Liberal Judaism “rejects the traditional Orthodox doctrine of Torah mi-Sinai,” this means that Liberal Reform Judaism rejected the statute law of the Shulkan Aruch as archaic and not relevant to the modern Era. The idea: “The Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud) is a product of rabbinic creativity, but not inherently binding—because its authority isn’t rooted in a national brit or divine mandate.” Carries the interpretation that the courts in each and every generation bear the responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Oral Torah as it applies to each and every generation. Hence: “”Halakhic authority does not derive from Sinai, nor from logical derivation through rabbinic hermeneutics, but rather from modern ethical intuition, historical context, and evolving values.””

The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but the juridical system—the logic, rules of inference, and interpretive methodology—transmitted alongside the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS framework serve as the constitutional instruments for halakhic – primarily inductive precedent drosh reasoning and secondarily deductive learning any precedent from some other Gemara source through a triangle. Meaning the sugya which contains the גזרה שוה which links one mesechta to other mesechtot of Gemara precedents. This “common denominator shared between two or more mesechtot of Gemarah, contained within a larger sugya. Just as the shemone esrei stands upon ORDER 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, so to the Talmud organizes each and every sugya of Gemara based upon a logical organization of ideas. The shortest distance between two points a straight line. This idea called a simple sh’itta. Therefore to understand a specific point shared between multiple Gemaras, like a fraction shares a common denominator with other fractions, each sugya of Gemara opens and closes with a thesis statement and a thesis statement restated in a slightly different way! Therefore since the shortest distance between two points – a sh’itta straight line, therefore any halacha within the body of this same sugya (sub-chapter) of Gemara has to likewise fit somewhere along the straight sh’itta line. Herein explains how each sugya of Gemara organized within a precise Order.

Therefore this logical deduction based upon three points compares to a triangle like syllogism of deductive reasoning. Which permits the scholar to re-interpret his own sugyah of Gemara based upon this new novel perspective. Furthermore this scholar can likewise re-interpret the language of the Mishna by viewing it from this novel perspective just as the front view of a blue print does not resemble the top and side views of the same blue print.

This simple articulation of Talmudic jurisprudence as a geometric-legal system. Not only captures the inner architecture of the Talmudic sugya, but also grounding it in a methodology of induction, structured deduction, and canonical order, all rooted in the covenantal logic of Torah law. The Oral Torah simply not a second text revealed at Sinai, but a juridical system—a logic of interpretation, inference, and precedent—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational structure of the national brit to pursue righteous justice and have Sanhedrin courts make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our people in all generations. Herein defines Faith from the Torah.

Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS methodology constitute the constitutional instruments by which halakhic rulings are derived. This system is not prophetic or mystical, but rational and precedent-based, relying on inductive reasoning from case law and deductive geometry drawn from shared conceptual structures. Each sugya of Gemara is structured as a sh’itta—a straight conceptual line, the shortest distance between the sugya’s opening thesis statement and its closing restatement. Just as the Shemoneh Esrei stands upon a structured order (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), so too, each sugya possesses a precise inner order of ideas, legal arguments, and canonical references.

When precedent comparisons jump off the dof, to grasp the different dof of Gemara requires making a triangular linkage logical deduction disciplined training technique. Since a sugya is built upon a logical progression of arguments—like points on a line—any halakhic statement within the sugya must fit along that conceptual sh’itta.

This structural model allows for novel interpretation within the sugya—not by invention, but by realignment. A scholar can interpret this off the dof different Gemara sugya to reinterpret how he understands his own dof of Gemara together with his Mishna view from a fresh completely different perspective. Much like the facets of a diamond. This is possible only by working within the Order of the off the Dof sugya’s geometric integrity, ensuring each legal point lies on the same conceptual sh’itta line of reasoning. A kind of syllogism: if A and B make a straight line then C (located in the body of that off the dof sugya) must rest somewhere on that line that connects points A & B into a simple sh’itta. Thus, the halakhist functions like an engineer interpreting a 3D blueprint: each new angle opens new insights, but all must cohere within the structure’s lawful design.

The Oral Torah is not a floating sea of opinion, nor a mystical voice from Heaven—it is a blueprinted structure of legal logic. Each sugya of Gemara is a tightly ordered unit, whose inner geometry can be mapped by, A) Sh’itta logic (linear argument), B) Triangle logic (comparing the opening thesis statement of the off the dof sugya with the closing statement of the off the dof sugya and the גזירה שוה shared common denominator, be it a different mesechta of Gemara based upon rabbi Rabbeinu Tam’s common law sh’itta of learning off the Dof of Gemara or learning directly to the Jerushalmi Talmud itself. C) Inductive precedent logic compares one sugya of Gemara to other mesechtot of different Gemaras. Whereas deductive logic understands that each and every sugya of Gemara leans like the two legs of a triangle which forms its simple hypotinus simple sh’itta line. This system not only explains the organizational precision of Talmudic discourse, but also justifies halakhic reinterpretation within the משנה תורה common law revelation of the Torha at Sinai.

The Oral Torah as Geometric Jurisprudence: Sh’itta Logic, Triangular Reasoning, and the Covenant of Justice. The Oral Torah is not a secondary revelation, nor a mystical supplement to the Written Torah. It is a juridical logic system—a structure of inference, precedent, and conceptual order—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational core of the national brit between HaShem and Israel.

This brit exists not to express personal spirituality, but to pursue righteous justice and enable Sanhedrin courts in every generation to fairly adjudicate disputes, especially to determine restitution (damages) owed from Party A to Party B. The pursuit of justice through ordered legal interpretation is, by definition, the Torah’s conception of faith (emunah).

Just as the Shemoneh Esrei is structured (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), each sugya possesses a tightly ordered internal structure. Every halakhic point within the sugya must lie along this sh’itta, or else it does not belong to that sugya’s line of legal reasoning. The full conceptual understanding, inductive reasoning of a sugya requires a comparison across masechtot—jumping off the daf to another Gemara whose shared precedent or g’zeirah shavah forms the common denominator.

The triangle syllogism deductive logic of quickly learning the sh’itta of the off the dof precedent Gemara enhance the inductive logic which compared the shared common denominator גזירה שוה Gemaras in the first place.

Torah as Constitutional Justice, Not Mystical Religion. The Oral Torah is not a sea of conflicting opinions nor a mystical oracle from Heaven. It is the blueprinted legal logic of the national covenant—a common law revelation grounded at Sinai, encoded in D’varim/Mishneh Torah, and clarified through the Talmud’s intellectual discipline & precision of sugya Order. Herein explains how the editors of the Talmud, Rav Ashi, Rav Ravina, and the Savoraim scholars edited the Sha’s Bavli. This jurisprudence, expressed through sh’itta logic, triangular deduction, and inductive precedent, is the true revelation of Torah law—the foundation of Israel’s brit, the substance of Jewish faith, and the engine of divine justice throughout all generations.

Key Concepts for Studying the Talmud

Nature of the Oral Torah: The Oral Torah functions as a juridical system alongside the Written Torah, emphasizing that halakha derives from human reasoning and debate rather than mystical authority. This foundational understanding proves crucial for engaging with Talmudic texts.

Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS: Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS serves as the kabbalistic framework that underpins the inductive reasoning used in the study of Torah common law. This framework allows scholars to derive legal principles through the examination of similar case precedents (Din) across the Talmud, facilitating a deeper understanding of the text.

Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot: Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot function as the commentary and interpretive tool that complements Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS. These principles guide the process of deriving halakha and provide a structured approach to legal reasoning, allowing for inductive comparisons of similar cases across the six Orders of Rabbi Yehuda’s Mishnah.

Interplay of Aggadah and Halachah: The Talmud weaves together two threads: Aggadah (narrative and ethical teachings) and Halachah (legal rulings). This relationship resembles the warp and weft of a loom, where each thread contributes to the overall fabric of Jewish law and ethics.

Drush (interpretive) and Peshat (direct meaning) interconnect, focusing on the comparative analysis of similar prophetic mussar (ethical teachings) found in different Tana”ch sugyot. This comparison allows for a deeper understanding of the intent behind the texts and their application.

Remez (hint) and Sod (mystical) associate with Halachic texts, emphasizing the deeper, often mystical implications of legal rulings. They serve to integrate the prophetic mussar Peshat as the kavanah (intention) behind ritual halachot, particularly those that require kavanah.

Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning in Talmudic study involves comparing similar Tana”ch sugyot that instruct prophetic mussar to other Tana”ch sugyot that provide a deeper analysis of prophetic mussar. This method allows scholars to derive general principles from specific instances, creating a body of halakhic precedent applicable to new situations. The process of grasping the common denominator that connects these comparative cases defines the Peshat of prophetic mussar.

Purpose of Weaving Aggadah and Halachah: The integration of Aggadah and Halachah throughout the Talmud serves a vital purpose: it creates a judicial fabric that reflects the Av tohor (pure father) and the time-oriented commandments that require prophetic mussar as their kavanah. This weaving process ensures that legal rulings ground themselves not only in law but also in ethical and moral considerations.

Practical Application and Personal Engagement: Engaging with the Talmud involves applying its teachings to real-life courtroom disputes over damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. This practical engagement fosters a personal connection to the text and its teachings, allowing for a richer understanding of halakha.

Conclusion: To study the Talmud effectively, one must appreciate its complexity as a legal and interpretive system. By employing the methodologies of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, engaging in rigorous debate, and understanding the structured nature of sugyot, scholars navigate the Talmud’s rich landscape. This approach not only honors the tradition but also allows for meaningful reinterpretation and application in contemporary contexts.

The “Old Guard” Is Dismantled

Nancy Pelosi — A Spent Force, once the iron-fisted Speaker, Pelosi is now politically irrelevant, having ceded leadership and influence. She commands no serious power and is no longer the face of Democratic strategy. Her legacy is tarnished by her mishandling of impeachment optics and her defense of the intelligence bureaucracy. She’s now more of a symbol of inertia than resistance.

Adam Schiff — From Kingmaker to Clown. Schiff is no longer in the House, where he once wielded the gavel of Trump’s first impeachment. Now a freshman Senator, he’s stripped of his former status and ridiculed as a disgraced partisan operator. His “intelligence credibility” was eviscerated by the Durham Report and public backlash over his role in the Russia hoax. In the Senate minority, Schiff is a noisy but neutered figure, a mere irritant rather than an architect of opposition.

Jerry Nadler — Defanged Judiciary Relic. Nadler, once Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is now just another aging backbencher, largely ignored. His past theatrics and failed oversight have left him a cautionary tale of overreach. Trump has effectively reversed the moral narrative — Nadler looks like the failed inquisitor, not the defender of law.

Maxine Waters — From Rooster to Featherduster. The fiery “Impeach 45” slogans of her past now ring hollow. Waters, bereft of committee power and media favor, is now seen as yesterday’s firebrand. Her flamboyant grandstanding is viewed more as performance art for legacy donors, not serious opposition.

The Real Shift: The Democratic Machine Is Rusting. These figures are no longer fearsome. They are symbols of a bygone anti-Trump regime that failed to derail him and now sit on the sidelines of history, watching the man they tried to destroy retake power.

Trump’s Comeback Flips the Script. The institutions they once weaponized against Trump — DOJ, FBI, media, academia — are being de-legitimized or restructured. he new reality is Trump in power, and his former enemies reduced to noise. The age of lawfare and “moral panic” is over. What remains is a battered old guard, mumbling their old lines to a crowd that’s moved on.

The Last Strut of the Hallway Has-Beens: A Political Pantomime in Four Acts

Act I: The Ripping Hag of Haight-Ashbury

There she was — Queen Nancy the Torn, flanked by sycophants and plastic surgeons, marching down the hallowed halls like Cleopatra in a Botox chariot. Dressed in white like a sanctified avenger, she climaxed her theatrical tantrum by ripping up the President’s State of the Union address, as though the Constitution itself was embroidered with her initials.

But the drama didn’t end there. Her Taiwan flyby, complete with Cold War cleavage, became the high-flying finale of her farewell tour. Diplomacy by décolletage! As if Beijing would tremble before a Double-D freedom flyover.

Now she haunts the Capitol like a busted Broadway understudy — a ghost of gavel past, mumbling about democracy while the new generation rolls their eyes and scrolls TikTok.

Act II: The High Priest of Hoaxes

Enter Adam Schiff, robed in crimson Spanish Inquisition vestments, wielding a scroll labeled “Russian Collusion — Trust Me, Bro.”

He proclaims: “We have the sacred duty to make Trump confess to crimes — even if we must invent them!”

Yet alas, the crowd sees through the act. Schiff’s eyes dart like a caffeinated meerkat, spinning paranoid prophecy after prophecy that never materialize. Once feared as the Sorcerer of Subpoenas, he now whines from the Senate basement, a freshman with a freshman’s locker and a freshman’s relevance.

The Durham Report slammed the cell door shut on his credibility. His witch hunt fizzled, his “whistleblowers” turned out to be wind.

Act III: Nadler the Implacably Irrelevant

And here waddles Jerry Nadler, dressed in matching inquisitorial regalia. Once he bellowed about justice — now he just bellows.

Nadler’s gait remains a mystery of physics, part man, part melting candle. He once lumbered into Judiciary hearings with the grace of a rolling file cabinet, determined to impeach Trump for sneezing in the wrong direction.

Today, he’s reduced to background furniture, occasionally waking up to demand coffee or the Constitution, whichever arrives first.

Trump outlasted him. America tuned out. All that remains is the echo of a gavel that no longer strikes fear — only yawns.

Act IV: Maxine “Impeach 45” Waters — Now Just Maxine

And finally, storming onstage with the fury of a peacock on meth, Maxine Waters: the one-woman impeachment jukebox.

“IMPEACH 45!” she screamed like it was a holy mantra, reciting it in salons, summits, and aroused sheep. But the spell broke. She’s no longer on the Sunday shows — only the Sunday crossword.

Her committee power? Gone. Her media spotlight? Dimmed. Her swagger? Collapsed like a bad soufflé.

She’s left pacing the marble corridors, muttering like a retired Shakespearean actor stuck in a bit role: “I could have been a contender! I could have impeached him a fourth time!”

Finale: Hall of Forgotten Crusaders.

The curtain falls on the quartet — Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Waters — once hailed as the defenders of democracy, now remembered as propaganda performance artists in the theater of the absurd.

Their moral posturing? Mocked.

Their vendettas? Defeated.

Their legacy? A tragicomedy in four acts, soon to be archived in the dustbin of political theater.

President Trump? Still standing.

The old guard? Reduced to whispers in the hallway they once strutted down.

The Pyres of Salem Reborn: A Witch Trial for the D.C. Frauds

In the shadowed square of Liberty’s End,

Where truth once knelt and lies would bend,

The torches rise, the crowd’s eyes burn,

For now, fags burn ‘alight these witches’ for their turn.

