Despús-anit el meu sogre va passar la nit en l’hospital. Li van fer anàlisis i el sucre estava pels núvols.  Ja fa anys que li diuen que es prenga la pastilla de la diabetes i no li dona la gana.

Ahí veus la mentida en la que es basa el món modern, des de la Il·lustració.  La filosofia és: «Que cadascú faça el que li done la gana. Mentre no perjudique als altres».

Però sempre afectes als altres, perquè com va dir John Donne: «ningún hombre es una isla». Si no eres un orfe, sense família, que viu sol en una muntanya, sempre afectes a algú. Que el meu sogre no li done la gana prendre’s la pastilla afecta a la meua dona. Que els meus sogres s’hagen divorciat, afecta a la meua dona i a mi.

La nit de Cap d’Any vam anar a celebrar-la a casa de la meua sogra. Quan ens retiràvem, ens vam trobar al meu sogre en el carrer. La meua dona el va abraçar i va posar-se a plorar. De tant en tant plora, quan pensa que ja mai seran una família.

Al final, tot el que fem afecta en ones concèntriques, com una pedra que es tira en una bassa. Que el iaio  pegara a la iaia  ha afectat a la mare i, de forma indirecta a través de la mare, a nosaltres.

Al final la llibertat d’un es converteix en l’obligació d’un altre. La meua dona té l’obligació d’acceptar una família trencada.  Ella no ha tingut la llibertat de triar. Si el meu sogre es mata a base de fer subnormalitats, la meua dona patirà molt i jo de forma indirecta

Es per això que les societats de tota la història posaven l’èmfasi en que faces el que estiga bé, el que deus fer, perquè és bo per a tu i per als altres. Ara es posa èmfasis en que els teus desitjos son drets. Fes el que vulgues i que els altres li donen pel cul.

Això afavoreix a qui té el poder. El poder es defineix com «la possibilitat de prendre una decisió». A nivell macro, tenim el poder econòmic, polític, etc. Però també hi ha el poder a nivell micro. En el divorci dels meus sogres, el poder el tenien els meus sogres i la meua dona és una dona sense poder (de decisió) en eixa situació. Només ha de tragar el que li donen.

Ací en El Salvador, la gent condueix com a boja. Això dona el poder a la gent que té els vehicles més grans (de vegades, són molt pobres, com conductors d’autobús), que fan el que els dona la gana posant-nos en perill, mentre que els altres anem intentant esquivar-los.

Glorificar la llibertat, significa que el que té el poder en cada situació fa el que li dona la gana i el que no té l’obligació de fotre’s. Si un home canvia a la seua dona per una altra més jove, la primera dona i els fills han de tragar.

Eixa és la mentida en la que basa el món modern. Glorificar la llibertat és donar carta blanca al poder per fer el que li done la gana i que tots els altres tinguem que recollir els costos. Perquè cada llibertat d’una persona és l’obligació de l’altra

«Male reproductive strategies would better be served by screwing everything in sight, not locking things down.»

Only for the 20% of men, who monopolize the attractive women, not for the 80% of men, who end up alone or with a single mom

I have lived both situations. When I was young, I lived in *** and was part of the 80% (I am kind of Asperger-y). I was virgin at the age of 27. Not only virgin, I hadn’t even had a kiss with a woman.

When I was 27, I moved to ***, where I was part of the 20%, because of being foreigner ***. In the following 10 years, my number of couples got higher than 50. Now, 23 years later, I am married to a pleasant woman 20 years my junior, who adores me and treats me like a king.

(I don’t say this to brag. It is not because I am better than anybody. I took advantage of a niche, that’s all.)

I am satisfied but this is a recipe for societal disaster. Monogamy gives a woman for each man and this is the best for the stability and productivity of society. Removing restrictions favors young women and 20% of men. This is a society where a minority lives in a sexual paradise and the majority do not get anything. It’s the society we are transitioning to, which means the society will decline and be conquered by other (patriarchal) societies.