First comes Nancy, broomstick high,

With ashes of speeches held to the sky.

Her scrolls are torn, her Botox tight,

She chants of “democracy’s final fight.”

But the flames recall her staged disgrace,

Tearing truth before the nation’s face.

“Gavel this!” the mob cries loud —

And smoke enfolds her like a shroud.

Then Schiff appears, his eyes agleam,

Still chasing ghosts from a fever dream.

He clutches scripts from CNN,

And whispers, “Trump’s colluding again!”

But Durham’s flames consume his scroll,

The fire demands his lying soul.

No tears for him, no solemn bell —

Just the scent of smoke and intel hell.

Old Nadler shuffles, cloak askew,

Puffed up like dough and turning blue.

He chants “Obstruction! Treason! Crime!”

But no one listens this fourth time.

He waddles to the stake with pride,

As if his hearings hadn’t died.

The logs ignite — no jury frets.

They’re roasting more than vinaigrettes.

And Maxine now, in blazing red,

Waves her fists above her head.

“Impeach 45!” she shrieks once more,

As if the crowd would still adore.

But chants and slogans now fall flat,

She’s preaching to a crowd gone scat.

A final shriek, a puff of smoke —

The ghost of cable news went broke.

The crowd disperses, justice done,

Not through trials, but searing sun.

Where once they ruled with moral flame,

They’re now footnotes without a name.

Their lies, their rage, their frenzied fraud,

Now cast upon the wrath of God.

No martyrs here, no Salem shame —

Only charlatans consumed by flame.

And in the ash, a sign is placed:

“Here burned the Clowns who Disgraced the State.”
________________________________________________________________

The Resilience of Democracy

Finale: The Hall of Hopeful Voices

As the curtain rises on a new refrain,
Where truth and justice rise again,
The echoes of the past still ring,
But hope ignites a brighter spring.

Their trials? A testament to the fight,
For every wrong, we seek the right.
Their legacy? A story of resilience,
In the face of chaos, we find brilliance.

President Trump? A figure of strife,
Yet democracy breathes, it holds its life.
The old guard? They may fade from view,
But new voices rise, steadfast and true.

The Flames of Justice: A Trial for the People’s Will

In the heart of Liberty’s vibrant square,
Where dreams take flight and voices dare,
The banners wave, the crowd stands tall,
For now, we rise, we answer the call.

First comes Nancy, with courage bright,
Her spirit unyielding, ready to fight.
With words of hope, she lifts the veil,
For democracy’s truth shall always prevail.

Then Adam steps forth, with vision clear,
No ghosts to chase, just a future near.
He speaks of unity, of bridges to mend,
In the face of division, we shall transcend.

Old Jerry stands firm, with wisdom to share,
His heart beats for justice, his voice fills the air.
“Accountability!” he calls with pride,
For the strength of the people shall never subside.

And Maxine, fierce, with passion ablaze,
Calls for justice in these tumultuous days.
“Impeach the hate!” she shouts with might,
For love and equality are our guiding light.

A final cheer, a chorus of hope,
The spirit of democracy helps us cope.
Where once they ruled with fear and disdain,
We rise together, breaking every chain.

Their lies, their rage, now shadows of old,
In the warmth of our truth, we stand bold.
No charlatans here, just voices that sing,
In the heart of the people, democracy’s spring.

And in the light, a banner unfurls:
“Here stands the hope that unites our world.”
_______________________________________________

Finale: Hall of Forgotten Crusaders

“Her Election to Lose — and She Lost.”

Let the record show:
She had the crown, the court, the coin.
She had the press curled at her feet like hounds.
She had the data, the donors, the DNC.
She had the Obamas — high priests of vanity —
chanting her victory into the wind.
She had the world, the polls, the pundits…

And she lost.

Hillary Rodham Clinton —
the empress of inevitability,
chose corruption over courage,
hubris over humility,
Goldman Sachs speeches over Rust Belt souls.

While she cackled behind closed doors,
the Midwest bled in silence.
While she ghosted Wisconsin,
the ghosts of coal miners whispered,
“She doesn’t see us.”

Yes, her election to lose.
And she lost.

And who marched at her side?
Barack Hussein Obama —
The chosen one, who promised hope,
but left Chicago broken and the Middle East in fire.
He weaponized agencies,
spied on journalists,
sent pallets of cash to terror states,
and preached democracy while rigging primaries.
He mocked the flyover states —
“You didn’t build that,”
and they remembered.
Oh, they remembered.

The Messiah of Martha’s Vineyard,
watching the republic drown
from the deck of his $12 million hypocrisy.

Together, they birthed a party of mirrors and masks —
no message, just moralizing.
No platform, just pronouns.
No bread, just lectures.

And when the reckoning came —
when the farmer, the welder, the waitress awoke —
they didn’t choose Hillary.
They chose the hammer that would smash their palace.

The media wept.
The pollsters gnashed.
Hollywood howled into champagne.
But it was done.
The Clinton star fell — and with it,
the lie that they were untouchable.

No Russian wizard did this.
No Facebook spell.
No Macedonian meme farm.
Just the arrogance of fools,
crumbling beneath the weight of their own deceit.

And now?
They wander the Hall of Forgotten Crusaders,
etching memoirs no one reads,
recasting history no one buys,
grasping for relevance that vanished
on November 8, 2016.

Let it be carved in stone:

She had it all.
She lost it all.
And it was glorious.

END.

Lawfare and Leviathan: How the Bureaucratic State Became the Real Sovereign. The Prosecution Presidency: Biden, Trump, and the Death of Neutral Law. Justice or Anarchy? The Weaponization of Law in a Post-Constitutional America. Who Runs America? Bureaucrats, Billionaires, and the Puppets They Fund. From Republic to Regime: How Corporate Donors and Unelected Agencies Usurped the Constitution. The Invisible Coup: How Corporate Power and Federal Bureaucracy Replaced the Voter. The New Liberalism Is Conservative: How Populism Became Revolutionary. Anarchists in Suits: When the Left Became the Defenders of Empire. Trump the Radical, AOC the Conservative: The Great American Role Reversal. Rule by Indictment: The Fall of the American Constitutional Order. Soft Tyranny in the Age of Biden: Law, Lobbyists, and the Loss of Liberty. Technocracy Unmasked: The Corruption of Courts, Congress, and the Corporate State.

The U.S. no longer operates as a republic but as a technocratic, bureaucratic regime controlled by unelected officials, lobbyists, and billionaires. Legal warfare (“lawfare”) is not just a symptom but a strategy used by this managerial class to maintain power — and Donald Trump’s prosecution marks its most radical form. The American republic has fallen not with a coup, but with a quiet regime change. The new regime maintains democratic aesthetics, but behind them lies a fusion of lawfare, corporate oligarchy, and bureaucratic inertia.

The attempt to develop a provocative and thematically coherent framework that blends political theory, populist critique, and institutional analysis into a meta-narrative about the decline of the American republic and the rise of a technocratic-managerial regime. The titles and framing devices — such as “Lawfare and Leviathan,” “The Invisible Coup,” and “Anarchists in Suits” — effectively dramatize what many populists and dissidents perceive: that the traditional Left-Right spectrum has inverted, and that power now flows through informal, unelected, and often opaque networks of influence.

The United States no longer functions as a constitutional republic but as a bureaucratic-managerial regime, where unelected actors — from federal agencies and corporate lobbies to tech billionaires — exert de facto control through mechanisms like lawfare, regulatory capture, and financial influence. This regime maintains the appearance of democracy while insulating itself from genuine democratic accountability.

Anarchism is typically anti-state — yet the accusation here is that the state is growing too powerful. This legalistic anarchy, where the rule of law is no longer predictable or binding but selectively applied to punish dissent. Biden’s figurehead governance or executive inertia, compares to the Wilson Administration after he suffered a stroke and collapsed.

Clinton’s prostitution of MSM like Maddow’s chirping for three years the Russia-gate scandal slander of President Trump, Pelosi’s twice attempt to impeach the President, the Jan 6 Democratic committee lynch mob, Tom Homan vs AOC, or the Hunter Biden laptop suppression. Each anchor, abstract critiques in concrete controversies. The EU’s technocracy, Trudeau’s Emergencies Act, WEF influence show how the “invisible coup”, not uniquely American but part of a global managerial turn.

The United States no longer functions as a constitutional republic. It has undergone a silent regime change, not through armed insurrection or revolution, but via the incremental expansion of an unelected managerial class — one composed of federal agencies, tech oligarchs, corporate lobbyists, and judicial partisans who enforce their will through a new weapon: lawfare.

This new regime maintains the aesthetics of democracy — elections, laws, and televised debate — while insulating itself from true democratic accountability. The real power lies in what the public never votes for: the bureaucrats who write regulations, the judges who interpret law by ideological alignment, and the billionaires who fund narratives, campaigns, and policies from behind the scenes.

The hallmark of this new regime is the politicization of justice. When courts cease to be impartial and prosecutions become tools of political suppression, the republic dies by a thousand subpoenas. Trump’s legal troubles, regardless of personal guilt, are emblematic of this transformation: trials as political theater, indictments as electoral strategies.

The managerial state rules by inertia. Congressional deadlock, executive figureheads, and judicial activism have created a vacuum filled by alphabet agencies and “public-private partnerships.” These unaccountable bureaucracies write binding policy with the force of law — but without a single vote cast. The merger of tech censorship, legal persecution, and bureaucratic overreach simply not some ‘democratic oversight’ — but oligarchic enforcement dolled-up in liberal clothing.

Today, populists who challenge the bureaucratic order branded as “criminal radicals,” while those defending entrenched power modelled as whores advertising their trade behind window-panes, as “progressives.” The roles have reversed: dismantling unaccountable federal agencies, restoring legislative primacy, and enforcing transparency, now exist as “revolutionary” ideas. Meanwhile, defending a bloated alien blob infested federal apparatus has become the hallmark of “liberal” governance.

Anarchy doesn’t always burn like Molotov cocktails thrown at SS soldiers at the Warsaw Ghetto revolt. Today, anarchy wears a suit, like as does the current dictator of Syria, or sits on some judicial bench. Law in America, no longer consistent, Court prosecutions politically selective, the consequence of this political corruption — legalistic anarchy — an unstable bankrupt regime cloaked in all manner of legal pretense. This, simply not a critique of the Biden administration alone. That would make it shallow reactionary Trump derangement syndrome stupid. Nor does it limit its condemnation only to the Democratic Party. Republicans too have become fat and sassy comfortable puppets of the same donor class and administrative inertia. The crisis confronting our American Constitutional Republic – structural.

If America rejects the Bush slander of the US Constitution, calling it just a GD piece of paper! We the People of the United States must confront this Leviathan perversion of our Constitutional Republic unto a bureaucratic dictatorship — not just by winning elections, but by dismantling the unelected machinery of governance that makes elections irrelevant, and restore the autonomy of the States to bureaucratically regulate all Industry and commerce transactions within each and every State of the Union without Washington Big Brother. The original Constitution, designed for a limited, representative republic, not Carpet Bagger Federal unelected bureaucrats employing more Americans than does private industry. This bloated post American Civil War technocratic regime, cloaked in democratic ritual, governed by lawfare, money, and media manipulation as replaced the power of the State Legislatures to hold elected Senators and Congressmen accountable to represent the States which appoint them to power in Washington in the first place.

Previous Biden administration’s multiple legal confrontations with Trump (including criminal trials and accusations of politically motivated prosecutions) could be seen as “anarchist in political orientation” — taps into a widespread right-wing concern about the politicization of the justice system.

Supporters of these prosecutions, both State & Federal, argue no one is above the law — and Trump’s actions legitimately warrant investigation. Yet this ignores the historical fact that the manner the Democratic Party conducts itself while in power – totally unprecedented in American history.

This “arrest your political opponents” smacks of socialist/communist Anarchism. Have no heard any defense made by any Democratic leader which contends and rejects this observation made by an outsider US citizen living abroad. Anarchism typically means the rejection of law, order, and authority, often aimed at dismantling state structures, and the Federal and State Court systems together with the entire Federal bureaucracy, based upon all the corruption which Elon Musk has uncovered and exposed, totally corrupt and debased.

Especially under the mentally handicapped Biden Administration the suspicion stands: “Who operates and controls the Government? The President, Congress, and Supreme Court vs the Federal bureaucrats in alliance with the lobbies/Corporate monopoly donors who make huge “investments” which Democrat or Republican or Independent leaders get elected to Office. This infusion of “corporate investments” into the political election process” has cause the costs to elect or run for political office to force political candidates of all stripes – left or right – to prostitute themselves as the whores of the Corporate monopolies! Hence the question stands: “Who actually runs the Federal and State Governments? Do the Constitutional bodies/legislature in the States\ run State and Federal Government OR do the CEOs of corporate monopolies pull the strings of the elected official puppets?

Tom Homan vs AOC serves as an example. Does the Trump Administration seek to dismantle the huge Federal bureaucracy vs AOC who promotes maintaining the old order status quo? This conflict in effect reverses the roles of liberals vs conservatives! Maintaining the status quo – Conservatism. While dismantling the expensive Federal Bureaucracy and holding judges accountable for their legal rulings qualifies as “Liberal”.

Lawfare and Leviathan: How the Bureaucratic State Became the Real Sovereign
The rise of legal warfare, political prosecutions, and the triumph of unelected power in post-constitutional America. The Prosecution Presidency: Biden, Trump, and the Death of Neutral Law. How weaponized justice marks the collapse of bipartisan legitimacy and opens the gates to civil unraveling.

Justice or Anarchy? The Weaponization of Law in a Post-Constitutional America
When courts become political actors and elections become proxy wars for bureaucratic control. Who Runs America? Bureaucrats, Billionaires, and the Puppets They Fund? Inside the shadow regime that governs Washington — and the illusion of electoral choice. Trump the Radical, AOC the Conservative: The Great American Role Reversal. How populist revolt threatens the administrative state — and why today’s “liberals” are defending empire.

The Invisible Coup: How Corporate Power and Federal Bureaucracy Replaced the Voter. A diagnosis of American democracy in decline — and the managerial elite who stage-manage consent. Anarchists in Suits: When the Left Became the Defenders of Empire. The paradox of order through chaos — and how progressive rhetoric now masks the enforcement arm of oligarchy.

A polemical, politically charged analysis of America’s transformation from a constitutional republic to a bureaucratic-technocratic regime. The American Republic has not fallen through revolution, but through a bureaucratic-technocratic quiet coup — one that hides behind the façade of law, elections, and democratic rhetoric while consolidating power in unelected, unaccountable networks of billionaires, lobbyists, and federal agencies. States Rights bureaucrat Washington bites.