Comments

1. Voatboy says:

   March 5, 2020 at 5:59 pm

   I take it for granted that morphic fields are real and physically verifiable. (That fact usually gets me excluded from discussions of genetics.) If Rupert Sheldrake is right and morphic fields are real then they probably get observed by geneticists who don’t believe in them. Then they probably produce field – mediated effects that are mistaken for genetic inheritance effects. But since most geneticists take it for granted that every sentence c containing “Rupert Sheldrake” can be dismissed, I don’t expect geneticists to start considering my opinion any time soon.
2. CVLR says:

   March 5, 2020 at 6:15 pm

   Sheldrake’s morphic fields appear to be a rationalization (or perhaps a specific instantiation) of extradimensional patterns commonly expressed metaphorically as angels, demons, spirits, gods, Old Ones, and a great cosmic battle over the soul of man.

   These metaphors occur in every tradition besides the scientific materialism, a radical metaphysical break, perhaps without equal in world history.

   It would be funny if everyone else was right.

Notes from «The Day the Rabbis Were Wrong»
Yeshiva course at Messiah 2000
taught by Daniel Gruber
Taken from Glenn David Blank
https://www.lehigh.edu/~gdb0/simcha/Gruber.htm

Textbook for this course is Gruber’s Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah.
Web site at elijahnet.org and email to dan@elijahnet.org.
Dialog with Jewish people (especially Orthodox) is like a soccer game.
Except the game is almost always at our end, with one side taking all the shots!
Well… if we study, we can discover that there’s a whole field to talk about!

Most cultures do not share with our modern Western culture separation of church and state

• Politics and religion are combined, to bring coherence to society and justification to the state
• Religion and politics are different names for the same thing: basis for determining values, standards, power, training of next generation
• Modern West considers war and violence wrong, but not so other cultures
• Many cultures glorify war

Definition of Jewishness

• Prior to destruction of Temple, it was land and Temple-centered
• A few centuries later, it was diaspora and based on halakha
• Seismic shift of authority from kings, priests and prophets to rabbis
• Rabbinic hegemony was not inevitable: they started with no authoritative position
• Think of religious sects as political parties, not as in West but as in India or Iran

Historical sources are few, and contradictory.

• No concept of objectivity or unbiased reporting
• There are limits to objectivity anyway
• Talmud and other Jewish writings were not intended as history but to teach
• The lesson is more important to authors than accuracy of historical details

Historical review

• For Maccabees, the issue was whether to conform to dominant, Hellenistic culture
• Or to remain faithful to Jewish heritage, God and his covenant
• Maccabees were priests, hence had authority as leaders
• Nevertheless, authority was typically established by force and violence if necessary
• Hasmoneans ruled by force and fought among themselves, especially about priesthood and succession
• Romans were invited in to help and helped themselves
• They enforced their will through appointed officials
• All conquered peoples had to sacrifice to Caesar, hence recognizing Caesar as ultimate authority and divine
• Romans made an accommodation of the Jews, recognizing the God of Israel as a god and allowing the sacrifice to be for or on behalf of Caesar.
• 57 BCE: Gabinius established five Sanhedria (a Greek term) as a means of Roman administrative control through native leaders
• High priests and Sanhedrin were Roman appointed
• There were many theo-political groups in Israel

No scholar today believes there was a normative Judaism then

• Rather there were many Judaisms
• But all identity was Temple-centered
• Jewishness was Temple and land-oriented

The Great Revolt: started when a group of Sicarii took Masada from Romans by force, killed all the Roman soldiers and took the fortress from themselves.

• It used to be thought that the Zealots took Masada, but it was actually Sicarii (assassins), according to Josephus.
• So IDF air force no longer take forces to make an oath there.
• Rebellion spreads to Jerusalem and throughout the land.
• However, there were lots of factions fighting among themselves in Jerusalem.
  • It’s hard to keep straight who’s who in Josephus
  • High Priests and leading Pharisees predicted that stopping the sacrifice for Caesar would bring Roman forces and destruction, because it was an act of rebellion, refusing to recognize Caesar’s ultimate authority
  • Josephus says that priests and Pharisees were opposed to the revolt
  • Talmud says that the Rabbis were opposed
  • Josephus says there were supernatural warnings
  • Jerusalem broke down into total violence, comparable to gangs in Somalia
  • Josephus implies that the Romans would have spared the Temple
• According to Talmud (not Josephus), Jochanan Ben Zakkai had himself smuggled out of Jerusalem in a sealed coffin (Jews in city would not let anyone leave)
  • Taken to Roman general, Vespacian, recognizing him as king.
  • Vespacian responds that’s treason, but just then a messenger arrives, reporting that Caesar is dead and Vespacian has been appointed Caesar
  • So Vespacian seeks to reward Jochanan’s prophetic announcement, allowing him to establish an academy of reward at Yavneh (Jamniah)
  • Rabbinic account disassociate Rabbis with Great Revolt and Roman approval of rabbinical academy at Yavneh

Bar Kochba rebellion begins in 132

• In this time period, Rabbanic Judaism begins to develop, structurally

What is a Rabbi?

• Earliest zuggot (pairs of teachers), appear in Hasmonean period, according to Talmud
• No Rabbis in Tenach
• According to Talmud, the first person to be called Rabbi is Yochanan ben Zakkai
• Philo and Josephus did not use the term
• Earliest written use of the term is in the gospels, where it’s an honorific title, not a position
• In Tanakh, leaders were kings, priests, prophets, redeemers, not rabbis.
• Rabbis speak of them as though they were Rabbis, e.g., Moshe Rabbeinu, but Moshe was not a rabbi, as far as Scripture or history were concerned.
• Ezra was a scribe, one of the soferim, and a priest.
• The word ‘rab’ does not describe anything like a rabbi, it describes a captain or chief, or a troop or ship.
• Wise men are not like rabbis, could be gentiles, or craftsmen, not a title or office.
• Hence Talmud is a revisionist document, holding that rabbis were around from creation, not just from Moshe, but from Adam.
• Stuart Cohen points out that rabbis have no position, indeed no existence.
• But in Talmud, rabbis are the wise men, priests, kings – with all authority, and no one, not even God, can contradict them.
• Am ha-aretz (common people) becomes a derogatory term for anyone who doesn’t accept rabbinic authority
• In effect, the ultimate replacement theology: replacing the authority of priests, prophets, Scriptures and G-d, with Rabbis.
• This does not say that the Rabbis are bad people or that they don’t have some worthwhile things to say, rather what took place historically.

Law of Israel was the national law, binding on everyone in the land

• Not a matter of private religious belief; it’s the constitution of Israel.
• Torah was not given to individuals, but to Israel as a nation, when you come into the land.
• A Yeshiva-bukker today would say there is no law for Israel except Jewish law.
• Thus Paul speaks of «the commonwealth» of Israel as a politea.

Oral Law

• Talmud (codified 500 CE) mentions the phrase «oral law» four times, in three places.
• Neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor Qumran, nor Mishnah, nor Tosefta, nor gospels, mention «oral law».
• Indicates that doctrine of oral law develops later, after first century
• These sources do refer to oral traditions.
• For a Pharisee, oral tradition was binding, but it was not called oral law, as a separate revelation from God.
• Three claims about Oral Law: 1) given to Moses at Sinai, 2) an interpretation or elaboration of what was given at Sinai, and 3) a fence around the Torah.
• WRT given at Sinai, 42 or 55 halakhot claimed to have been given at Sinai (a relatively minuscule number), the vast majority were explicitly developed thousands of years later.
• Concept of oral law doesn’t have an end, hence there isn’t a fixed number of halakhot.

Claim #1: The Oral Law is a separate revelation given to Moses at Sinai. See p. 34 ff.
Avoth 1:1: «Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue.»Scriptures speak often of writing and speaking. For example, Ex 2:17, «Write this is on a scroll as something to be remembered and put it in the ears of Joshua.» Note: written first.>

Torah emphasizes what «is written in this book.» Or immediately recording what is said.