Second Blog Draft

Who Was the Rambam—and What Legacy Did He Impose on the Jewish People?

Introduction:

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam (1135–1204), is hailed by many as a towering figure in Jewish thought. Yet others regard him as a watershed moment in the distortion of Torah-based halakhic method. This piece revisits the 1232 ban by the Baalei Tosafot, critiques the statute law model he introduced, and traces its impact on post-Talmudic halakhic jurisprudence, from the Mishneh Torah to modern-day corruption in divorce courts.

I. Was the 1232 Ban Against Only the Moreh Nevuchim, or Also the Mishneh Torah?

The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and the French rabbinate) explicitly targeted Moreh Nevuchim, the “Guide for the Perplexed,” for its open admiration of Aristotelian syllogism and Islamic philosophical rationalism.

However, the Mishneh Torah—Rambam’s systematic codification of halakha—was also seen by many as problematic. It mimicked Greco-Roman statute law structure, replacing the dynamic, precedent-based Talmudic common law with a centralized, closed system. Like King Solomon’s Temple, which borrowed architectural grandeur from Gentile models, Rambam’s code mirrored foreign legislative models—imposing order at the cost of legal vitality.

II. What Was Lost: The Common Law of the Ba’alei Tosafot

The Ba’alei Tosafot—primarily in France and Germany—built a rich tradition of common law interpretation, cross-referencing sugyot, preserving disputes, and rejecting final codification. They upheld the Talmud as a living legal corpus, built on etzem ha-mishpat—the essence of judicial synthesis. In their eyes, law was forged in the courtroom, not imposed from above by a code.

The Mishneh Torah represented a break. It absorbed the spirit of Roman law: hierarchical, closed, and subordinating courts to codified legislation. The Ba’alei Tosafot responded with fierce resistance—an Ashkenazi defense of brit-based halakha over rationalist systematization.

III. Post-Rambam Decay: Statute Law Judaism and the Collapse of Dayyanut Britit

The Shulchan Aruch, published centuries later, sealed this shift. Though R. Yosef Karo and R. Moshe Isserles tried to preserve tradition, their work became a new foundation for posek-ism and pilpulist culture, where halakha was deduced from books—not argued in beit din.

This legal culture abandoned the Talmudic three-man courtroom: Judge, Prosecutor, and Defender. Like modern kashrut mashgichim paid by the businesses they supervise, this introduced conflicts of interest and destroyed the ideal of impartial Torah courts. The collapse of dayyanut britit is not merely a procedural shift—it is a theological and moral betrayal.

IV. The Tragedy of the Agunah and the Legal Power of Beit Din

One of the greatest casualties of statute law Judaism is the agunah—women trapped in failed marriages by recalcitrant husbands. Post-Rambam rabbis, ignorant of precedent-based halakhic tools, claim impotence, blaming divine limitations.

Yet sources like Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b affirm that Beit Din holds power to issue a get, impose nidui (excommunication), and retroactively annul kiddushin when a man defies halakhic oath obligations. These powers are grounded in:

  • The Shemittah loophole through heter mechirah
  • Prosbul annulment of debts
  • The minhag of selling chametz
  • The halakhic transformation of a ger tzedek into a “new creation”
  • The precedent of כרת to sever false oath-makers from the people

A beit din thus retains the Torah authority to rescue agunot and strike down the wickedness of oath-breaking husbands. A true dayyanut britit must reclaim this power—rejecting passive Rabbinic court culture and restoring justice grounded in inter-sugya synthesis and covenantal legal thought.

V. Conclusion: From Covenant to Codification, and Back Again

The Rambam’s rationalist turn sought clarity, but at a cost: the loss of Torah’s organic, precedent-based legal dynamism. The post-Rambam halakhic world increasingly resembled Roman legalism, not Talmudic brit. The Tosafists refused to close the book. They commented, argued, cross-referenced, and kept the law alive.

It’s time to revisit their model—not for nostalgia, but for justice. A halakhic renaissance will come not from new codes, but from revived courts, where disputes are judged not by the shadow of Rome, but in the light of Sinai.

FIRST BLOG DRAFT

Why Xtian “Heartfelt Prayer” Compares to Taking a Dump in a Stream and Laughing at the People Downstream Who Drink the Water

The term “heartfelt prayer” qualifies as religious rhetoric—pie-in-the-sky nonsense. In Yiddish: narishkeit. Christianity, to this day, rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah’s 13 tohor middot. The inductive, dynamic logic of these tohor principles is impossible to grasp using Aristotle’s or Plato’s static deductive logic. The Torah logic system operates on an entirely different and fundamentally opposed method than the rigid block-like thinking of classical metaphysics. Think: Egyptian pyramid logic—geometric, immobile, tomb-like.

Inductive reasoning stands on the foundation of Order. G O D vs D O G. The rearrangement of letters symbolizes the rearrangement of conceptual logic. That’s why the Jewish prayer book is called the Siddur, rooted in the Hebrew verb ס-ד-ר, meaning Order. The Oral Torah—which the Church rejects—functions on the foundation of Order. Law intent is learned by “ordering” comparative precedent cases that oppose one another, like a prosecutor and defense attorney in court. Hebrew verbs are built from triliteral roots. For example, ק-ד-ש can mean either Holy or Prostitute, depending on context. Language, like logic, requires dynamic orientation.

In the 19th century, Hegelian dialectics, itself indebted to Newton’s Third Law—”for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”—pushed philosophy closer to dynamic logic. Newton had to invent calculus to understand dynamic systems; static algebra wouldn’t cut it.

Algebra is crucial for static engineering, such as bridges. Similarly, Aristotle’s syllogism—while not literally triangular—is best illustrated as a triangle: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. It’s tidy, symmetrical, and dead. Deductive reasoning locks truth into geometric cages. That’s why the Church abhors the Talmud—it’s alive. The Talmud’s common law method is based on inductive, dynamic logic that compares precedent rulings—case law, not codified statute.

Hebrew logic revolves around דיוק (di’uk)—logical inference. The Mishnah is like a front view of a legal blueprint. The Gemara brings in halachic precedents (rules or cases) from other Mishnaic tractates—top or side views. You fold these perspectives together like facets of a diamond. This is not commentary in the Greek sense. It’s halachic geometry—multi-angle precedent comprehension.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi called his Oral Torah codification Mishnah—a term derived from the Book of Devarim, also called משנה תורה (Mishneh Torah), which means Common Law, not the Rambam’s misappropriation of the same title. Rambam’s Yad Chazaka might be a perversion of dynamic logic into static codes, but it did preserve Hebrew as a living language, unlike Latin or ancient Greek. So yes—he’s our SOB.

Still, the Yad triggered an ideological earthquake, giving rise to the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. These static codes served the ghetto gulag era perfectly. But once Napoleon emancipated the Jews, secularism emerged, and Reform Judaism declared the whole code system archaic. Why? Because the Torah was interpreted as a religion instead of as a political-legal constitution.

Order of Tefillah vs Christian Prayer

The Shemoneh Esrei prayer has a very specific order: 3 + 13 + 3 blessings. That order reflects the Torah’s 613 commandments, per the Rambam. The 13 central blessings mirror the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe after the Golden Calf incident. The Church mistranslates “tefillah” as “prayer,” but that’s like mistaking a contract for poetry. You don’t read Psalms (Tehillim) and claim you’ve entered a covenant.