• No mention of oral law; it’s always written law that becomes the constitution of Israel
• The written law is the standard by which God says that he’s going to judge Israel.
• It’s obedience to the written law that brings restoration.
• HaShem instructs Joshua to do everything written in the Torah.
• At the end of the Joshua, he reads everything in the Torah. Everything that God commanded through Moses he read, presumably because it was written.
• David tells Solomon to meditate on and do what is written in the book of Torah of Moses.
• Josiah finds and hears the book of Torah that had been lost.
• It was the written Torah that defined what it meant to be faithful to God or not.
• All that God said to Moses was written and later read.
• Ezra and the Levites read from the Torah, and explained it, because they didn’t understand ancient Hebrew (they spoke Aramaic).
• Still no reference to an additional Oral Law; no king, priest or prophet mentions or expresses concern about needing it to know how to govern or worship or live.
• The Rabbinic system or redemption through study of halakha does not appear in Tanakh. Moreover, biblical figures are often doing things that are not according to halakha or even opposed to halakha. (For example, Abraham serves meat and dairy.)

Claim #2: The Oral Law is an interpretation or elaboration of Torah.Menathoth 29b. See p. 49 in the book. Moses asks about the coronets to the letters and God tells him to sit in Akiba’s academy, and is unable to follow the arguments of Akiba. Moses returns to the Holy One, who tells him, «Be silent, for such is My decree.»This passage teaches:

1. The halakha is an elaborate interpretation of Torah, an infinite number of laws (coronets) generated from ornamentation on individual letters.
2. Moses didn’t know halakha. He didn’t recognize what Akiba taught and was ill at ease.
3. Rabbi Akiba gets credit from God as the originator of Oral Law.
4. Neither Akiba nor his disciples recognized Moses, because Akiba is more important than Moses, who sits behind eight rows in Akiba’s class, and is in awe of Akiba.

Talmud distinguishes between laws that are based on Scripture, connected to it, and others that are like «mountains on a hair» connected to Scripture, and others that are completely unconnected to Scripture (hovering in the air above it).

• Halakha permits what the Bible forbids and annul what the Bible forbids.
• E.g., Hillel changes the Torah commandment concerning canceling of debts on seventh year, because people wouldn’t make loans. Hillel instituted prosbul, a legal fiction (something you know isn’t true, but have to act as if it is): loan is a transfer to the community and then not canceled.
• Rabbis effectively claimed that they have authority over Torah.
• Can’t call Oral Law an interpretation of Torah when it’s a negation.

Claim #3: The Oral Law is a fence around Torah. See p. 85.
Avoth 1:1 continues «The latter used to say … make a fence around the Torah.»

• Fence helps one to avoid transgressing the Torah; hence the fence is mercy.
• Question: why does the Torah need a fence around it? Why isn’t Torah good enough?
• Are we preserving the original commandment (keeping it as is) or replacing it?
• Who has the authority to put a fence around Torah?
• This is perhaps the most accurate of the three claims: it is a sign of ownership, prevents access, keeping people removed from Torah itself, because only the Rabbis are authorized to interpret it.
• Studying the Bible itself are of indifferent merit, but studying the Mishnah has merit.
• Hence many Orthodox Jews do not know large portions of Scripture.

Question: how do Rabbis respond to Deut 4:2, «Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.»

• Response: more Scripture was added. We’re not adding or subtracting, Oral Law was there all along.

The tanoor Akhnai, an earthen oven: is it clean or unclean? (P. 111 the basis of my joke!)

• Note that the issue of whether what Jewish people do is worthwhile or valid or merciful
• The issue is the authority that the Rabbis claim over Scripture and even God himself.
• As a consequence of Rabbi Eliezar’s defeat, the other Rabbis voted to excommunicate him (when he wasn’t there).
• Rabbi Eliezar was the heir of Yachonan Ben Zakkai (Yochanan praised as the wisest of the sages) and brother-in-law of Rabban Gamaliel. He was a priest and a traditional Rabbi (opposed to interpretation), the leader in his generation of Beit Shammai, called Rabbi Eliezar the Great, the very first Rabbi quoted in the first tractate of Mishnah.
• What is happening here is theo-political: Beit Hillel is takes authority from Bet Shammai.

Five major things that this story teaches:

1. The Rabbis do not accept the miraculous in determining the correctness of a tradition.
   • Deut does warn against following someone with a sign, if they are proclaiming let us go after other gods. So signs can be in an anti-God context.
   • But the issue with Rabbi Eliezar doesn’t fall into this category, since he wasn’t talking about following other gods. It wasn’t a question of idolatry but authority.
   • Can proof be brought from a carob tree or a stream of water or a voice from heaven? Scriptures says so. E.g., Aaron’s rod, or blood in Nile, fleece of Gideon.
2. The Rabbis paid no attention to a heavenly voice (Bath Kol) after Sinai.
   • Rabbi Joshua says, «lo ba-shamayim hi, It is not in heaven.»
   • So after Sinai, we pay no attention to a heavenly voice.
   • Yet throughout Scripture, HaShem speaks it.
   • In Job, Psalms, and Ezekiel, He speaks from heaven.
   • Indeed, everywhere else in Talmud itself, a voice from Heaven is authoritative.
3. The authority to determine what is acceptable does not rest with God but with the majority.
   • Pay no attention to a heavenly voice (bath kol).
   • Ex 23:2. «You shall follow a multitude to do evil,» by implication you must follow a multitude to do good. But who defines good? In the story, God didn’t know he had decreed this! He didn’t know that he’d given up his authority to the majority of Rabbis.
   • In Tanakh, the majority is almost always wrong! Throughout Tanakh, God acts as if he’s still in charge, bringing judgment upon the majority when it is in sin.
4. Yet this story portrays God as laughing, «My sons have defeated (outwitted) me!» Yet is God ever portrayed in Tanakh this way? Are men ever smarter than God?
   • It’s a humorous story when you read it, but when you think of it, it’s not so funny. Contrast Psalm 2 and other references to God laughing, in supreme authority.
5. The Rabbis will excommunicate anyone who will not submit to their decision.
   • This is not normative first century Judaism.
   • It’s fitting that it’s Rabbi Eliezar the Great that’s been excommunicated, circa 115 CE.
   • BTW, Talmud records that Eliezar had discussions with Talmidei Yeshua, and respected some things they had to say.

This story marks a major turning point in Jewish history.

• Jonathan Sacks: this story asserts a Catholic as opposed a Protestant view of interpretation, which now rests in ecclesia, rather than the Word of God itself.

There have been significant changes in Rabbinic Judaism

• Due to Akiba, who has come to be known as the father of Rabbinic Judaism, because he was began to write halakha down and determined its organization.
• Initially, according to halakha, it was forbidden to write oral traditions down, because if it caught fire during Shabbat, it was forbidden to carry it out (only Torah scroll could be carried), but then the name of God would be burned.
• So writing down halakha was a theo-political act, giving the editor (Akiba) the ability to decide what would be included in halakha and what would not.
• Beit Hillel overthrows Beit Shammai, which had been the dominant school during the first century.
• Until the Talmud was written, even Pharisaic Judaism permitted different traditions, but after Akiba, it become one interpretation with the power of law.

Use of the Sanhedren to establish Rabbinic law as the national law of Israel

• Most Jews prior to rise of Rabbinic Judaism were not Pharisees or followers of rabbis.
• Since Torah was national law (not merely religious law), Rabbi Akiba and his followers sought to establish rabbinical law as the national law of Israel
• Sanhedren had been Roman-appointed and dominated by priests
• With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis replaced the priests on the Sanhedren
• Talmud story: priestly sages and Yochanan were debating whether it was halakhacally acceptable to blow the shofar for Rosh Hashanah at Yavneh. Yochanan said, rather than discuss, let’s blow. So they did. Then the humble sages asked to discuss it and Yochanan said, now that it has been blown, what is there to discuss?
• Sanhedren becomes the means of enforcing rabbinic law, because there was no Temple and no power base for the priests. The locus of Jewish identity becomes the synagogue.
• Rabbi Joshua gives scholarly qualifications for sitting on the Sanhedren (see p. 127). Among other things, you have to have knowledge of sorcery, know 70 languages, and prove the cleanness of a reptile from biblical texts!
• Thus you have to be able to prove what is false, since reptile is actually unclean. This qualification affirms Akiba’s style of reasoning and interpretation of Torah as well as consolidates power, excluding traditional Rabbis, Beit Shammai, Sadduccees, Talmudei Yeshua, etc.
• There were Sanhedren in Yavneh and Bathar, the center of Bar Kokhba’s power
• Sanhedren took upon itself the power to act in place of God to enforce (oral) law.
• Property was confiscated, people imprisoned and even put to death, to enforce Rabbinic law and authority and quash any dissent