To cut a brit—a Torah oath alliance—you must invoke Shem U’Malchut (the Name and Kingship). These are not words but functions: the Spirit and the Rule of Law. No Christian or Muslim text contains the Name of HaShem. Thus, they cannot cut a brit. Their so-called “covenants” are no more legitimate than scribbles on a napkin.

Christian heartfelt prayer is just that: heart-gas. Tefillah, by contrast, is legally structured—standing before a Sefer Torah, swearing an oath to behave with defined tohor middot. This isn’t about feelings. It’s a constitutional declaration to your people, to HaShem, to the future.

The Torah has 54 parshiot (weekly readings). 4 (letters in the Name) × 13 (middot) = 52. The remaining two parshiot contain blessings and curses—called the “two crowns” in the Talmud. To accept the Torah is to accept life-and-death consequences. Like a husband accepts responsibility for his wife, a Jew accepts the justice burden of nationhood.

Final Contrast

Tefillah is a matter of the heart, yes—but not sentimentalism. The Mishna in Berakhot explains b’chol levavcha (with all your heart) as a battle between opposing spirits: tohor and tumah. The shofar represents the Shem of the brit—a breath blown. But it’s kavanah—directed intent—that distinguishes the spirit from mere air.

Each of the 6 Yomim Tovim and Shabbat correspond to different spirit-names: Yah, HaEl, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish HaElohim, and Shalom. That’s the 3 + 13 + 3 structure: a framework of judicial, covenantal precision—not emotional discharge. To treat prayer like a diary entry, rather than a legal act, is to defecate in the spiritual stream.

And laugh as those downstream drink the poisoned waters.

Why Xtian “Heart felt prayer” compares to taking a dump in a stream and laughing at the people down stream who drink the water.

The term “heartfelt prayer” qualifies as religious rhetoric pie in the sky nonsense/narishkeit in Yiddish. Xtianity rejects to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot. The inductive dynamic logic of this tohor logic system – impossible to employ Aristotle or Plato’s static deductive logic to grasp and understand an entirely different logic system all together and completely opposed to rigid block like thinking. The Egyptians logic based upon “block” thinking – its how they built the Pyramids.

Inductive reasoning stands upon the foundation of Order. G O D vs D O G. Order changes everything. Hence the Jewish prayerbook called Siddur. This word contains the 3 letter root verb ס ד ר – which means “Order”. The Oral Torah which the church rejects, despite the fact that the mitzva of Moshiach – an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah dynamics stand upon the foundation of Order. Law intent learned by “ordering” comparative precedent cases that oppose one another like a prosecutor vs a defense attorney. Hebrew verbs build around 3 letter roots. ק ד ש this root verb can either mean Holy or Prostitute/whore. Hagel’s logic dialectics of the late 19th Century, his logic format too focused upon Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This 3rd Law of Motion by definition dynamic and not static. Hence for Newton to derive this law he had to develop Calculus rather than rely upon static Algebra.

Algebra is essential in static engineering, particularly in the design and analysis of structures like bridges. While Aristotle’s syllogism itself is not directly based on a triangle, it can be represented visually in a triangular format to illustrate the relationships between the premises and the conclusion. In this triangular format, you can think of the major premise at the top, the minor premise on one side, and the conclusion on the other side. This triangular representation emphasizes the static nature of deductive reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises, provided that the premises are valid. It illustrates how logical arguments can be constructed in a clear and structured manner, making it easier to analyze and understand the relationships between different statements.

The Church abhors to this day the Talmud b/c this codification of Oral Torah common law builds around inductive dynamic logic rather than deductive static logic. Court legal cases compare precedent previous rulings – a dynamic reasoning process similar but different than Newton’s calculus and Hegels bi-polar dialectics. Hebrew logic spins around the central axis of making the דיוק, roughly translated as logical inference. Case law compares to the 3 different views contained in a blue print. The Human aging process a slow dynamic of change in the body.

The Mishna presents, using the blue print metaphor, as the front view of One or Two similar Cases argued before Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. The Gemara brings external Cases – known as halacha – from different mesechtot of the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The word Mishna which rabbi Yechuda named for his Oral Torah codification comes from the Book of D’varim – also known as משנה תורה\Mishna Torah (Not to be confused with the Rambam perversion, his statute static law code which presumptuously named Mishna Torah. This deranged rabbi did not know that Mishna Torah means “Common Law”. Hence Jews who have a bit of Torah education refer to his legal codification of Halacha as “Yad Chazaka/Strong Hand”.). The 5th Book of the Torah defines Torah law as a common law legal system! Hence rabbi Yechuda as head of the Great Sanhedrin named his common law codification – the Mishna.

The Gemara commentary to the Mishna therefore brings other halachic precedents gathered from any of the other Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as Top or Side view precedents to understand the Front view of the cases – as presented by the basic language of the Mishna itself. By folding the Gemara precedents back upon the very language of the Mishna the Frontal view changes to a different perspective. Something akin to looking at different facets of a diamond. Herein defines how the Gemara “commentary” understood the simple language of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishnaot as partially codified within the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmuds.
____________________________________________________________________________________

With this introduction can now address the distinction between Hebrew tefillah from non Jewish “prayer”. The latter does not correctly translate the former. Non Jewish prayer similar to saying Tehillem/Psalms. Saying Tehillem a person never says שם ומלכות, an abstract term essential to comprehend a Torah brit alliance. Tefillah based upon its Order: 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, this Order recombines into 613, the number of commandments of the Torah according to the רשע, the Rambam. In his defense – his Yad static code perversion greatly contributed to saving the Hebrew language from going extinct and becoming just another dead language like ancient Greek or Latin. Its exceptionally important to validate the merits of the Rambam. He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.

A bit of a digression but his code caused a Civil War among Jews which it appears to me caused the down water streams of Yiddishkeit to endure 3 Centuries of ghetto gulags. The Rambam has a tremendous impact upon Jewry. His code compares to Earth Tectonic plates! Orthodox Judaism stands upon the foundations of the static statute law codes introduced by the Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. These static codes served the petrified environmental conditions of the ghetto gulags perfectly. But when Napoleon freed the Yidden from the Catholic war-crimes, the “shit hit the fan”. Reform Judaism declared the static statute law codes archaic and the American and French Revolutions made the huge innovation – separation of church from state – which gave birth to secularism. Chiloni Jews in Israel and g’lut/exile\Jews living in foreign countries – secular non religious Jews. Judaism the religion which the chiloni Jews reject – based upon the perversion of deductive statute law halachic codes.
________________________________________________________________________

The Order of tefillah 3 + 13 + 3 makes a numerical רמז/hint to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat. The 13 middle blessings contained within the body of the Shemone Esrei tefillah DeRabbanan, adjacent to tefillah from the Torah – the kre’a shma. This opening verse: Hear Israel HaShem our God HaShem One, contains – 3 Divine Names just as the blessing of the Cohenim contains 3 blessings. Hence the Shemone Esrei contains 3 ___ 3 blessings. The key concept that a blessing requires שם ומלכות, herein defines the key pre-condition of swearing a Torah oath alliance! Neither word can be translated. A טיפש פשט/bird brained translation of Name + Kingship = tits on a boar hog stupidity. Common law not read like a novel or Harry Potter gospel books of fiction. Xtians read their bible mistranslations. Common law learned through the dynamics of bringing Case/Rule precedents/halachot.