Dealing with Zaken Mamrei, a rebellious elder, based on Deut 17:12-13 (p. 131).

• In the tefillin of Qumran, there are five passages of Scripture. This was forbidden by Talmud, ultimately by execution (unless there is repentance). On the other hand, rejecting tefillin altogether is not punishable (even though Torah commands it). So the authority of the Rabbis is what is enforced, not the written Torah itself.
• Ramban explains that the need to punish in this case is not due to the severity of the offense but because of its destructive impact, because it threatens to undermine the uniform normative behavior crucial to any legal system.

Dealing with Mesith, a deceiver, based on Deut 13:6-12

• Someone who entices you to worship other gods
• Yeshua and his followers were put in this category

Pharisees used the terms ‘bind’ and ‘loose’

• Refer to their supernatural authority to make decrees that prohibit or permit (p. 127)
• Rise of modern Western society weakens this authority in Jewish life.
• In Israel, ultra-Orthodox would like to reassert this authority in national life.

Am ha-aretz (people of the land, common people)

• In Rabbinic writings, it becomes a pejorative term (p. 135 ff.)
• Refers to anyone who does not recognize Rabbinic authority and give to support Rabbis.
• Even among Jews not pronounced ‘minim’ (heretics), those who didn’t recognize the Rabbis had to be won over. This took centuries, since most Jews didn’t recognize the authority of the Rabbis.
• No testimony acceptable from them in a Beit Din, cannot be appointed as guardians for orphans, cannot be stewards of humanitarian aid, etc. Political consolidation.
• Common people were thus disenfranchised, unless they recognize the authority of the Rabbis in every area of life, such as marriage (a daughter of follower of the Rabbis could not marry an am ha-aretz, Rabbis could annul marriages) or property.

The minim (heretics) especially believers in Yeshua (p. 150 ff.)

• Minim may be a shortened, derogatory form of ma’aminim, believers (in Yeshua)
• Rashi explains the minim refered to disciples of Yeshua «who did not believe in the words of the wise.»
• Determining who is a Jew was a very vital question, since if you weren’t a Jew, you had to sacrifice to the Emperor, and if you didn’t you were guilty of treason.
• Minim were a threat because they could draw away followers of Rabbis by their teachings, writings and healings.
• Rabbis forbade reading the writings of minim and sanctioned burning their books.
• Birkat ha-Minim blessing (curse) developed and recited daily in every synagogue to weed out unknown Minim and their sympathizers and inculcate popular hatred of them (p. 156).
• Passages about Yeshua were later censored, due to persecution of Church. But uncensored text of Talmud from Amsterdam, 1644, has this material.
• Eliezar the Great was brought before the Roman court as a heresy. Akiba suggested to him that it may have been because he approved of the teachings of the minim.

During the Bar Kochba revolt

• There was a Sanhedren in Bathar.
• Maimonides says that Akiba was known as Bar Kochba’s right hand man.
• Suggests more consolidation of rabbinical power and exclusion of others, especially Talmidei Yeshua.
• See book for more about consequences of Bar Kochba revolt for Judaism and Christianity.

Question: were the «Jews» of the gospel of John actually Pharisees?