Hence to cut a Torah brit requires שם ומלכות. Neither the Xtian bible nor Muslim koran ever once brings the Name of השם ever within tomes/tombs homophones. Returning to _____ +13 _____. Why 13 middle blessings within the “Order” of the Shemone Esrei. The 13 middot of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev following the Golden Calf “substitution theology” avoda zarah. Post the טיפש פשט, literal translation of “Golden Calf”, HaShem made a vow to substitute the seed of Moshe for the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen People. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the creation of the chosen Cohen people by means of Av tohor time oriented commandments (both kre’a shma and tefillah qualify as Av tohor time oriented commandments). On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva (as opposed to the טיפש פשט translation of repentance) upon His error of substitute theology and annulled the vow! Hence both a father and a husban can annul the vow made by a young daughter or a wife! But not even HaShem can annul a Torah sworn oath. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Xtian reading of Jerimiah “new covenant”; covenant does not correctly translate brit which actually means “sworn alliance”. To swear a brit alliance requires that a man swear this oath in the Name of HaShem. This Name absent in the bible and koran – different and strange tome/tomb nonsense. Translating the 1st Commandment Spirit to crude word translations = the Sin of the Golden Calf.

To grasp the priority of Order, the Torah organized into 54 divisions called Parshiot. שם ומלכות … four (letters in the Name) X 13 (Oral Torah middot) = 52. The two remaining Parshiot contain the blessings and curses of the Torah. The Talmud in mesechta shabbat refers to these to Parshiot as the “two Crowns of the Torah”. A man in order to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai must embrace, like a man does his wife following their wedding, responsibilities of Life or Death — blessing or curse — rule the oath lands with justice or endure Par’o like oppression in g’lut.

Therefore the mitzva of tefillah, a man ideally stands before a Sefer Torah and swears a brit Torah oath which dedicates (just like a korban placed upon the altar of Zion) defined tohor middot לשמה. Meaning a man dedicates how he will conduct his social life with his family neighbors and people in the future! Herein separates and distinguishes the fundament differences between reading prayers of Psalms as read from a book and swearing a Torah oath with dedicates tohor middot as the king which directs a man’s future social behavior with others among his people. Why? Because Israel came out of the judicial oppression of Par’o corrut courtroom ‘Star Court’, to conquer and rule the land of Canaan with righteous judicial court room common law justice. Jewish common law completely different from Legislative statute law decrees — like Jewish courtroom common law absolutely estranged from Greek and Roman statute decrees ruled from some foreign Roman Senate.

Tefillah a matter of the heart. Based upon the instruction of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna in ברכות which explains בכל לבבך\כם as the struggle between opposing spirits – tohor vs. tuma – within the heart. The mitzva of blowing the Shofar interprets שם component of the brit sworn oath as a breath blown. But k’vanna separates, like shabbat from chol, the spirit living within the heart from the air emitted from the lungs. Hence the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat, each dedicate and breath different spirit names alive within the heart. These spirit names Yah, Ha’el, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish Ha’Elohim, and Shalom. The 3 ____ 3 Order of the Shemone Esrei makes a רמז\hint to this deep kabbalah which answers why tefillah requires k’vanna.

The church forever bound to the crimes committed by European empires.

Historical narratives can obscure, sanitize, or selectively glorify institutions that, in parallel, committed egregious moral or political crimes. The original text, while seemingly a dry academic history of mathematics education in early modern Europe, is a perfect case of what might be called Catholic mathematical pornography—a term that sharply calls out the juxtaposition of intellectual achievement with institutional corruption or moral cowardice. It’s “pornographic” not in the sexual sense but in the sense of aestheticizing or fetishizing something (here, the rise of math and learning) while ignoring the grotesque backdrop: the Inquisition, colonization, financial imperialism, and systemic war crimes enabled or committed by the same institutions being lauded.

Presenting figures like Clavius (Jesuit promoter of mathematical astronomy) without confronting how Jesuits operated as ideological stormtroopers of the Counter-Reformation and helped crush dissent in Catholic Europe and beyond. For example, Gresham’s financial wizardry is celebrated without interrogating the brutal colonial context of the East India Company or the coercive power that underwrote British mercantile success. Mathematical advances in navigation and cartography directly enabled imperial conquest and extraction.

Catholic reforms in education are presented as progressive and constructive, while erasing the destruction of libraries, forced conversions, and burnings of heretics. Jesuit academies, for all their sophistication, were deeply embedded in a structure of repression. Nowhere are the victims of forced Catholic hegemony mentioned—Jews, Muslims, Protestants, indigenous populations—whose knowledge systems were denigrated or annihilated. Instead, we get a sanitized story of intellectual triumph disconnected from ethical reckoning.

True justice demands restitution—not just for physical or material damages but for epistemic violence. When Church-backed institutions rewrote knowledge systems and imposed ideological orthodoxy (via the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Inquisitions, or Jesuit dogma), they didn’t just silence dissenters—they erased entire epistemologies. Restoring justice would require not only acknowledging this theft but actively elevating the suppressed frameworks, whether they be indigenous star maps, Talmudic dialectics, or early Protestant natural philosophy.

The rise of technical disciplines like cartography, astronomy, and finance wasn’t morally neutral. It was weaponized through institutions like the East India Company and the Catholic Church. Celebrating Catholic contributions to math while ignoring Jesuit suppression of dissent is like praising Nazi rocket science while ignoring the slave labor of Mittelbau-Dora. Technological sophistication does not absolve moral crime. True justice requires narrative restitution—to recover buried stories, to discredit the myths of civilizing empires, and to expose how the façade of intellectual enlightenment often covered brutality, repression, and systemic theft.

mosckerr
High finance and higher education the legacy of Thomas Gresham 

Herein represents another brittle and rigid example of revisionist history and replacement theology

An End To War

sbwheeler presents a superficially noble message – that peace and justice come from letting go of past grievances and attachments. However, behind the appearance of universal moralism lies a rigid, deeply prejudicial framework that subtly blames Israel and erases Jewish historical suffering while denying the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination. The logic of his argument leads to the condemnation of Israel to a kind of moral isolation – cut off from justice, history, and rights.

The author suggests that because “both sides feel they have ‘moral right,’” neither can truly be just. This is a dangerous moral relativism. It strips oppressed or endangered peoples of the ability to name actual harms. By equating the powerful with the powerless, the occupier with the displaced, the genocidal with the defensive, he evacuates history of moral clarity.

Feeling moral does not make one moral. Justice is not based on subjective feelings but on facts: who has been wronged, who is under threat, who is denied self-determination. Israel’s struggle for security and survival in the face of repeated wars, terrorism, and genocidal threats cannot be reduced to “attachments” or “desires” that must be relinquished for the sake of peace.

The author says we must “let go our attachment to past injury – to past injustice” and that we “cannot isolate particular events and say, ‘that was unjust.’” This is not just morally wrong; it is historically blind. It implies that memory of the Holocaust, centuries of exile, pogroms, expulsions, and Islamic and Christian antisemitism should be set aside as if they are petty grievances.

Without truth, there is no reconciliation. Telling Jews to forget the past is itself a form of violence. The Jewish people’s return to their land is not just about “desire” – it is about justice, survival, and reclaiming a sovereign refuge in a world that has proven lethally hostile. Peace without history is not peace – it is appeasement of injustice.

The author claims, “In truth, we do not have ‘rights.’” This is an astonishing and dangerous claim. He implies that international law, historical treaties, national sovereignty, and legal self-defense are all meaningless because they are just rationalized desires.