• The Greek word Iudaios has multiple meanings in Greek text, distinguished by context
• Comparable to the word ‘Yankee’, which can refer to baseball player, northerner, American
• E.g., in John 1:19, 24, Iudaios refers to Jewish people representing leaders of Pharisees in Jerusalem.
• In other contexts, it could represent religious authorities (most common) or Judeans (as opposed to Galileans

Artículo tendencioso y radicalmente sesgado, como todos los que escribe este periódico sobre el Brexit. Pura propaganda anti-Brexit. El momento más bajo (propio de un pasquín) es cuando justifica el Brexit en que los británicos son tan ton tos que sólo quieren comer porquerías. Es el desprecio a la democracia: los votantes no saben lo que quieren. Es una buena tarea revisar todos los artículos sobre el Brexit de El Confidencial durante los últimos años y ver como se han equivocado una y otra vez.

Lo que pasa es que la UE no puede competir en un mercado libre. Los burócratas de Bruselas imponen un montón de regulaciones (algunas positivas, la mayoría inútiles) que encarecen los productos de forma que no son competitivos. Estas regulaciones no paran de crecer día a día, porque el trabajo de esos burócratas es crear regulaciones y tienen que crear nuevas reglas cada mes.

Por ello, la UE está aterrorizada de competir en un mercado libre. Primero, cuando los británicos votaron el Brexit, hizo todo lo posible por retenerlos o, como mínimo, que estuvieran en el mercado común, para meterles todas las regulaciones. Ahora se agarra de la excusa del «level-playing field» para decir que los británicos deben cumplir todas las regulaciones de la UE (aún estando fuera: entonces, ¿para qué es el Brexit?)

Nosotros los españoles, seguiremos mirando con desprecio a los británicos, mientras nuestros jóvenes seguirán yendo a trabajar allí y su economía va a despegar espectacularmente. La UE nos ha desindustrializado, empobrecido y convertido en la Andalucía de Alemania, un país que sólo produce camareros y construcción, mientras compramos todo lo otro a los otros miembros de la UE. Así nos va.

Sólo cuatro cosas que se me habían olvidado:

– Los contrarios al Brexit (incluyendo este periódico) presentaron el Brexit como un desastre para el Reino Unido, que les iba a llevar a la pobreza más absoluta. Ahora dicen que es injusto que el Reino Unido se convierta en una potencia económica a las puertas de la Unión Europea.

– El Reino Unido tiene un gran déficit comercial con el resto de la UE. Es decir, la UE vende más al Reino Unido que al revés. Es por eso que el tratado de libre comercio conviene más a la UE que al Reino Unido. Si se ponen muchas barreras, la UE no podrá vender sus productos al Reino Unido (mientras el Reino Unido puede comprar en otro sitio sin tantas barreras o desarrollar su industria nacional)

– El artículo ignora lo más importante de esta negociación. Boris Johnson tiene la sartén por el mango. No sólo porque a la UE le interesa el tratado de libre comercio, como he dicho. Si no también porque, si no hay acuerdo, el Reino Unido sale automáticamente con reglas de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), por lo que trataría con la UE como cualquier otro país extranjero. Esto, como he dicho (ver punto anterior), perjudicaría a la UE.

– Esto último lo saben Boris Johnson y la UE. Por ello, la UE no para de hacer declaraciones propias de un «bully», pero yo creo que van de farol. Por el momento, ya han aceptado el calendario que les ha presentado el Reino Unido, que las negociaciones se harán en suelo británico y en idioma inglés. Las traducciones al francés las pagará la UE. Ese es el choque con la realidad y no el que indica el artículo.

https://creation.com/john-sanford

https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis

https://www.elconfidencial.com/mundo/europa/2020-02-19/sistema-de-puntos-inmigrantes-reino-unido-tras-el-brexit_2461412/

https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/internacional/inmigrantes/689541/2020/

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-father-of-lies-and-nature-of-our.html

https://blog.jim.com/science/the-reproducibility-crisis/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/23/no-raw-data-no-science-another-possible-source-of-the-reproducibility-crisis/

Hi ha hagut una degeneració continua. En part és perquè la prosperitat produida per la tecnologia, produeix una riquesa tan gran que permet sostindre nivells creixents de conductes antisocials i antirealitat.

Part d’esta prosperitat es canalitza a través dels impostos per suportar i fomentar conductes pervertides.  Passa sempre al final del cicle d’una cultura. El que passa és que la Revolució Industrial ha multiplicat la riquesa fins a extrems mai vists i, per tant, les degeneracions també han sigut a lo bèstia.