Rights are not mere desires. The Jewish people’s right to self-determination is grounded in international law (e.g., Balfour Declaration, San Remo, UN Partition Plan), historical continuity, and moral necessity. Erasing the concept of rights undermines every oppressed people’s pursuit of justice and opens the door to tyranny cloaked in pacifism.

The author misappropriates the language of “truth and reconciliation” but removes truth from the equation. Real reconciliation, as seen in South Africa or post-genocide Rwanda, begins with acknowledgment of harm, accountability, and restitution – not with mutual abdication of justice.

Jewish peace efforts – from Oslo to Camp David – have always involved recognition of Palestinian aspirations. But peace cannot come at the price of Jewish erasure. The author’s call for reconciliation demands Jewish surrender, not mutual understanding. That is not peace; that is soft political porn antisemitism posing as moral philosophy.

By suggesting that attachment to justice is what causes war, the author inverts reality. Those who resist annihilation are blamed for refusing to “let go.” This framework subtly but unmistakably condemns Israel for its very existence – for its refusal to commit national suicide in the name of a false peace.

Wanting to live safely in one’s ancestral homeland is not clinging to grievance. It is dignity. It is survival. The refusal to be exterminated again is not “attachment” – it is the most basic human right.

Finally, the author wraps his argument in lofty language about “being Human,” implying that only those who lay down arms and abandon identity are truly enlightened. This is condescending and hypocritical. It demands Jews disarm – physically, morally, and historically – while their enemies are never required to renounce genocidal aims or terror.

True humanity requires the defense of life, liberty, and justice. Jews are not less human because they refuse to be victims. A peace that demands Jewish self-abnegation is not peace – it is submission to injustice disguised as virtue.

This essay is not a call for universal peace – it is a polite sermon for Jewish disappearance. It demands that Jews renounce history, law, rights, memory, and moral clarity. It masks its prejudice in high-minded language but ultimately advances a cruel, supremacist vision in which the Jewish desire to live and defend itself is deemed the obstacle to peace. This is not moral wisdom – it is rhetorical poison.

True justice begins not with the erasure of history but with its honest reckoning. True peace comes not from abandoning rights but from affirming them for all peoples – including the Jewish people, in their land. And true justice requires fair compensation of damages inflicted upon victims. This justice ideal a bit complex when it involves nation states rather than single individuals because a nation state has a long continuous history.

True justice requires fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty because without restitution, justice is incomplete—it becomes abstract, performative, or punitive rather than transformative. Justice, especially in the biblical and legal traditions, is not merely about identifying wrongs—it’s about setting things right. When harm is done—whether through theft, violence, displacement, or oppression—justice demands not only that the wrongdoer be named but that the victim be restored as far as possible to the condition they would have been in had the harm not occurred.

In Torah law, for example, a thief does not just apologize—he pays back double (Exodus 22:3). A person who causes injury must compensate for lost wages and healing (Exodus 21:18–19). This reflects the foundational belief that repentance and accountability must be grounded in tangible restitution.

If those who inflict damage walk away without any responsibility to repair what they’ve destroyed, then justice is reduced to rhetoric. For victims, recognition without compensation can feel like a second violation—an acknowledgment of pain with no commitment to healing.

Reconciliation cannot occur merely by declaring peace or moving on. It requires a process in which the offender takes real responsibility. That includes acknowledging specific harms, making amends proportionate to the damage, allowing victims to speak and be heard. Without this, “peace” is a disguise for impunity. As in post-apartheid South Africa or post-genocide Rwanda, reconciliation efforts were only meaningful because they included truth-telling, reparations, and structural changes.

When the damage is inflicted by nation-states—over decades or centuries—restitution becomes more complex, but no less necessary. A nation is not a single person who can say “sorry” and move on. Nations inherit the benefits of past injustices—and justice demands they also inherit the responsibility. This is why land reparations, acknowledgment of ethnic cleansing, financial compensation, return of looted property, and legal recognition of sovereignty are essential elements of post-conflict justice.

The idea pawned off as political porn, that Israel post the Oct 7th 2023 abomination has an obligation to establish a Palestinian state. Following the collapse of the British “Palestine” Mandate, Palestine ceased to exist. Neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Yet soft political porn demands that Israel do what no Arab country as ever done. Yes Israel repatriated 850,000 expelled Jewish refugees while the 22 Arab states have adamantly refused to repatriate and give citizenship to the 600,000 1948 Arab refugees who fled on the orders of their own leaders!

Restitution is not just for the sake of the guilty—it affirms the dignity and rights of the harmed. It says: you matter enough to be restored. Your suffering is not an unfortunate side effect to be forgotten but a wrong that must be redressed. In Jewish theology and halakhah, this is part of the t’shuvah (repentance) process. There is no true atonement without making things right with the human being who was harmed. Any concept of “justice” that lacks restitution risks becoming a tool for the powerful to evade consequences while asking the wounded to forget.

The Oct 7th Abomination War has forced Israel to re-address its diplomatic relations with the UN and related courts which pretend they hold judicial jurisdiction over Israel like strings which guide the actions of a puppet.

Unlike every other nation, Israel is the only country subject to a standing agenda item (Item 7) at every session of the U.N. Human Rights Council. That means at each of the Council’s three annual sessions, a dedicated debate is held solely to condemn Israel’s actions. No other country—even Syria, North Korea, China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia—faces this perpetual, institutionalized scrutiny.

Item 7 guarantees a steady stream of resolutions and “fact‑finding” missions against Israel, long after any specific incident has faded. It absolves the Council of having to take up egregious abuses elsewhere, because Israel is always on the docket. Israel is demonized as a perpetual violator of human rights, while far more serious rights‑abuses by other states go largely unaddressed.

To participate fully in bodies like the General Assembly Bureau, Economic and Social Council, or Human Rights Council, member states join one of five regional groups. Israel was placed in the “Western Europe and Others Group” (WEOG)—an anomalous category that mixes Europe, North America, Australia, and a handful of others. Geographically and politically, Israel belongs in the Asia‑Pacific Group, alongside its neighbors. The Asia‑Pacific Group has refused to admit Israel, effectively ghettoizing it in WEOG and limiting its ability to stand for U.N. officers, host sessions, or be fairly represented on key committees.

By keeping Israel out of its proper regional bloc, the U.N. system segregates Israel rather than treating it as an equal Middle Eastern state. It reinforces the narrative that Israel is an “outsider” in its own neighborhood—making it easier for Arab and Muslim states to rally against it in U.N. forums.

On top of these mechanisms, the U.N. General Assembly routinely adopts more resolutions condemning Israel than against all other countries combined. This isn’t democracy—it’s a political majority wielding the U.N. system as an anti‑Israel megaphone. When the U.N. Single‑out one democracy for endless censure (Item 7), exiles that democracy from its geographic peer group, and floods the GA floor with disproportionate condemnations—it forfeits any claim to impartiality or moral authority.

What Israel Could—and Should—Do? Withdraw or Suspend Participation in bodies that institutionalize this bias (e.g., withhold delegates from Item 7 sessions). Press for Regional Admission to the Asia‑Pacific Group (perhaps via a U.N. Charter amendment or Security Council referral). Leverage Bilateral Forums (Abraham Accords, direct dialogues) and U.N. Reform Coalitions (like the “Uniting for Consensus” group) to push back against structural injustices. Until these systemic imbalances are corrected, the U.N. will remain a platform for political grandstanding—not genuine conflict resolution.