En general, en qualsevol moment de la història, hi ha tanta degeneració com pugues pagar. Una vegada la degeneració es pot pagar, apareixen ideologies que permeten justificar la degeneració. Eixe és el motiu de que la Il·lustració o (la seua variant) correcció política tinga tant d’èxit.

Idees noves estan eixint en cada moment, però, si la degeneració que produeixen no es pot finançar, moren per elles soles.

Així, durant l’Edat Mitjana, va haver-hi vàries heretgies antisocials. Alguns serien el que hui diríem «comunistes» i unes altres serien el que hui diríem «sexe lliure».
Però la gent que les practicava acabava quedant-se sense menjar i tornant a la societat normal

En el nostre temps, hi ha molta gent que pot dedicar-se a la degeneració i segueix cobrant (per exemple, de l’Estat). Per tant, pot viure una vida de degeneració. Necessita una ideologia per justificar-se i, per això, té la correcció política, que no haguera durant un any com ideologia en l’Edat Mitjana, perquè no s’haguera pogut finançar.

També, al final de l’Imperi Romà, quan la gent era relativament pròspera, van aparéixer ideologies que permetien que la gent es dedicara a la disbauxa. Les religions mistèriques (per al poble), les filosofies com l’epicuranisme (per a la gent educada). Així la gent podia fer el que li dona la gana i sentir-se bé

Al final, tens tanta degeneració com pugues pagar. I, si tens degeneració, tens ideologies que justifiquen la degeneració.

Sé que el que us he dit sona molt abstracte, així que us posaré un exemple

Suposem que enviem a una feminista en una màquina del temps a l’Edat Mitjana. Ella veu la situació i diu: «Ací hi ha molt de terreny per a la meua revolució». I fa un moviment de dones que volen enmancipar-se dels homes. Tenen sexe lliure i no es casen

El problema és que queden embarassades i no tenen educació i sanitat gratis. L’educació i sanitat gratis es financen amb els impostos. En l’Edat Mitjana els impostos són baixíssims, perquè la gent no té excedent, perquè la productivitat és baixa. Només sobreviu i no té diners sobrants per pagar impostos.

Serà la tecnologia la que augmentarà la productivitat i farà que la gent tinga excedent (el que sobra després que has pagat tots els seus gastos). Part d’eixe excedent serà requisat pels impostos per donar serveis com educació i sanitat gratis.

Sense educació i sanitat gratis, les feministes medievals hauran de finançar-se els seus fills amb el seu treball. Quin treball poden fer? Els treballs de funcionaris són molt escasos i es redueixen a un grapat de cortesans en la cort. La immensa majoria de la gent treballa de llauradors

Les dones feministes no tenen força suficient per portar una explotació agrícola i es moren de fam, elles i els xiquets.: (L’agricultura no està mecanitzada i cal fer-ho tot a mà i amb bèsties de càrrega. A més, cal menjar tots els dies i cal treballar la terra inclús si una està embarassada o criant un xiquet xicotet)

L’experiment del feminisme medieval ha acabat en fracàs, perquè no hi havia prosperitat suficient.

En canvi, al final del cicle de la civilització romana, hi ha una certa prosperitat, el que permet algunes dones sobreviure en una espècie de proto-feminisme. Es deia que «Roma domina el món i les dones dominen a Roma».

Al final del califat abbàsida, les dones comencen a agafar treballs que tradicionalment estaven reservats a homes, com el treball de jutges. Això vol dir que hi ha una certa prosperitat per finançar treballs com els de jutges en quantitats significatives.

Es una civilització decadent i prompte és conquistada pels turcs i, quan els turcs governen, les dones ja no poden eixir al carrer sense un home, perquè no estan segures. Han passat de la revolució feminista a estar tancades en les cases.

Així que és la prosperitat la que finança el progressisme (no només el feminisme, sinó tota la resta). Com la nostra època, té una prosperitat sense precedents en la història de la humanitat, és perquè tenim un progressisme desenfrenat.